Thursday, April 28, 2011

Silver bullet to the heart of American fuel

Much is abuzz on the rising fuel prices, but Obama says “there’s no silver bullet that can bring down gas prices right away," so let’s chat…

Rush had an interesting call yesterday, which involved a discussion of how Obama is encouraging the rest of the world to drill for oil, so we don’t have to:

“Obama doesn't want the price of gasoline to come down too much. Obama hates oil. Look, folks, let me find it here in the story. Get this. If this doesn't say it, I don't know what does. Reuters story: "President Barack Obama on Tuesday urged world oil producers to lift crude output, as he sought to deflect public anger over high gasoline prices that has hurt his popularity among voters." Now, the original headline for this story was "Obama Presses Oil Producing Nations to Boost Output," but the editors realized that "presses" was a little too bellicose for our courageous president. So "urges" became the word. But here he is and if you read the whole story, Reuters is trying to make it out like the Republicans are using high gasoline prices to hurt Obama. Never mind they hurt everybody. But what about the hypocrisy here? How come if all these foreign countries increase their output of oil -- in other words, if foreign countries do their own "drill, baby, drill" -- that will lower the price of gasoline, but it won't lower the price of gasoline if we produce more domestically? "Obama Urges Oil Producers to Increase Output to Lower the Price." Would you ever read, "Obama urges domestic producers to increase..."? No! He is hamstringing domestic production, and he also knows that these foreign producers are not gonna do it just because he says so.

Look, his entire economic plan -- green energy and all that -- depends on rising energy prices.

So we can't drill our way out of the problem, but they can. They can drill our way out of the problem. All these foreign producers, yeah, if they just drill more, if they just up their output, yeah, baby, yeah, that helps us. Obama says there's not a silver bullet to lower gas prices. But there is. It's called boosting production. It's worked every time it's tried.”

And then of course to add his media tweak, he continued, “In 2008 when Bush announced the end of the Gulf drilling moratorium -- this was after Katrina -- folks, the barrel price literally fell off of a cliff. I have the chart. I could show you on the Dittocam. The price just fell. So the caller could be right. This could be a giant scam Obama's setting up to end his drilling moratorium in the Gulf a year from now causing the oil price to plummet and gas prices to do likewise. It wouldn't be the first time something like that happened in politics.”

So, we’re importing more oil, but we can’t drill for our own? We can’t drill for our own, because the mask of our State religion (a.k.a. "Environmentalism") must be used to force a transfer from fossil fuels to alternative energies. What and where are the alternative energies? Exactly…they don’t exist. So as we’re significantly limiting our own sources of energy, and we’re unable to replace them with nonexistent alternative energy sources, we continue to import more oil from other regions of the world. Nevermind that in a majority of cases, these countries care little for America…I guess as long as we keep the façade of eco-friendship cycling on our own monitors, while continuing to encourage, and even help stimulate, the “drill, baby, drill” philosophy in other parts of the world, contributing to their economies and their job markets, not our own, then somehow that should make us feel better about our part in a perceived ‘cleaner’ world? And surely that’ll bring ‘peace to the Mid-East’ as well, right? Meanwhile in the real world, fuel prices are skyrocketing as a result of all these despotic actions, or inactions, depending on how you look at it.

Continuing the discussion, yesterday in the second hour of The Mark Levin Show, Mark takes this all too familiar topic of rising fuel prices, discussed in prior shows (here, here and here), and sheds further light on how the Obama Administration has created no new sources of energy, while simultaneously obstructing old sources: “Obama’s out there, you can see the fuel prices, unbelievable, unnecessary and unbelievable, he’s out there taking credit for ‘the most oil production ever’. That’s what he says, have you noticed that? ‘It’s not a production problem, we have the most production ever’…every interview. And then we have an interview right here where he says we need to do what? We need to increase oil production.” [skip to 1:53]

Levin continues, “All you liberals must be so damn confused. You got the talking points yesterday, and that was to blame speculators. Now here we have the President today talking about we need more production, while he obstructs production. So in other words, we’re never gonna get out of this until we change presidents, I can tell you that right now.”

Red State reports that the White House is falsely taking credit for an increase in oil production:

It is categorically true that, while the numbers may be factual, Obama Administration policies had nothing whatever to do with the production buildup in late ‘09 into early 2010.  That production growth is due almost entirely to a handful of large deepwater fields, notably BP’s Thunder Horse, which came on production during that time frame.  So Thunder Horse by itself accounts for almost all of that abrupt ramp-up in oil production.

Does Obama deserve credit?

Thunder Horse sits in 6,200 feet of water. The leases date from 1988 (Reagan) and 1994 (Clinton). The discovery well was drilled in 1999, and the platform was set in 2005, during the George W. Bush Administration.

Due to the Deepwater Moratorium/Permitorium and the shutdown of the Offshore Leasing Program, we have essentially stopped looking for the next Thunder Horse.

Instead, half the available rig fleet sits idle due to a lack of permits. The BOEMRE’s current permitting backlog is comprised of 270 shallow-water and 52 deepwater wells. The Obama Adminstration threatens to reject seven of the outstanding deepwater permits rather than comply with Judge Feldman’s order to approve them or show cause within 30 days.

Production elsewhere in the U.S. has also increased, but no thanks to Obama’s policies. It is industry ingenuity and competitiveness that has led the production growth, in the Bakken Shale of North Dakota, the Eagleford Shale of South Texas and in the Permian Basin of West Texas. This increase is driven by technology (horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing) and by product prices. None of these areas are primarily on Federal lands; they have excelled in spite of hostile Federal policies, not because of them.

Levin wraps up the topic: “Obama has absolutely nothing to do with increased production last year and at the end of the year before, and everything to do with the inability to drill new wells, expand on old ones, to expand refineries and build new ones. THAT is the Obama Policy! Now, this is consistent with how Obama behaves. All these things, whether it’s NASA, whether it’s the great American military, whether it’s oil rigs and leases to drill in certain areas, they’ve been done before Obama became president. And so what he does is uses them and destroys them. He hasn’t created any new sources of energy. I want you to listen to me: Obama and his administration haven’t created any new sources of energy, period. And they’re obstructing old sources of energy. They are crippling NASA. They are slicing and dicing the United States military. They’re destroying our currency; they’re destroying our credit rating…

…Obama is a serial liar (that’s right, I said it)…whether it comes to Medicare or Medicaid, whether it comes to the deficit, what he ‘inherited’, whether it comes to oil production, he has to lie, not only because that’s the nature of his philosophy, but he has to cover up the disaster that is his presidency. So he has to take credit for what’s come before, even though he hates everyone and everything that has come before. Neat trick?”

