Author Archives: Joel Turtel

Obama’s Radical-Left Fanaticism — Thank God

Comrade Obama has repeatedly shown that he is a rabid Marxist who has contempt for America’s founding principles of individual liberty and limited government. This community-organizer is at war with the American people.

We should always judge a man by his actions, not his forked-tongue words. Mr. Obama claims that his policies will benefit Americans. Yet, let’s see his Marxist agenda at work.

He foistered an $800 billion “stimulus” package on us that has stimulated nothing but handouts to car companies, banks, and insurance companies, and put us and our children deeply into debt.

He has claimed the right to “nationalize” whole segments of our free-enterprise economy, including auto companies, banks, and insurance companies.

He intends to bankrupt this country with Obamnation Care. This liar first told us his “health-care” program would cost about $900 billion. Then, just a few weeks ago, the Office of Management and Budget told us the real cost will double to at least $1.75 trillion, based on Obama’s own optimistic numbers. You can be sure the cost will explode again when this monstrosity health-care program kicks into high gear in 2014. This fiscal disaster is a prescription to turn Americainto a bankrupt, socialist banana republic, like Cuba or Venezuela, which is exactly what Barack Hussein wants.

His Marxist EPA regulatory agency is literally trying to destroy the oil, gas, and coal industries in this country with their strangling regulations. His energy Secretary Wu has already admitted in testimony before Congress that he wants gas prices to escalate to over $5 per gallon, like they are inEurope. How many millions of Americans, or company fleets who drive millions of miles a year, will be thrust into poverty or bankruptcy because of exploding gas and fuel prices?

He is threatening the very security of this country by making back-door deals with the Russians to eviscerate our missile-defense system inEurope.

His pro-radical-Islamic sympathies has fostered an Islamic “Springtime” in Egypt, Libya, and other middle-east countries that is now turning into a horrifying “Winter” Islamic nightmare, because radical Islamic groups are now taking control of these countries. We will now be faced with multipleIransin the Middle East, each competing with each other to destroyIsrael, Europe,America, and Western civilization.

He just submitted a $3.6 trillion-dollar budget to Congress that was voted down 414 to 0 on the House floor. His budget couldn’t even get one vote from members of his own party. Comrade Obama, in submitting this budget, showed his psychotic, utter contempt for economic sanity and the American people. It’s a budget that would accelerateAmerica’s plunge into a Greece-like bankruptcy that will make the 1929 Depression, and today’s 9% unemployment rate, look like good times.

If a Communist mole somehow became President of theUnited States, could his policies do any greater harm than Comrade Obama’s?

Yet, there’s one bright gleam of hope in Obama’s Marxist fantasies of a socialist America. His unyielding fanaticism will be his downfall. The fact that he submitted this $3.6 trillion budget at a time when we have over 9% unemployment, a housing foreclosure fiasco, and an exploding $15 trillion dollar deficit, means that his Marxist fanaticism is so psychotic that he will not even lie, temporarily pretend to be a moderate, or pull back on his destructive policies to get re-elected to a second term. He is the classic “true believer” in his Marxist fantasies.

Therein is our hope. In his utter socialist fanaticism, Obama is just like Hitler. Hitler was a fanatic national socialist (NAZI) and Jew-hater. He set out to murder every Jew in Europe, including Russia. In June, 1941, Hitler’s fanaticism drove him to invade Russia. He decimated the Russian countryside, and murdered millions of Russians who hated Stalin. If Hitler had tried to befriend the Russian people to overthrow Stalin, they might have welcomed Hitler’s armies with open arms. But Hitler’s fanaticism drove him to unspeakable cruelty against the Russian people, and turned them against him. As a result,Russia was able to destroy Hitler’s armies.

So it is with Comrade Obama. His Marxist fanaticism drives him to destroyAmerica, and the American people are now catching on and turning against him. Obama’s blind loyalty to his sick socialist doctrines pushes him to have utter contempt for the American people, and to entertain dreams that he can impose a socialist nightmare on the American people. The smiling Obama has unsheathed his socialist claws, and finally let us see the evil face of socialism, bared to the full light of day. For this, we have to thank him.

I am glad that Comrade Obama is an uncompromising socialist fanatic like Hitler. If Obama were smarter, he would have moderated his Marxist attack on America and become a fake “centrist” likeClintondid to win his second-term election. But with Obama, we see the full socialist fangs exposed for the first time in this country, and Americans are not going to stand for it.

