Egyptian President Morsi Wants Terrorist in US Custody Freed
Today, after taking his oath of office, newly elected Egyptian president Morsi vowed to get Omar Abdel-Rahman freed. Abdel-Rahman was the spiritual leader of those who car-bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, and was convicted in a plot to kill former Egyptian president Mubarak while he was visiting New York.
Morsi also appears to be a 9/11 Truther. "When you come and tell me the plane hit the tower like a knife in butter, then you are insulting us. How did the plane cut through the steel like this? Something must have happened from the inside. It's impossible," he said. Does anyone see a pattern here?
Way to go on the "Arab Spring" Barack, you surely made the world safer, especially for Americans, by provoking the removal of Mubarak. Why don't you and Hillary Clinton pressure the Egyptian military to step aside, so this guy can get more power? Oh wait, you already did.
The Individual Mandate is Constitutional, Welcome to the People's Republic of America
US flag code: The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except in instances of extreme distress in instances of extreme dangers to life or property
On grounds that the penalty for not buying healthcare is not a tax, Chief Justice Roberts ruled that the Tax Anti-Injunction Statue, which says nobody can sue to stop the collection of a tax until it has been paid, did not apply.
In the same ruling, on grounds that the penalty is a tax, Chief Justice Roberts, who sided with the liberal justices said the law would not be constitutional under the commerce clause, but is constitutional under the taxing clause.
These are dangerous times! Welcome to the People's Republic of America! This is a land where the Federal Government can now mandate you spend your money, or you do whatever they want, as long as they have put in place a monetary penalty for not doing it. They can now mandate your behavior!
It is horrifying the amount of power the Federal Government has just received! Tomorrow, you could be "asked" to buy an electric car, broccoli, solar panels, a house, contribute to anti-global warming funds or whatever politicians decide, or how about you will be "asked" to contribute 100% of your 401k to the "Happy Security & Safety Government Retirement Fund," or be "taxed" $500,000? If you don't do either, then you have an IRS problem. As long as they fine you for not doing it, they will be able to do do this legally, because the Supreme Court has just ruled that any tax by the Federal Government, enumerated or otherwise is a constitutional tax! We had to amend the constitution to make income tax constitutional because the constitution did not provide for it. How should this be any different? Justice Roberts had to twist and bend until the constitution broke to get this through! How is this even remotely like the country our founders envisioned?
We must stand strong with Mitt Romney in this upcoming presidential election, maintain the majority in the House and toss the Democrats out of the Senate! The door has been opened for unlimited and unbridled power of the Federal Government to mandate behavior. We need to shut it! If conservatives or at least Republicans do not hold all of the cards January of next year, there will be a slim chance that Obamacare can be reversed before it is implemented, at which point, it will never go away. The implications on how the supreme court managed to call this law constitutional today by using the taxation excuse, however, are chilling. Imagine what the Democrats will make us do, the next time they control the legislature and the presidency! We'll have to wait until the Supreme Court overturns it...FAT CHANCE.
Now that politicians can constitutionally control your behavior, we no longer live in a free country. It just takes a tax for politicians to make us do their bidding!
Remember how the Democrats passed Obamacare? The House passed it, knowing it was a piece of trash, with the expectations that it would go to the Senate to be amended and sent back to the House. Then, Congressman Scott Brown of Massachusetts, who swore he would vote against the law was elected in the, taking away the Democrat House majority. Knowing that returning the bill to the House would kill the bill, Harry Reid, had his panties in a wad and knew the only way to get something passed, was to pass the bill 'as is' through the Senate. There was all the wheeling and dealing, bread and circuses, with the cornhusker kickback, "blue-dog" Democrats who put on a show and resisted, and Obama lying through his teeth saying it would cut costs, then signing an executive order pretending it wouldn't cover abortions. Obama even talked about doctors cutting off your foot to get paid more:
After all of this absurdity, the Democrats stayed late on Christmas Eve, and without a single Republican vote, passed this $2 Trillion monstrosity saying it was "under $1 Trillion," as if they had done well on the price tag. Nancy Pelosi called this a "Christmas Present." This bill is so bad, that some 1200 waivers have been granted to businesses, and Harry Reid even got waivers for his constituency in Nevada. This bill will cause healthcare costs to jump 7.4% by 2014, and has already caused numerous companies and universities to stop offering health insurance. What a useful expenditure of $2 Trillion in taxpayer money.
Unfortunately, we can not depend on the honest opinion by all of the justices determining whether this bill is in conflict with the US Constitution. Despite being the solicitor general at the time and cheering the passage of the healthcare law, Justice Kagan did not recuse herself. She was put there by Obama as a "yes" vote for Obamacare. The liberals wanted Clarence Thomas to recuse himself because his wife wants the bill thrown out. Apparently, when it comes to being an impartial judge, what your family members think matters, but what you think does not matter. Democrats being dishonest hypocrites, what a new concept.