Combine all of this and you get a grand receipt, not only at the pump, but for broad suppressive failure. And we’re supposed to buy that this somehow gives him an edge in the next election?! Even if this administration were to lift the ban preceding his re-election bid, are you that gullible to think he’d actually keep it lifted afterwards and not return to his same destructive policies? Right…he’d go right back to reloading those silver bullets for the werewolf he sees as America.

And just to cover all the basis, here's a conclusive reality check for our eco-friends:

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

The ‘Silliness’ of the Obama sideshow

This morning, Barack Obama finally released his long form birth certificate… 2 ½ years after entering the office of President…

‘Bemusement’? ‘Puzzled’? Seriously?! Why is it so bemusing or puzzling that Americans would like to know if the man they’ve elected President is constitutionally qualified to hold the office, particularly when questions were raised prior to his election? I’m puzzled and bemused that it’s taken so long!

ABC reports on Trump’s response: "Our president has finally released a birth certificate," he said. Obama "should have done it a long time ago. Why he didn't.... I don't know." Well, I’ve got a few ideas. Because of the contentious nature of this president, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that if something is demanded of him, particularly when that comes down to divulging personal information, this guy would rather pursue the path of community agitator over honest representative, wasting the time, energy, money and focus of those that might otherwise pledge these resources towards fighting his destructive policies. Also though, the man is facing a tough re-election bid, despite what the media trumpets, so perhaps this is his perceived ‘come clean’ moment.  Or it could have also just come down to poll numbers.

A couple of other observations arise, not about the birth certificate per say, but about the delivery of this press event. He talks about the problems that face our nation, and how we need to tackle them in a serious and bipartisan way. Yet, every display that we’ve seen over the past few weeks, particularly towards Ryan’s budget, have been volatile insults launched at Republicans that lead to anything but bipartisanship. He speaks of ‘distraction’. Can we say ‘golf’, ‘vacations’ or ‘parties’? He speaks of not being able to solve problems because of time spent “vilifying each other” and “making stuff up” and pretending “facts are not facts.” Umm, has he actually heard the vitriolic speeches that he’s espoused on his current campaign trail, some of which I'm sure he'll give this very week, perhaps on this very day?! As Jake Tapper points out, he couldn't even get his own facts straight in this address!  Has this man not been the enabler of the ‘sideshows’ and ‘carnival barkers’ that he speaks of? What arrogance and condescension!

So now, Obama wants to get back to serious matters, “I’ve got better stuff to do.” You know, like flying to Chicago for an Oprah interview, then on to New York for more campaign appearances! You’re right about one thing, Mr. Obama…"We don’t have time for this silliness.” But you can guarantee more, particularly when it comes to releasing those school transcripts that'll probably take another 2 1/2 years...after he's out of office, God willing!

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

China, oil bans and gas hikes, oh my!

The International Monetary Fund dropped a bombshell that most didn’t initially notice (unless you listen to talk radio, of course): China’s economy will surpass the U.S. in 2016! Market Watch says, “For the first time, the international organization has set a date for the moment when the “Age of America” will end and the U.S. economy will be overtaken by that of China.” Not only does this put into context the dire decisions that Washington needs to make towards real, sustainable debt reduction, but this also “casts a deepening cloud over both the U.S. dollar and the giant Treasury market…”

Don’t like the idea of a weak dollar? Tough, get used to it! That’s what a CNBC report tells us: “Weakness in the US dollar, which is causing everything to go up—including gas prices, food and stocks—is unlikely to go away soon as a selling frenzy hits the currency market.” This is something that Steve Wynn warned us about last week. The piece goes on to identify the ‘combination of factors’ that account for the weakened state of the dollar: “the Federal Reserve's easy-money policies, huge national debts and deficits and the consequential possibility of a debt downgrade because of the financial mess in Washington leading the way.” A.K.A. “the Obama Administration”…these are the same ‘geniuses’ that declare we must unequivocally raise the debt ceiling, so justification can be allotted for more wasteful spending! This is simply wrongheaded. If my family makes plans for a trip (“passes legislation”), then finds out we don’t have the money for it (“out of budget”), plus on top of that, we have an unexpectedly huge electric bill one month (“debt/deficit”), then guess what? We’re not taking that trip until we’ve taken care of the necessities (“implementation halted, defunding nonessentials, debt reduction enacted, Treasury replenished)! See how out of touch Washington Fantasy Island is?!

Another blow to our economy comes in the form of the EPA’s constant attack on energy. As Levin always accurately states, “The Greens are the new Reds.” Fox News reports, “EPA rules force Shell to abandon oil drilling plans in the Arctic Ocean north of Alaska.” After Shell has spent five years, nearly $4 billion dollars on plans to explore for oil, with leases alone costing $2.2 billion, the EPA pulls the rug out from under them. “The decision comes following a ruling by the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board to withhold critical air permits. The move has angered some in Congress and triggered a flurry of legislation aimed at stripping the EPA of its oil drilling oversight.” Umm, ya think?!  Funny how we can't drill, yet the Obama administration is fine with, and even funding in some cases, other countries drilling all around us!

Let’s not be too hasty in blaming a weak dollar alone in raising gas prices, though. Hmmm, wonder what else could be causing the gas prices to suddenly skyrocket? Oh, I don’t know, perhaps the oil ban that the administration has imposed on the industry for the past year?! Yet while gas prices are topping $1-a-gallon higher than one year ago, the mainstream media maintain, “It’s not Obama’s fault!” The Media Research Center reports, “The Business & Media Institute found that out of the 280 oil price stories the network evening shows have aired since the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, only 1 percent (3 stories) mentioned Obama's drilling ban or other anti-oil actions in connection with gasoline prices.” Only 1% of evening news stories have mustered the cahones to link the rising prices to Obama’s drilling ban. Wow, how ‘bout that cutting-edge journalism?!

