Appetite For Deception

APPETITE FOR DECEPTION

"I think that's all fine and good but here's what I think, in the next 47 days you can fire the whole trickle-down, on-your-own, look-the-other way crowd in Washington who has led us down this disastrous path. Don't just get rid of one guy. Get rid of this administration, Get rid of this philosophy. Get rid of the do-nothing approach to our economic problem and put somebody in there who's going to fight for you." -Barack H. Obama

With the explosion of news coming out of the financial markets these days you could be led to believe the United States is on the verge of a massive economic collapse on par with the Great Depression. The stock market plunges 500 points one day on the news of AIG's impending failure then rebounds 700 points the next two days. Markets in other countries have to be closed because they are rising too fast! All this on the news that the Federal Government is coming to the rescue with hundreds of billions of our dollars by assuming control of still more of the mortgage industry. Ahh, the smell of socialism comes to America and Wall Street rejoices. With the collapse of the mortgage industry, a lot of politicians are calling for heads to roll. Somebody should have said something...right? Somebody should have done something...right? Well my friends, somebody did say something and somebody did do something. Step inside a twisted tale Hollywood could have never imagined, yet most assuredly, will vote for...

The Federal National Mortgage Association, aka Fannie Mae, was created in 1938 as part of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal. Ironically, it was originally created to bail out failing banks after the collapse of the national housing market in the wake of the Great Depression. Borrowers were defaulting on mortgages not unlike they are in the current situation. Fannie Mae was established in order to provide local banks with federal money to finance home mortgages in an attempt to raise the level of home ownership and the availability of affordable housing. It operated like a national savings and loan, allowing local banks to charge low interest rates on mortgages for the benefit of home buyers.

In 1968, due to economic pressure created by the Vietnam War, President Lyndon B. Johnson privatized Fannie Mae in order to remove it from the federal budget. At this point, Fannie Mae began operating as a GSE (Government Sponsored Enterprise), generating profits for stock holders while enjoying the benefits of exemption from taxation and oversight as well as implied government backing.

The Federal Home Mortgage Corporation, aka Freddie Mac, was created in 1970 also as a GSE privately owned and operated by shareholders and financially backed by the Federal Government. These government protections include access to a line of credit through the U.S. Treasury, exemption from state and local income taxes and exemption from SEC oversight. Freddie Mac was created largely for the purpose of preventing Fannie Mae from operating as a monopoly.

Although these entities have been getting all the media attention due to their recent failures, the true culprit of the mortgage debacle is something called The Community Reinvestment Act, signed into law by Jimmy Carter in 1977! The CRA allowed banks to lend money based on minority status, not the ability to repay the loans. Banks who were given federal money to lend were assessed ratings that were not based on the soundness of the risk of their loans, but on the number of loans given to minorities. President Bill Clinton took the CRA even farther by committing U.S. banks to make available nearly one TRILLION dollars for inner-city and low-income mortgages and real estate development projects.

Banks were required to furnish a certain percentage of their loans to low income minorities, regardless of their inability to re-pay the loans, and the banks' ratings were tied to these loans. In other words, the banks could not maintain a high rating unless they participated in this disastrous practice. Government coercion at its finest! The standard 20% down-payment rules were eliminated. New terms of length were installed, abolishing the traditional 20 year mortgage and giving loans of up to 40 years!

Left wing community groups like ACORN were allowed to set up offices to help minorities qualify for loans and banks were required to accept the information provided by ACORN. Information that was often false! Borrowers, who often made as little as $30K a year, were listed as having incomes of over $70K in order to qualify and the banks were required to accept that information without question. There were even loans like NINJA (no income, no job or assets) loans. Unstable income, such as child support payments or welfare payments, were allowed to be considered part of the borrowers income! How dependable is that for a source of income? This was a disaster waiting to happen. Somebody should have said something! Somebody should have done something! Unfortunately those who opposed the Clinton Administration's Financial Modernization bill were often called bigots for opposing these lending practices that were, on their face, designed to encourage minority participation in home ownership. The reality was that this became a pet banking system for the democratic party and some of its most questionable allies.

Enter Franklin Raines, Vice-Chairman at Fannie Mae from 1991 to 1996. In 1996 he joined the Clinton Administration as the Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, where he served until 1998. In 1999, he returned to Fannie Mae, but this time it was as the CEO, the first black man to head a Fortune 500 company. In 2004 Raines accepted what was called an "early retirement" after a report from The Office of Federal Housing Oversight found numerous accounting discrepancies in Fannie Mae's operation. Raines tried to take his money and run, but he did not get away.

Raines was accused by The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, the regulating body of Fannie Mae, of widespread accounting errors, which included the shifting of losses so senior executives, such as himself, could earn large bonuses. Exactly the behavior that led to the infamous ENRON scandal.
In 2006, the OFHEO initiated a lawsuit against Raines in order to recover some or all of the $50 million in payments made to Raines based on the falsified earnings statements. He is accused of overstating Fannie Mae's assets to the tune of 6.3 billion dollars.

