More:Print This Post
More:Print This Post
Many of the elected Left are seeking to make elections and elected officials somewhat unimportant in many ways. That is, they are continually seeking to impose greater restrictions on the American public not necessarily just through laws passed by Congress but also by seemingly infinite rules and regulations promulgated by unelected bureaucrats.
To evolve our country into a socialistic one with a large central government that has virtually total control over most of the activities of its citizenry. The population will be neutered with an ever increasing number becoming docile and agreeable dependents of the State. This further facilitates implementation of their far left ideological agenda.
These same politicians, who are acting like an elitist class akin to the politburo of former Soviet Union, will be rewarded with privilege, power and wealth. We have to look no further than Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Rangel, Charlie Schumer and Barney Frank to see what is transpiring.
We must vociferously and staunchly oppose all these individuals and their policies and do whatever it takes to abrogate their actions and remove them from office.
Our Unelected Rulers
Investor’s Business Daily 04/15/2011
Administrative State: Former House speaker Nancy Pelosi says "elections shouldn't matter as much as they do." Maybe they don't even matter as much as she thinks they do. It seems that bureaucrats are making our laws.
Speaking last week at Tufts University, Pelosi suggested that until recently there was little difference between her party and the Republicans because of "shared values." In her mind, these shared values had rendered elections meaningless in the pre-Tea Party era. But now she fears a true grass-roots uprising has forced a bright line between the parties.
What she and most of the country are missing, though, is the impact of the administrative state. America has become a nation where unelected regulators make law. We should be alarmed.
Recently we learned from U.S. News & World Report that "just six pages" of the 907-page Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act have been turned "into 429 pages of new regulations." That is one page for "every page of (President) Obama's campaign book, 'The Audacity of Hope' — plus another 45 pages."
A few months earlier, the New York Times reported that federal rule makers "suddenly find themselves at the center of power as they scramble to work out details of hundreds of sweeping financial and health care regulations that will ultimately affect most Americans."
According to the Times, "More than 200 health regulators working on complicated insurance rules have taken over three floors of a suburban office building" in Bethesda, Md., "paying almost double the market rate for the space in their rush to get started."
Paul Dennett, senior vice president of the American Benefits Council, a trade group for large employers, is quoted as saying: "There has never been a period like what we are going through now, in terms of the sheer volume and complexity of rule-making."
Issues to be settled by regulators, not elected officials, the Times said, include:
• How much credit-card companies can charge shopkeepers for administrative fees when cards are swiped for purchases.
• Which types of financial companies are so "systemically important" to the economy that they should be subject to greater federal oversight.
• What services must be covered by all insurers as part of the "essential health benefits" package and at what point would premium increases be considered so "unreasonable" that regulators could step in.
This is not a sudden bump in rule making. Regulators have been busy for decades, particularly during Obama's first year in office — which wasn't even a full year. In 2009, the administration published a record-breaking 163,333 pages of rules that affect our daily lives, from the energy we use to the financial decisions we make to the health care we get.
If all this seems inconsistent with the Declaration of Independence's guarantee of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without state interference, there's good reason. As Heritage Foundation senior fellow Robert Moffat has written, Americans rightly "feel that they are increasingly being governed by administrators, not legislators. ... The rule of law is being supplanted" by rules and regulations.
The administrative state's disciples believe an army of experts is needed to organize society because they hold special knowledge. In his 1887 essay "Socialism and Democracy," Woodrow Wilson gave fuel to a radical agenda that gnaws at us yet today when he wrote that "men as communities are supreme over men as individuals."
The rise of the administrative state is oxygen for a political left that relishes control of civil society because its members believe they're too smart not to be obeyed. It has a chokehold not only on individual rights, but on the economy as well.
The Phoenix Center in Washington has found that on average, "eliminating the job of a single regulator grows the American economy by $6.2 million and nearly 100 private sector jobs annually."
This would strike most as evidence that the administrative state is counterproductive. Yet there's an absence of a strong effort to reverse it. This isn't inspiring. Elections should mean something, and deconstruction of the body of unelected rule makers would give even more meaning to the pivotal 2012 races.