And the lib media definitely tried to bury this headline: “Obama’s Energy Sec. wants $7 to $9 Unleaded gas prices “ Red State reports, "...Energy Sec. Chu suggested unleaded prices would solve our energy problems forcing people to buy alternative energy cars and sub compacts.” These guys have a bizarre approach towards energy efficiency for the sake of ‘the people’, don’t they? BTW, where are all those 'alternatives' to make up for the lack of real fuel sources?  And I don’t recall the state-sanctioned environmental religion being part of the Constitution, do you? Where are all the ‘separation of church and state’ activist on this one? Oh yeah, they’re among the eco-religious ones pushing all this crap!  So many questions...

Meanwhile, while the electric car drivers may be dodging the pain at the pump, “there's one expense they may not be able to shake: paying to maintain the roads.” Yep, Big Government may not be able to get you at the pump, but they’ll get you one way or another, come sticker price or ‘fee’. AP reports, “After years of urging residents to buy fuel-efficient cars and giving them tax breaks to do it, Washington state lawmakers are considering a measure to charge them a $100 annual fee — what would be the nation's first electric car fee.” Many other states are looking towards ‘fee’ routes as well.

And rounding out the dismantlement, as if our light bulbs and toilets weren’t enough, the Washington Times reports that now “ice makers are the latest target in the left’s ongoing war against the conveniences of modern life.”

Why are we allowing this, America?

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We did't pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children what it was once like in the United States when men were free” ~ Ronald Reagan

Monday, April 25, 2011

How 'bout that Easter message?

On Easter morning, I attended church services and enjoyed a sermon celebrating the Glorious Resurrection of Jesus Christ and what that means for all of Christendom. I’m pretty certain I didn’t hear anything remotely similar to this discussed…

As The Blaze reports, “…while the media rushed to report on the first family’s attendance of the predominately black congregation (and the family’s outfits), what it failed to mention was the views held by the church’s pastor. And while those views are not delivered in the same fiery manner as Obama’s former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, they sound eerily familiar.”

You can say that again!

This sermon lacked in religious context on the same level that Obama’s Easter proclamation lacked in…existence! That’s right, folks, as Fox Nation reports, we didn’t get one:

President Obama failed to release a statement or a proclamation recognizing the national observance of Easter Sunday, Christianity's most sacred holiday.

By comparison, the White House has released statements recognizing the observance of major Muslim holidays and released statements in 2010 on Ramadan, Eid-ul-Fitr, Hajj, and Eid-ul-Adha.

The White House also failed to release a statement marking Good Friday. However, they did release an eight-paragraph statement heralding Earth Day. Likewise, the president's weekend address mentioned neither Good Friday or Easter.

And Weasel Zippers appropriately declares, “Hey, it’s not like Easter is the holiest of all Christian holidays . . . no, wait?”  So no Easter proclamation, well, unless you consider his “There’s something about the Resurrection” comments at Tuesday’s WH Easter breakfast as his ‘proclamation’.

To be fair, Obama did recount as historically accurate facts surrounding the Crucifixion and Resurrection as his speechwriters were capable of conveying, so surely that’s commendable. “Our Son…[doh]…His Son.” But not quite as formal or focused as his muslim proclamations, like this, or this, or his description of the Islamic Call to Prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset"...but beggers can't be choosers, right?

Love him or hate him (I fall more into the ‘disagreed with his establishment brand’ category), Bush 43, in all his flustered speaking glory, gave some arguably more personal messages to the nation:

In 2007, he said, “The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the most important event of the Christian faith.” “On this powerful day, let us join together and give thanks to the Almighty for the glory of His grace,” he added.

In his 2008 Easter message, President Bush said: “The Resurrection of Jesus Christ reminds people around the world of the presence of a faithful God who offers a love more powerful than death. Easter commemorates our Savior's triumph over sin, and we take joy in spending this special time with family and friends and reflecting on the many blessings that fill our lives. During this season of renewal, let us come together and give thanks to the Almighty who made us in His image and redeemed us in His love.”

Whatever…let’s just laugh it off with the rest of the White House…

A lasting bond: Christianity and Conservatism

Upon reflection of the Easter celebration of the Resurrected Christ, the state of our world, and the influences of politics, particularly with regard to its effects on ‘Liberty’, I began thinking about a personal belief that I’m certain is shared by many, but that is also viewed by some within, and outside, the Establishment as ‘controversial’, particularly in our secular post-modern era. I would contend that Christianity and Conservatism are inseparable. Now that is not to say that one cannot be a conservative if one is not Christian, that is not my intent; rather, my purpose is to point out the integral compatibility between Christian theology and conservative political philosophy. Furthermore, as some would imply that Christianity might weaken Conservatism, I’d arduously profess quite the opposite. Christian principles strengthen Conservatism through one of the most recognized means: a moral order in a civil society.

As The Cornerstone Group blog so accurately states:
Religion, indeed, with few exceptions, has always been a key element in Conservative thinking. Ever since Edmund Burke wrote Reflections on the Revolution in France, conservatism has largely been advanced on the basis of a Christian worldview. For Burke religion was “the basis of civil society”. He called Christianity “one great source of civilisation”.

Considered the “Father of Conservatism”, Edmund Burke maintained a definitive belief in God that wholly encompassed his philosophy. Burke explicitly protested the Age of Reason with his shared thoughts on the Divine. He was expressly outraged at the arrogant dismissals of the so-called ‘Enlightened’, and willfully defended Divine Providence:

“I allow that, if no supreme ruler exists, wise to form, and potent to enforce, the moral law, there is no sanction to any contract, virtual or even actual, against the will of prevalent power… If ye despise the human race and mortal arms, yet remember that there is a God who is mindful of right and wrong… out of physical causes, unknown to us, perhaps unknowable, arise moral duties, which, as we are able perfectly to comprehend, we are bound indispensably to perform.”

Burke also emphasized the importance of a statesman’s Christianity in allowing Providence to guide his political endeavors. The modern liberal notion of ‘separating Church and State’ in Burke’s philosophy would have been preposterous! As Russell Kirk wrote, “…Burke’s was a lofty faith, but it was also the faith of a practical man, joined to ideas of public honor and responsibility. A man who believes that a just God rules the world; that the course of history has been determined, though commonly in ways inscrutable, by His Providence; that individual station in life is assigned by “a divine tactic”; that original sin and aspiration toward the good both are part of God’s design; that the reformer first should endeavor to discern the lineaments of a Providential order, and then endeavor to conform political arrangements to the dictates of a natural justice... These are the religious principles of a man profoundly familiar with the world of experience. And Burke proceeds to make his creed still more a part of private and political life.”