The Supreme Court ruling on healthcare is expected tomorrow morning around 10:00 AM EST. Hopefully they tear up the whole thing and burn it. Let's keep our fingers crossed.
Today, the supreme court ruled on the Arizona immigration law.
1 provision was kept in place:
Law enforcement to determine the immigration status of anyone stopped by state or local law if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is in the US illegally.
3 provisions were ruled unconstitutional:
Crime not to register with federal government & carry registration
Crime to solicit work if not authorized to work in the U.S.
State/local police arrest without warrant in some cases
Justice Antonin Scalia read his dissenting opinion aloud:
"There has come time to pass, and is with us today, the spector that Arizona predicted. A federal government that does not want to enforce immigration laws as written and leaves the states borders unprotected. So the issue is a stark one. Are the sovereign states at the mercy of the Federal Executive's refusal to enforce the nation's immigration laws? The State has the sovereign power to protect its borders more rigorously if it wishes, absent any valid federal prohibition. The Executive's policy choice of lax federal enforcement does not constitute such a provision... If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign state."
As the federal government's power has grown, state powers have taken a hit today. Not only do federal laws supersede state laws, but according to this ruling, if the federal government makes a law, and decides not enforce it, then the states are not allowed to enforce it either. This is ridiculous because states are supposed to be sovereign, meaning they are able to stand alone as independent entities.Originally many states would never have never joined the union if they thought they could never leave it, butLincoln did not allow states to secede, which lead to the War Between the States (Civil War). The legality of secession has never been settled. Scalia's point is that a supposedly sovereign entity should have the inherent right to defend its own borders, and if this is the case, the federal government does not have the power to take it away.
What does this mean when you have a lawless executive branch unilaterally dishing out executive orders which contradict laws approved by the legislative branch, and signed by previous presidents? If it remains unchallenged, it means, whatever Dear Leader says goes, such as allowing illegal immigrants under 30 to live in the US and work illegally with the stroke of a pen. Obama wasted no time today. Right after the ruling, he ordered Homeland Security to suspend immigration agreements with Arizona police. Even though local police have the right to call Homeland Security to verify immigration status of individuals, Obama has ordered Homeland Security to stop taking their phone calls, unless the individual has a felony conviction. Obama is changing immigration policy by fiat, like a dictator, without approval from congress, and with the support of liberal judges on the supreme court, so he can get illegal votes!
The manchild has shown over and over he will selfishly disregard whatever laws he does not like, and is fine with ignoring the entire function of the legislative branch. What if regular American citizens decided to act like selfish children by disregarding laws we didn't like? We'd be locked up! An elected official who has power because it is vested in him by the people, is using power he does not have to override law. The country can not afford to see what the manchild will do with "more flexibility" for 4 more years after the next election!
We must kick out the tyrant. Some 30% of conservatives are not registered to vote! Inform your family and friends, get them to register, and together we will send Barack Obama back to Chicago, where he can retire, write books, and do some more community agitating!
On Sunday, Mohammed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood Freedom and Justice Party won the presidential election. Here is a look at the mood in Tahrir Square:
Before you start making celebratory noises like Xena Warrior Princess, let's learn a little more about the Muslim Brotherhood. Instead of just listening to the giddy endorsement of liberals or even what Fox News says, look at what 90 year old Gamal Al Bana, the brother of the late founder of the Muslim Brotherhood has to say at 42:14:
"Not in any way, they do not believe in freedom at all. There is no Islamic authority that respects freedom or democracy," Gamal says. The reporter then asks "What about the Muslim Brother's?" To this, he replied "They are also against freedom." So I guess "Freedom & Jusice" Party is like "People's Republic" as in "People's Republic" of North Korea?
If you skip back to 17:20 in the video, it shows a little more about Gamal to lend some credibility, and shows how the headscarf Muslim women are wearing is a trend as recent as the 1990s. Gamal says a "women who shows her hair breaks no Islamic law." At 19:22 he says "Muslims have become like monkeys, only imitating others."
The video about the Muslim Brotherhood is very informative. If you want to get a good feel for who they really are, watch the whole thing.
The Egyptian military issued a decree and stripped the presidential position of much of its power, so the military is supposed to be in control despite the election. I question the stability of a government with no parliament, no constitution, and a president who had his power stripped by the military, who also is supported by terrorist organization Hamas. Israeli officials tried to contact the Muslim Brotherhood in recent months through diplomatic channels, but received no response. Israel just became a little less safe, and with Dear Leader in the White House, who partially instigated this mess, it is questionable if they can depend on US military assistance if something happens.
One thing is for sure: I'm not going to go see the pyramids anytime soon.
The Hollow-Eyed Hippie: Republicans Suppressing Voters.
Previously, Nancy Pelosi's eyes were so obstructed by the generous amounts of botox in her face, that she saw swastikas at Tea Party rallies. Now she says Republicans are holding Holder in contempt because they want to "suppress the vote." I'm going to go line by line through this little act. Sometimes, Democrats just make it all too easy.
