This Just In…Obama Is a Leftist!

By Larry Elder

Thursday, 3 September 2009

“Now I’m truly scared.”

A friend wrote this after she watched Fox News’ Glenn Beck’s series on the “alarming number of far-left radicals the President is surrounded by” — referring to some of the President’s special advisers and “czars.” President Barack Obama, my friend tells me, is “a true left-winger.”

So, now she knows.

She didn’t know after the President signed the $800 billion so-called “stimulus program.” She didn’t know after government takeovers/bailouts of banks, insurance companies and auto companies.

She didn’t know after Obama campaigned in favor of protectionism by promising to unilaterally change free trade agreements, such as NAFTA, or after the inclusion of “Buy American” provisions in the “stimulus package.”

She didn’t know after Obama campaigned on government-run health care or after he said during the campaign that “if starting from scratch,” he’d implement the Canadian single-payer system.

She didn’t know after Obama stated his goal to impose job-killing and price-hiking “cap-and-trade” business taxes to fight “man-made global warming.” (Never mind the vigorous debate in the scientific community about the degree to which — or even whether — human activity is the cause and whether it makes more sense to deal with the effect of a slight warming than to undertake costly and likely ineffective measures to stop it.)

She didn’t know after Obama’s plans to “invest” to “create green jobs” of the future or after he moved oversight of the next census from the Department of Commerce to the White House (in order to increase the number of minorities so that government money can follow).

She didn’t know after Obama sided with black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates and turned the professor’s altercation with Cambridge police into a microcosm of the alleged widespread problem of unlawful “racial profiling” against blacks; after Obama spent 20 years in a church led by a smoke-coming-out-of-the-nose, America-bashing “spiritual adviser”; after Obama’s selection of an attorney general who called America “cowardly” on matters of race; after the AG’s refusal to indict members of the New Black Panther Party for seemingly clear voter intimidation; or after Obama’s selection of a Supreme Court justice who many times claimed her gender and ethnicity make her superior to a “white male.”

She didn’t know after a proposal by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., to cap executive pay — for both those businesses that receive taxpayer money and those that don’t; after Obama’s promise for a government-provided “world-class education” to all who want it; or after the Cash for Clunkers program, under which A helped pay for the purchase of a car for B.

She didn’t know after Obama promised to sit down “without preconditions” with enemies like the president of Iran and the head of North Korea; after Obama slammed Israel for building or expanding settlements, with nary a word about the daily rockets landing in Israel from the Gaza Strip; after proposals to reduce spending on missile shield defense; after the AG appointed a “special counsel” to determine whether workers at the CIA — during the Bush administration — should be prosecuted for using Justice Department-approved techniques to interrogate terrorists (despite a previously undertaken investigation by career prosecutors and over the objection of the current CIA head); or that the term “war on terror” would no longer be used.

She didn’t know after the public support of leaders in the Democratic Party — including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former presidential candidate John Kerry — for the reinstatement of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” to provide ideological “balance” over the airwaves; or after Obama, while publicly opposing the reinstatement of the doctrine, appointed an FCC “diversity czar” to pursue the same objective: squelching conservative talk radio.

What does it take for some to wake up?

When Obama publicly asserts that some corporations, including “Big Oil” and medical insurance companies, make “obscene profits” (they don’t compared with many other industries) and that his “compensation czar” will look into executive compensation, what does that tell you? When he argues that medical insurance companies need a “public option” (before public opinion forced him to back away from it) to keep them “honest,” what does that say? When he arrogantly claims that fighting “global warming” and tackling the “health care crisis” are not just moral imperatives but also necessary to keep our economy robust (?!), what does that show?

Voters last year elected a left-wing former “community organizer” with one of the Senate’s most liberal voting records. He seeks to take the country — over the growing resistance of even those who voted for him — to an idealized world of government-guaranteed equality of outcomes. He wants a government-guaranteed “level playing field” of wealth redistribution via taxing those deemed to have too much.

Obama’s goals are open, blatant and confidently asserted, backed by a filibuster-proof, supermajority, Democratic-controlled Congress. There is no Big Secret, no subterfuge, no bait-and-switch.

This is who and what he is.

COPYRIGHT 2009 LAURENCE A. ELDER
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Washington’s Lies

By Walter E. Williams

Wednesday, 2 September 2009

President Obama and congressional supporters estimate that his health care plan will cost between $50 and $65 billion a year. Such cost estimates are lies whether they come from a Democratic president and Congress, or a Republican president and Congress. You say, “Williams, you don’t show much trust in the White House and Congress.” Let’s check out their past dishonesty.