Edmund Burke recognized the negative elements that detach man from Divinity, but to be wise in acknowledging that the establishments of positivity alone do not gain Providential favor. Rather, overcoming ones vices through these principled establishments set man on a more righteous path. He explained conservatism as wisdom attained through Providence and Reason.  Burke could repeat from memory a quote of Richard Hooker, “The reason first why we do admire those things which are greatest and second those things which are ancientest, is because the one are the least distant from the infinite substance, the other from the infinite continuance, of God.”  And in this shared prescriptive philosophy, Burke found it necessary to restate as Kirk describes, "the premises of men who have faith in an enduring order of life."

Scores of philosophers, and politicians alike, followed Burke in the defense of religion’s role through the constitution of a moral order, and Christianity specifically has been a traditional key element of conservative thought. In one such area that this can be seen, which is also one that liberals poignantly ridicule conservatives for, is in the duty to help the poor. As once again The Cornerstone Group points out:

But few ecclesiastics – at least before the 1960s – identified this with uncritical support for the socialist welfare state as the ideal engine of charity. More authentically Christian is the principle of “subsidiarity”, as defined by Pope Pius XI in 1931 in his encyclical Quadragesimo Anno:

“Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice …to assign to a greater or higher association what lesser or subordinate organisations can do.”

This is entirely at one with Burke’s attachment to “the little platoon we belong to in society” as “the first link in the series by which we proceed towards a love of our country, and to mankind.”

The modern liberal contends that conservatives are not advocates of peace, compassion or love, usually by blowing the dust off a Bible and cracking it open to throw out a multitude of verses about the poor, and occasionally but more comically ironic, taxes. But quite to the contrary, conservatives advocate all of these principles, and more, just not with the devices of coercion and force through the State! Individual liberty, or free will, always seems to be the common subtraction from the liberal equation.

Perhaps some might conclude that it is the exclusion of religious principles, along with the inclusion of more secular thought, which has given rise to a decline in Conservatism throughout the turn of the century. Likewise, could it now be that the ‘Faithful’ conservative, who’s been derogatorily dubbed the “Religious Right”, has been the catalyst of a conservative ascendancy? That Christian principles and constitutional liberty go hand in hand? Food for thought as we proclaim, “Christ Is Risen!”

Additional source: The Conservative Mind

ADDENDUM: Renew America also has an extensive article concerning this topic that's worth checking out.

Sunday, April 24, 2011

Happy Easter!

Hope everyone had a Blessed Easter during this time of the year when we celebrate the Resurrection of Christ!  As has been my motto all day..."back to family!"

Christos Anesti!

Friday, April 22, 2011

Myth busting the Debt Ceiling

Here’s one that every single member of Congress should receive, read, and REALIZE before any consideration on raising the debt ceiling. I seriously doubt that most know this, but are instead listening to Obama, Geithner and others creating a ‘sky-is-falling’ scenario, that doesn’t actually exist. The recurring reasons given that are said to ‘require’ an increase in the debt ceiling are dishonest assessments. Here’s what Walter Cruttenden tells us about the Three Myths Of The Debt Ceiling Debate:

One. If the debt ceiling is not increased immediately the existing debt can still be serviced through tax revenues for quite some time. While it is true that the US has gotten into the habit of servicing old debt by issuing new debt there is nothing wrong with using tax revenues to service the debt while a realistic budget is being worked out. It is possible that some of the current government programs may have to be cut back depending on how long the negotiations persist but isn’t that the whole point? If we can eventually cut government enough to live within our means we will never have to worry about debt ceiling limits and the repercussions of sensible negotiations.

Two. The principles of supply and demand apply just as well to the capital markets as they do to our local farmer’s markets. If bumping up against the debt limit causes fewer new bonds to be issued, and demand stays the same, then interest rates will likely decline not rise. Scaring the citizens into approving an increase in the debt limit without a budget deal will not cause the rules of the marketplace to magically change.

Three. If the US does not approve an increase in the debt limit it will not suddenly cause a loss of international credibility. What will cause a loss of credibility is if the US approves an increase in the debt limit “without” making any serious attempt to work towards a balanced budget. Foreign investors have been increasingly wary of US fiscal policy as evidenced by the decline of the dollar versus gold and foreign currencies. If we were serious enough to not increase the debt limit until we had a reasonable budget agreement the result would likely be “increased” credibility not a loss of credibility.

Cruttenden ends this piece with warning against the scare tactics practiced by the administration (on a far too regular basis, I might add) and gives us an important reminder: “To be frightened or bullied into anything less is not worthy of the principles upon which this nation was founded.”  Are you listening, GOP leadership?!

ADDENDUM: The latest CBS News Poll shows that a clear majority of Americans aren't falling for these fallacies will the leadership follow our lead?  This Reuters report cast serious doubt that they will: "As Washington gears up for a fight over the debt ceiling, lawmakers are considering an approach that would allow them to say they are adopting fiscal discipline over the long term even as they vote for increased borrowing."  The majority of Americans can see right through that one too, boys!  And we're not alone: Republican Pat Toomey, joined by Andrew McCarthy of NRO, are giving conservatives a glimmer of hope that some want to do the right thing.  Help them out by phoning, faxing and emailing your congress members!

Thursday, April 21, 2011

The Welfare State in full effect

Of the latest headlines from FOXBusiness, one worrisome one says it all: Government Cash Handouts Now Top Tax Revenues

U.S. households are now getting more in cash handouts from the government than they are paying in taxes for the first time since the Great Depression.

The reactionary, or liberal, might say, “Great! We’re getting back more of our money.” Not exactly. Couple this with the news received last week that the level of working Americans has shrunk to early ‘80’s levels, and the picture begins to reveal the ugly truth: the level of government-dependent Americans has soared under this welfare president. The imbalance of ‘givers’ and ‘takers’ skews ever more. And just for clarification, we’re talking about those who work, the productive, and those who do not, the deadbeats. We’re NOT talking about children who haven’t entered the workforce, the elderly who have ‘given’ plenty and now deserve what’s ‘received’, or even those who are honestly seeking employment in these tough times.

Government cash handouts account for a whopping 79% of household growth since 2007, even as household tax payments--for things like the income and payroll tax, among other taxes--have fallen by $312 billion.