"Instead of bringing job creating legislation to the floor, the transportation bill..."
You see, transportation bills creates "shovel ready" jobs...like the stimulus bill, $800 Billion, which obviously did so much to keep our unemployment rate from going above 8%.
"...they are holding the Attorney General of the United States in contempt of congress for doing his job."
What Pelosi is saying, is that Eric Holder's primary job function is hiding documents about the justice department ordering the sales of guns to drug traffickers, which in turn enables them to take those guns and shoot hundreds of Mexicans and a US border patrol agent. It is just so wrong that we are holding him in contempt, because he's just doing his job!
"It's really important to note how this is connected with some of their other decisions. It is no accident, it is no coincidence, that the attorney General of the United States is the person responsible for making sure, that voter suppression does not happen in our country, that issues that relate to the civil liberties of the American people are upheld."
Eric Holder has done an outstanding job of "making sure voter suppression doesn't happen in this country." Just ask the Black Panthers, they all agree he is doing a wonderful job. Pelosi is the most qualified person in the room regarding "civil liberties," as evidence by her enthusiastic endorsement and passing of the healthcare bill, which transfers our healthcare choices to the government.
"These very same people are holding in the contempt, are part of a nationwide scheme to suppress the vote."
She is referring to the decisions of several states to check IDs to prevent voter fraud. Denying illegal immigrants, criminals, imaginary people, dead people, and cartoon characters the right to vote is a scheme for voter suppression! You see, it is against their "civil liberties."
"They are closely allied with those who are suffocating the system."
Obviously, Republican's allies have increased our debt to $16 Trillion when the Democrats had the presidency, a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, and a majority in the House for 2 years. It's Republican's close allies passing a healthcare bill, which according to a study by the Chamber of Commerce, 73% of small businesses say is an obstacle to hiring. Anyway, we needed to "pass it to find out what is in it." Those evil Republicans, appointed Tax Cheat Tim Geitner as head of the IRS, made friends with terrorist Bill Ayers, gave the medal of freedom to Communist Dolorez Huerta, and has the same ideas as George Soros, who shorts stock, and starts organizations precipitating the failure of the country. Yes, It's Bush's fault that even after Obama's "Summer of Recovery," the economy remained down. Indeed, it's the Republicans who "are closely allied to those who are suffocating the system."
Pelosi, the Holow-eyed Hippie, is like a neon sign, tie-dye patterned, brightly flashing, spinning in midair, emitting the sound of a squealing jackass, with the face of it in big bold letters; it says "LYING POLITICAL HACK." The lies are so outrageously obvious, that they are picked up on immediately.
One can only wonder if there is a soul on the planet who believes a word of this psychobabble nonsense coming out of her mouth. Who in their right mind believes Republicans are trying to suppress voting? Then again, Adolf Hitler said: "Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it."
Executive Privilege & Barack Obama:"We're working on gun control under the radar."
Obama is using executive privilege to protect himself from being implicated in Fast and Furious, which is what he meant by "working on gun control under the radar." His own record and use of executive privilege in this context, implicates him. Executive privilege is supposed to be used to help the president gain confidential advice needed to run the country, not to cover up crimes.
According to the Congressional Research Service, for executive privilege to be valid, there are 3 criteria that must be met. Let's take a look at the implications from a light that assumes Obama's use of executive privilege is valid:
1. It falls within the bounds of presidential power:Obama must have knowledge that Fast and Furious falls within his power, such as in the case of law enforcement. This assumes the president is not clueless about Fast and Furious, and knows the program existed and involves law enforcement. The questions are now what did he know, and when did he know it.
2. The communication must have been received by the president or a close adviser: This implicates either the president as someone who has direct knowledge of the information involved in Fast and Furious, or it names Eric Holder as a close presidential adviser. It's doubtful that a close presidential advisor would not have communicated details of something that could destroy an overly political president's re-election chances to Obama. Holder has already been proven as a liar when saying he had no knowledge of this operation, and has been working lockstep with the administration with everything from the Chrysler bankruptcy to immigration. It's also doubtful that all 150,000 pages of documents Holder is withholding is addressed to either him or the president, which makes it questionable that executive privilege can be used to prevent all documents from being handed over to congress.
3. The communication can not contain information which can not be found elsewhere:I believe this point makes the whole thing invalid. Where can you get information on thousands of secret documents anywhere else besides the very documents themselves? If the Republicans contest this and it goes to court, hopefully, the executive privilege should be overturned based on this 3rd criteria alone.
