Category Archives: Eat the Rich

I’m Barack Obama, and I’m Going to Deceive You in this Message

Do you think this title is harsh? Maybe. But is it true?

Absolutely.

If you watch his most recent ad, President Obama is using the same old lie: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/12/obama-mitt-romney-tax-rate_n_1962187.html (the video is near the bottom).

Why is this deception? Well, I’ve written about that before… many times.

President Obama is trying to convince Americans that Mitt Romney paid a lower tax rate than they did. This is profoundly incorrect, and the most important evidence to back my point, (taken from my previous post linked above) is the following table found in this IRS document which contains pertinent tax rate data:

 Click Image for Expanded View

These data show the number of income tax returns filed in their respective income ranges (the number is in thousands). For example, in 2009, there were 18,696,000 tax returns filed where the filer earned between $20,000 and $30,000. In the image, you will notice some data is circled. The large red oval encompases incomes that are < $50,000 yearly. The green oval encompasses incomes that are > $50,000 yearly. I’ve expanded upon this in the chart below.

Click Image for Expanded View

You will notice some key pieces of data highlighted on this chart. The chart also distributes the two taxpayer buckets circled in red and green the IRS chart: those making < $50,000 per year, and those making > $50,000 per year.  The explanations are as follows:

– Yellow highlight: This is showing the breakdown of incomes for the overall taxpayer buckets. Those making < $50,000 comprise 92,889,000 of the 140,495,000 total tax filers, which is around 66% of the total. Many  people focus on the “50% mark” – the income at which 50% of Americans make more and 50% of Americans make less. This is around $40,000 per year.

– Green highlight: This highlight shows the final income tax rate paid by each group. As you can see, those making < $50,000 paid an average income tax rate of -2.59%, and those making above $50,000 paid an average income tax rate of 13.54%. Each income bucket shows the respective rate paid by those within the bucket. For example, those making between $30,000 and $50,000 paid an income tax rate of about 2.9% while those making $200,000 to $500,000 paid an income tax rate of about 19.5%.

– Red highlight: This highlight shows the final tax rate paid after payroll taxes (Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, etc.) are factored in. You will notice that since these taxes are paid on the first $106,000 income, they affect those in the < $50,000 bucket more. For those in the upper income ranges, there is little change from their pre-payroll tax rate and after these taxes are applied. Regardless, when these taxes are factored in, those making < $50,000 (again, about 66% of the all Americans), paid a total tax rate of about 5.4%. You will notice that those making > $50,000 paid a total tax rate of about 18.7%. The true “middle income group,” those making between $30,000 – $50,000 yearly (the average American income falls in this range), paid a total tax rate of about 10.55%

All the data presented in this analysis is FINAL. All tax rates are final. This means that every rate is presented after loopholes, deductions, and write-offs.

Why is this all significant? Well, for starters, as stated,  President Obama tries to claim that Mitt Romney pays a lower tax rate than “you.” I have stated time and time again that this is simply deceiving. Mitt Romney paid around 14% of his income in taxes; 66% of Americans paid 5.94%. How can he be paying a lower tax rate than most Americans when most Americans pay a grand total of about 5.94% in federal taxes? Fact: he doesn’t. Mitt Romney paid a higher greater tax rate than most Americans. Period.

Additionally, I know there are many taxpayers out there that claim, “I make $40,000 and I paid a higher rate than Mitt Romney,” but, when looking at the whole picture, my answer to those people falls into one of two categories:

1. No you didn’t. Yes, while you have paid your taxes throughout the year, you had these taxes removed from your paycheck. And yes, it seemed like they were removing quite a bit (from my paycheck, around 27% is removed each time). What most people seem to forget is that lower income earners tend to receive large tax refunds (notice the large negative income tax rates for low-income earners above). These people often forget to factor refunds in, and these refunds reduce the FINAL RATE PAID significantly. Take a look at my tax return info and see how much I received in a refund. That refund reduced my tax rate quite a bit: http://loudmouthelephant.blogspot.com/2012/01/part-2-what-do-mitt-romneys-tax-returns.html

2.You’re a statistic anomaly. It’s that simple. IRS data, as seen above, shows that those making < $50,000 annually, the majority of Americans, do NOT pay a greater rate than 14%. If you are, for whatever reason you do, you’re a rare breed.

In summary, can someone please explain to me how Barack Obama’s claim of Mitt Romney paying greater tax rates than most Americans is true? The case does exist, but on such an insignificant level. The facts and data show that Obama’s claim is just plain false. This has been shown time and time again, but yet Team Obama keeps repeating the same lie. How can anyone be okay with this? Please share your thoughts below.

Barack Obama Continues to Lie About Taxes – Part 2

Part 1 can be seen here: http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2012/09/barack-obama-continues-to-lie-about-taxes-part-1

Let me start by saying that my grandmother used to tell me that if any part of anything I say is a lie, if there is anything that can be pulled out that isn’t true… then I’m lying. Keep that in mind. Deceit is deceit.

Well, what about hypocrisy?

The quick answer: There is no difference.

What am I getting at? Well, as you saw in Part 1, Obama has been lying to the American people about the tax rates the average American pays. Part 2 focuses on how he acts hypocritically by calling out Mitt Romney and the wealthy for using “loopholes,” “write-offs,” and “deductions” to pay less in taxes while he himself uses these very tax law tools. Not only does Obama uses these instruments of tax avoidance himself, but he uses them at a higher rate than Mitt Romney. Yes, you read that correctly: Barack Obama is better than Mitt Romney at using “loopholes,” “write-offs,” and “deductions” to pay less in taxes. But don’t take my word; let’s look at Mitt Romney’s and Barack Obama’s tax returns. Since the dust hasn’t officially settled on Mitt Romney’s 2011 returns (he allegedly paid more in taxes than he had to), we will use his and Obama’s 2010 documents for this analysis.

Here is President Obama’s 2010 tax return: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/POTUS_taxes.pdf (If this sounds a little facetious from here on out, please forgive me; you have to understand the sheer joy a conservative feels when showing just how hypocritical the left truly is).

Start by focusing your attention on page 1, line 22 – Total Income: $1,795,694 (and oh yeah, Barack Obama is in the 1% the left love so much to hate).

Next, look at adjusted gross income (AGI), line 37 at the bottom of the page: $1,726,096. What’s that?! He reduced his income by 1.69x the average American yearly income. Don’t worry; there’s more.

Go to the second page, near the top. Line 40 – Itemized deductions: $373,289. Holy cow! You mean Obama has used the current tax code, just as Mitt Romney has, to reduce his taxable income?

Line 43 shows the “smoking gun” – Taxable income: $1,340,247. Ta-da! President Obama has reduced his taxable income from the original $1,795,694 to $1,340,247, or by 25.4%!!!

Now let’s take a look at Mitt Romney’s 2010 tax return, and I can make this quick: http://thorndike.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Romney1040-2010.pdf

Page 1, line 22 – Total Income: $21,661,334

Page 2 (it’s further in the document) Line 43, Taxable income: $17,120,067

To make sure we are comparing apples to apples, this means Mitt Romney reduced his taxable income by $4,541,267 or only 21%!!!

So when it comes to who is the biggest player of the US tax game… who reduces their income by more… who skirts the system by using these “loopholes,” “write-offs,” and “deductions” the most, not only is President Obama playing the same game… he plays it MORE. He plays it better. He does all this while deriding Mitt Romney and the wealthy… all while doing it with a straight face. If this isn’t a double standard, I don’t know what one is.