Then there is the case of James A. Johnson. The same Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight report from September 2004 found that, during Johnson's tenure as CEO, Fannie Mae had improperly deferred $200 million in expenses. This enabled top executives, including Johnson and his successor, Franklin Raines, to receive substantial bonuses in 1998. A 2006 OFHEO report found that Fannie Mae had substantially under reported Johnson's compensation. Originally reported as $6-7 million, Johnson actually received approximately $21 million in compensation.

With all these shenanigans going on in government sponsored entities you would think somebody would have wanted to get involved. Somebody should have said something...right? Well, somebody did, as this report from 2003 indicates:

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt - is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates. -New York Times

Though the President was attempting to take action he was of course met with criticism from the usual cast of characters whose statements now seem rather foolish:

''These two entities are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
-Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing." -Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina

That's keeping your eye on the ball. Why do you think these democrats were so defensive of this particular enterprise? Why would they go out on a limb to defend the indefensible? As always those who sought to criticize the operations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were accused of bigotry and hostility to the poor. Still, somebody else did dare to say something in 2005:

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac-known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs-and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

Who was this man who dared to present legislation to gain control of these two GSE entities that were running amok? Senator John S. McCain. It looks like he was ahead of the curve on this economic crisis just like he was ahead of the curve on the need for more troops in Iraq. What were the objectives of this bill?

In lieu of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), an independent Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Agency which shall have authority over the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Banks, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac); and the Federal Housing Enterprise Board.

Sets forth operating, administrative, and regulatory provisions of the Agency, including provisions respecting: (1) assessment authority; (2) authority to limit nonmission-related assets; (3) minimum and critical capital levels; (4) risk-based capital test; (5) capital classifications and undercapitalized enterprises; (6) enforcement actions and penalties; (7) golden parachutes; and (8) reporting.

Like the Bush administration's attempt to reign in the renegade GSE's two years earlier, this bill failed to get through congress. In fact it died in committee. Is it a coincidence that the ranking Democrat on the committee (and its current chairman) is also the number one recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae? Senator Chris Dodd received $165,400 in contributions from the wayward GSE. It appears to be money well spent as it helped Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac navigate the hostile waters of republican meddling. After the Democrats retook the House and Senate in 2006 it looked like smooth sailing. Well, until the housing market hit its zenith and started to slow down, causing home values to go down and these dubious mortgages to accelerate their defaulting.

Which brings us to the conclusion of our master deception. How does this play out to the voters in this year's presidential election? Well, there is an interesting twist to the final act in this drama. Consider this statement concerning the action the government is now taking to try and rescue the situation:

"One of the central requirements that I have consistently set in evaluating any intervention under this new legislation is that such action protect taxpayers and not bail out senior management from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Multi-million dollar severance payments for the executives who helped steer these institutions into the current crisis situation would violate the spirit of the authority granted by Congress to the Treasury Department and would violate the public's trust." -Barack H. Obama

It would appear from this statement that Barack Obama feels that the executives of these companies are the villains. Strange when one considers that both Franklin Raines and James Johnson, the two CEO's who profited from the fraudulent and misrepresented reporting at Fannie Mae, have found themselves working for... Barack Obama! That's right. Mr. Obama, who claims to be worried about violating the public's trust, has found it within himself to trust these two criminal CEO's to work with his campaign. I guess the reason he did not want the government to bail out the senior officials of these companies is because he wanted to bail them out himself! And this from a man who claims his "judgement" qualifies him for the presidency.

James A. Johnson was tapped by Obama to head his search committee to choose his Vice President. Perhaps another disastrous failure in and of itself considering the result. And though Obama is attempting to deny that Franklin Raines is actually one of his economic advisers, Raines has already confirmed that he has had several "conversations" with Obama regarding economic policy and, ironically, the mortgage crisis. I guess you can say Obama showed good "judgement" by consulting an "expert" on the subject. This is extremely disconcerting when one considers that presidents generally pick their staff and cabinet from the pool of people who advise them during their campaigns. How does the prospect of Franklin Raines' and James Johnson's hands fondling the federal treasury appeal to you?

Obama also has dirty hands when it come to being a recipient of some of Fannie Mae's "generosity" regarding political contributions. Fannie Mae donated $126,349 to Obama. Second only to Senator Dodd, and we know what "favors" they received from him. What, praytell, do they expect to receive from Obama? With the taxpayers on the hook for billions of dollars, why would Obama accept contributions from such a source? In fairness, the list of Senators and representatives that have received contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from 1989 to 2008 is a long one. John McCain himself received $21,550. But Obama has only been in the senate since 2004! Yet he is the second largest recipient! So much for change you can believe in.

In conclusion, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, combined with enhancements to The Community Reinvestment Act, have been creations and favored pets of democrats and Clinton administration appointees. It was an illusion that on its face appeared to be designed to make mortgages available to people who were ill suited to pay for them. Hidden from public view, it was a banking system to funnel money to left wing operations and democratic operatives who were handsomely rewarded for their misreporting and misrepresenting of the going's on within their criminal enterprise.

Remember when Nancy Pelosi came in as Speaker of the House and promised the most ethical House of Representatives ever? Where are the prosecutions? The investigations? Funny how she loses interest in such ethical matters when its the Democrats who are on the take. Gotta restart those "impeach Bush" hearings again!