Fast and Furious has nothing to do with giving the president a confidential way of gaining advice. During his time in the senate he has voted against gun rights multiple times. In 2004 he voted against legislation which would protect homeowners from prosecution if they used a firearm to stop a home invasion, in 2003 he voted for a ban on target rifles, black powder guns, and shotguns, and 1996, a ban on sale and possession of handguns. In April of 2012, Mexican President Calderone spoke with Obama about Fast and Furious. Suspiciously, instead of expressing outrage over the operation or anger at Obama, Calderone blamed the 2nd amendment and asked our congress to enact stricter gun control laws.
Knowing Obama's record on gun control, and his propensity to be lawless, along with Mexican president Calderone's seeming disregard for Fast and Furious, while blaming drug violence on the 2nd amendment, what reasonable conclusion are we supposed to come to? The only reason that the president would invoke this last minute stonewalling effort is in a desperate fit to cover himself and his administration. Fast and Furious was designed to give Obama a venue to talk the American people into more gun control laws by pretending loose regulation of American guns were killing Mexicans.
The House Republican majority has gone ahead today and voted to cite Holder on contempt, for withholding documents in the case, but it was a party line vote. Not a single Democrat voted for it and therefore, it is expected to go nowhere in the Senate. Republicans want to get to the bottom of this, and Democrats are stonewalling! Because some 2500 guns have been sent over the border by US government agents, and Hundreds of Mexicans and a US border agent have been killed, it should be a national issue where both sides agree. There shouldn't be a question that the documents need to be presented so the American people know the truth, yet Democrats are stonewalling to protect their 2012 presidential nominee--another indictment of the Democrat party and its priority to stay in power over national interests.
The Democrats are always talking about compromise. How can anyone compromise with Democrats who are willing to go as far as ignoring the law and obstructing justice to protect their agenda? Democrats and liberals must be ridiculed and defeated. There is no middle ground to work with them, and no place for compromise. We'll just have to wait and see if the Republicans challenge this, and get to the bottom of the lies.
Something is not quite right with the Mexican president Felipe Calderone. I believe he has become another lap dog cheerleader of president Obama. He and Obama have much in common: They like to pander to the whims of the masses, do not have the best interest of their countries at heart, and are sadly mistaken in their policies.
Today, he praised Obama's immigration decision on letting illegals work, but this is not the first time this man has spoken out publicly about US Policy. In 2010 and 2011, Mexico sued Arizona and Alabama over trying to enforce immigration laws, and Calderone called the Arizona law a "terrible" endorsement of racial profiling. Meanwhile if someone enters Mexico illegally, they will be locked up and deported. This is a Wolf Blitzer interview of Calderone on Mexican immigration policy:
In short, Calderone believes it's a wonderful thing deserving of praise when Mexicans come into the US illegally and work, but when someone enters Mexico illegally, that's a crime where deportation is required. I suppose if I was Mexican, it would be nice if others couldn't pass our borders illegally, but at the same time I was able to go to the US illegally and get a job without any consequences. Calderone is another pandering political hack! Yes folks, they exist in other countries too!
Secondly, he does not have the best interests of his country at heart. Look at how he dealt with Fast and Furious. He met with Obama earlier this year and talked about about gun trafficking. If he cared about his people, he would be a little concerned, to say the least, for the safety of Mexican citizens after hearing news that the American government was supplying guns to drug cartels in Mexico. This would seem like an act of war! What is surprising is, instead of publicly denouncing the Obama administration for leaking over 2500 guns across the border, or speaking out against the drug cartel induced violence, he blamed our 2nd Amendment, and asked our congress to tighten gun laws. It's obvious, he is not looking for a solution to Drug violence and wants to avoid blaming Obama, so instead, he blames our 2nd amendment.
Thirdly, the motivations for Mexicans wanting to move to the United States is due to a lack of opportunity in Mexico. As the Mexican president, instead of praising Obama for allowing Mexicans to work in the US, Calderone could try to implement policies which would spur economic growth in his own country. If the US was praising some other country for allowing US Citizens to flock there and work illegally, it would be an embarrassment! It would look as if we couldn't sustain ourselves, yet the Mexican president is not only allowing it, he is applauding it!
Calderone, who wants to export his economic failure, who can't even keep his own country safe by stopping drug cartels or allowing law-abiding citizens to own guns, wants to tell the world's sole superpower how a country should be run. At least in this aspect, he is like Dear Leader Obama: He tells others what to do without any idea how to solve problems while making things worse, then puts the blame on other parties following his failure, all in a conveniently politically expedient way. Judging by the state of his own country, he is not the brightest bulb in the room when it comes to policy. This man knows he is a lying hypocrite, and needs to shut up about our policy, and get out of our politics, until he proves himself capable in his own country.
Today Dear Leader Magician Obama Pulls a Piece of...I mean a rabbit...Out Of His...hat...And Throws It Against The Wall to See if It Sticks
I think this is the perfect analogy for the new immigration policy. Yesterday, Obama held a speech that was supposed to "hit the reset button" on his campaign by "Framing" the economy. The Speech was supposed to invigorate his campaign, and be new and fresh. It turns out, it was just a repeat of previous speeches.