Barack Obama Continues to Lie About Taxes – Part 1

I’ve written about this often: It seems that President Obama is taking the “throw it at the wall and see what sticks” approach to his campaign ads. This means that he is making claims, regardless of how false they are, and hoping they get enough viewership without the average American even checking on the validity of these claims themselves. Team Obama hopes that if repeated often enough, the electorate will simply believe these claims, without question, ultimately voting for a president based on lies and misinformation. For additional examples, see this post: http://loudmouthelephant.blogspot.com/2012/06/fill-in-blank-obama-campaign-is-based.html. In fact, I highlighted the “science” behind the President’s campaign strategy here: http://loudmouthelephant.blogspot.com/2012/06/obama-campaign-deceit-machine-rolls-on.html

In Obama’s newest campaign ad, he goes right after Mitt Romney and his tax rate. First,… why??? What in the world does this have to do with anything? Does Obama really think the American people are dumb enough to focus on Romney’s tax rate while ambassadors are getting mauled, 23,000,000 people are unemployed, and the national debt climbs to astronomical levels? I won’t answer that. Moving on and focusing on the facts that debunk Obama’s ad, let’s get some things straight:

– Mitt Romney has done NOTHING illegal. Nothing.

– Mitt Romney has paid every bit of taxes required of him.

– Mitt Romney has paid more in taxes in one year than an average American would pay in 448 years of work.

– Most importantly: Mitt Romney DID pay a higher tax rate than most Americans – I will address this specifically.

Let me see if I understand this: President Obama puts out the ad above and, in short, the ad uses creepy music and words like “probably” to make a claim about a guy who has done nothing wrong, all while lying about the tax rates of all Americans?

Okay, I will answer my own question: Yes, Obama truly does think Americans are that stupid. Allow me to elaborate.

First, with regards to the “Mitt Romney probably paid a lower tax rate than you” claim, did you notice the most important word? Of course, it’s “probably.” Why does Team Obama use that specific word? One simple phrase answers this question: “Plausible deniability.” Why didn’t Obama just say, “Mitt Romney paid a lower tax rate than you?” Answer: Because Obama knows this is absolute baloney. His campaign can twist their claim any way they want… IF and when the American people question it. Team Obama hopes and knows they won’t. Using the word “probably” is like an insurance policy. Just in case a fire storm does hit, the Obama campaign cannot get nailed for being entirely dishonest.

To understand this overall picture, I submit to you: When you’re putting out a claim to the country as a whole (the “probably paid more than ‘YOU’ part”), you’re implying that > 50% of people fall in to the category. You can’t claim “you” if it’s one in 100 people. So yes, when Obama claims, “Mitt Romney probably paid a lower tax rate than you,” he is implying Mitt Romney paid a lower tax rate than most people. Hmmm. I want take a brief step back to some internet propaganda I analyzed earlier this year. Back in March, I investigated the ridiculous claim of Mitt Romney’s versus a teacher’s tax rates.

What does the data show? It clearly says that yes, IRS data confirmed that “millionaires and billionaires” do not pay lower tax rates than the middle class. For those claiming “well, this doesn’t include payroll taxes…” You’re right. It doesn’t. But payroll taxes are a total of 7.65% of the first approximately $110,000 of earned income (BEFORE the payroll tax holiday). This means that for the average income, which is about $40,000, an American tax payer paid an income tax rate of 6.00% and a payroll tax rate of 7.65%. The conclusion: an average taxpayer pays about 13.65% in total federal taxes. Keep in mind this is the average. It’s a safe judgement to assume approximately 50% of Americans make more than and 50% of Americans make less than this average. Well, economics and math aside, if the majority of the country pays a tax rate of 13.65%, how can Mitt Romney pay a lower tax rate than most Americans when he pays around 14%? Keep in mind, these figures account for those Americans that DO pay taxes. When you factor those in that do not, all those Americans paying nothing significantly bring down the American average.

Now that the first Obama tax lie is debunked in theory, let’s talk about it in practice. Of course, as a good conservative economist, I wanted to look at some real IRS data to back my claim.

My analysis follows. First, be sure to look at the specific IRS tax data report I used for this analysis: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/12inwinbulratesshare.pdf

Let’s take a look. First, and this is a quick side note… we constantly hear the claim, 47% of Americans pay no taxes. Well, the opening line of the IRS report says the following:

“Taxpayers filed 140.5 million individual income tax returns for Tax Year 2009. Of those, 81.9 million (or 58.3 percent) were classified as taxable returns. This represents the lowest percentage of taxable returns in more than 24 years. A taxable return is a return that has total income tax greater than $0.”

What?! That means, if we assume the US has about 310,000,000 people, that yes, about 54-55% didn’t even file tax returns (this is given as a range because the number could be different due to joint tax returns), but there is an even more important stat here: Only 81,900,000 of those paid taxes. So out of 310,000,000 people, only 26.4% had income tax to pay? How can this country be sustained when nearly 3 out of ever 4 people doesn’t even pay income tax? Perhaps the argument is, “73% of Americans pay no income tax, if you add payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare taxes) in, 47% still pay nothing? Hmmm.

Anyway, the glaring charts that stand out in the IRS data are Figures B and B1. Take a look:

(Click on image to zoom in)

What do you notice? Ahhh yes… truth and fact. This shows the average tax rates of the 81.9 million who DID pay taxes. Yes, this means that the people who did not pay taxes have had their figures removed, no longer bringing down the average. So out of all remaining taxpayers, for example, the average American making $30,000 – $50,000 per year paid a final tax rate (again, notice total income tax), of 6.4%. This is a different income range “bucket” from the discussion above, but it does paint the same picture.

 Now lets look at ALL TAX FILERS- including those who actually did file a tax return and didn’t pay any tax (about 41.7% of all tax filers). Check it out:

(Click on image to zoom in)

So… what did we find? Factoring in ALL TAX FILERS, the average American making $30,000 – $50,000 per year (this chart shows ALL income earners), paid a final tax rate of 2.9%. This means that even if you added in the 7.65% payroll tax rate, the average final tax rate of someone earning between $30,000 – $50,000 is 10.55%.  Did you notice anything else? Yes, many people get more in a tax refund than they paid in total income tax. These people essentially receive tax payments from the government.

Why did I highlight the $30,000 – $50,000 income range? Well, though this data is slightly outdated, the average American earns about $40,000 each year (it’s safe to assume this hasn’t changed drastically since): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States. To me, that’s the standard. If you claim, “Mitt Romney probably paid a lower tax rate than you,” I respond with an question of, “what did the average income earner pay?”

In simple conclusion, as the bright-as-the-sun data have shown, since the average American did not pay anything close to the rate that Mitt Romney did, how can this claim by team Obama be anything but a lie? Every American needs to see this before they simply believe another Team Obama lie.

Part – 2, a summation of how President Obama vilifies Mitt Romney (and the wealthy in general) for using “loopholes,” “deductions,” and “write-offs” to reduce his taxable income while doing it more and to a greater extent, can be seen here: http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2012/10/barack-obama-continues-to-lie-about-taxes-part-2/

The Worldwide Consequences of Obama’s Manufactured Crisis Strategy

With the world swirling in Obama-induced chaos I thought it fitting to dust off an article first published in 2008 that forewarns of the world he and his communist cohorts have been striving to create. Originally a follow-on to the September 2008 article Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis, it was titled “Conspiracy of the Lemmings.” I have added two paragraphs to the discussion on China, updated links that over time were lost, cut out dated material and summarized the section on Obama’s foundation work. Finally, I have appended Andrew Breitbart’s parting admonition from CPAC 2012.