So thanks, Obama, for being a Marxist fanatic who will not “compromise” his principals. We can only hope that when you are kicked out of the White House in November, that you will be deported to Cuba, where you belong. Let’s see how you like living in a socialist “paradise”.

Teacher Unions — Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is

Public-school employees and teacher unions are better than they think they are. They don’t have to strangle parent’s free choice in how they educate their children. Public-school teachers have within them the ability to be great educators. I would like to suggest a way for them to live up to their highest potential.

The problem is the system they are trapped in. Too many teachers have become more concerned with their economic security than with realizing the best within them. This attitude is typical of many government employees. I should know, because many years ago I once worked for the City of New York, for three years.

When the City first hired me, I was young and eager. I intended to give the job my best efforts. However, I soon realized that little was expected of me. I saw the lazy attitudes of my fellow workers who had the security of tenure. Since I am only human like everyone else, I started to become like my fellow employees.

I soon realized that if I did passable work and did not make any waves, I would advance up the civil-service salary ladder just for showing up at the job. My supervisors did not make me work harder or become more competent. To make more money, I only had to grow old on the job. I quickly noticed that when I worked harder or came up with innovative ideas, I did not get paid more. I also saw that when I slacked off in my work or enthusiasm, I did not get paid less.

As a result, I gradually, insidiously, started to die inside. My spirit, initiative, and the best within me started to die. Most employees will act the same way under a similar system of rewards or punishment. If a person is not rewarded for trying harder or doing better, if he is not punished for being lazy or incompetent, most of us, myself included, become mediocre employees just putting in our time. By remaining a government employee, every undiscovered talent and possibility I had within me was being smothered in the stifling, undemanding atmosphere of government employment.

Why didn’t my government employers demand more of me? Because government agencies never go out of business–they are monopolies that stay in business whether or not they do a good job. These agencies get paid from taxes, not from individual “customers” they are supposed to be “serving.”

The public is forced to deal with civil-service employees of the Post Office, Social Security Office, or local Board of Education because these government agencies have no competitors.

Worse, government employees know this. These monopoly agencies get their “customers” by force. They do not need your consent when they take your tax money or make you wait in line to see them. So if government employees or supervisors know their agency can never go out of business, if they are not afraid of being fired for incompetence, there is little incentive to work harder or innovate.

The same psychology applies in government (public) schools. No matter how bad the public schools are, they don’t go out of business. The educrats just ask for more tax money to “fix” what they think is wrong, and the schools stay open for another fifty years, wrecking our children’s education.

In a free-market school, such things don’t happen. A private school that didn’t teach children how to read would soon lose parent’s confidence. Parents would remove their children from the school, and the school would soon be out of business. End of story.

In government schools, no matter how bad a teacher or principal is, it is almost impossible to fire him because of tenure. That would never happen in a free-market school. If students do badly because of incompetent teachers, parents will complain to the owner. The owner will quickly remove a teacher if he doesn’t improve his performance, because the owner could lose parent-customers if he doesn’t. End of story.

But government schools entrench mediocre education without hope of improvement precisely because the schools can’t go out of business and tenure protects bad teachers or principals. These schools and teachers are not accountable to parents, their true customers. That’s why so many public schools give a third-rate education to our kids.

So I offer this challenge to teachers and their unions. If you think your government schools do as good a job as private or religious schools, have the courage of your convictions, and prove it. Put your money where your mouth is. Instead of strangling parent’s freedom of choice, prove to us that you could do better.

How? Here’s a suggestion. Use your multi-millions of dollars in union dues to buy the government schools and run them as private schools, the way former Soviet Union employees bought the factories they worked in. Let us privatize the government (public) schools. Let the teacher unions buy every public school in the country. Instead of being government employees, teachers will then be shareholders in school companies they will own, like Microsoft shareholder-employees who became millionaires from their stock options.

When you, the unions and teachers, buy the schools, you will then complete with every other private school in the free-market. There will be no more compulsory-attendance laws that force parents to give you their children. There will be no more compulsory school taxes that pay your salaries.

You will complete on a level playing-field, like every other private business has to compete. You will have to prove to parents, your new customers, that you deserve to get their business and educate their children. You will have to be better than your competitors. If you teach well, you will succeed. You may even make a fortune in profits from your private schools, and congratulations if you do. If you don’t teach well, you will go out of business, as you should. Parent-consumers will decide your fate.

That being said, I predict that most of you would do great. I believe that once your unions bought the schools, your attitude and your lives would change remarkably. You would soon discover that your school’s success depended on your hard work, competence, and innovation. Fierce competition in the free market would force you to work smarter and harder and become great educators.