The speech was such regurgitated nonsense that this time, even the media did not give him a pass. He failed to make people believe his primary focus is on the economy, or that he is the "clear choice on the economy's long-term path." So what does he do to get everyone to stop talking about it, which would be bad publicity throughout the weekend? Today, the day after giving this speech, he pulls another...rabbit...out of his...hat...and announces new immigration policy.
Unilaterally, and effective today, he has ordered Homeland Security to stop deporting illegal immigrants under age 30 who have lived here for 5 years, and allow them to get work permits.
Hey, if you're a foreigner, and always wanted to come to the US, now's the time! You don't need to spend thousands of dollars on an immigration attorney, or spend months or years waiting! Just walk across the border and say you've been here for 5 years! How are they going to prove that you were not here for 5 years or over 30 years old? You're "undocumented" remember? After getting in, why not vote, so maybe Dear Leader can sign an executive order to give you citizenship, or even let some more of your older buddies in later? It would be "racist" for those evil republicans to deny your your voting rights by checking IDs. Democrat voters forever!
The major problem with illegal immigration, is so basic that it is hard believe it hasn't been dealt with yet. We need to secure our borders to keep citizens safe. Obama stopped the building of the border fence, said building a fence will not work, and cut down on troops patrolling the border. Meanwhile terrorist organization Hezbollah is setting up operations near the border, Drug cartels are killing American border patrol agents and Citizens on jet skis, and Illegals without licenses get away with car accidents. Dear Leader has blatantly ignored National Security concerns on the border.
Obama sees himself as the king as he goes ahead with a portion of the Dream Act, which congress defeated. If congress, who is supposed to be part of the equation, decided to allow younger illegal immigrants to stay after the border was secured, maybe this could be a legitimate part of the solution. Until the border is secured, however, giving benefits to illegals does nothing but encourage more people to immigrate illegally.
Overall, I think this issue hurts Obama more than helps him, and he is in desperation right now trying to find something to talk about. He has singled out a minority group to "help" while making the majority angry. Hopefully, in November, this...rabbit...will fall back in his face and the voters will give him a swift kick in the...hat...right out of office.
If you had $130 in your pocket, and you lost $2 is it a big deal? My question is, why are there still congressional hearings on capital hill?
JP Morgan suffered a recent trading loss of $2 Billion. JP Morgan's share price today is around $34, with an outstanding number of 3.8 billion shares. So outstanding shares are worth a total of about $130 billion today. I know their company is worth more than just the oustanding shares, but based on only that figure, $2 billion is about a 1.5 % loss.
Does anyone remember the $800 billion dollar mistake called the Stimulus Bill? Who is being held accountable for that mess, and where are the congressional hearings? I want those responsible brought to justice for lying to the American people saying unemployment would be under 8% because stimulus will create "shovel-ready" jobs. Not only was the failure of Stimulus swept under the rug, apparently it was funny:
Look at the idiot laugh. It's just so funny that "shovel ready, was not as uh shovel ready as we expected." After $800 billion of taxpayers' money, which obviously you and I do not need, and is better served by letting political hacks spend it on pet projects like creating turtle crossings, basket weaving, and studying Alaskan grandparents, it's just so hilarious that it didn't work and the money was wasted.
Note that It is is not just the Democrats participating in this stunt, it's both sides of the aisle acting like they are teachers berating school children. At least when JP Morgan-Chase loses money, it is their own money. When congress wasted money on stimulus, it was taxpayer's money and 400 times more! Now as the wizards of smart, politicians want to waste time demonizing a private company because they made a financial mistake.
In the words of the great philosopher The Joker, "Why so serious?" Congress is just chock-full of financial wiz kids who are ever so qualified to mind other peoples' business. The Democrat run Senate hasn't passed a budget in 3 years, Obama's budget was voted down unanimously, the Federally run US Postal Service loses $1 Billion dollars a month, and our national debt is about $16 Trillion! There is not a reason in the world we should believe political hacks have the intelligence, the know how, or even the motivation to keep banks, or the entire financial industry for that matter, profitable!
Democrats say we need "more regulations" because JP Morgan lost money, when the Dodd-Frank Financial "Reform" Law--another failure, was supposed to prevent this from ever happening again. Am I the only one, or does anyone see a pattern here?
Our economy is in shambles, the politicians who have wasted hundreds of billions of dollars are running the country in the ground, and instead of addressing the real problems that face our country, they want to waste more taxpayer dollars by holding this dog and pony show in front of tv cameras, by berating a private company who lost a small percentage of its own money. During the hearings, the Occutards are playing right into Democrat rhetoric yelling words like "greed." The whole thing is a joke--unnecessary, senseless, and a mammoth waste of time and money.
Here is a video chronicle of Attorney General Eric Holder's record:
First, he dropped an open and shut case of voter intimidation. Black Panthers who were physically blocking the door to polling places, shouting racial slurs, and carrying night sticks were allowed to do so with no repercussions.