Original Article (Edited)

The United States of America is the world’s marketplace. Without the worldwide trade generated by American demand, the international marketplace will fail. Today we are witnessing an undeniable demonstration of this fact as world markets reel in response to our domestic financial crisis. This lesson must be burnt into our collective conscience. Our nation is the last repository of free market economic principles, and a fundamental change in our government toward socialism will spell worldwide economic disaster from which we may never recover.

Yet this is exactly the endgame of the American radical Left – increasingly indistinguishable from today’s Democrat Party – and offers the only internally consistent explanation for their historic obsession with divisive policy. From their early support of Hitler to their central role in the current financial crisis, the Left’s contribution to domestic and foreign policy at federal, state and local levels can only be described as wantonly destructive. Their takeover of schools and popular culture has been equally toxic. Their environmental radicalism has spawned the energy crisis, while offering no viable alternatives. It defies logic.

But there is logic, a deadly logic, and in the ’60’s, two radicals gave it a name: the Cloward-Piven Strategy. As explained in my prior article, the goal was to create a groundswell of demands for public services to overwhelm government, create crisis and usher in a widespread call for fundamental economic reform at the federal level, with socialism the ultimate goal.

Democrats embrace the rhetoric of “compassion,” but look past the rhetoric to the results. This country is polarized as never before because of their relentless agitation for extremist positions on every issue, and the outrageous tactics they use to promote them. But while Radical Saul Alinsky’s tactics guide today’s Democrat electoral game plan, the Cloward-Piven Strategy describes the overarching goal of almost every leftwing organization/movement/ideal today.

How do they survive?

These organizations rarely produce anything of value, yet are extremely adept at not only surviving but flourishing. Many receive their financial backbone from prominent philanthropies. They also receive subsidies and tax breaks with the help of friends in federal, state and local government. This fact is unknown to most voters, who would be outraged if they fully understood how their tax dollars were being spent.

Our mass media is mostly to blame for the current state of affairs. The Left’s strategies could not survive the light of day. Radicals require a sympathetic media to deliver their message in an acceptable fashion and actively suppress inconvenient facts that reveal these organizations’ true character and agenda. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is perhaps the most poignant current example of this. Without mass media’s shamelessly biased support, he would still be community organizing, or perhaps in jail.

It is a tangled web of radical interconnections with the ultimate goal being an end to our Constitutional framework, the fall of our Republic and its replacement with a radical vision of socialist utopia – finally removing the last major roadblock to world socialism.

These radical individuals are highly motivated, in many cases intelligent and talented, and sometimes even driven by what they would describe as altruistic motives. Yet the impacts of socialist central planning are inarguably destructive.

Marx may have had some interesting insights on history, but despite his ponderous three volume “Das Kapital” he was no economist. Instead, Kapital provided the intellectual excuse for Marx’s anarchistic Communist Manifesto.

And the severe verdict of history on his perverted vision is without equal: over 100 million people murdered by their own governments in times of peace, more than all the wars of history combined. The rest face abject poverty, mass starvation, economic and environmental ruin, all overseen by smothering, indescribably brutal governments – a grey, barren existence for all but the apparatchiks.

So why are so many Westerners infatuated with this demented vision?

Entrepreneurial Parasites

The high-minded types are driven by a galling sense of superiority. They are addicted to their own egos. They know better and can defy the verdict of history because people as smart as they are weren’t around when Russia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea, Ethiopia, Angola, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Congo, Nicaragua, Cuba, Venezuela, etc., went Red.

Living well in affluent, capitalist America, it is all theoretical, so they can indulge their fantasies while promoting this destructive agenda with impunity. For these people ignorance is literally a blessing, for if they soberly analyzed their ego-driven beliefs, they would be embarrassed.

If you examine their pasts closely, you learn that most of these people also came from upper class backgrounds. PhD Chemistry Professor George Wiley, the black radical who led Cloward and Piven’s National Welfare Rights Organization, was a well-to-do son of a Rhode Island family.

Wade Rathke, the NWRO veteran who started ACORN, was from a similarly well-to-do background, although he dropped out of Williams College.

Bill Ayers’ Arrest Photo

Obama’s radical friend Bill Ayers’ family was very wealthy. Looking at his arrest photos, and listening to his smug self-righteousness, you really get the impression that he was little more than an arrogant, spoiled brat, with a titanic sense of entitlement that allowed him to rationalize mass murder.

This is a familiar story throughout the American left and indeed with many of the most infamous communist leaders around the world. For example, Communist China’s first leader, Mao Zedong, the inspiration for Ayers and many other radicals, was son of the wealthiest man in his home town.

According to the incredible biography, Mao: the Unknown Story, he was lazy, arrogant, and refused to work, despite his father’s repeated attempts to find him suitable employment. He finally saw an opportunity for real advancement working for the Soviets. During the Long March he was carried by porters, and was likely often joined by the most attractive picks among his 100,000 “person” army.

As young idealists, many of these people are initially snared into this ideology by the exaggerated sense of self-importance that is often a characteristic of youth. But we all have to live, and as they grow up they discover that the radical profession can be a pretty lucrative racket. Despite their high-minded rhetoric about saving the poor and oppressed, communists and socialists are what I call entrepreneurial parasites.

Consider what they demand of us: sacrifice of all worldly goods to the state, penurious, barren lifstyles, slavish observance of their dictates and full-time commitment to the well-being of the state, while our jobs, careers, industries, the environment, even our lives are threatened. But how do they live?

Obama’s pal Ayers, who describes himself as a “small ‘c’ communist,” lives in a lavish home, in the upscale Hyde Park neighborhood, with a six-figure (or more) income. It is easy to see how, given the open spigot of money his organizations receive from the various non-profit funds he’s ingratiated himself to. Bill Ayers father, Tom, had been CEO of Commonwealth Edison, so Billy boy was used to money, and later developments in his career point to a hand up from Daddy.

Barack lives in Hyde Park too. It is difficult to find anyone in the American Marxist elite who doesn’t fully enjoy the fruits of capitalism in his or her personal life. In fact, Obama’s early career seems to have been centered on dispensing foundation money as a means to secure his career in politics. Here is a perfect example.

Obama’s work on the boards of Woods Fund and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge during the 1990s has been widely publicized, but during that period, Obama also worked for four other foundations, the Joyce Foundation, the Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Leadership for a Quality Education – run by John Ayers, Bill’s brother – and the Chicago Public Education Fund, whose board also included failed bank magnate Penny Pritzger, later finance director of Obama’s 2008 campaign. During that period, Obama shared a small office with Bill Ayers, Mike Klonsky and Mike’s wife, Susan (both prominent movement communists). The mass media has never reported on any of this.

This taste for wealth is not limited to American socialists. Every socialist dictator from Stalin to Saddam has lived in opulent surroundings with multiple estates, scores of servants and every kind of luxury and indulgence available to them.

Marxist austerity is only meant for the rest of us.

See for example, Gorbachev’s dacha in Foros, Crimea – complete with bulletproof glass covered walkway; a testament to communist modesty if ever there was one. Same with all the leaders of communist countries. Indeed, Bulgarian defector Georgi Markov was murdered for his extensive reporting on the opulent, decadent lifestyles of Bulgarian Communist leaders. It’s a good racket, if you don’t mind blood.

While socialist leaders live in lavish style, in every country where socialist policies are imposed, they measurably worsen the lives of everyday citizens in direct proportion to their scope. Even countries with vast natural resources, like Russia, founder because their economies are constructed on the fatally flawed economic principles of socialism.