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 scathing commentary by Lloyd Marcus, a fairly well known conservative and a spokesperson for the Tea Party who happens to be black, rebukes Obama on his unwarranted and irresponsible racist vitriol and overt divisiveness. The “president’s” relentless race based commentary is fomenting racial strife and antipathy, further dividing our nation. Whether this is being done partly to advance his socialist agenda is not entirely clear.
Regardless, this speaks volumes of a man who has shown himself to be evil, racist, criminal, tyrannical and narcissistic (and much more or is that less?).
Obama Calling Tea Party Racist Reveals A Far More Disturbing Reality
Lloyd Marcus March 10, 2011
Please consider the validity of what I am about to say rather than having a knee jerk reaction dismissing it as being "over the top." Folks, we have an irresponsible egocentric evil man occupying the Oval Office.
The Democrats and the liberal mainstream media sold the American people on Obama, "the man." Despite Obama's zero experience at running anything, they said a leader with his spirit and heart was "what we have been waiting for".
Fearful of criticizing our first black president, politicians politely say, "President Obama's policies have been unfruitful," while ignoring the huge elephant in America's living room.
The elephant of which I speak and America's major problem is "Obama, the man"; socialist, divisive and evil.
My dad says a snake can stay under water a very long time just like a fish. But eventually, it must come up for air. Why? Because, it is not a fish. It is a snake. Obama continues to come up for air revealing his true self.
President Obama said the Tea Party is racist. That's the unmistakable meaning of his statement that race is a "key component" of Tea Party protests. The liberal media, NAACP and Democrats have been relentlessly promoting this same baseless allegation. When final confirmation comes down from the highest office in the land, the Oval Office, that the Tea Party is racist; the allegation becomes "official" in the minds of millions. President Obama is slandering millions of decent hard working Americans who simply disagree with his progressive/socialist agenda.
Think of the repercussions. Obama's indictment of the Tea Party will birth tremendous racial discord across America in schools, churches, and civic life. Obama's proclamation will cause Americans to double down on their already extreme caution when criticizing our black president. Sadly, I suspect such intimidation is a part of Obama's plan; anything to empower his mission to "fundamentally transform America."
Make no mistake about it, Obama and company have successfully intimidated many white Americans into not dissing the black president in public.
I stopped in a fast food restaurant for a burger. Around fifteen white seniors were having lunch. I overheard them ranting about Obama's overreaches and socialist policies. Upon seeing me, a black man, they became silent. I was tempted to say, "Please continue, I whole-heartedly agree with you!" Too bad they did not notice my Tea Party Express t-shirt.
Barack Hussein Obama received more votes than any other presidential candidate in American history. So Obama alleging millions of Tea Party patriots are simply upset because America elected a black president is disingenuous, absurd and manipulative.
Obama is exploiting his race and sacrificing national race relations solely to implement his progressive/socialist agenda. Callously and strategically, the President of the United States is pitting millions of black and white Americans against each other. Lord help us, that is pure evil.
Quoting deceased make-up legend, Mary Kay, "Leadership spreads from the top down."
A fine black young adult whom I have known for years has always appeared to be racially color blind. He idolizes Obama. Suddenly, I have noticed this kid beginning to view everything through a racial lens. His latest absurd statement, "Friends" is a racist TV show because there are no black cast members."
While I admit this example is anecdotal, I suspect Obama's divisiveness is inspiring millions of Americans to choose sides along racial lines.
Before knowing the facts, Obama immediately assumed the white police officer was guilty of racial profiling in the Professor Gates case. This suggests Obama has racial emotional baggage. Such a luxury cannot be afforded the president of "all Americans."
Obama is not who most Americans thought he was and is exactly who the liberal mainstream media hoped he would be: their Great Black Hope for implementing their progressive/socialist agenda.
They will do whatever it takes to protect Obama; ignoring his character flaws, lawlessness, deceptions and lies. If Obama says two plus two equals five, the liberal media will defend it as being the "New Math." We cannot trust the liberal media to tell us the truth regarding Obama.