FOX Director of Business News, Ray Hennessey states, “In a free market, profit is generated by hard work and enterprise…Because of the labor of the worker, companies generally have the ability to prosper and make more money, both for their employees and their owners," which in turn creates tax revenues…But not in our country today…Wealth creation is coming from DC, not from America’s entrepreneurs.

This is European-style socialism, folks. The government picks the winners and the losers; it takes from the givers and gives to the takers at will. This piece ends with a couple of questions:

What government policies will bring the U.S. labor market back to robust health, enough to drive economic growth, consumer spending -- and higher tax revenues?
When will the U.S. government pull back from its intervention into the U.S. economy, so the economy can try to stand on its own?

Let’s take a stab at answering these...for the first, how about when we return to supply side economics, actually ‘reform’ entitlement handouts, incentivizing the workforce, and produce a real budget that caps federal spending! For the second, that one’s simpler: when, and if, the American People decide to install a REAL Leader in 2012.

As Frank Gutting wrote about Obama’s Misery Index:

With 10% inflation and 17% real unemployment, Barack Obama’s misery index is 27. This is the change Obama promised in 2008. This is the change he intends to bring. Don’t like it? Vote for a new President in 2012!

The new word is “Radical”

“Radical”, “[not] particularly courageous”, “short sighted”, “wrong for America”…these are the words and phrases that Obama used at his Facebook town hall to describe Paul Ryan’s budget plan and his ‘provocative’ belief that the President has an obligation to save the U.S. from bankruptcy which he believes is imminent if serious budget cuts are not made.

Levin took note of the ‘radical’ reference as an “attempt to use the language, to deceive, to fog, to create ambiguity, to confuse; so the radical, who follows the Rules for Radicals, is now going to call anything he disagrees with “Radical”.”

“Our Sovereign is lying to his subjects. Now why would he do that? To try and control you? To try and manipulate you? And here we have a young man named Paul Ryan whose actually trying to do something, and he’s the ‘radical’. Meanwhile, the man whose been radical his entire life, whose pushing the society off the edge, he’s the centrist, thoughtful, moderate one, right? No, wrong!”

This starts to tie into my last post, but so be it. Obama calls Ryan’s plan ‘radical’, though it has NO effect whatsoever on current and soon-to-be Medicare recipients; yet, Obama and Democrats are fine with cutting half a trillion dollars out of Medicare to help pay for his top-down government-run healthcare plan, so who’s the ‘radical’ here?! Ryan’s not even talking about getting rid of Medicare, nor does his plan; Obama is the only one mentioning that.

Likewise, at the same Facebook forum, Obama tells a sympathetic story to an impressionable young crowd (he can’t seem to talk to adults anymore) of his family’s plight with food stamps and other social welfare programs, and how they helped to raise and mold our community-agitator-in-chief to be the prosperous narcissist he is today. Meanwhile, Obama and Democrats were ‘reluctantly’ fine with slashing food-stamp programs for a state-aid bailout of unions and Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” initiative. Yet again, we’re to believe that Paul Ryan is the bogeyman, the “radical”? Come on, folks…

What’s all the talk on Medicare?

USA Today reports that the Obama administration ‘eases’ the pain of Medicare cuts. Let’s see how they spin this one:

Millions of seniors in popular private insurance plans offered through Medicare will be getting a reprieve from some of the most controversial cuts in President Obama’s health care law.

In a policy shift critics see as political, the Health and Human Services department has decided to award quality bonuses to hundreds of Medicare Advantage plans rated merely average.

Rush helps translate this for us:

“This is another waiver from Obamacare. This one for seniors so they can keep the Medicare Advantage plans that they chose. They were originally gonna have to get rid of 'em but now as we head into a reelection effort, uh-oh, so while he's out there in a partisan way apparently not benefiting from it, still accusing the Republicans of the usual death threats against seniors, here comes Obama saying, "You know what, I'm gonna give you a waiver." Right. Obama…has exempted the seniors from further Medicare cuts. They get to keep their Medicare Advantage. Another waiver from the regime, another tacit admission that Obamacare hurts the very people it is intended to assist.”

So while Obama is out there back on the campaign trail (as if he ever left) talking down, misinforming and boldfaced lying about Paul Ryan’s plan, while pushing his own ‘proposal’ (you know, the one that doesn’t actually exist), some have taken the time to compare the two, content to concept. And as the chief actuary for Medicare stated in January that he had more confidence that Ryan’s Road Map would actually drive down healthcare costs over Obamacare’s capabilities, Dick Morris discovers another interesting little fact when comparing the effects on Medicare between both plans: the Democratic cuts are far more immediate and drastic than anything in the GOP proposal.

“While the Republican Medicare changes only take effect in 2021, Obama’s cuts will begin hurting seniors right away. The president’s healthcare legislation imposed a hard spending cap on Medicare ?– the first time it has ever had one — which he has just proposed lowering by another one-half of 1 percent of GDP (a further cut of about $70 billion a year).”

Is that Medicare waiver before the 2012 elections making sense to you now? Use the mind that God gave you, folks, and sniff out the obvious posturing and maneuvering for duped votes!  To boot, we’re probably going to start hearing a little more (but I wouldn't depend on the MSM) about this Independent Payment Advisory Board that’s sounding like the death panels and rationing boards rolled into one unelected entity:

“Obama’s cuts, which will take effect immediately, are to be administered by his newly created Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) of 15 members appointed by the president. Its recommendations for cuts in Medicare services or for reductions in reimbursement will not be subject to congressional approval but will take effect by administrative fiat. Right now.

The IPAB will be, essentially, the rationing board that will decide who gets what care. Its decisions will be guided by a particularly vicious concept of Quality Adjusted Life Years (QUALYS). If you have enough QUALYS ahead of you, you’ll be approved for a hip replacement or a heart transplant. If not, you’re out of luck. Perforce, many of these cuts will fall on those at the end of their lives, reducing their options to accommodate Obama’s mandate to cut costs. If death comes sooner, well, that’s the price of aging in Obama’s America.”