Despite this, they still manage to live on, in many cases hanging by mere threads for years.

How?

The dirty little secret of socialism is that it cannot survive without capitalism – capitalist countries provide the resources necessary for these socialist governments to continue. In addition to providing a market for their goods, Western nations keep socialist countries afloat through grants and loans from the World Bank, the U.S. Agency for International Development and other governmental institutions, as well as huge investments by private companies.

Even China, widely misunderstood as the next “free market,” only practices market economics one-way in international trade while maintaining iron fisted central planning internally, and could not maintain its current level of economic growth without the markets provided by the United States and other Western countries.

Consider what China has gotten from us: ready made products of proven market viability, the methods for manufacturing them, markets in which to sell them, and the distribution chains to deliver them. They have received invaluable technological expertise and in some cases, monopolistic access to scarce resources formerly controlled by American companies. They have gotten this all for free. And what we get in return? Cheap labor that we can only utilize by shamelessly ignoring their slave-like circumstances.

George H.W. Bush was stupid enough to start the ball rolling with this change, although maybe we should really blame Nixon, who opened the door to China. But the person most responsible for exporting our manufacturing base there was Bill Clinton, erroneously credited with 1990s prosperity. In fact, we traded a short-term prosperity gained through Wal-Mart prices for a dark future clouded by Communist China, now armed to the teeth using American dollars. And people think Clinton was a moderate? He knew exactly what he was doing!

Finally, there is a vast network of American enterprises, owned covertly by foreign dictators, whose true purpose is to provide underground income for these leaders and their socialist governments, while offering convenient cover for industrial and military spies. This fact is rarely mentioned and largely unknown.

At its core, socialism can only be parasitic. It cannot survive without its capitalist host. Therefore, if the United States becomes a socialist country, worldwide capital will soon dry up. Remaining market economies around the world will succumb either to their own internal socialist movements or direct military threat from abroad. Without the protective umbrella of American military might, they will have no other choice.

Without the markets and resources capitalist economies provide, the many socialist countries that have survived on our largesse until now will find their income stream shut off. The world will plunge into an unprecedented, cataclysmic depression. This depression will be of indeterminate length because the wherewithal for recovery – a large capitalist economy – will no longer exist. With a world controlled by parasites, the host will die.

At this point even the parasites will be in danger. The socialists’ internationalist agenda truly is a Conspiracy of the Lemmings. It is not merely a criminal conspiracy, it is criminally insane.

Barack Hussein Obama has been chosen as standard bearer to bring this agenda to fruition here. If he is elected we can expect a sea change in Washington. But it will not be for the better. The socialist economic agenda he has publicly articulated is enough in the current financial crisis to plunge our economy into deep recession. The disarmament agenda he has publicly articulated is enough to strip us of the meager defenses we currently have against a rogue missile attack, and Iran has already telegraphed plans to launch such an attack.

What is even more frightening is the agenda he has not shared, but is implicit in his radical upbringing, his radical connections, and his limited but demonstrative experience.

2012 Conclusion

We are seeing this agenda being played out before our very eyes today. I will repeat what I have said many times before: 2012 will be the most important election in US history, because it will decide our fate as a nation. Please take to heart Breitbart’s parting words:

This is my war cry for 2012. You need to join me in this war against the institutional left. This is not your mother’s Democratic Party. John Podesta, George Soros, this is not your mother’s Democratic Party either… I don’t care who the candidate is, and I haven’t since the beginning… Ask not what the candidate can do for you; ask what you can do for the candidate. And that’s what the Tea Party is. We are there to confront them on behalf of our candidate. I will march behind whoever our candidate is because if we don’t, we lose. There are two paths… one is America and the other one is Occupy… Anyone that’s willing to stand next to me to fight the progressive Left, I will be in that bunker. And if you’re not in that bunker because you’re not satisfied with this candidate, more than shame on you, you’re on the other side!

Why the Federal Debt and Deficit Matter

In 2007 while he was campaigning for President, Barack Obama called George W. Bush irresponsible and un-patriotic for adding $4,000,000,000,000.00 to the US debt during his eight years in office.

President Obama was correct in his estimation. That has not prevented him, however, from increasing the debt by $5,000,000,000,000.00 in less than half the time it took George W. Bush.

Why does it matter? Why all the gloom and doom about ever increasing debt and deficits? The government can just print more money, so why does it matter?

The problem goes to the definition of the word inflation.

in·fla·tion
   [in-fley-shuhn] noun
1. Economics . a persistent, substantial rise in the general level of prices related to an increase in the volume of money and resulting in the loss of value of currency ( opposed to deflation).

By definition, increasing the money supply (printing money, now called quantitative easing) is inflation. It is inflating the money supply. Anytime the money supply is increased, the value of each dollar is lessened, causing prices to increase.

Suppose instead of dollars, we traded in slices of pizza. You get paid at the end of the week in slices, and when you go to buy gas at the service station, you pay with slices of pizza.

Now consider the term value. Suppose the value of a whole pizza cut into six slices is what a tank of gasoline costs for your car.




= One tank of gas






All of the sudden, suppose the government decides that pizzas will be now cut into eight slices instead of six. You get paid in slices, remember, not pizzas. The value of things has not changed, however. A tank of gas still costs a whole pie, meaning you now have to earn two more slices to fill up your tank.





= One tank of gas

Each slice is smaller now, and buys less. This also means that if you have loaned the government pizza slices, by buying treasury bonds, the slices you get back when you cash in your bonds are worth less than the ones you lent them. With interest rates kept artificially low, as they are now, it may even mean that the slices you get back including interest will buy less than the slices you lent them.

Since the dollar is no longer tied to anything of physical value, like gold, its value is purely arbitrary. It depends only on the total number of dollars in circulation. As our government continues to spend money it doesn’t have, it has to borrow the difference, either by selling treasury bonds to it’s citizens, to other countries or to the federal reserve. In order for the federal reserve to purchase enough debt to keep the country going without interest rates going up and greatly increasing taxes on everyone, it has to print more money. At some point, price inflation will start to increase rapidly, what is known as hyperinflation. Prices will skyrocket as in the case of Brazil in the early 1990’s. At its peak, Brazil’s inflation rate was somewhere around 4,000%.

In America, we are already seeing prices on food and energy rise rapidly. There is no question that a fair portion of the rise in energy prices is due to the decreasing value of the dollar. As energy prices rise so does the cost of everything else, especially food.

This relation to quantitative easing (printing money) and price inflation can be illustrated quite easily by comparing the value of silver to the value of gasoline. In 1907 an ounce of silver would buy about 3 gallons of gasoline. In 1984 gasoline was about $1.20 per gallon and silver sold for about $8.14 per ounce meaning that 1 ounce of silver would buy about 6.8 gallons of gas. Today gasoline sells for about $3.83 per gallon and silver for $30.27 per ounce meaning that 1 ounce of silver today will buy 7.9 gallons of gas.

By the gasoline example we see that if silver were used as money, the cost of a gallon of gas today would actually be less than HALF of what it cost in 1907!

In a report titled “The Realities of Modern Hyperinflation” produced by the International Monetary Fund, authors Carmen M . Reinhart and Miguel A. Savastano point out;

“Chronic high inflation does not necessarily degenerate into hyperinflation. But, in the five countries reviewed here, hyperinflation did ensue, triggered by an uncontrolled expansion in the money supply that was fueled by endemic fiscal imbalances.”