I believe that public-school teachers have not even begun to live up to their highest potential. All you need is to understand that the free market, rather than being your imagined worst enemy, can be your best friend.

So here’s the challenge–if you love to teach, if you think you are good educators, if you care about giving quality education to our children, prove it in the real world. Put your money where your mouth is. Pit your best against the best the free market has to offer.

Teachers, you especially will benefit from a totally free-market education system. There will be so many new schools opened, so much fierce competition for competent, innovative teachers, that teacher salaries will skyrocket.

K-12 education today is a $500 billion market, because most parents consider education as their first priority for their children. There is a huge, pent-up demand for your skills, creativity, and dedication. As a result, your incomes will rise dramatically. Your status as teachers will rise with parents as they see the new vigor and quality you bring to your profession. You will be respected and in great demand. By the way, did you know that the best private teachers in Japan are so in demand that they can earn as much as star Japanese baseball players?

So here’s the challenge I offer you. Live up to the best within you in a free-market education system, or let the best within you shrivel up in a government-run public school.

To mayors in cities across America, I extend this challenge to you. Stop wasting our children’s time and billions of our tax dollars on futile programs to “improve” the government schools. Politicians have been trying to “improve” these schools for the last fifty years, and the schools have only gotten worse. The public-school system is beyond repair because government is not the solution, it is the problem.

Instead, push to privatize the public schools in your cities. Push to get government out of the education business, once and for all. Challenge teachers to live up to their highest potential. Challenge them to consider the life-giving breath of a free-market education system. They will eventually thank you for it.

                            *                               *                                 *

Joel Turtel is an education policy analyst and syndicated columnist. He is also the author of “Public Schools, Public Menace: How Public Schools Lie To Parents and Betray Our Children” and “The Welfare State: No Mercy For the Middle Class.”

Website: http://www.americanlibertynews.com

Email: [email protected], Article Copyrighted © 2012 by Joel Turtel.

 

Discrimination — The Politically Incorrect Guide

Choose the car you like, the woman you marry, or the supermarket you shop at, and you “discriminate.” We all discriminate every minute of our lives—to discriminate means to choose between endless options that suit your needs, values, or preferences. Personal discrimination means having the right to choose what you do with your body, values, and the money or property you own .

When we “discriminate” with our property, we exercise our right to make choices. But sometimes we make bad choices that offend others. Some people don’t wish to sell to, buy from, or associate with minorities, Catholics, old people, homosexuals, or women with children. People can be irrational or bigoted in a thousand ways.

However, respect for each other’s freedom ironically requires that we respect each other’s right to make decisions that may offend some people. For example, if a homeowner doesn’t want to rent his upstairs apartment to bald men, homosexuals, or Indonesian women, that should be his right, because it is his home.

The homeowner may be “prejudiced” against certain people, but he has the right to make that choice with his own property. The person denied the apartment, while their feelings may be offended, had no claim to that apartment, for it was not their property in the first place. In free trade between people who respect each other’s property and freedom of choice, you have the right to buy or sell anything, but only if the other person is willing to trade with you. Every trade requires the free consent of both parties.

Remember, an insulted would-be tenant also has free choice. He can decide who he rents from. Doesn’t a tenant also “discriminate” against a homeowner if he chooses not to rent the apartment because it is dirty, in a neighborhood too far from where he works, or because he doesn’t like the owner’s race or personality?

The same applies to all privately-owned property in a free country. The owner of a restaurant has the right to not serve someone who can’t order in English. It’s his restaurant. A private-school owner has the right to say, “I will only admit Asian students with wealthy parents.” It’s his school. These businessmen may be fools to believe bad things about whole groups of people, but they have the right to be fools with their own property.

A school or business owner earned the money and took the risks to buy that school or business. However, if he irrationally excludes too many people as customers, he may soon find himself out of business and bankrupt. The free market often punishes a business owner for being stupid or bigoted.

We all dislike bigots, but one man’s bigotry is another’s truth. No one has the right to dictate our opinions or moral values, or to control our property without our consent. That’s what property rights means.

Yet, anti-discrimination laws violate this principle. These laws say a man can’t choose who he wants to do business with. This means that government now presumes to control that man’s mind, hard-earned property, personal decisions, and freedom of choice. It means tyranny.

If government officials can tell us what opinions we can or can’t have about other people, it can also tell us what we can or can’t do with our bodies, property, and even our children. It can wipe out our freedom of choice. Isn’t that what compulsory public schools do against parents? Isn’t that what a suffocating web of government regulations does to all businessmen? Haven’t the bureaucrats, like a spreading cancer, eaten away ever more of our choices, our freedom, and our property rights?