Next, he allowed Obama to act as a dictator in the Chrysler bankruptcy. Obama decided to flip bankruptcy law on its head by putting union pensions above secured Chrysler bondholders, who legally had the rights to any funds first.
Currently, he is suspected in Operation Fast and Furious, selling guns to criminals in Mexico. He has done his best to sandbag the congressional investigation by first pretending he had no knowledge of gun running, then after being found out, withholding 90% of documents involved. He is suing Florida saying they can not clean up their voter rolls, since Democrats like it when Felons, illegal immigrants, and dead people vote for them. Today, Senator Cornyn is calling for his resignation.
Last Friday Obama said "the private sector is doing fine" shown in the clip at 0:20. This ridiculous statement is followed by Obama trying to walk back his comments with a conversation on how we need to hire more firefighters, police, and teachers to improve the economy.
This is a gleaming pinnacle of immense stupidity. Rather than just state the obvious and refute him, I want to delve deeper into what the core problem really is: Liberals do not understand the concept of wealth creation. I am hoping this post is not too technical, and you really try to understand, because I am dissecting one of the key cornerstones of liberalism.
When a product is created by a private company, it is something that is worth more than the raw materials that went into it. For example, bread is worth more than just the dirt, water, and seeds that were needed to create it. When bread is produced, each step adds value. Wheat is grown, which is worth more than seeds and dirt, harvested into a pile, which is worth more than an unharvested field, processed into flour, which is worth more than pile of wheat and baked into bread, which is worth more than the flour. Labor creates value at each step, which is wealth.
When government hires firefighters, policeman, and teachers, what does this have to do with wealth? Firefighters protect wealth from being burned into ash, Policeman enforce the law to allow an environment for wealth production, and government teachers ostensibly teach the new wealth creators of tomorrow. These services are necessary in one form or another, therefore, government is a necessary evil.
Economics 101 says there is a limited supply, and unlimited demand to all products and services. In the private sector, the forces of supply and demand will balance out. If a company sells something and makes a profit, it is because the company has produced wealth. By definition, the product is worth more than it costs to make it, and the consumer bought the product because there is still more value in the wealth of the product than the price they paid to buy it. For example, if an Apple Ipad costs Apple $300 to produce, and someone buys it for $600, Apple made a profit of $300. The wealth created is worth more than $600 to the buyer otherwise they wouldn't have traded the money for it! The money, of course, comes out of the individual's pocket to suit the needs of the individual, with a transparent relationship with the buyer and the seller. Meanwhile, Apple continues to hire more employees which help to create even more wealth to keep up with demand. These jobs are self-sustaining because the employees are paid out of a portion of the wealth they created.
What about government? Le'ts pretend your town only needs 5 fireman who together make a total of $250,000 a year to put out 100% of the fires in the town, which saves $1,000,000 a year in wealth from being burned to ash. What does Obama want to do? He wants to hire 10 fireman, because he says it will spur the economy. Is $1,000,000 in wealth saved suddenly doubled to $2,000,000 because twice the number of people were hired? No, it still saves 100% of fires which saves $1,000,000 per year. Instead, what happened is, for no additional benefit, the same service now costs double!
The claim from Dear Leader that hiring more government employees will spur the economy is pandering to ignorance. It's that age old argument "Everyone loves fireman, policeman, and teachers." In the above scenario, he is basically redistributing $250,000 from your pocket to government employees, and unnecessarily having two people share the workload of one! What is even worse is the average taxpayer only knows the work is being done, but has no idea they are being swindled!
I picked fireman out of a hat as an illustration, but the same scenario can go for teachers, police, pencil pushers, bureaucrats, and government political hacks. Government jobs cost money, and since Obama wants to send his never ending gravy train of printed and borrowed money back to the states appropriated for these expenditures, it just digs the US deeper into debt, and edges us toward inflation or monetary collapse.
I hope after reading this you have a deeper understanding of what the creation of wealth is and its relation to the private sector and government. Private sector companies survive as long as they create wealth for the consumer, while government, which creates no wealth, can survive bloated until the country goes bankrupt. Liberals believe that the amount of wealth in the world is limited and do not believe wealth is created. They think capitalism is a big redistribution game where the "little guy gets screwed." Following this logic, wealth would need to be redistributed "back" to the "rightful owners" so it can be spent again to spur the economy. Liberals have no idea that in the private sector, wealth can be used to buy capital and create more wealth, (known as capitalism, duh), which also results in more sustainable jobs for everyone. Is it a wonder why a liberal maniac like Obama would believe that somehow hiring more government employees will improve the economy when in effect all it does is redistribute tax dollars?