Try as he might, there is no way Barack Obama can lay this crisis at the feet of the Bush administration or John McCain. Both men made valiant attempts at intervening. Somebody should have said something. They did. Somebody should have done something. They did. Unfortunately too many others were looking out for their own interests and not the taxpayers. Don't be deceived any further. It is Barack Obama and his sycophants whose lips are firmly wrapped around Fannie Mae's nipples...and you know what that sucking sound is!

The Audacity Of "Obamanomics"

THE AUDACITY OF "OBAMANOMICS"

"We've all got some unfinished business to attend to: The business of shaking things up, and asking hard questions, and insisting on the hard truths. The business of embracing those who struggle and making their struggles our own. The business of refusing to settle for anything less than what's right and what's fair and what's just." -Barack H. Obama

Well there is no way I can get around it. I am finally going to have to deal directly with the ideas and ideology of presidential hopeful Barack H. Obama. He titled his book "The Audacity Of Hope" and make no mistake about it, he is an audacious man. However, a more honest title might have been "The Audacity Of a Socialist," for everything he has said reeks of a true believer in pure, unadulterated socialism. As the above statement indicates, he has no problem with using the government as a tool for intervening and interfering with the lives of American citizens. Always, of course, in the name of doing "what's right and what's fair and what's just." Lets look at what this portends for us all…

"We meet at one of those defining moments - a moment when our nation is at war, our economy is in turmoil, and the American promise has been threatened once more." -Barack H. Obama

Well if you are a socialist it is imperative that you generate a crisis that needs immediate attention. Unfortunately for socialists America truly is not in bad shape. Therefore they must construct an illusion to try and motivate public perception to see "turmoil" where there is none. The economy is always a profitable place to hunt for grievances as there will always be some people who feel they are not as well off as they would like to be. The socialist must therefore create a sense of covetousness within our society and then capitalize on the envy and inferiority that is generated as many people feel that they have been "disenfranchised" from something that has never belonged to them.

EXODUS 2:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Ahh yes, the tenth commandment. I will have to forgive many of you for being unfamiliar with it since teaching such things is considered undesirable in modern America's socialist schools. Yet I cannot help but feel that removing such moral instruction from the lives of our citizens has proven quite useful in convincing so many that they are worse off than they really are. The mortgage "crisis" being a perfect example. In order to allow more people to "participate in the American dream" laws were crafted to reduce the qualifications for loaning money for home-buyers. This of course leads to those once unqualified for such loans, to then fulfill these initial suspicions by defaulting on their loans. According to Barack Obama this is an economy in turmoil because close to a million people are having trouble paying these mortgages. The American dream therefore must be failing, and of course this is the fault of George W. Bush.

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, what he failed to mention was the fact that during the Bush administration there have been 17 million first time homebuyers. That means 95% of first time home-buyers under the Bush administration are actually paying for their houses without any complaint or government help. Combine that with the report that the GDP grew by 3.3% from April through June, the highest growth rate in the industrialized world for that period, and you are left with an economy that just will not drop into a recession in spite of all the attempts by the media to fabricate one through fear and misreporting of facts. So much for an economy in turmoil and its subsequent threat to the "American promise." And as for that war the senator referenced, we are winning it, in spite of Senator Obama's proud opposition to it.

"We measure progress by how many people can find a job that pays the mortgage; whether you can put a little extra money away at the end of each month so you can someday watch your child receive her college diploma." -Barack H. Obama

Here is a problem with socialists: They have to intrude into every facet of your life. Why should government be concerned with your job, your mortgage or your child's college education? That is none of their business. Already we see some of the fruits of this poisonous way of thinking with the government passing a bill that will aid homeowners who are defaulting on their loans. But what of the 95% of homeowners who aren't defaulting? Why should they have to subsidize others who bought more house than they could afford? Why should we the taxpayer have to be involved in financing the college educations of children other than our own? This is Mr. Obama's idea of "what's right and what's fair and what's just?"

"Unlike John McCain, I will stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas, and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America.
I will cut taxes - cut taxes - for 95% of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class." -Barack H. Obama

Good luck with that! I am starting to think that a college degree from Harvard University is a bit over-rated. The economics department obviously needs some work as Mr. Obama fails to understand that it is the higher taxes that are CAUSING the jobs to be lost overseas. According to figures from the CATO institute the United States has is surpassed only by Japan for the highest tax rates in the developed free world with a rate of 40%. This is AFTER the much maligned Bush tax cuts. Ireland, whose economy is booming, has a corporate tax rate of 12.5%. They have been steadily lowering their tax rates and steadily watching their economy grow.

If Mr. Obama is elected and insists on repealing the Bush tax cuts, as he regularly claims that he will, that will make the United States the country with the highest corporate taxes in the free world. What does Mr. Obama think is causing corporations to move their jobs and their money overseas? Rising unemployment is one element of the economy that genuinely needs to be dealt with, but not by raising taxes on the very corporations you need to create new jobs. If he wants to bring jobs back to America and entice the creation of new ones he should be cutting corporate taxes, but that doesn't sound so well when you are trolling for votes among the least productive elements of our society. You must convince them that its and "us against them" game and that the rules need to be changed.