Obama's inauguration brought tears to the eyes of millions of Americans. Blacks are only 12% of our nation's population, which means it took many million white votes to put Obama in the Oval Office. Thus, most of the American tears of joy were white.
President Obama is fully aware of this truth.
Obama willfully dividing Americans by exploiting his race for political gain is a despicable betrayal of the whites who elected him. But even more disturbing, it reveals the true character of the man running our country. America deserves much, much better.
"One Million People To Defeat Barack Obama 2012". Please join us!
Please sign and encourage your friends to sign this petition at www.ipetitions.com/petition/1milliontodefeatbarackobama
Spokesperson & Entertainer of Tea Party Movement & Tea Party Express.
The American Tea Party Anthem cd/album.
Confessions of a Black Conservative, written by Lloyd Marcus & foreword by Michelle Malkin
President, NAACPC (National Association for the Advancement of Conservative People of ALL Colors)
Join Lloyd Marcus Facebook Page
More:Print This Post
The FCC's recently approved "net neutrality" regulation was known by its voting members to truly be outside its jurisdiction, probably unconstitutional and could be easily overturned by Congress yet they were unrelenting in pursuing control over people and businesses. This arrogant and tyrannical attitude is suffused through the Obama Administration with its myriad socialists and communists and other "radicals".
A Massive, Strong and Controlling Central Government is at the core of their ideologies. This new regulation is just one step...
Obama, his Administration and czars must be stopped cold in their attempts to seize further control of our country from us.
More:Print This Post
If it appears to you that Obama seems to just enjoy partying, playing golf and basketball, yukking it up with the media, vacationing and just having fun rather than taking his job and obligations as President seriously – YOU ARE RIGHT. An assessment of his first two years in office unquestionable bears this out as elucidated in the expose below.
What is debatable and less clear is whether his dismissive, somewhat indolent attitude toward the inherent responsibilities of a President is bad or is actually a good thing. After all, when he has shown some involvement in the political process, we have been cursed with such destructive and costly legislation as the Porkulus bill, Obamacare and even FCC and EPA mandates as end runs around the Constitution, all of which rob us of our rights, freedoms and money. He could spend more time then foisting his socialism on a resistant and unwilling American public.
Meanwhile, when he is feeding his insatiable hedonism, spending taxpayers’ money like a corrupt, profligate emperor, such as on his numerous vacations and outings, at least he is not actively pursuing additional means to further abridge our freedoms and rights.
Besides, these “diversions” cost but a fraction of the cost of potential legislation that he would otherwise propose and seek to pass in a corrupt fashion.
(P.S.: Of course, the far left new media has virtually never called him out for his slothful, detached, arrogant, wasteful, elitist, sybaritic and irresponsible ways?)
Where’s Barack? Report Says Obama Spends Nearly 50% of Time Traveling
Jonathon M. Seidl 1/2/2011
Maybe the president doesn’t like Washington, D.C. Maybe he really likes Air Force One. But whatever the reason, recently compiled statistics show he spends a lot of time on the road: 48 percent of his time, to be exact.
CBS News’s Mark Knoller, who regular compiles White House statistics, released numbers on Friday showing that the president has spent nearly 50 percent of his presidency outside Washington, D.C. As of January 2, Obama has been president for 712 days, reports the Washington Examiner. For 339 of those days — about 48 percent — Obama has been MIA from Washington.
“According to Knoller, Obama has spent 176 days on domestic trips, 70 days on foreign travel, 58 days on vacation, and 35 days at Camp David,” The Examiner’s Byron York writes. And “you can add a couple more vacation days to the total before the president returns from his break in Hawaii.”
Knoller’s numbers also show Obama enjoys recreation. He’s played 57 rounds of golf since taking office (29 of them in 2010) and gone on 28 basketball outings (20 of those coming in 2010).
As for the president’s low approval ratings, they’re not for lack of effort. As York points out, “of Obama’s 712 days in office, just 45 days have passed without a presidential public appearance or statement of some sort.”