Recently, leaks have come out about US and Israeli involvement in sabotaging the Iran nuclear program. Obama claims he and his administration have nothing to do with the leaks, and he says, "the notion that my White House would release national security information is offensive." We should believe him because Obama is obviously not a frequent liar with an overly political administration, who lies literally every other sentence. Either way, this is something that "looks good" for the Obama administration because it shows he is strong on national security. This spectacle is much like the political parade for the whole week during the anniversary of killing Bin Laden, in which Navy Seals wanted him to shut up.
Is this president really tough on national security?
Let's look at one of these areas. At this very moment China is developing weapons for space. Here's CNN reporting on it:
Obama promises, including not weaponizing space or developing missile programs:
Obama has cut military spending. He cut pay for soldiers, cut troop numbers, stopped the production of the F-22, and halted the planned missile defense shield in Europe, to name a few. It's okay though, because Dear Leader thinks that he can just talk anyone into whatever he wants from Taliban terrorists to the Olympics Committee, and everything will be okay. He is doing such a good job of this, he even talked to Russian president Medvedev to let him know he will have "more flexibility" on missile defense after the next election!
What about some areas where Obama has "increased security?" Put these events together and try to paint a picture in your mind. He has signed a bill expanding the Patriot Act, allowing the government to wiretap US citizens making domestic phone calls and spy on US citizens surfing the web. Next, he signed the National Defense Authorization Act, which allows the detention of US citizens by the military indefinitely, and authorizes the use of drones in American skies to spy on US citizens.
Hmm....Who or what kind of enemy is the government equipped to fight with these kinds of new laws? You add all of this to that funny feeling that Eric Holder might have something to do with Fast and Furious, which seems suspiciously like a ploy to take away our gun rights, and what do you get?
I will leave the answer to this question up to you: Do you think the president is really tough on national security, or is he more concerned with United States citizens who cling to their bibles and guns?
In the spirit of creating more Republicans (or just my lethargic wave of sheer laziness today), I am sharing this video I found on Youtube. Oh, and I also added a new picture gallery called "Pitchforks."
Yesterday, Governor Scott Walker won a 7 point victory over Democrat Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett. The media is downplaying the Walker election as much as possible, saying it has no implications for the rest of the country. Keep in mind, just days ago, DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Shultz said it is a "test run" for the presidential race.
After the Democrats and the unions lose, the next day's coverage is filled with glorious proclamations saying exit polls show Obama with a 7 point lead over Mitt Romney. Brilliantly smug liberal commentator Lawrence O'Donnell looks at this and says Obama is the big winner:
This is extremely sad. When you are a liberal, and your side loses, you still play pretend like an 8 year old and say you won, because it makes you feel good.
7 points sounds like Obama has a pretty big lead doesn't it? It does when you believe the exit polls. CNN's exit polls showed the Scott Walker race at a 50/50 dead heat. Next thing you know, the lamestream media outlets parrot this with giddy anticipation, hopeful that their guy still has a chance. As you know, the election was not a margin of error win. It wasn't 2 or 3 points. It was 7. What kind of credible poll pushes the idea that the race is a dead heat, and misses it by 7 points? What kind of news outlet uses the same exit polls which have been proven to be garbage to make other predictions? The answer is, the kinds of news outlets called ABC and MSNBC. We are to believe that they are just innocent impartial news outlets heralding Obama's supposed 7 point lead using the same garbage poll? I don't think so.
Let's see what a Union member in the midst of all of this thinks:
That's right Democracy died tonight! It's the end of the USA as we know it! I know everyone reading this is frantically gathering up their belongings, desperately trying to contact loved ones, and getting ready to take shelter, while trying to choke away the tears of despair. How dare Scott Walker make government union members pay for 12% of their own pension, 5% of their health care and take away some collective bargaining rights? Everyone is going to die! We all know not a single person in the country can live without a free pension, free healthcare, and collective bargaining rights.
All kidding aside, what is this union member thinking when he is giving this interview? Where was Obama, who pledged his support of unions during the 2008 elections? In a single tweet: "It's election day in Wisconsin tomorrow, and I'm standing by Tom Barrett." Where was that brave man who said he would "put on a comfortable pair of shoes...and walk on that picket line" with union members as president of the United States if collective bargaining was threatened? He was focusing on fundraising. It seems the rumors are true that Obama has given up the white "working-class" vote. If this is what a union member thinks, how much can Obama count on their vote?
The Lamestream Obama defenders are looking more and more pitiful, acting like children, as they plug their ears with their fingers and close their eyes, while spouting fantasy predictions of what they hope will happen. If things keep going this way, Obama is going to lose in a landslide, and it will appear to the media as unexpected as the high unemployment numbers every week.
Yesterday, Slick Willy joined Obama at a fund raiser and formerly endorsed him. He said Romney “would be in my opinion calamitous for our country and the world.”