There is good news for Mr. Obama on that front too! By raising taxes on corporations and driving more of them to overseas markets there will be fewer working families to receive the tax cuts that he is offering them in exchange for their votes. Fewer working families will mean an increased in the aggrieved classes who always vote for democrats, and of course, fewer people to actually receive the phantom tax cuts he is baiting them with.

Mr. Obama likes to say he will only raise taxes on those people making over $250,000 a year. That sounds good until you understand that almost everyone works for someone making that kind of money. They will have to cut some expenses to pay the new taxes. Your job just may be that expense.

"And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as President: in ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East."
"As President, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I'll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. I'll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I'll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy - wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced." -Barack H. Obama

My oh my aren't we optimistic, and just a little bit plagiaristic too. It seems that he is, in a somewhat half-hearted manner, adopting John McCain's energy plan. McCain has long since been on record as calling for more production of U.S. resources. However he had the courage to call for 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 and another 55 shortly thereafter. Now that is a commitment. He is also calling for a streamlining of the process for obtaining licenses and permits to build them. This is generally the biggest obstacle in their construction. Obama by contrast is speaking in generalities and promising only lots of "restrictions" and "regulations" that are sure to delay production.

One place Mr. Obama does not speak in general terms is in his call for a whopping 150 BILLION dollars to subsidize new and unproven potential sources of energy. It appears that when Mr. Obama sees oil he is clearly aware that there is a finite reserve of those resources, but when it comes to taxpayer funding Mr. Obama sees nothing but vast untapped reserves. Unfortunately those reserves consist of yours and my money. But in Mr. Obama's world this is "what's right and what's fair and what's just."

"Now is the time to finally meet our moral obligation to provide every child a world-class education, because it will take nothing less to compete in the global economy. Michelle and I are only here tonight because we were given a chance at an education. And I will not settle for an America where some kids don't have that chance. I'll invest in early childhood education. I'll recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries and give them more support. And in exchange, I'll ask for higher standards and more accountability. And we will keep our promise to every young American - if you commit to serving your community or your country, we will make sure you can afford a college education." -Barack H. Obama

When did it become our "moral obligation to provide every child with a world class education?" I always find it hard to tolerate a lecture on morality from a party dedicated to the tolerance and perpetuation of every form of immorality and decadence it can find. Is it the president's job to invest our money on recruiting an "army of new teachers?" My constitution must be missing that part. It is especially distressing to see that Mr. Obama believes that America owes every child a college education. The colleges are filled with people who can't read or tell you what happened at Gettysburg thanks to government intervention in the K-12 educational system. How does he feel they merit more responsibility, and more money?

"Now is the time to help families with paid sick days and better family leave, because nobody in America should have to choose between keeping their jobs and caring for a sick child or ailing parent." -Barack H. Obama

That is some sweet sounding altruistic garbage. The government has no right or authority to be dictating the day to day operation of either a place of business or the family life of its citizens. This is just another example of Mr. Obama's complete acceptance of socialist dogma. Freedom is entirely built upon the making of choices. Remove them, and you will remove your freedom. You have a right to be paid for work that you do. This policy is the equivalent of forcing someone to pay you for not being at work at all. Is this "what's right and what's fair and what's just?" You are not owed sick days or family leave from anyone.

"Now is the time to change our bankruptcy laws, so that your pensions are protected ahead of CEO bonuses; and the time to protect Social Security for future generations." -Barack H. Obama

I guess its not enough to bail out a million homeowners who defaulted on their loans, now the government must backup the pensions of private businesses and regulate their behavior. Once again we see Mr. Obama's inclination to grow the government's responsibility and intrude on the operations of businesses. Between increased regulation and increased taxes is it any wonder corporations would seek to move their operations elsewhere. CEO bonuses, however outlandish they may be, are private business and not a matter for government.

Social Security is, of course, the flagship of socialism in America. It was an illegal, unconstitutional program when Franklin Roosevelt started it. Privatization, with an intention to move toward its elimination, is the only solution to fixing this program. It has grown to the point that it is unsustainable and everyone knows it. Yet it is the immorality of the program that has always bothered me. Old and sick people should be cared for by their families. Not by the government.

"Now is the time to finally keep the promise of affordable, accessible health care for every single American. If you have health care, my plan will lower your premiums. If you don't, you'll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves. And as someone who watched my mother argue with insurance companies while she lay in bed dying of cancer, I will make certain those companies stop discriminating against those who are sick and need care the most." -Barack H. Obama

If Social Security has been the flagship of the great socialist invasion fleet then Universal Health Care is the armor that is coming ashore. Once again I ask: who promised "affordable, accessible health care for every single American?" The government should not be in the health care business. If you think health insurance companies are hard to deal with wait until you get health care administered by the government. There will always be people who lack in health care for one reason or another. Health care is one of the choices that free people either choose to enter into or not. Often their lack of ability to acquire health care is a result of other choices they freely made beforehand. People who engage in high risk behavior are going to be more expensive to care for and therefore cost more to insure. That is simple enough that even a Harvard graduate should understand it.

If you grant everyone the right to health care then the doctors offices will be filled with people with marginal sicknesses and they will prevent truly sick people from being able to get attention. That is the natural consequence of anything "free." Rationing is the next direct consequence of government health care in order to address that situation. Rationing of health care services has occurred in every government health care system ever created. That makes the government the distributor of health care. Think about that! How well do you think they will do it? Do you really want to hand over all the decision-making of your health in exchange for affordable or free health care?