At its start, in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee, along with President Johnson, estimated that Medicare would cost an inflation-adjusted $12 billion by 1990. In 1990, Medicare topped $107 billion. That’s nine times Congress’ prediction. Today’s Medicare tab comes to $420 billion with no signs of leveling off. How much confidence can we have in any cost estimates by the White House or Congress?

Another part of the Medicare lie is found in Section 1801 of the 1965 Medicare Act that reads: “Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize any federal officer or employee to exercise any supervision or control over the practice of medicine, or the manner in which medical services are provided, or over the selection, tenure, or compensation of any officer, or employee, or any institution, agency or person providing health care services.” Ask your doctor or hospital whether this is true.

Lies and deception are by no means restricted to modern times. During the legislative debate prior to ratification of the 16th Amendment, President Howard Taft and congressional supporters said that only the rich would ever pay federal income taxes. In 1916, only one-half of 1 percent of income earners paid income taxes. Those earning $250,000 a year in today’s dollars paid 1 percent, and those earning $6 million in today’s dollars paid 7 percent. The lie that only the rich would ever pay income taxes was simply a lie to exploit the politics of envy and dupe Americans into ratifying the 16th Amendment.

The proposed tax increases that the White House and Congress are proposing will probably pass. According to the Washington, D.C.-based Tax Foundation, during 2006, roughly 43.4 million tax returns, representing 91 million individuals, had no federal tax liability. That’s out of a total of 136 million federal tax returns. Adding to this figure are 15 million households and individuals who file no tax return at all. Roughly 121 million Americans — or 41 percent of the U.S. population — are completely outside the federal income tax system. These people represent a natural constituency for big-spending politicians. Since they have no federal income tax obligation, what do they care about higher taxes or tax cuts?

Another big congressional lie is Social Security. Here’s what a 1936 government pamphlet on Social Security said: “After the first 3 years — that is to say, beginning in 1940 — you will pay, and your employer will pay, 1.5 cents for each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year … beginning in 1943, you will pay 2 cents, and so will your employer, for every dollar you earn for the next 3 years. … And finally, beginning in 1949, twelve years from now, you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year.” Here’s Congress’s lying promise: “That is the most you will ever pay.” Let’s repeat that last sentence: “That is the most you will ever pay.” Compare that to today’s reality, including Medicare, which is 7.65 cents on each dollar that you earn up to nearly $107,000, which comes to $8,185.

The Social Security pamphlet closes with another lie: “Beginning November 24, 1936, the United States government will set up a Social Security account for you … The checks will come to you as a right.” First, there’s no Social Security account containing your money, but more importantly, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on two occasions that Americans have no legal right to Social Security payments.

We can thank public education for American gullibility.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM

We Should Train Our Politicians Like We Train Our Dogs

This article is a summary article written by columnist Frank J. Fleming.  If you desire, the full article can be found at We_Should_Train_Our_Politicians_Like_We_Train_Our_Dogs.  This is an incredible article that I highly recommend when you have some time.

“We get angry with politicians a lot. They seem to behave erratically and often work against our interests. At times, it’s like they don’t even hear us. It’s frustrating. They just seem like bad politicians, running around trying to pass laws they haven’t even read. We get angry and want to yell at them, but that only makes things worse. I think we need a new model for approaching politicians. My suggestion: Cesar Millan, the Dog Whisperer. … As Cesar will tell you, dogs and politicians often act out because they don’t know what’s expected of them. To help with that, they need rules, boundaries, and limitations. For instance, our dog isn’t allowed in the kitchen. We make that clear to her by calmly making her leave any time she tries to enter. She constantly tests this since we just moved into a new house, but as long as we’re consistent, she will understand what her boundaries are. Politicians are the same way. Their rules, boundaries, and limitations are clearly defined in the Constitution, but the key is to be consistent in enforcing them so politicians will know what we expect of them. For example, socialism is clearly not allowed, but politicians are constantly testing this boundary and often ignoring it entirely. Why? We’re not always consistent about it. When the economy got so bad, we got tired of telling the politicians no and let them take over the auto industry. You can see why they’re now confused as to why we’re angry at them for trying to take over health care; it’s because we weren’t consistent. These mixed messages confuse and frustrate dogs and politicians and maybe even cause them to lash out. … Finally, Cesar constantly reminds everyone that dogs and politicians are not people, and you have to treat them like what they are: dogs and politicians. It can be frustrating when you’ve told the dog to stop barking for the fortieth time and told the politician to keep his hands off your wallet for the sixtieth time, but if you’re consistent, calm and assertive, give clear rules, boundaries, and limitations, and only give affection after exercise and discipline, you can have well-behaved canines and legislators.”