Now, unlike Obama’s campaign rhetoric, Morris accurately describes Ryan’s plan (something Trump and apparently others continue to misunderstand):

“Ryan’s approach is totally different. First, he does nothing at all to cut benefits for those now on Medicare or for anyone who turns 65 before 2022 (leaving me in the clear!). Second, the Republicans would leave the elderly in charge of their own medical decisions by letting them spend their Medicare money as they wish. The subsidy they would receive for health insurance would permit them to buy plans tailored to their needs. Just as a myriad of insurance-company plans sprang up to fill the mandates of the new prescription drug benefit, there will likely be quite an array of choices for the elderly of 2021. Finally, the savings from Ryan’s plan will be plowed back into Medicare, prolonging its life, rather than being diverted, as Obama would do, into paying for a new entitlement for younger people.”

Let me repeat that again: Ryan’s plan does nothing to affect current or soon-to-be Medicare recipients! Unlike Obama’s empty promises that “you can keep your plan” or the lies to cover up ‘death panels’, Ryan’s plan is spelled out quite coherently. Doesn’t sound like ‘feeding granny dog food’, does it…unlike Obama’s plan with the uncertainty of whether ‘granny’ will even be around?!

As Morris concludes, “Democrats are drooling over the prospect of conducting the elections of 2012 over Medicare. They better watch their steps. The truth might come out!” And I would add, that is if Republicans can find the courage to fight fire with fire and call them on it!

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

What the government is taking away

Steve Wynn had a poignant talk with Neil Cavuto last night about how Obama’s economic policies are hurting the economy and the working class.  Listen to what Wynn has to say about Obama's 'disingenuous' and repetitive line, "Millionaires and Billionaires should pay their fair share."

Wynn's conclusion incites an overwhelming sense of clarity, even for Cavuto!

Everybody talks about what the government is giving them, but hardly anybody talks about what the government is taking away. And I am telling you, and it’s clear in every measurement that you can look at, that the standard of living, the quality of life of the working class of America, is being deteriorated in real time because of the falling value of the dollar. When the prices at Walmart go up, when the price at the grocery store goes up, when the price at the gas pump goes up, you can say that it’s because of the disturbance in the Mid-East, that’s maybe part of it, you can say that because of worldwide demand of food is higher, but the fact of the matter is that’s a fraction of the increase. What’s happening is the dollar is getting cheaper…That’s what’s really going on here. Nobody in the government ever talks about what they’re taking away from the working people in this country. And I think the most important thing that’s gotta be done is the truth has to come out. The populist rhetoric is very carefully designed to hide the truth.

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

No love lost between Obama and Texas

President Obama has troubles with voters in Texas, and, apparently, with interviewers from the Lone Star State as well.

Leave it up to a local Dallas, TX reporter to get a rise out of Obama! This is probably the first time he's actually been challenged in an interview since the Bret Baier sitdown over a year ago...and he didn't like it.

Wonder if he gave the same 'executive order' to Bret that he gave to Brad after the interview was over?  Perhaps not...he's become more arrogant and emboldened now.

At any rate, I think it's safe to say that there's no 'slobbering love affair' with Obama in Texas.  And I get the feeling is mutual when he says, "I love...uh, (pause)...Texas."

Statism’s poisoned well

"Woe to those who scheme iniquity, who work out evil on their beds! When morning comes, they do it, for it is in the power of their hands. They covet fields and then seize them, and houses, and take them away. They rob a man and his house, a man and his inheritance." ~ Micah 2:1-2

Late last week we learned from a USA Today finding that when excluding the military and the self-employed, “The share of the population that is working fell to its lowest level last year since women started entering the workforce in large numbers three decades ago…Only 45.4% of Americans had jobs in 2010, the lowest rate since 1983 and down from a peak of 49.3% in 2000.” Concurrently, we learned that jobless claims are ‘unexpectedly’ on the rise (we expected them, because the administration’s not counting real numbers), while inflation pressures grow. Need I mention the rising energy prices, particular at the pump? Add this to Obama’s dominant theme of 'taxing the rich', and you’ve produced the volatile cocktail that has Standard & Poor’s negative outlook ready to downgrade our credit rating regardless of whether or not the debt ceiling is raised because of Washington’s lack of seriousness when tackling debt reduction. To further illustrate that lack of seriousness, the administration was quick to discredit S&P's downgrade of its U.S. credit outlook as a “a political judgment that should not be taken too seriously,” when what this potential downgrading is really about as Rush so eloquently put it, “This is Standard & Poor's telling Obama he is a disaster. This is Standard & Poor's telling the world Obama is a disaster. This is Standard & Poor's telling the American people Obama is a disaster.” He continued with an important message:

“And this is not about raising the debt ceiling. They want it to be thought of as happening commensurate with that as a way to get people to go along without fighting an increase in the debt ceiling. This is about the debt that Obama created. That's what that rating is all about. If Obama was a CEO with a private company, he would be facing an SEC investigation because of his lies about the nation's financial situation. Folks, what he has done here -- I've gotta be very careful in my choice of words. What he has done here borders on the legal. Now, Obama gets his power from government -- that's from government unions, spending tax dollars -- from voters who benefit from redistribution. There's no way Obama's ever going to do what’s best for society generally. He'd have to abandon who he is to do what's best for society. He has been trained to be what he has been indoctrinated to be: An agent of an ever-expanding government that limits the power and freedom of the individual.”

The latter of which is something Mark Levin has warned us about Obama.

Another toxic component is something else that Rush covered: a media locked in its own narrative when it comes to the Left’s philosophy of taxation, or 'taxing the rich'…from Schieffer...

…to Amanpour…

“The liberal template is set, and the facts don’t matter.”

Now consider all of this information when reading, as most I’m sure already have, Sunday’s WSJ article entitled Where the Tax Money Is, describing precisely how Obama is targeting the middle class while pretending to tax 'the rich':

“Consider the Internal Revenue Service's income tax statistics for 2008, the latest year for which data are available. The top 1% of taxpayers—those with salaries, dividends and capital gains roughly above about $380,000—paid 38% of taxes. But assume that tax policy confiscated all the taxable income of all the "millionaires and billionaires" Mr. Obama singled out. That yields merely about $938 billion, which is sand on the beach amid the $4 trillion White House budget, a $1.65 trillion deficit, and spending at 25% as a share of the economy, a post-World War II record.

Say we take it up to the top 10%, or everyone with income over $114,000, including joint filers. That's five times Mr. Obama's 2% promise. The IRS data are broken down at $100,000, yet taxing all income above that level throws up only $3.4 trillion. And remember, the top 10% already pay 69% of all total income taxes, while the top 5% pay more than all of the other 95%.”