Once the government becomes the distributor of health care they will be able to set the parameters for its operation. Did you know they then can and will decide what you should eat? Why not? What you eat and how you behave becomes EVERYONE'S business when the cost is bore by everyone. Do you really want that much intrusion? Is that your idea of "what's right and what's fair and what's just?"

The democratic party is an amalgamation of peoples and associations that perceive themselves as having grievances with the United States. The democratic party has always catered to these types but in recent years it has thrown any semblance of responsibility to the wind in an attempt to cater to these groups and try to build a voting coalition that will get them back into power. They have always had a tendency toward big government socialism. Which brings me to this famous quote:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship." -Alexander Tyler

Now we have reached that point where a presidential candidate has opened up the treasury of his future administration to attempt to meet the demands of these self-aggrieved people in exchange for their votes. This is the entitlement culture. Those who believe that they have rights and entitlements to things that do not and have never belonged to them. I present to you, the messiah of the parasite class. A man who dares demand something, nay everything, for nothing: Mr. Barack Hussein Obama!

He is the entitlement culture's version of Robin Hood. Like Robin Hood he is charismatic. Also like Robin Hood, he is a thief. Just because you organize yourself into a political party, vote yourself into office and then redistribute the property and wealth of others who have worked for it, does not alter the fact that you have taken that which does not now nor has it ever belonged to you. Theft is theft no matter the method. A moral society would not tolerate such behavior. The day that those who do not produce can legally demand that those who do produce must provide for their welfare, will be the last day of the United States.

If elected president, Barack Obama looks likely to have a majority in both houses of congress, and perhaps even a filibuster-proof senate. The last day of the United States may be closer than you think. Those who love their country, and all that it stands for, will be morally bound to destroy it rather than see it succumb to the parasite classes. That is always the natural end for parasites. They always kill their host, which ultimately kills them. Perhaps we will learn from it and build a better America the next time.

If you still persist in believing that an Obama presidency would be a change for "what's right and what's fair and what's just," then consider the belittling that the messiah of the parasites has displayed to his intended victims. This is how he describes both John McCain and those who would vote for him:

"It's not because John McCain doesn't care. It's because John McCain doesn't get it."
"For over two decades, he's subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy - give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is - you're on your own. Out of work? Tough luck. No health care? The market will fix it. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps - even if you don't have boots. You're on your own."
"Well it's time for them to own their failure. It's time for us to change America." -Barack H. Obama

Failure!! How dare he call the very people, whose success he wishes to pillage, failures. The prosperous and the producers in America are not failures. The failures are socialist entitlement seekers who are out to rob the successful by creating all sorts new of rights for themselves and making demands for free health care, free college educations, loan bailouts, bankruptcy protection etc. What they are in effect demanding is freedom from the consequences of their own actions. They fear freedom because freedom has both consequences and responsibilities as well as rewards. The socialists see only the rewards and make their criminal demands in the name of "Social Justice," or, as Barack Obama says "what's right and what's fair and what's just." Do you really want this man and his cohorts to "change America?" Moral people will not allow themselves to be made the victims of their "social justice."

In his convention speech Barack Obama also ridiculed a statement by former Texas Senator Phil Gramm in which he said:

"We have sort of become a nation of whiners. You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline."

Well, he's almost right. America really hasn't become a nation of whiners. It has become a nation of housecats. The housecat is a creature that likes to act as though it is independent and doesn't need anyone. Yet as soon as some difficulty presents itself, the housecat will hiss and spit at the very people to whom it is completely dependent for its existence. At the democratic convention the housecats of America demanded free and universal everything as they hissed and spit at the very people they need to provide them with it. Perhaps the cats need to be put outside.
Meow!

The Doomsday Machine

THE DOOMSDAY MACHINE

There has, of late, been a glut of left leaning writers and speakers condemning the "Bush Doctrine" of preemptive war as an immoral, if not illegal, act. Many have even gone so far as to demand that articles of impeachment be initiated against him for "war crimes" for attacking Iraq under what they claim were "false pretenses." Not the least of the president's critics is Senator Barack Obama, the presidential nominee for the democratic party. Senator Obama claims that he opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. Fortunately for him, Illinois state legislatures don't actually get to vote on such matters and therefore he didn't actually have to take his position on record. If he had, one wonders if he would have opposed it the same as he did the recent FISA bill. Which is to say he opposed it right up until the point that he voted in favor of it. His recent rhetoric on Iraq suggests he will say whatever you want him to say.
The war in Iraq was initiated for several reasons. Failure to abide by the treaty that ended the first Gulf War, in and of itself, was a valid justification to go in and finish off the regime of Saddam Hussein, let alone the matter of 17 violations of United Nation mandates. After all, President Clinton wasn't flinging cruise missiles into Iraq late in his administration for no reason now was he? However the opponents of the Iraq war have always focused on President Bush's belief that the regime of Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, as well as an intent to use them. This is the reason most people believe the U.S. attacked, invaded and occupied Iraq in a preemptive war, to prevent any possibility of future Iraqi aggression.
You can argue whether or not the basis for the president's decision was justified. He had many sources of information claiming that Hussein possessed these weapons, even though the treaty that he signed at the end of the first gulf war forbade him to have them. Not only did our own Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) believe that it was a "slam dunk" (their actual words) that he had them, but also the intelligence agencies from several other countries corroborated this information. These included countries such as France and Russia who opposed the idea of the United States taking military action. This combined with the fact that Saddam Hussein had previously used chemical weapons against his own citizens in 1988 rightly convinced President Bush that in a post 9/11 world, military action was required.
It is true that no "working" weapons of mass destruction were found. It is also true that 500 tons of yellow cake uranium, the kind used to make such weapons, were found. So arguments can be made to justify or criticize the president's actions. Yet the question of the morality of a preemptive war still haunts many of our countrymen. There is a certainty among many that it is never right for the United States to strike first. However, in a world confronted with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, this is a matter of judgement...a very important attribute for a president. Consider these words from Barack Obama:

"When people talk about experience, what they really want to know is: does he have good judgment? You would hope that if someone has more experience it gives them better judgment. But everyone knows many 50-, 60-, and 70-year olds who don't have good judgment because they keep making the same mistakes over and over again. What we want to talk about is judgement, common sense, and how we get stuff done." 08/22/07

Ahh, judgement. It appears Mr. Obama has a lot of faith in his own judgement. But should we have faith in his judgement, or in the judgement of anyone who would question the current president's wisdom in his choice of action for a preemptive war? For as you shall see, such wisdom, fortitude and judgement will be required again, and soon. Allow me to introduce you to the "Doomsday Machine" known as the Electromagnetic Pulse Weapon. Or, as the Iranian's call it, "change you can believe in:

"WASHINGTON -- Iran is not only covertly developing nuclear weapons, it is already testing ballistic missiles specifically designed to destroy America's technical infrastructure, effectively neutralizing the world's lone superpower, say U.S. intelligence sources, top scientists and western missile industry experts.
The radical Shiite regime has conducted successful tests to determine if its Shahab-3 ballistic missiles, capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, can be detonated by a remote-control device while still in high-altitude flight.
Scientists, including President Reagan's top science adviser, William R. Graham, say there is no other explanation for such tests than preparation for the deployment of electromagnetic pulse weapons - even one of which could knock out America's critical electrical and technological infrastructure, effectively sending the continental U.S. back to the 19th century with a recovery time of months or years. (World Net daily)

You better read that paragraph over again to make sure you understand the ramifications of what it is saying. Many people often refer to the United States as a superpower that can bomb someone else into the "stone age." Well, you have just been told that the same can be done to us. Let that sink in.
What is an electromagnetic pulse weapon? It is important that you understand this weapon and the implications of having such a weapon used against you. William R. Graham, chairman of the "Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States From Electromagnetic Pulse Attack" described electromagnetic pulse weapons thusly:

"A single nuclear weapon exploded at high altitude above the United States will interact with the Earth's atmosphere, ionosphere and magnetic field to produce electromagnetic pulse (EMP) radiation down to the Earth and additionally create electrical currents in the Earth. EMP effects are both direct and indirect. The former are due to electrical systems, and the latter arise from the damage that 'shocked' - upset, damaged and destroyed - electronics controls then inflict on the systems in which they are embedded. The indirect effects can be even more severe than the direct effects."
"The major impact of EMP weapons is on electronics, so pervasive in all aspects of our society and military, coupled through critical infrastructures. Their effects on systems and infrastructures dependent on electricity and electronics could be sufficiently ruinous as to qualify as catastrophic to the nation."

The purpose of an electromagnetic pulse attack is not to kill people, at least not immediately. The initial attack will wipe out electricity, fry electrical circuit boards and destroy communications apparatus over the target area. The higher the altitude of the detonation the greater will be the affected area. The cascading effects on our society would be dramatic to say the least. The financial system would instantly be ruined, making even the simplest of transactions impossible. Food water and fuel would become scarce. Why? Lack of electricity will mean a lack of refrigeration, which would leave food rotting in warehouses. The inability of water treatment facilities to sanitize and distribute water would threaten public health. The lack of electricity would likewise make it impossible to refuel vehicles as the fuel cannot be dispensed from gas stations without the electricity. Fuel unavailability would lead to vehicles being stranded when they run out of gas. This will result in severely limiting transportation capability, and the increasing chaos would result in a rapid breakdown of social order.