You know what this means? It's walk back time! Remember a few days ago when Clinton was defending Romney, saying he had a "sterling business career?" You see, things are not what they seem. If you know the history between Obama and Clinton, you know that Bill Clinton does not like Barack Obama. Because of Bill's remarks, in the spirit of party unity, he has to come out and endorse Obama. Let's see what Dick Morris, former Clinton campaign strategist has to say:
Dick Morris says Bill Clinton does not want Obama to win. He quotes Clinton as saying to conservatives: "You have six months to save the country." I don't buy into the Politico article today saying "the once-raw wounds that were publicly clear have healed." Anyone would have to be a fool to believe that after Clinton defended Romney last week.
While he was out in 2008 campaigning for Hillary, Bill Clinton said Obama "has the instincts of a Chicago Thug." He was sore over the vote-rigging he claims he personally wtinessed in Nevada involving the Culinary Workers Union, and said Obama played the race card on him.
The moral of the story? Publicly, Democrats will band together because they are Democrats first, even if they hate each others guts. If someone goes off track, they must jump back in line to defend the party. It's no surprise that they are once again lying to the face of the American people. What happens behind close doors is another matter. For more info check out my blog post on June 1, 2012: Clinton Defends...Romney? Obama Campaign Message Crumbling
This morning I was listening to the Neal Boortz show. There was supposed to be a "big announcement" at 10:06AM Eastern time, and wondered what they were teasing. Neal Boortz announced that after 42 years of talk radio, he will be retiring. The last day of the Neal Boortz Show will be on inauguration day January 21, 2013.
I don't know how many of you have listened to his show, but for me, this is a sad day. I started listening to talk radio because I heard Neal's show. This lead to me listening to Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Herman Cain, and Rusty Humphries. I've listened to about 90% of Neal's shows from around the 2008 presidential elections through today, and he has taught me so much about Libertarianism and freedom. I was a little surprised when he made the announcement today because when he had reached 40 years in talk radio a couple years ago and was inducted into the Talk Radio Hall of Fame, he had said he was going to go for 50 years. He talked about how the original plan was to move down to Florida with his wife at 40 and retire, but he decided just to keep half the promise and move to Florida. His reason for retiring is that it is impossible to do a talk radio show and travel at the same time. Presidential candidate Herman Cain will be taking over his time slot, and Neal will substitute when Herman is on vacation.
Listen to him as he destroys an Occutard:
Besides taking December off, he says he will still be doing his show for the rest of the year. After listening for so long, you can tell that despite the left saying he is "spewing hate," Neal is genuinely a great guy, and he has a great show. Check it out while he is still on the air. He calls this year, "the year of talking dangerously."
Click on the top link to listen live weekday mornings on 8:30am to 1:00pm EST
Clinton Defends...Romney? Obama Campaign Message Crumbling
There is utter dissent in the Democrat Party! I know most of you who follow the news closely, notice that the Democrats and media are usually in lock-step. When one news outlet begins talking about an issue, they all miraculously start saying the same thing and emphasizing it the same way, many times parroting the exact words. For example, the words "the optics," comes to mind when they talked about Obama's frequent vacations, saying "the Optics" might not look good. Another example is when the Democrats passed Obamacare. They all knew the bill was garbage, but they kept together, lying about how it was going to reduce costs. Let's see what Bill Clinton says about Mitt Romney's qualifications for president:
Bill Clinton says that because Mitt Romney has done good work with a sterling business career, and was governor, he "crosses the qualification threshold" for the office of the presidency. This is in direct opposition to everything the Obama administration has been trying to portray Romney as! Obama has been running against capitalism by airing ads presenting Mitt Romney at Bain Capital as being an evil greedy capitalist who ran companies into the ground for large profits at the expense of workers' jobs. This is just one of the ads, and there are plenty of others working in unison:
By saying that Romney has a sterling business career and is qualified for the office of the presidency, Clinton is undermining Obama's entire campaign strategy for re-election. It's unheard of that you see a Democrat, no less a former Democrat president, spitting in the face of a Democrat administration during an election year. Clinton's is just the latest of the growing number of voices defending Romney against Obama's attack on Capitalism. In this next video, CNN rips the above ad to shreds:
So what do we make of all of this? Ever since Obama was campaigning during the 2008 election, the media has been covering for him by avoiding asking him tough questions and doing a thorough examination into his beliefs and background. Just listen to this absurd exchange between Tom Brokaw and Charlie Rose. They admit they don't know anything about him, yet they supported him anyway:
Think about this from the media and Democrat's perspective: It is now nearly 4 years later, the economy is in ruins, unemployment is still high, and the country is going through the slowest economic recovery in the history of the United States. Meanwhile, they have been trying to defend Dear Leader from criticism of the evil conservatives the whole time. The failure of the administration becomes more and more apparent with each passing day, and the cover of the media is becoming transparent to the point of obviousness. What can you do to keep Obama from dragging the future of your party and your credibility down with him? Two words: JUMP SHIP. I know it seems impossible, but the Obama administration, which is already a complete failure, will be in even bigger trouble if they do not stop this cascading dissent.