York’s conclusion: “So as he begins his re-election campaign, Obama can travel even more and engage the people more. But that won‘t change the fact that many voters simply don’t like what he has done.”
And if that means Obama is unsuccessful in his re-election bid, at least we know he hasn’t grown too attached to D.C.
More:Print This Post
Spreading the wealth became a well-known slogan with Obama’s ascendancy but he was not the originator of the economic idea in America. Such socialistic policies have been insidiously implemented by numerous federal (and state) agencies for decades. Of course, the last two years has seen an unparalleled acceleration of such legislation and rhetoric.
What these institutional policies have done is shred the moral fiber of this country and challenge the precepts that this nation was founded on. Their effects, though not often publicly acknowledged, have been profound, widespread and deleterious - everything from decreased productivity, GDP, two parent households to increased crime, taxation, welfare rolls and divorce rates.
What this has become is economic slavery where those who are productive citizens are forced to pay for those who are slothful and would rather pursue hedonistic endeavors than take personal responsibility. By discouraging personal responsibility, disparaging and punishing those who labor and sacrifice (the “rich”) including with higher taxes and fees, compensating those who don’t or won’t work, and creating rights where none exist (such as home ownership), the government is hurting all Americans – short and long term.
It is also engendering an attitude in the younger generation and in minorities that others will provide for them and that they have just as much a right to things as those who sacrifice and plan.
So, why should they work?
As elucidated in the article below, these socialistic policies have been carried to such an extreme that those who actually barely work actually can have a greater disposable income than those who toil and have little time left for leisure.
Outrage… Head of Household Of 4 on Minimum Wage Has More Disposable Income Than Family Making $60,000 a Year
Jim Hoft November 22, 2010
Democrats want you to believe that they care about the middle class. Of course, this is just another lie. Their policies over the years continue to ravage the middle class.
As evidence, a family of 4 on minimum wage now has more disposable income than a hard working American middle class family making $60,000 a year.
Zero Hedge reported, via Free Republic:
Tonight’s stunning financial piece de resistance comes from Wyatt Emerich of The Cleveland Current. In what is sure to inspire some serious ire among all those who once believed Ronald Reagan that it was the USSR that was the “Evil Empire”, Emmerich analyzes disposable income and economic benefits among several key income classes and comes to the stunning (and verifiable) conclusion that “a one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimum wage) has more disposable income than a family making $60,000 a year.”
And that excludes benefits from Supplemental Security Income disability checks. America is now a country which punishes those middle-class people who not only try to work hard, but avoid scamming the system. Not surprisingly, it is not only the richest and most audacious thieves that prosper – it is also the penny scammers at the very bottom of the economic ladder that rip off the middle class each and every day, courtesy of the world’s most generous entitlement system. Perhaps if Reagan were alive today, he would wish to modify the object of his once legendary remark.
You can do as well working one week a month at minimum wage as you can working $60,000-a-year, full-time, high-stress job.
My chart tells the story.
And, yet how many times have we heard democrats claim that they care about the middle class?
More:Print This Post
The following video documents the far Left's answer to Glenn Beck's 9/28/10 "Restoring Honor" rally on the Capitol Mall. Approximately 400 various special interest groups including La Raza radicals, SEIU union thugs and just proud socialist gathered to let their feelings known.
Their total numbers were only a small fraction of those seen for Glenn Beck’s rally. However, we must not be complacent as there will be an intense struggle to recapture the principles of hard work and earning one’s living (and keeping it), righteousness and integrity along with a limited government.
We must all vote on November 2nd to save our country and continue spreading this information to those who are not informed or disinformed.
More:Print This Post
The following video is somewhat chilling and haunting as a shrewd and insightful Ronald Reagan expounded upon the evils of a large and powerful government, one that deceives the public by using "comfortable" words. The end result is that the individual American has far fewer rights and freedoms and corporations are thwarted.
More:Print This Post
For those who emigrated from authoritarian regimes and came to America, what is transpiring here right now is frighteningly familiar. They have experienced and heard it before in their ex-homelands and don’t want to see the same pernicious transformation occur here.