Not to get bogged down in numbers, if you aren’t already, but here’s the gist of it:

“…The rich, in short, aren't nearly rich enough to finance Mr. Obama's entitlement state ambitions—even before his health-care plan kicks in.

So who else is there to tax? Well, in 2008, there was about $5.65 trillion in total taxable income from all individual taxpayers, and most of that came from middle income earners…

This is politically risky, however, so Mr. Obama's game has always been to pretend not to increase taxes for middle class voters while looking for sneaky ways to do it. His first budget in 2009 included a "climate revenues" section from the indirect carbon tax of cap and trade, which of course would be passed down to all consumers. Such Democratic luminaries as Nancy Pelosi have often chattered about a European-style value-added tax, or VAT, which from a liberal perspective has the virtue of applying to every level of production or service and therefore is largely hidden from the people who pay it.

Now that those two ideas have failed politically, Mr. Obama is turning as he did last week to limiting tax deductions and other "loopholes," such as for mortgage interest payments. We support doing away with these distortions too, and so does Mr. Ryan, but in return for lower tax rates. Mr. Obama just wants the extra money, which he says will reduce the deficit but in practice will merely enable more spending.”

And the conclusion:

“…Mr. Obama's speech was disgraceful for its demagoguery but also because it contained nothing remotely commensurate to the scale of the problem. If the President had come out for a large tax on the middle class, like a VAT, then at least the country could have debated the choice of paying for the government we have or modernizing it a la Mr. Ryan so it is affordable.

Instead the President will continue targeting the middle class for tax increases to pay for an entitlement state on autopilot, while claiming he only wants to tax the rich.”

So, where is this conversation going? Right here: When the top 1% of American earners are paying 40% of the taxes, while the bottom 40% of earners, on average, are making a profit from federal income taxes (getting more money back from tax credits than they pay in), then the last bogus conversation should be the class envy rhetoric of 'taxing the rich', particularly when these so-called 'rich' include “those with salaries, dividends and capital gains roughly above about $380,000”…lumped in with the millionaires and billionaires, but hardly 'rich'. There are a LOT of small businesses that are in this category, so in affect, this administration is at war with small business, and by default, real economic growth and prosperity. This is nothing new from the Democrat’s doctrine of statism, but it is a message that seems to get all too lost with a one-sided media, a deflective administration, and a weak Republican leadership that won’t hit back hard enough against the ensuing class warfare waged by the Obama administration, starting with the man himself.

Then leave it to Rush to take this to the next level:

“If you get $938 billion from the rich, and basically $2,000 billion from everybody else, that gives you $3 trillion (a little bit less than that, actually) and then you're talking about a budget deficit of one to $1.4 trillion, where is the money coming from? The point is you wouldn't even close the deficit if you confiscated everybody's money. If you confiscated every dime of income in this country, you would still -- we would still -- have a trillion-dollar or a half a trillion-dollar deficit every year -- and, by the way, you could do it one time. So next what do you have to do?

Well, next you have to start taxing their children (which is what we've been doing) and then you have to tax their grandchildren. People who are not born yet are paying taxes, in just blunt economic terms. The money at some point has to come from somewhere. We're going out and we're taking money from people not even in the womb yet. That's what we're doing. All the while, this is being blamed on George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and the rich, and our problem is not that we don't have enough money -- well, it is now. It's not just a spending problem. Our problem is a redistribution problem. We're spending money in ways that depress the creation of wealth throughout our society.”

Progressing redistribution, creating economic stress and depressing the markets not only furthers dependency on the State, but helps entrench Democrat power and secure votes, which of course is arguably, but ultimately, their priority. Nevertheless, among a multitude of problems with statism, there is one that of course reflects the same sentiment that Margaret Thatcher pointed out: “eventually you run out of other people's money." And in Obama’s case, he not only can’t find enough to pay towards the debt, but one would first have to accept that this is what he seeks, when manipulating the American People with subversive tax schemes that only prop up more spending seems more likely to fit the bill. Obama’s ‘hope’ is that Americans on whole, and in the hole, won’t ‘change’ their minds about the obfuscations that Big Government sells our civil society, no matter what abyss that will inevitably lead us down. Whereas, conservatives seek a different path, as Margaret Thatcher also described a ‘moral society’: "We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate…not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state." This debate is ultimately up to which direction the middle class desires: statism’s false security through class envy and numeric manipulation or liberty’s tough but rewarding road to prosperity.

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free." ~ Ronald Reagan

Monday, April 18, 2011

Arrogance vs. Timidity…and the role of Courage

Has the GOP leadership already caved on the debt ceiling battle before it’s even begun? Geithner seems to think so, and he tells us how they have…

To spare you from listening to either of these individuals drone on, here’s a report that expands on the topic of the debt ceiling discussed in this interview…we’ll return to this in just a moment.

Now, add this on top of Obama scoffing to campaign donors about Republican efforts to rollback some of his dismantling budget-busting policies through the normal legislative maneuvers as somehow “under the guise of cutting spending” when rolling back ANYTHING this man has implemented will absolutely curb Washington spending…

…and then you should be able to gather a better picture of what we’re up against: unwavering ideologues that will not back down to timid opposition.

To boot, these arrogant bastards know only a few in the GOP have the courage to play their skewed game of 'chicken' with the American People at stake. But just to assure they'll get the ceiling raised without submitting to any specific stipulations from Republicans, particularly significant spending reductions, they're willing to raise the stakes...this time, they're not only willing to hold the military hostage, they've up'd the game to hold seniors hostage as well. Two groups that these statist radicals could care less about!

America, it's time to decide: will we continue to trade a little temporary security for our precious, sacred Liberty? Will we allow ourselves to feel a little temporary pain to achieve freedom from statism's stranglehold? How can we live with ourselves as a civil society, passing this misery on from one generation to the next, when it doesn't have to be? We cannot afford to slip further into this social democratic tyranny. Constitutional governance, a just rule of law, MUST begin anew! It will require neighbor helping neighbor, charity of family, friend, and perhaps even stranger, but this will be the only way to break this cycle of new socio-economic slavery that our political elites have shackled us with. And the time couldn't be riper for a national turnaround.