Also, in the end, anti-discrimination laws end up hurting the very people they want to help. The more that government strangles businesses with a suffocating web of anti-discrimination, wage, health, and environmental regulations, the worse off minorities get. A massive Federal government needs massive deficit spending. That pumps up inflation. Inflation sharply raises the cost of living for everyone, which hurts low-income minorities most of all.

Strangling government regulations also cripple small businesses and either stop them from opening, or restrict their expansion. That means less jobs for minority workers. Also, every time Congress raises the minimum wage, small-business owners who can’t afford these raises have to fire some of their minority workers.

It is only governments, at any level, that have no right to discriminate. Government’s purpose is to protect all citizens’ liberty. Also, government bureaucrats do not earn or create property. They mostly loot money (through taxes) from some people to give to others. They therefore don’t have the right, for example, to tell all restaurant owners in white neighborhoods that they can’t serve Blacks (as some states did with Jim Crow laws). That violates the right of a non-bigoted restaurant owner to serve whoever he pleases. Such laws also violate the political and economic liberty of a black person.

One reason discrimination against Blacks lasted so long in many southern states was because Jim Crow laws legalized segregation, but these laws were created by local governments. Such laws forbid competition between bigots and non-bigots. The restaurant or bus company who serves all people makes more money and has a greater chance at success. Bigoted businessmen lose money. In the end, without government-enforced discrimination laws, the free market would wipe out most organized discrimination.

In short, we, as individuals or businesses, have the right to “discriminate” with our own minds, bodies, and property. I say this not because I agree with bigots, but to protect our most fundamental liberties, the liberties that, in the end, are the only real protection for those “discriminated” against.

I Don’t Care What The Judge Said!

“Look, Mr. Straun, John, can I call you John? We’ve been at this for 25 days. We’re all sick of this. We all want to go home. You’re the only one left. You’re the one keeping us here. I got things to do at home. I got to go to work and make a living. All of us do. The judge is mad as hell at us. You’re going to hang this jury. You’re going to make this three-month trial into a farce and waste of time. You have no right to vote acquittal. You heard the judge’s instructions. The jury is not allowed to judge the law, only the facts.”

    “The facts are clear as day, aren’t they?” Raymond Dillard ranted. “You even admitted that to us. The guy was found with marijuana in his car. That’s against the law. And the guy admitted the marijuana was his. What more do you need?” said Raymond Dillard, the jury foreman. Raymond Dillard was tall, beefy, in his 30’s, and he was getting mad, so mad he wanted to beat John Straun’s head in.

Straun was a small, slim man in his 30’s, with a straight back, dark brown hair, large, steady eyes, and a firm mouth. He seemed not to care at all about all the trouble he was causing. And he seemed to be fearless.

John Straun said, “I don’t care what the judge said. I happen to know for a fact that a jury has the right to judge the law. Jury nullification has a long history in this country. A jury has the right to judge the law, not just the facts.”

Raymond Dillard and a few other jurors sneered. Dillard said, “Oh, are you a lawyer, Mr. Straun? You think you know more than the judge? What history are you talking about?”

John Straun said calmly, “No, I’m not a lawyer. I’m an engineer. But in this particular case, I do know more than the judge. When I found out I was going to be on this jury, I did a little research about the history of juries, just for the hell of it. Most people don’t know this, but jury nullification has been upheld as a sacred legal principal in English common law for 1000 years. Alfred the Great, a great English king a thousand years ago, hung several of his own judges because they removed jurors who refused to convict and replaced these courageous jurors with other jurors they could intimidate into convicting the defendant on trial.”

“Jury nullification also goes back to the very beginning of our country, as one of the crucial rights our Founding Fathers wanted to protect. Our Founding Fathers wanted juries to be the final bulwark against tyrannical government laws. That’s why they emphasized the right to a jury trial in three of the first ten amendments to the Constitution. John Adams, second President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, third President and author of the Declaration of Independence, John Jay, First Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, andAlexander Hamilton, First Secretary of the Treasury all flatly stated that juries have the right and duty to judge not only the facts in a case, but also the law, according to their conscience.”

“Not only that, more recent court decisions have reaffirmed this right. In 1969, in “US. vs. Moylan,” the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the right of juries to judge the law in a case. In 1972, theWashington,D.C. Court of Appeals upheld the same principal.”

Raymond Dillard said, “Yeah, if that’s the case, how come the judge didn’t tell us this?”