One of the reasons for Ron Paul’s insistence on a return to sound money is to avoid a hyperinflation cycle brought about by an ever expanding money supply. If we continue to spend money that we do not have at the federal level, we are headed for exactly the kind of hyperinflation which is devastating to the poor and middle class. Simply taxing the rich will not fix our debt and deficit problem. The rich only have enough money to keep our government spending at its voracious rate for several months at best, even if we confiscate ALL their money.

Currently all revenue the federal government receives is spent on mandatory programs, social security, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, welfare and debt service. All discretionary spending including defense, is borrowed money. If we do not deal with the entitlement programs we are doomed to an inflationary spiral that will quickly spin out of control.

The IMF report leaves us with seven lessons to remember about hyperinflation.

Policymakers would do well to bear in mind the seven lessons that emerge from this overview of modern hyperinflations.

1. Hyperinflations seldom materialize overnight and are usually preceded by a protracted period of high and variable inflation.
2. Stabilization may take years if fiscal policies are not adjusted appropriately. Even when fiscal adjustment is implemented, it takes time to achieve low inflation, especially when money is used as the nominal anchor.
3. Sharp reductions in fiscal deficits are always a critical element of a stabilization program, regardless of the choice of monetary anchor.
4. Unifying exchange markets and establishing currency convertibility are often essential ingredients of stabilization, irrespective of the choice of main nominal anchor.
5. Output collapses during, and sometimes in the run-up to, hyperinflation. Although stabilization measures cap the implosion in economic activity, there is little evidence to suggest that they kindle a robust rebound in economic activity.
6. Hyperinflations are accompanied by an abrupt reduction in financial intermediation.
7. Stopping a hyperinflation does not restore demand for domestic money and domestic currency assets to the levels that prevailed before the hyperinflation began. Capital returns to the country when high inflation stops, but dollarization and other forms of indexation dominate financial intermediation for many years.

Luxury Tax 2.0 – Obama’s War on Prosperity

President Obama keeps asking “Do you want to return to the failed policies of the past?” At the same time he is urging us to envy those who have worked very hard and risked their own capital to make the American dream come true.

An examination of that question might be in order. Those who are not willing to just blindly accept what they hear, but are of reasonable mind might wish to examine the facts. His plea is not a new one, it is one we have tried before, with disastrous results.

The politics of envy got a thorough trial under George Herbert Walker Bush (41). In fact it worked out so well, it cost him his job along with 200,000 other poor unfortunates. Philosopher George Santayana put it so well, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Either the current administration does not remember the “Luxury Tax” or they are banking on the fact that the public does not.

To refresh our memories, after his famous 1988 campaign quote “read my lips, no new taxes”, in 1990 under enormous pressure from the Democrats in congress, President Bush acquiesced and signed the “punish the rich for being rich” luxury tax bill. That bill greatly increased taxes on things like yachts, airplanes and expensive jewelry. The Democrats said it would increase revenues and if folks could afford to buy yachts, they should cough up some of that cash to help the poor and unemployed. The actual effect though, as one might guess, is that people quit buying yachts, or bought them offshore. The net effect was that revenues went down, and 200,000 people who worked in the boat building industry lost their jobs. Ultimately it cost Bush the 1992 election.

What so many people fail to grasp is “The Law of Unintended Consequences.” Everything we do has consequences but so many want a life without adverse consequences to anything. It just isn’t possible. The law of unintended consequences is a offshoot of the law of cause and effect. If one hits one’s self in the head with a hammer, one’s head will hurt. Cause (hitting your head), effect (head hurts).

The law of unintended consequences comes into play when ideas which sound, on the surface like good ideas meant only for the benefit of people, are implemented without any thought to what the actual outcome might be. For example everyone wants clean air. We probably have the cleanest air in the world now, but under the guise of cleaner air the EPA has put in place regulations which are closing coal fired power plants all across the nation, 57 this year and 175 by 2016. In the US 42% of our electricity comes from coal fired generators. That means that in exchange for making our air an infinitesimal amount cleaner we are going to not only sacrifice 8.5% of our coal fired generating capacity with nothing to replace it, but we are going to put thousands and thousands of people out of work. All of this while energy consumption continues to grow. As the power plants shut down, so do the coal mines, the coal haulers, the coal mining suppliers, and the coal rail haulers.

In addition to reducing our capacity for electrical generation, we will also increase the cost of electricity by at least a factor of two. So Grandma, who was worried about Paul Ryan throwing her off a cliff by trying to save social security, can just fry in her apartment because she can’t afford to pay the electric bill.

As the cost of energy increases, so does the cost of everything else. Farmers and manufacturers must pass this added cost on to consumers. Meanwhile, lets add some additional tax and regulatory burden to those manufacturers as well, because they are the evil rich and we have to get them. No one ever explains why we have to get them, we just do. It’s the fair thing, no matter what it costs the rest of us.

Senator Patty Murray – Your Money or Your Life!


In a move reminiscent of Bruno Hauptmann, the Senate’s No. 4 Democrat, Senator Patty Murray said, “Millions of jobs could be lost through the automatic cuts, programs families depend on would be slashed irresponsibly across the board, and middle-class tax cuts would expire. And once again, if Republicans won’t work with us on a balanced approach, we are not going to get a deal.” in a speech at the Brookings Institution on Monday.

She went on, “[I]f we can’t get a good deal – a balanced deal that calls on the wealthy to pay their fair share – then I will absolutely continue this debate into 2013, rather than lock in a long-term deal this year that throws middle-class families under the bus,”.

This is quite like asking, “Would you rather be strangled slowly or shot in the head?” With a 100 year drought looming, the USDA advertising to get more and more people on food stamps because they aren’t spending enough money, the HHS secretary illegally suspending welfare work requirements because they aren’t spending enough money, 4 major cities bankrupt and hundreds more on the brink, more people going on Social Security Disability each month than finding jobs, Ms. Murray is running an extortion scam to raise taxes on the folks who employ 53% of the work force, small business!

Either the Republicans agree with her, and we all jump off the fiscal cliff early next year, or taxes go up for everyone and we jump January 1st.

As we are falling off this impending cliff, I would like Ms. Murray to look my daughter in the eye and explain to her why she won’t be able to get a job when she finishes school. I want Ms. Murray to explain that it was much more important to appear to soak the rich in order for her party to perpetuate a senseless class war so they could get re-elected, than it was to be mindful of my daughter’s welfare.

Even the President acknowledged last year that the last thing you want to do in a recession is raise taxes on anybody. The job creators are leaving in droves. According to the Cato Institute, citizenship renunciation is up a whopping 750% since Barrack Obama was elected.

Jeff Immelt, Obama’s own Job CZAR has said the way to get us out of this mess was to create a stable and predictable tax environment with lower rates and closed loopholes to be competitive with other countries, smaller government, reduced debt and deficit, a trained workforce, a friendlier regulatory environment, and more certainty on health care costs and regulations. But the President hasn’t met with his jobs council in six months. He has been a little busy with all those golf outings and $40,000.00 a plate fund raisers.

Never mind all that, we need Barrack re-elected, and the way to do that is to engender resentment against those who provide the paychecks in this country, those evil rich. Well not all of them are evil rich. Not the ones who have donated money to his campaign. To them we give hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars and watch them go bankrupt or take the money and jobs to Finland, China, India, and Mexico.

By all means Ms. Murray ignore all the economic evidence since time began and continue your bolshevik revolution, it worked out so well for the Soviets.