Unlike our cowering leadership, here’s the kind of man that will lead us! Among a multitude of issues addressed, Col. West had a few words to say about Obama’s request for a “clean” bill on the debt ceiling: “That dog don’t hunt.”

“I am sick and tire of people saying, “the American People need to make sacrifices.” WASHINGTON, D.C. NEEDS TO MAKE SACRIFICES!” Spot on, Col. West! Instead of threatening our military and seniors, as in this latest debate, Washington needs to be forced to restrain itself. Real leadership would NEVER frame the coming debt ceiling battle in such a revolting manner, nor allow it to be.

‘Defaulting’ is not the ‘only’ option if we don’t raise the debt ceiling. Geithner and Obama, nor the media and pundits, won’t tell you this, because Obama is not about to act responsibly in rolling back any facet of his overburdening policies, particularly not to merely SAVE the Nation! He ‘fought too hard’ for his brand of destruction.

Courageous leadership, not timidity, is required to tackle arrogant ideology, folks.

P.S. Take note Conservatives, Col. West exhibits the kind of leadership that should be at the top of the ticket in 2012!

Sunday, April 17, 2011

The Rule of Law…Liberty from God, of God

Frédéric Bastiat’s The Law has rapidly become my favorite book, particularly pertaining to the direction, or rather ‘misdirection’, that our political leaders are taking this nation through the misuse of law. This book is 160+ years old, and was written around the time of the French Revolution, but you’d swear it was written just yesterday for Americans in the here and now! I could reference numerous points throughout this magnificent work, as I have before and am sure to again, but for those who may not be as familiar with it, let me just give you a taste of this man’s profoundness with passages from the first page and the last…and an appropriate Sunday posting to boot!

We hold from God the gift, which includes all others. This gift is life – physical, intellectual, and moral life.

But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources, we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.

Life, faculties, production – in other words, individuality, liberty, property – this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.

Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.

God has given to men all that is necessary for them to accomplish their destinies. He has provided a social form as well as a human form. And these social organs of persons are so constituted that they will develop themselves harmoniously in the clean air of liberty. Away, then, with quacks and organizers! Away with their rings, chains, hooks, and pincers! Away with their artificial systems! Away with the whims of governmental administrators, their socialized projects, their centralization, their tariffs, their government schools, their state religions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their restrictions, their equalization by taxation, and their pious moralizations!

And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.

Frédéric Bastiat (1801 - 1850)

Friday, April 15, 2011

Obama’s strategy

As the Ryan budget passes the House today, without one Democrat vote to note, it may be wise to keep in mind Keith Hennessey’s conclusions on how ‘that speech’ fits the bill for Obama’s budget strategy leading up to the 2012 election:

1. a small deficit accomplishment to rebuild credibility with independents;
2. a vigorous and political tax fight; and
3. the political benefits of scaring senior citizens

Hennessey elaborates: “The President made his budget strategy clear…Try for a small short-term bipartisan deficit reduction deal this year…Get a signing ceremony…Blast away at Republicans on the big spending issues…Pick a fight over the top tax rates.” Concluding with the following:

The President’s new strategy guarantees two more years of fiscal stalemate and poisons the well on the most important economic policy question facing American policymakers: how to permanently solve the long-term fiscal problem caused by the unsustainable growth of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Yesterday on The Mark Levin Show, he discussed how this strategy falls right in line with one of Barack Obama’s favorite philosophers, Saul Alinsky and his book, Rules for Radicals. This communist doctrine is the new Left’s bible. Mark reads a quote from the 'little red and white book', as he fondly calls it, which precisely describes Obama’s speech:

“Men don’t like to step abruptly out of the security of familiar experience. They need a bridge to cross from their own experience to a new way. A revolutionary organizer must shake up the prevailing patterns of their lives. Agitate, create disenchantment and discontent with the current values to produce, if not a passion for change, at least a passive affirmative non-challenging climate.”

“A reformation means that masses of our people have reached the point of disillusionment with past ways and values. They don’t know what will work, but they do know that the prevailing system is self-defeating, frustrating and hopeless. They won’t act for change, but won’t strongly oppose those who do. The time is then right for revolution”

LEVIN: “That’s exactly what’s going on in this country right now: a counter-revolution to the American Revolution.”

“Remember, once you organize people around something as commonly agreed upon as ‘pollution’, then an organized people is on the move. From there it is a short and natural step to ‘political’ pollution, to ‘Pentagon’ pollution, and I might add, ‘capitalist’ pollution.”

LEVIN: “Obama always talks about the middle class…always claims to be the representative of the middle class, always claims to be protecting the middle class from the rich. Well, if you consider yourself in the middle class, you better pay attention. More Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals…”

“Activist and radicals on and off our college campuses, people who are committed to change, must make a complete turnabout. With rare exceptions, our activist and radicals are products of and rebels against our middle class society. All rebels must attack the power-states in their society. Our rebels have contemptuously rejected the values and way of life of the middle class. They have stigmatized it as materialistic, decadent, bourgeois, degenerate, imperialistic, warmongering, brutalized and corrupt. They are right about the middle class, but we must begin from where we are, if we are to build power for change. The power and the people are in the big middle class majority.”

He later explains that the radicals need to at least pretend they are of the middle class, that they are protecting the middle class, that they stand with the middle class, and then destroy it.

LEVIN: “Obama’s speech yesterday, this is what it was all about: pretending to stand with the middle class, pretending to feel your pain, pretending to know your problem, pretending to stand with the social security recipient, the Medicare patient, the Medicaid patient, pretending to stand with the students, and parents, with their loan problems and colleges, pretending to stand with the parents of Down Syndrome and autistic children, pretending to stand with all of you. And yet he stands with none of you. He wants your votes, he wants your support, to destroy your lifestyle, to destroy your way of life.”

It’s all right there in the little red and white book. Obama is not a Carter, nor a Clinton; he’s an Alinskyite, a Marxist. The sooner more understand this, particularly the Republican leadership, the sooner more might realize that “…you only live once, you only have one opportunity to either be courageous or be a coward, to stand for your family or not, to stand for your country or not.”

Our nation, our civil society, cannot afford to let this destructive strategy go without challenge.

ADDENDUM:  The arrogant Marxist was caught scoffing and lying to campaign donors Thursday evening on an open microphone after reporters had left.  And in another instance we can contrast Obama's take on 'Mediscaring' seniors on two separate occasions.  There is no limit to this man's deception.