“That’s because of the despicable Supreme Court decision in “Sparf and Hansen vs. The United States in 1895.” John Straun said. “That decision said juries have the right to judge the law, but that a judge doesn’t have to inform juries of this right. Cute, huh? And guess what happened after this decision? Judges stopped telling juries about their rights.”

“The judge knows about jury nullification. All judges do. But they hate letting juries decide the law. They hate juries taking power away from them. That’s why judges never mention a jury’s right to judge the law, and most judges squash defense attorneys from saying anything about it in court. Remember when Jimmy Saunders’ defense lawyer started talking about it? The judge threatened him with contempt if he didn’t shut up about jury nullification.”

“And since you asked me,” Straun continued, “I’ll tell you a little more about jury nullification. Did you ever hear of the Fugitive Slave Act? Did you ever hear of Prohibition? Do you know why those despicable laws were repealed? Because juries were so outraged over those laws that they consistently refused to convict people who violated them. They refused to convict because they knew that these laws were unjust and tyrannical, that Congress had no right making these laws in the first place. So, because juries wouldn’t convict, the government couldn’t make these laws stick. They tried for many years, but finally gave up.”

“What do you think this mad War on Drugs is that we’ve been fighting the last sixty years? It’s the same as Prohibition in the 20’s. It’s the same principle. A tyrannical government is telling people that they can’t take drugs, just like in the 20’s they said people couldn’t drink liquor. What’s the difference? A tyrannical law is telling people what they can or can’t put in their own bodies. Who owns our bodies, us or the self-righteous politicians? Does the government own your body, Mr. Dillard? Do you smoke, Mr. Dillard? Do you drink beer?”

Dillard nodded his head, “Yeah, I do.”

“Well, how would you like it if they passed laws telling you that can’t smoke or drink a beer anymore. Would you like that, Mr. Dillard?”

Dillard looked at John Straun, thought about the question, then admitted, “No, I wouldn’t, Straun.”

John Straun turned to the others around the table. “You, Jack, you said you’re sixty-five years old. You like to play golf, right? What if they passed a law saying anyone over sixty-five can’t play golf because the exercise might give him a heart attack? You, Frank, you said you eat hamburgers at McDougals all the time. What if they passed a law saying fatty hamburgers give people heart attacks, so we’re closing down all the McDougal restaurants in the country, and they make eating a hamburger a criminal offence? You, Mrs. Pelchat, I see you like to smoke. Everyone knows that smoking can give you lung cancer. How would you like it if they passed a law banning all cigarettes? What if they could crash in the door of your house without a warrant to search for cigarettes in your house, like the SWAT teams do now, looking for drugs? Mrs. Pelchat, how would you like to be on trial like Jimmy Saunders because they found a pack of cigarettes you hid under your mattress?”

“Do you all see what I mean? If they can make it a crime for Jimmy Saunders to smoke marijuana, why can’t they make golf, hamburgers, and cigarettes a crime? If you think they wouldn’t try, think again. They had Prohibition in the 20’s for almost ten years, till they finally gave up. The only reason they haven’t banned cigarettes is because there are thirty millioncigarette smokers in this country who would scream bloody murder. They get away with making marijuana and other drugs illegal only because drug-users are a small minority in this country. Drug users don’t have any political clout.”

Raymond Dillard sat down in his chair. The others started talking among themselves. John Straun started seeing heads nodding in agreement, thinking about what he had said.

“OK, Straun,” Dillard said. “Maybe you’re right. Maybe Jimmy Saunders shouldn’t go to jail for smoking marijuana. Hell, probably most of us tried the stuff when we were young.President Clinton said he smoked marijuana in college. Bush said he tried drugs in college. Probably half of Congress and their kids took drugs one time or another. O.K. we agree with you. But what about the judge. He said we can’t judge the law.”

John Straun stood up. He was not a tall man, but he stood very straight, and he looked very sure of himself. He looked from one to another of them.

He said, “If you agree with me, then I ask you all to vote for acquittal. You are not only defending Jimmy Saunders’ liberty, but your own. You are fighting a tyrannical law that is enforced by a judge who wants the power to control you. I told you that many juries like us in the past have disregarded the judge’s instructions. They stood up for liberty against a tyrannical law. Are you Americans here? What do you va!ue more, your liberty, your pride as free men, or the instructions of a judge who doesn’t want you to judge the law precisely because he knows you’ll find the law unjust? Will you stand with those juries who defended our liberty in the past, or will you give in to this judge?”