Global Governance vs. National Sovereignty

The International Conference on Global Governance vs. National Sovereignty, sponsored by American Freedom Alliance, concluded Monday in Los Angeles CA.

The chief question posed at the Conference’s opening: Is Global Governance vs. National Sovereignty the West’s next ideological war?

John Bolton, Former U.S. Ambassador to the UN gave Sunday morning’s Keynote Speech. Ambassador Bolton spoke from first hand experience, sharing front line knowledge accumulated through years of engagement in international diplomacy. He not only gave definition to the term “the Global Governance Movement”, he also described its agenda, which is to subvert national sovereignty in favor of a supranational authority through the invention and initiation of international laws and norms.

After his speech, Ambassador Bolton welcomed Dr. John Fonte, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for American Common Culture at the Hudson Institution, John Yoo, Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkley, Steven Groves, the Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow at the Heritage Institute’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, and Michael Shaw, guiding attorney for Freedom Advocates.org to the stage. The five elaborated intelligently on the consequences of increasing subservience by sovereign nations to the ideology of Global Governance. Both the political makeup and the ideological activism of the UN were indicted.

Following morning breakout sessions focused on:

  • Non-governmental organizations as purveyors of Global Governance
  • The Green Movement, Agenda 21, Global Warming alarmism and Global Governance
  • Who will control the Internet and who will control the seas

The afternoon was kicked off by a Keynote Speech by President Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic. President Klaus spoke directly of the prospects of Global Governance and its European variant, the European Union. Drawing upon his experience as a leader of a former Soviet bloc country, President Klaus warned against the threat of independent sovereign states surrendering control to an un-elected, unaccountable extra-national governing body in a distant capitol.

Larry Greenfield, National Executive Director of the Jewish Institution for National Security Affairs, invited Robert O’Brien, Managing Partner of the Los Angeles office of Arent Fox LLP, Donald Kochan, Professor of Law at Chapman University School of Law and Elan Journo, a fellow in foreign policy at the Ayn Rand Institute into a discussion about the politicization of international law and its impact on national sovereignty. Global and international law were identified as both threats to and the means by which national sovereignty is undermined.

Subsequent to afternoon breakout sessions focusing on:

  • The demonization/diminishment of the United States and Israel as a chief Global Governance strategy
  • Law-fare, international humanitarian law and their role in undermining sovereignty
  • The role of Islam in fostering and encouraging Global Governance

The Honorable John Howard, Australia’s 25th Prime Minister gave the day’s concluding Keynote Speech. The former Prime Minister discussed the concept of the nation state and why it still matters to countries that enjoy governance by popularly elected representative governments.

Sunday’s last panel, featuring President Klaus, Nonie Darwish, founder of Arabs for Israel, John Yoo and John Fonte discussed whether or not liberal democracies have the strength and will to defend their national sovereignty. The endurance of strong constitutions and distinct cultural identities were viewed as key elements in an ongoing uphill struggle by sovereign nation-states against the intrusions of Global Governance. Panelists considered these elements necessary to fending off the introduction and implementation of transnational ambitions by proponents of Global Governance.

The Conference reconvened Monday morning with a spirited discussion concerned with using the political process and judicial system to thwart and defeat Global Governance activism. A distinctly academic intellectual discussion about whether Constitutional Law was robust enough to prevent the political branches of government from violating the Constitution through treaties whose provisions conflict with constitutional guarantees was initiated by Eugene Volokh, professor of law at UCLA School of Law. Professor Volokh gave an extensive portrayal of why the introduction of Sharia Law into the American judicial system is not threatening U.S. Constitutional rule of law. His observations were challenged by Larry Greenfield, Steven Groves and by John Yoo. Professor Volokh’s defense of his position was based primarily on viewing individual situations and circumstances as singular, isolated potential constitutional violations easily rationalized away by equating Islam’s ambitions to those of other, more benign religious institutions found in America. This approach was resounding rejected by Stephen Coughlin, a fellow of the American Freedom Alliance, who successfully portrayed the fallacy of ignoring the global dominance agenda openly preached and taught by proponents of Islamic global dominance under Sharia Law. Mr. Coughlin’s remarks received applause from Conference attendees.

After an address by Professor Mike Farris of Patrick Henry University on how Global Governance threatens the nuclear family through international laws and treaties, the Conference concluded with a reading of and discussion about the Conference Declaration.

The Declaration of Los Angeles: Sovereignty, Democracy and Individual Rights are Indivisible.

We, the undersigned, do hereby append our signatures to the statement below and declare:

THAT national sovereignty, constitutional democracy and the protection of individual rights are indivisible.

THAT constitutional democratic representative government is the most successful political system ever devised by the human mind.

THAT democratic self-government has only existed—and can only exist—within the sovereign liberal democratic nation state in which the people rule themselves.

THAT the principles of liberty, national independence and democratic self-government as articulated in Britain’s establishment of parliamentary democracy, the founding of the American republic, the establishment of the state of Israel, the achievement of dominion status in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the traditional national sovereignty of European democracies, and the continuing growth of liberal democracy in Asia, Latin America and Africa, are superior to any forms of global governance.

THAT the assertion of constitutional government’s obsolescence and decline is utterly false.

THAT while international cooperation should be encouraged and international treaties respected, no supranational authority which claims jurisdiction over liberal democratic states without the consent of the governed should be accepted.

THAT non-governmental organizations which purport to represent an international constituency do not have the legal or political authority to speak for the citizens of liberal democratic nation states, only democratically elected representatives have such legitimate democratic authority.

THAT the constitutions of our respective nations remain the supreme and inalienable law of our lands and if ever a conflict arises between our respective constitutions and any form of supranational authority (such as interpretations of international law, rulings of the United Nations, judgements of international courts, etc.), our Constitutions and constitutional principles will always prevail.

THAT we call on leaders of democratic nation states to reject the demands of transnational advocates to subsume domestic law to international law and stand together with us in upholding the principles of national sovereignty while rejecting the claims and arguments of global governance advocates.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/global-governance-vs-national-sovereignty/

Cradle to Grave Suicide

Alexis Tsipras, head of Greece’s Radical Left Coalition, declared that country’s commitment to austerity is over because voters have rejected those deals. “There is no way we will sneak back in again what the Greek people threw out”, Tsipras said. “This is an historic moment for the Left and the popular movement and a great responsibility for me,” he added, saying he would try to form a left-wing government that will “end the agreements of subservience” with Greece’s bailout creditors. “The pro-bail-out parties no longer have a majority in parliament to vote in destructive measures for the Greek people,” he added. “This is a very important victory for our society.”

In France, Socialist François Hollande said he will move quickly to implement traditionally Socialist tax-and-spend programs, which call for boosting taxes on the rich, increasing state spending, raising the minimum wage, hiring some 60,000 teachers and lowering the retirement age from 62 to 60.

Meanwhile, in California, Gov. Jerry Brown is calling for more social services cuts to help eliminate $15.7 billion deficit. Brown revealed a revised budget that calls for higher income and sales taxes to avoid deep cuts to K-12 and higher education. Rather than canceling an ill advised bullet train to nowhere that will cost the state at least $6 billion to build, Gov. Brown chose to scare Californians into voting for tax hikes by threatening cuts to education.

What do these three states have in common? They’re either already broke or will be soon due to government spending money it doesn’t have on socialist welfare programs, characterized within institutionalized “progressive” leftist circles as “entitlements”.