The catch-phrases, racial propaganda issues and benign sounding social slogans that Obama and other “socialists” deviously insert in their rhetoric are Trojans that have all been insidiously used in the past as a part of a lethal package for revolutionary changes.
Like Nazi Germany in the 1930’s. The U.S.S.R. for decades. China. North Korea. And in those countries based on Marxism like Cuba.
This is not a path down which America must never travel. Millions are being duped including many of the intelligentsia.
Obama and his cronies must be stopped!
Perspectives Of A Russian Immigrant (No. 9)
By SVETLANA KUNIN 05/18/2010
In May 2008, Sen. Barack Obama delivered a commencement address at Connecticut's Wesleyan University that called for sacrificing in order to build a fair and socially just society.
"We may disagree on certain issues and positions," he said, "but I believe we can be unified in service to a greater good. I intend to make it a cause of my presidency.
Two years later, at this month's commencement at the University of Michigan, President Obama talked about the role of government as a solution to the problems facing America. He complained about a lack of civility in our public debate.
"Throwing around phrases like 'socialist' and 'Soviet-style takeover' and 'fascist right-wing nut' may grab headlines," he said, "but it also has the effect of comparing our government, or our political opponents, to authoritarian and even murderous regimes."
The president's rhetoric mesmerized the students at Wesleyan and persuaded supporters to join his cause for change. But to me and other immigrants from socialist countries, this rhetoric sounded familiar.
American college students, in awe of their new leader and excited about ideals such as social justice, a fair society, equality and the transformation of greedy capitalist systems in which workers are exploited, do not realize these progressive ideas are identical to what students in socialist countries were taught 40 years ago in required classes such as "political economics" and "Marxist-Leninist dialectical materialism."
The pleasant platitudes that make up leftist rhetoric are not new.
The policies and actions of this government are almost identical to what took place in countries moving toward socialism throughout the 20th century.
Government appropriation of banks, other financial institutions, medical care, education, natural resources and regulation of speech is what came of centralized power in young socialist societies, leading to totalitarian regimes such as those in the USSR, China, Cuba and North Korea.
When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, other Democrats in Congress and the media portray critics of this government as racists, right-wing nuts, Nazis or terrorists, it is more than lack of civility; it is a deliberate, Soviet-style authoritarian tactic to impose conformity on people who happen to disagree with the government's definition of the greater good.
In the Soviet Union, those who dared to criticize the government were called vragy naroda, which translates as enemies of the people.
At his commencement address in Michigan, Obama said we have the option to get our information from any number of blogs, Web sites and cable news shows. This of course requires that we all agree on a certain set of facts to debate from, and that is why we need a vibrant and thriving news business that is separate from opinion makers and talking heads.
At his next commencement address at Hampton University in Virginia, Obama further aired his concerns about uncontrolled information, which: "becomes a distraction, a diversion. It's putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy."
It was much easier to manipulate and direct public opinion in the Soviet Union, where the state apparatus had complete control of all sources of information. Centralized government propaganda and draconian suppression of free speech created an enforced conformity no one could escape.
That is why Obama wants to regulate the Internet and cable news shows so they are "neutral" as defined by the government.
The Soviets demonized the opposition as enemies of the people; American leftists simply define any opposition to them as racist or extremist.
"The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses," said Vladimir Lenin. "He who now talks about the freedom of the press goes backward and halts our headlong course toward socialism."
Young, educated graduates, born in the freest society, figure Obama is not a socialist; he is something new and somehow uniquely qualified to enact tired, old ideas that will result in a new, fair and equal society.
The Rev. Al Sharpton, in a recent sermon in Danbury, Conn., summed it up well: "Dr. King's dream was not to put one black president in the White House. The dream was to make everything equal in everybody's house. President Obama is in the White House to help us get there, but we're not there yet."
An old Soviet joke defines socialist equality as follows: If your neighbor has a cow and you do not, kill your neighbor's cow.
More:Print This Post