“Here’s another thing to think about,” John Straun said with passion. ”What if it was your sister or brother on trial here? Do you know that if we say Saunders is guilty, the judge has to send him to prison for twenty years? I understand this is Saunders third possession charge. You know the “three strikes and you’re out” rule, don’t you? The politicians passed a law that if a guy gets convicted three times on possession, the judge now has no leeway in sentencing. He has to give the poor guy twenty years in prison. What if it were your sister or brother on trial? Should they go to jail for smoking marijuana, for doing something that should not be a crime in the first place? Do we want to send Jimmy Saunders to prison for twenty years because he smoked a joint, hurting no one? Can you have that on your conscience?”

“Do you know that there are almost a million guys like Jimmy Saunders in federal prisons right now, as we speak, for this same so-called “crime” of smoking marijuana or taking other drugs? These men were sent to prison for mere possession. They harmed no one but themselves when they took drugs. How can you have a crime without a victim? When does this horror stop? It has got to stop. I’m asking you all now to stop it right here, at least for Jimmy Saunders. The only thing that can stop tyrannical laws and politicians is you and me, juries like us. If we do nothing, we’re lost, the country is lost.”

“I’m asking you all to bring in a not-guilty verdict, because the drug laws are unjust and a moral obscenity. I’m asking you all be the kind of Americans our Founding Fathers would have been proud of, these same men who fought for your liberty. That’s what I’m asking of all of you.”

John Straun sat down and looked quietly at Dillard and all the others around the table. They looked back at him, and it seemed that their backs began to straighten up, and they no longer complained about going home. They were quiet. Then they talked passionately amongst each other.

Fifteen minutes later, they walked into the courtroom and sat down in the jury box. When the judge asked Raymond Dillard what the verdict was, he was stunned when Dillard, standing tall, looking straight at the judge, said “Not guilty.” Over the angry rantings of the red-faced judge, all in the jury box looked calmly at John Straun, and felt proud to be an American.

Why Do We Need You, Government Man?

“You must pay Social Security,” said the government man.

 “Why?,” I replied. “I can walk to the bank and save my own money or get an annuity with an insurance company. I don’t need you to steal money from my paycheck every week, then hope I live to 67 to get some of my hard-earned money back.”

“You must use our Post Office”.

“Why?”, I said, “UPS, DHL, and Fed Ex gives me better service.”

“You must support Medicare.”

“Why?” I replied, “I can pay for my own health insurance that lets me choose my own health plan, deductibles, doctors, and hospitals. Why don’t you remove your damn regulations on the health-care industry, close down the FDA, and allow a free-market in medical care? Then I would have a lot more doctors and insurance companies to choose from  and pay a lot less for medical care and health insurance.”

“You must pay 50 percent of your salary in state and Federal income taxes to support all our entitlement programs. You are morally responsible to help the poor, unwed mothers, college students, corporations who want bailouts, big farmers who need farm subsidies, and Mexican illegal aliens who insist on free medical care.”

By what right,” I replied, “do you force me to be my brother’s keeper at the point of a gun? Why do you think you have the right to rob me to give unearned handouts to people who will vote for you? You turn compassion into compulsion and make me hate my brother.”

“You must not develop this land and create homes and apartments for thousands of people, as this would endanger the kangaroo rats and alligators living on the land.”

“You sick environmentalist,” I answered, “why do you value the life of kangaroo rats, alligators who kill children, and mosquitoes that kill millions of people a year with malaria, over the lives of men, women, and children? What made you so twisted inside, and why do you hate the human race? If I develop this land, thousands of families will have decent, low-cost homes and apartments to live in. If that means every kangaroo rat and alligator is killed in the process, I say the sooner the better. There’s a big market for alligator purses.”

“You must send your children to our wonderful public schools.”

“Why, you damn fool? I can teach my children to read with “hooked-on-phonics,” get them local tutors, have them watch math and reading videos, give them one-on-one instruction with computer software and free Internet libraries, or enroll them in a low-cost Internet private school that charges less than $975 a year tuition. My son and daughter will learn to read, write, and do math proficiently in two years, not in the twelve years your miserable, government-controlled public schools force on millions of kids.”

“In short, government man, why do we need you? Just holster your gun, withdraw your taxes, regulations, public schools, and entitlement programs, and get out of our way.”

 


Obama’s “Health-care” Death Lists Coming Your Way

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive . . . . .those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” —   C. S. Lewis

 

Comrade Obama said something at one of his White House healthcare events that should scare you out of your wits, especially if you are a senior citizen.