Greece, where the population is already suffering from 20% unemployment, describes austerity measures they’re expected to follow in order to receive additional bailout money from the EU as “barbaric”. With an economy so weak that it can’t employ one fifth of its own citizens, where does Greece expect to find the money necessary to become financially solvent?

France, if it enacts Hollande’s pledge to mimic Greece’s socialist welfare spending, will soon experience similar fiscal troubles. By following Greece down the road to fiscal insolvency, France will ensure that Germany stands alone in continental Europe as the sole, fiscally responsible, productive society.

California has been on a similar, European style path for decades, which is why California is closer to a fiscal cliff that most of the United States. The legislature in California continuously acts on the belief that it can spend the state into prosperity. California has taxed the rich, spent money on socialist programs, established sanctuary cities that fund the lives of millions of illegal aliens and spent huge amounts of money on education. Much of the cost of that education goes for the children of unlawful residents.

On the list of most business friendly states, California is currently ranked fiftieth. California has held that rank for the last eight years. Meanwhile, businesses are fleeing California in droves, seeking residence in states like Texas, where tax and regulatory policies are friendlier to business. The California tax base is fleeing along with those businesses.

In Sacramento California, government employee unions are running the show. Not only do “progressive” politicians vote overvalued salaries and perks for themselves, they also obediently kowtow to union demands for ever escalating salaries, benefits and pensions. This occurs because those politicians depend on union money, muscle and turnout for their own re-election. Rather than choosing to run the state responsibly, self interested career politicians continuously submit to demands from “civil servants” who are too often far from civil. The looming, unfunded costs of union benefits and pensions are among the largest liabilities contributing to the state’s $15.7 billion deficit.

These are precisely the results all Americans can expect for future generations if the cradle to grave mentality continues to be legislated by “progressive” me first career politicians. These results are predictable if the cradle to grave lie remains propagandized in schools, promoted in television programs, glorified in the movies and dutifully drubbed into the minds of sound bite voters by the news media.

If America is to be saved, these combined forces of the institutionalized “progressive” left must be stopped; starting with voting “progressive” politicians out of office. That’s the first order of business. When a patient arrives in an emergency room, stopping the bleeding receives top priority. The detailed surgery needed to excise the root problem, while still necessary, comes later. It took years for “progressives” to infiltrate and infect academia, Hollywood, the media and political class with their cancerous agenda. And while delay is not an option, it will take years to repair those institutions.

Unless that happens, today’s Americans will spend their declining years describing to young people who’ll listen, how the United States was once the place where the world’s people came for otherwise unavailable opportunity. How the land of the free and the home of the brave was more than just a line in a song.

In America, for an increasingly limited amount of time, cradle to grave suicide is still an option.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/05/15/cradle-to-grave-suicide/

Obama would not have to pay higher taxes under ‘Buffett Rule’

Obama’s new signature tax hike initiative, the Buffett Rule, would not apply to him according to his 2011 tax return released by the White House.

The liberal proposal to raise taxes on the rich would only come into play had Obama made at least $1 million. His return shows that the President only made $789,674 last year – mostly from book sales.

The Obama’s tax bill came to $162,074 which means his effective tax rate was just over 20%.

The White House announcement contradicts both the initial idea of the Buffett Rule and the legislation built upon it – the Paying a Fair Share Act of 2012. In the announcement, the White House says, “Under the President’s own tax proposals, including the expiration of the high-income tax cuts and limitations on the value of tax preferences for high-income households, he would pay more in taxes while ensuring we cut taxes for the middle class and those trying to get in it.”, but the Buffet Rule was to put a higher tax rate on those making $1 million or more and the Paying a Fair Share Act of 2012 has only that provision.

The Paying a Fair Share Act has no chance to pass the House and will likely fail in the Senate. The populist legislation will have the intended effect of characterizing Republicans to be protecting the wealthy when the GOP defeat Obama’s latest effort to redistribute the wealth of American citizens.

Democrats have positioned the legislation as a deficit-cutting move while no one actually believes that the ~$4 billion in annual revenue will go to anything but increasing the size of government – Congress has yet to meet a dollar that they cannot spend.

Obama 2012: We have to save Buffet’s Secretary

Already owning the honor of having passed Jimmy Carter as the president overseeing the fastest increase in gas prices in history and quickly approaching the legendary inflationist on food prices, Obama is going for the trifecta during his failing recovery: raise taxes during an economic downturn.

Giving it the false populist nom-de-guerre of “The Buffet Rule”, President Obama has no other major tactic on display for his 2012 re-election campaign. The rule got its name after Mr. Buffet said that he felt that taxation should be more fair between himself and his secretary. Of course, his secretary earns over $200,000 a year – not exactly an every person comparison. So exactly who is the rule intended to benefit?

Barack Obama of course – he has to deflect attention away from his complete failure of a presidency and his inability to deliver on any of his campaign promises.

President Obama promised that if the economy had not turned around by the end of his current term, it would be his responsibility. Mr. Obama also said the he would slash the deficit in half by the end of his first term, keep unemployment under 8% and lead the most transparent administration in history. He obviously can’t run a re-election campaign on any of that.

His campaign staff is surely struggling with a new message since hope and change has turned into tens of millions of Americans so frustrated with the job market that they just gave up. Despite severe mis-characterizations from the Obama 2012 effort, fewer people have jobs now than when Obama took office. That math undeniably refutes he and Joe Biden’s assertions that they have created millions of jobs.

His green jobs effort has been one failed investment after another. Solar, algae, bio-deisel .. all of it – bankruptcies, failures,  boondoggles and cronyism have been the only output of Obama’s energy policy. All while fuel prices for the real 99% of Americans have gone through the roof.

No, he really can’t use any of those things on a bumper sticker. Instead, it’s “Obama/Biden 2012 – we’ll raise taxes on people in a bad economy”. That’s really all that’s coming from the White House. No plan for a brighter future, no job creation initiative, no deficit cutting, no plan to fix social security or medicare ..  nope, just “we have to help Buffet’s secretary” – you know, the one that’s a 1%er.

Where is the outrage from Occupy, the New Black Panthers, Jesse Jackson or the Unions? Obama is pushing a bill designed to make things more fair for a person that makes more than $200,00 a year, isn’t in a union and works for an investment firm.

There won’t be any outrage – “saving Buffet’s secretary” may just become a battle-cry instead.

400 “Peaceful” Oakland Occupiers Arrested

The Occupy Wall Street mob violence flared up again this past weekend in Oakland, Calif., resulting in over 400 arrests while many mainstream media puppeteers still refer to the Occupy protesters as being involved in a “peaceful” historic national movement across America. Yahoo has decided to slap a retread of a Reuters article title today that is titled, Arrests in Oakland protests rise to over 400  into their Destination 2012 section, which is supposed to be about the 2012 national elections. How does that decision line up with the Occupy Wall Street operatives and their constant claims that the movement is not political? Certain people are trying to give this “movement” validity by inserting it into a national politics section. Reuters goes out of it’s way to try to distance this weekend’s violence from the Occupy Wall Street mob several times in the above-linked article with the following tidbits: (emphasis added)

“The protests in most cities have been peaceful and sparked a national debate over how much of the country’s wealth is held by the richest 1 percent of the population. President Barack Obama has sought to capitalize on the attention by calling for higher taxes on the richest Americans.”

 

 “Oakland Mayor Jean Quan accused a “violent splinter group” of the Occupy movement of fomenting the Saturday protests and using the city as its playground.” ( that would be the same Mayor who spoke at an Occupy Oakland Rally and largely refused to clamp down on these misfits, even when rampant drug abuse, rape, theft, and overall filthy conditions were being reported in these Occupy camps across America, and especially in Oakland)

 

“Crews cleaned up Oakland’s historic City Hall on Sunday from damage inflicted overnight during violent anti-Wall Street protests that resulted in about 400 arrests, marking one of the largest mass arrests since nationwide protests began last year.” (Notice the concentrated effort to not call these people who they really are, as in Occupy Wall Street protesters?)

 

The media is proven to be complicit in attempting to separate the Occupiers into two categories to nudge the public perception of just who these Occupiers really are. The thousands of violent acts, rapes, drug arrests, and massive reports of theft are all put into the “violent splinter group category”  in order to protect the supposedly peaceful, fun-loving, innocent rest of the group. The Occupiers claim to represent 99% of Americans while the fact remains that the informed citizenry finds them repulsive and disgusting, as many surveys have reported.  Politico  shows us that, at one point, 37% of Americans viewed the OWS  crowd favorably. That was the headline, by the way, while ignoring the other 63% of America that sees the OWS crowd for what it is: A bunch of nasty, defecating on police cars and urinating in the street, rabble-rousers, rapists, anarchists and low-life criminals who have no respect for the rest of society. Yet the media manipulators still paint them as some type of grassroots movement that is endeared by all of America, including  Mr. Barack Hussein Obama.

Of course the media has to paint the OWS mob in an angelic light, as we see in this article that the Occupiers do, in fact, have the support of the DNC and Barack Obama. Just ask yourselves one question: When, if ever, have you heard President Obama, any Democrat, or anyone in their media-puppet stable denounce the OWS perpetrators for the numerous reports of rape, theft, and their overall disrespect for the rest of society? Just watch how the media downplays this weekend’s 400+ Occupy Wall Street arrests in Oakland, just like they downplayed the planned shutdown of  many of America’s shipping ports back on Monday, Dec, 12th 2011. To note that after that action, Best Buy ended up with a shortage of electronics products that were ordered for Christmas. Coincidence? The public will never know, as the mainstream media largely refused to report on the mob action targeting the nation’s shipping ports 13 days before Christmas.

This latest Occupy Wall Street episode in Oakland actually started on Saturday, when the Occupiers tried to take over an empty downtown convention center to establish a new headquarters.  The Occupiers don’t think they should have to  pay for anything in life, they just take it.  To prove this point, they hurled bottles, pipe bombs, smoke bombs, burning flares, and assorted improvised explosive devices at police who were stopping them from taking over a convention center on Saturday. The police also warned the Occupy Wall Street protesters that they would not tolerate the continued violence and  overt lawlessness on Sunday. Occupy Wall Street chose to ignore the warning, thus over 400 of them were arrested.

Finally, after months of ignoring the Occupy Wall Street protesters in our nation’s capitol on orders from the administration of Barack Obama under the guise of free speech, the National Park Service will start enforcing the decades old ban on camping overnight in McPherson Square and Freedom Plaza on Monday at noon. We can look forward to more false-flag media stories about supposed police brutality and  abuse tomorrow coming out of DC, as the pattern of Occupy Wall Street protesters baiting police officers with camera’s at the ready will be sure to continue.

Update: Watch the mob violence here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just What, Exactly, Is The Buffett Plan?

Warren Buffett stepped into the spotlight recently to say that he does not pay enough taxes. He states that he is wealthy enough that he can afford to pay more taxes than he does now. There is no doubt that he can afford a higher tax bill, but why is Buffett calling for higher taxes on the “rich” when he employees an army of Tax Attorneys to keep him from paying as much in taxes?

“Far more often, we see leaders in this country doing the opposite: protecting their own interests, their own careers or their own fortunes, with little worry about what it will mean to others,” wrote Post blogger, Jena McGregor.

Could Buffett be up to no good? Could Buffett benefit from such legislation being passed? Could this be Buffet’s way of paying Obama for his Medal of Freedom?

We all know that when it comes to tax laws, there are always loop holes written in to “protect” those of certain groups or interests. If such a bill were to pass, you can rest assured that other new taxes would soon follow on all levels.

New taxes would only hinder job growth and further drive our economy deeper into the recession, or worse yet, send us into another depression. How many companies will fold due to new taxes? Could this be where Buffett’s windfall is?

It is common knowledge that Buffett regularly buys companies and dismantles them or sells them later. Could this, in fact, but the real Buffett plan- to just sit back and wait for the effects of the proposed bill shackled on the American people to take place ?  In a very short time, companies will begin to break under the new tax burdens the proposed bill puts into place; then,  Buffet can just swoop in and buy out selected companies for next to nothing.

Would Obama get a commission on each company? (A curious thought to ponder.) If such a plan lies behind all of the posturing, it will, without a doubt, take greed to a whole new level. Maybe the real goal behind the plan is that Buffett is gunning for the #1 position on the world’s wealthiest list.

By the Numbers: Big Oil and Wealthy Already Sharing Sacrifice

The Obama administration, big-labor, and far-left extremist (a.k.a. progressives) are repeating a destructive mantra: tax the rich, tax the big oil companies, share the sacrifice.

According to Forbes the three oil giants in America are paying more than the standard corporate rate and certainly much more than Obama’s favorite company GE.

America’s three biggest oil companies, ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM – News), Chevron (NYSE: CVX – News) and ConocoPhillips (NYSE: COP – News), all endure income tax burdens of more than 40% — higher than the statutory U.S. rate of 35%

Tack on top of that the measly 5.7% profit margin that the oil companies operate under and it becomes painfully obvious that if taxes are raised on oil companies, it will unquestionably be passed on to consumers – or the companies will be forced to move operations overseas. If Obama and the loony left get their way, the additional taxes will show up in the price at the pump or the over 9 million people employed by the oil companies may become unemployed. The progressives will give them no other choice.

Exxon, Chevron and ConnocoPhillips aren’t the only target for the tax-hungry liberal elite. The Obama administration has brought class warfare to an entirely new level. Constantly pandering to the unions and those dependent on entitlements, the President is asking the wealthy to pay even more in taxes.

The wealthiest 1% of earners pay more in income taxes than the lowest 50% – in fact, almost half pay no income taxes at all! Imagine 100 people going to a movie together. Half of the crowd is told that their ticket is being paid for by the one person “over there” in the crowd. Upon arriving at the movie theater, the one person that is paying for the free-loaders is told that his ticket will cost $400.00, he decides he doesn’t want to play and goes, by himself, to another theater and pays his $8 – his fair share. The 49 that were prepared to pay for their own tickets are now told that the top 5% of them will need to pay a few hundred dollars to buy tickets for the free-loading fifty. Of course, they leave too. This continues until only one person is left who turns away having been denied his “free” movie ticket. These are the effects of a highly-progressive tax system.

The wealthy also pay the death tax – a tax on their property for simply passing it on to their heirs. These “wealthy” also include cash-strapped farmers and family business owners.

On the purely emotion-driven liberal side, it is repeated that the wealthy are holding on to their money and depriving the economy of their wealth. First, it’s their wealth – they earned it and can do whatever they want with it. One might argue that those that take social security at 62 are robbing the country of their productivity. What about that wealth?

There is also the fact that when the wealthy “hold on” to their money, they invest it. They don’t stick it in giant vaults in the basements of their houses. They put it in banks, or investments and that money is multiplied through re-investment (basis for leverage). If that money goes to the government, it does not grow.

These are empirical facts, not emotion-driven propaganda. By the numbers, progressives are wrong.

« Older Entries