He suggested that one way to save health-care costs is not to spend on procedures that “evidence shows [are] not necessarily going to improve care” for the sick and the dying. “Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller,” the President said.

This is socialist Obama-talk, and let me translate. Under Obama’s plan, some impersonal bureaucrat, based solely on cost to the government health-care system, will now decide whether you or your sick father or mother, die. Do you need a heart operation or expensive cancer therapy to give you a chance for life? Under Obama’s plan, a bureaucrat will “calculate” how much this care would cost the government.

The bureaucrat will then do a “cost/benefit” analysis, the “benefit” being extending your life or treating your cancer or heart disease. If you’re too old, forget about it. The bureaucrat will have to follow rules laid down by his superiors in a big book of “rationing” rules.

If, for example, you’re over 65 years old, the bureaucrat can tell you, “Sorry, extending your life by 10 years with this expensive heart operation is not “worth it” to the government health-care program or “other taxpayers.” So we won’t pay for your heart operation. Or, “you’ll have to wait nine months on our heart-operations list, and we’ll ‘reconsider’ your application at that time. The government only has so much money for health care, so we can’t spend it on people over 65 years old. Sorry. Next in line, please.” And you will DIE waiting on their heart-operation death lists.

Also, as health-care costs explode in a socialized-medicine paradise, bureaucrats will have to keep lowering the cut-off age for your CAT scan, heart operation or cancer care. First the cut-off age might be 68, then it will go to 65, then to 60, then to 55. The more health-care costs explode, the lower the cut-off age will go. Soon you will be caught in the net, with your LIFE at stake.

Think this is a frightening fantasy, that it “can’t happen here?” Think again. InEnglandandCanada, where they’ve had a socialized-medicine paradise for the last thirty years, that’s exactly what happens, every day. InEnglandandCanada, they have health-care rationing. Government bureaucrats decide who gets the expensive CAT scan, cancer care, or heart operation quickly, or who waits on the health-care “death lists” for nine months for that CAT scan or heart operation. A slimy, indifferent government bureaucrat will decide if you, your mother, father or grandparent lives or dies.

Every day, sick people who the bureaucrats decide are not “worth” the money, DIE on the death-lists inEnglandandCanada. That is your health-care future inAmerica, if socialist Obamacare is not revoked when Obama gets thrown out of office in 2012.  I hope this scares the hell out of you, because it scares me.

Website:  www.americanlibertynews.com

 

Comrade Obama’s Three-Card Monte

The Marxist trickster was at it again in his “State of the  Union” address to Congress last week. It’s as if Obama was playing three-card Monte with Congress and the American people and saying, “you people are really stupid, so watch the cards, folks, and tell me where the truth-pebble is.”

Comrade Obama, in pursuit of his never-ending Marxist class-warfare on the American people, and showing his utter contempt for the intelligence of Congress, asked if it’s “fair” that Warren Buffet’s secretary paid a higher tax bracket than Warren Buffett.

Let’s compare the actual amount of real taxes Warren Buffet’s secretary paid, compared to Mr. Buffett. According to the article, “What Warren Buffett Made (and Paid in Taxes) in 2010, by Jill Schlesinger (CBSnews.com, Oct 12, 2011):

“ . . . Buffett paid taxes totaling 17.4 percent of his $39.8 million in taxable income, a level that is far lower than the average American who pays something closer to 30-something percent. . . .” Doing the math, that means that Buffett paid about $6.8 million in actual, real, out-of-pocket taxes.

Now if his well-paid secretary had taxable income of about $200,000, and paid taxes at the 28% tax bracket, then she paid, hold onto your hats, about $56,000 in taxes. So Buffett paid over 100 times more in actual taxes than his secretary.

Shyster Obama didn’t mention that fact. He slyly implies that Buffett’s secretary paid more in actual out-of-pocket taxes than her boss. What the card-shuffler really meant was that Buffett’s secretary was paying taxes at a higher tax bracket than her boss, which was true. But tax brackets are not the same as actual taxes paid, are they?

So Warren Buffett paid about $6.8 million in taxes, his secretary paid about $56,000 in taxes, yet Comrade Obama whines that Buffett’s secretary paid more than Buffett, and “is that fair”? Why doesn’t someone lock up this shyster President for disseminating fraudulent information to the public?

Now let’s ask what Warren Buffett gets back from the government for paying 100 times more in real taxes than his secretary. Does Mr. Buffett get 100 times more in government goods or services? Does he get more police protection, better roads to travel, or more protection from invasion fromIran orChina? Does he get a cent more back in “services” from his agent, the government, for his $6.8 million in taxes compared to his secretary’s $56,000 in taxes?

If a “rich” man and a poor man bought the exact same groceries at a supermarket, should the “rich” man pay 100 times more for the same groceries? Then why is Warren Buffett paying 100 times more in real taxes than his secretary? If Mr. Buffett is not getting any more “benefits” from the government than his secretary, then he should be paying the same amount in real taxes as his secretary, regardless of his tax bracket.

Yet, he pays 100 times more in real taxes than his secretary. Why? Because the looter-socialist agenda of Obama and his Marxist allies in Congress claim that “rich” people, like Warren Buffett, have a “moral responsibility” to “share their wealth” by “redistribution”. In other words, Comrade Obama, through the progressive income tax, thinks it’s OK to loot Mr. Buffett’s wealth, simply because he can. Mr. Obama, like all radical socialists, sees his role as President as being a fence for stolen property.

The truly tragic spectacle is when Mr. Buffett plays along with Comrade Obama’s three-card monte, and actually demands that government tax him more. Is there anything sadder than to see the looted victim baring his throat to the shyster looter-in-chief and saying, “take more from me, please.”

Website: www.americanlibertynews.com

 

Comrade Obama’s Three-Card Monte

The Marxist trickster was at it again in his “State of the  Union” address to Congress last week. It’s as if Obama was playing three-card Monte with Congress and the American people and saying, “you people are really stupid, so watch the cards, folks, and tell me where the truth-pebble is.”

Comrade Obama, in pursuit of his never-ending Marxist class-warfare on the American people, and showing his utter contempt for the intelligence of Congress, asked if it’s “fair” that Warren Buffet’s secretary paid a higher tax bracket than Warren Buffett.

Let’s compare the actual amount of real taxes Warren Buffet’s secretary paid, compared to Mr. Buffett. According to the article, “What Warren Buffett Made (and Paid in Taxes) in 2010, by Jill Schlesinger (CBSnews.com, Oct 12, 2011):

“ . . . Buffett paid taxes totaling 17.4 percent of his $39.8 million in taxable income, a level that is far lower than the average American who pays something closer to 30-something percent. . . .” Doing the math, that means that Buffett paid about $6.8 million in actual, real, out-of-pocket taxes.

Now if his well-paid secretary had taxable income of about $200,000, and paid taxes at the 28% tax bracket, then she paid, hold onto your hats, about $56,000 in taxes. So Buffett paid over 100 times more in actual taxes than his secretary.

Shyster Obama didn’t mention that fact. He slyly implies that Buffett’s secretary paid more in actual out-of-pocket taxes than her boss. What the card-shuffler really meant was that Buffett’s secretary was paying taxes at a higher tax bracket than her boss, which was true. But tax brackets are not the same as actual taxes paid, are they?

So Warren Buffett paid about $6.8 million in taxes, his secretary paid about $56,000 in taxes, yet Comrade Obama whines that Buffett’s secretary paid more than Buffett, and “is that fair”? Why doesn’t someone lock up this shyster President for disseminating fraudulent information to the public?

Now let’s ask what Warren Buffett gets back from the government for paying 100 times more in real taxes than his secretary. Does Mr. Buffett get 100 times more in government goods or services? Does he get more police protection, better roads to travel, or more protection from invasion fromIran orChina? Does he get a cent more back in “services” from his agent, the government, for his $6.8 million in taxes compared to his secretary’s $56,000 in taxes?

If a “rich” man and a poor man bought the exact same groceries at a supermarket, should the “rich” man pay 100 times more for the same groceries? Then why is Warren Buffett paying 100 times more in real taxes than his secretary? If Mr. Buffett is not getting any more “benefits” from the government than his secretary, then he should be paying the same amount in real taxes as his secretary, regardless of his tax bracket.

Yet, he pays 100 times more in real taxes than his secretary. Why? Because the looter-socialist agenda of Obama and his Marxist allies in Congress claim that “rich” people, like Warren Buffett, have a “moral responsibility” to “share their wealth” by “redistribution”. In other words, Comrade Obama, through the progressive income tax, thinks it’s OK to loot Mr. Buffett’s wealth, simply because he can. Mr. Obama, like all radical socialists, sees his role as President as being a fence for stolen property.

The truly tragic spectacle is when Mr. Buffett plays along with Comrade Obama’s three-card monte, and actually demands that government tax him more. Is there anything sadder than to see the looted victim baring his throat to the shyster looter-in-chief and saying, “take more from me, please.”

Website: www.americanlibertynews.com