No one will know what has happened, and know one would be able to tell anyone if they did. Realistically there will be no one coming to anyone's aid. No government or civilian services will exist. This is a catastrophe of the highest magnitude. If this country is deprived of it's electricity it immediately will become function-less. Our extreme dependence on electricity and electronics has created an "Achilles Heel" that our enemies are now seeking to exploit. Once disabled by an electromagnetic pulse attack, it will take from months to years to repair the damage. What will become of us in the meantime? Will the world come to the aid of the United States, or will our enemies pounce on us while we are down? Imagine the chaos and lawlessness witnessed in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Will we descend into a sub-civilization and become our own worst enemy? Do you really want to find out?
The EMP threat is not a new one. The Soviet Union also had the capacity to deliver such a blow to the United States. However certain military and government facilities can be hardened and protected against the effects of an electromagnetic pulse attack. Therefore preserving the ability of the United States to retaliate with our own strategic nuclear forces. This was a deterrent to a nation state like the old Soviet Union as it is to most nation states. However this is not a deterrent to a rogue state like Iran which is governed by a lunatic who believes his messiah (The 12th Imam) will only return due to an apocalyptic event. Such a man can, and will, initiate the apocalyptic event himself. Nor is the threat of a catastrophic counter attack much of a deterrent to terrorist groups that have no state identity. Who are you going to attack? In the aftermath of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center it was quickly ascertained who was responsible, yet with the United States electrical systems shut down and most electronics fried, how will we even be able to accurately determine which terrorist group is the aggressor?
This is a relatively inexpensive way to destroy us. The Iranian government may be trumpeting their success at detonating their Shahab 3 ballistic missiles by remote control, but a the missile itself need not be that sophisticated. A nuclear weapon detonated on a simple scud missile will produce the same results. And there is a glut of such missiles in the world. We also know that al-Qaeda has access to upwards of 80 ships from which such a missile could be launched. Considering Iran's relationships with not only al-Qaeda but also other terrorist groups such as their proxies Hezbollah, it becomes more imperative that they not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons or the technology to develop them.
I know some of you out there are thinking about our ABM (anti-ballistic missile) weapons. Won't they offer us some protection? It is true that we have successfully tested and deployed some of these weapons for exactly this reason. However, lets be honest here, these weapons are not necessarily that dependable. We have managed to intercept incoming ballistic missiles under test conditions where we knew when, and from where they were coming. In the event of a real attack the response time will be severely shortened as we will not know when, or from where the attack is coming. Therefore we will not know how effective these counter measures are until they are tested under the real world conditions of an attack. That is quite a risk to take, especially if there is an alternative.
It is interesting to note that President Bush has made deploying an ABM system in Europe a major part of his foreign policy. His argument being the same as the justification for deploying such defenses in the United States, to protect against rogue states launching weapons of mass destruction. Just this week, Poland agreed to accept an anti-ballistic missile defense system on its territory. Vladmir Putin, Prime Minister and de facto ruler of Russia, has strongly opposed deployment of such a system in eastern Europe and has threatened Poland with an attack in the event such a system is installed. All the while he has been providing "technical assistance" to the Iranians in developing their "peaceful" nuclear program. Coincidence? Considering the recent Russian invasion of Georgia, do we dare to contemplate the potential for a Moscow-Tehran alliance?
Now ask yourself if a man can make the following statement and still consider himself qualified to be president of the United States:

"I mean think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. You know, Iran, they spend one one-hundredth of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance."

Who would say such a thing? Why Mr. "Judgement" himself, Senator Barack Obama. As a United States Senator he is privileged to have all the information I have presented thus far, and yet he has the "audacity" to make such a foolish statement. Why? Because he is aware that MOST Americans do NOT know the extreme threat that Iran poses to our nation. As you can see, it is a far greater threat than Iraq ever presented. He is counting on the public's ignorance, and its impatience with the Iraq occupation, to drive public opinion away from the use of force to actively defend our nation. Unfortunately many, if not most, Americans seem to agree with him. There is an arrogance that comes with extended periods of safety that blinds us to the constant threat to survival that has always been part of the human experience. The most vulnerable society is the one that fails to perceive its own weaknesses. You would think that the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center would have awakened us to this ever constant danger. But once again, we see ourselves turning towards distractions, that are far less important than our survival.
But the question remains. What should we do about Iran? Should we use the military option and destroy Iran's nuclear program? Certainly a regime as dangerous as theirs that consistently threatens the annihilation of both the United States and Israel should not be allowed to ever get possession of such weapons. Israel rightly views a nuclear armed Iran as an existential threat to them but, as we have seen, it is likewise an existential threat to us as well.
There are those who would suggest that we should let Israel attack Iran, essentially letting them do the dirty work for us. This however is very foolish. For starters, Israel does not have the capacity to destroy all of Iran's military capacity and it is doubtful they can even seriously harm their nuclear assets. This is not the same situation as when they bombed Iraq's nuclear program in the 1980's. That target was concentrated in one location and was totally caught by surprise. Iran is a much more determined adversary who is more than aware of a potential attack.. Their nuclear assets are scattered in numerous places which would force Israel to divide its attack upon several targets and hope to be successful at all of them. A military improbability. Also, once attacked, Iran is going to strike back. Not only will they strike back at Israel, but they will also attempt to close down the Strait of Hormuz and shut down the flow of oil coming out of the Persian Gulf. Then the United States will have to get involved to reopen the passage. So Israel can only set back the Iranian nuclear program by a small factor, and in so doing, create a big international mess that the United States will have to clean up anyway.
No. There is no way of getting around the obvious. The job must fall to the United States. We must strike in such a thorough way as to eliminate, not only all of the various sites Iran has dedicated to developing nuclear weapons, but also we must destroy all of their military capacity. This will not necessarily require an invasion, but it will require a prolonged air and naval campaign to render the regime in Tehran impotent. Only the United States has the military capacity to do this.
But that returns us to the same moral dilemma we faced on the eve of the Iraq war. Is it moral for the United States to attack another country first? The threat is clearly present in the form of both the actions and words of the Iranians. Yet, in spite of all the rhetoric coming out of Tehran, many feel it would be a second immoral preemptive action.
Does the United States have the right to attack another sovereign nation? ABSOLUTELY!! There is no doubt about the intent of the government in Iran. They have boasted of their desire to destroy the United States and Israel to the point where almost no one pays them any attention anymore. So much so that presidential hopeful Barack Obama feels comfortable belittling the threat they present as part of his campaign rhetoric. But now we all can see that they can carry out their threats in a manner equal to their bravado. As always, I am led to a passage in the Bible:

EZEKIEL 33:1-6 Again the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Son of man, speak to the children of thy people, and say unto them, When I bring the sword upon a land, if the people of the land take a man of their coasts, and set him for their watchman: If when he seeth the sword come upon the land, he blow the trumpet, and warn the people; Then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head. He heard the sound of the trumpet, and took not warning; his blood shall be upon him. But he that taketh warning shall deliver his soul. But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand.

Here we see that God holds those who know of an impending attack into account. The fate of the people rests in the hands of the watchman if he fails to warn the people. However, once warned, it is the people themselves who are accountable for their lives. Interesting...
Our leaders, acting as our watchmen, have known of this threat for some time. Our blood has been on their hands. The electromagnetic pulse weapon is designed as a first strike weapon. If successful it may be the only strike required to destroy us. It would be completely immoral for our president to fail to protect us from this attack. In fact, it can be argued, that the president has no greater responsibility than that of protecting the country. But consider this: you who are reading this, and many others throughout our country, are now aware of this threat as well. Your blood may very well be falling into your own hands as you cast your vote in the next election. We must be sure we elect a man with the moral fortitude to act in our defense. When dealing with a weapon that can start and finish a war in one strike, survival depends on shooting first. Some people in our country are clamouring for a change. Iran and their terrorist proxies would love to give it to us. This is a danger every bit as serious as the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962. In fact it is more dangerous! We better be sure there is a man in the White House who can handle it, not one who belittles the situation.

"When a country doesn't recognize the individual rights of its own citizens, it cannot claim any national or international rights. Therefore, anyone who wants to invade a dictatorship or semi-dictatorship is morally justified in doing so, because he is doing no worse than what that country has accepted as its social system. It is improper to attack a free country, because it recognizes the individual rights of its citizens."

Who could have said such a thing? Why none other than the world famous and renowned atheist Ayn Rand. Though I am no fan of atheism, she was quite an interesting and very reasonable woman. Her Objectivist philosophy is thoroughly based on reason and self-interest, two things the political left in this country arrogantly thinks they have bestowed upon themselves. A nation that oppresses its own people and does not recognize the individual rights of its own citizens cannot itself claim a right of sovereignty now can it? On what would their claim be based? How can a nation which openly calls for the annihilation of other nations not expect that those nations might seek to act in their own defense and strike them down first? The truth is, such a nation can and should be destroyed BEFORE it causes harm to a free state. It is immoral to put free societies at risk just to placate a bully state for a few more moments of delusional safety. It is time to go about the business of acting in the interests of protecting the free world, whatever the short term consequences and inconveniences.
Without a shadow of a doubt, Iran qualifies as a society that fails to recognize the individual rights of its own citizens, as also did Saddam Hussein's Iraq. So all of you who have worried your consciences over the moral ethicality of attacking an oppressive society need to get over it. Talk of impeaching President Bush for war crimes for the Iraq invasion is rendered childish and silly when seen in its proper perspective. In fact, he would be more entitled to an impeachment if he had failed to act! If the populations of oppressed countries can tolerate their own oppression, they are not going to do anything to prevent their country from attacking and oppressing others. They deserve the same as their government deserves. There are no innocent people in an oppressed country. Oppression is a cancer on civilization. You don't tolerate cancer, you remove it. The Iranian people wanted a change in the 1970's...and they got it. They got the Islamic Revolution and they have been living under the yolk of Islamic totalitarianism ever since. Their leaders are leading them straight toward a confrontation with us. They made their choice and have been antagonistic to the United States from the moment they took our embassy and held its members hostage. Let us act in our own interests and not concern ourselves with their fate anymore than they are concerning themselves with ours. I choose for them to be destroyed, and will not vote for a president who fails to perceive the seriousness of their apocalyptic agenda. If this sounds like an endorsement of John McCain...so be it.
I'll conclude by quoting the President of the recently invaded country of Georgia, a free country that was improperly attacked. When asked what America could do to help his country, Misha Saakashvili replied: "Who else can stand up for liberty in the world?" Who else, indeed?
A better question might be: Who will stand up for America when she has been neutralized by an electromagnetic pulse attack? Some people want change...this is one we must prevent! Its time to deliver to the Iranian government its final ultimatum...give up their nuclear program and openly allow international inspectors, or give up their lives. Each day we fail to act is another day closer to our own demise. To risk the death and destruction of our free society at the hands of an oppressive, Islamic Iran is an immoral act. Attack!

The Death Of Free Speech

THE DEATH OF FREE SPEECH

"Evil does seek to maintain power by suppressing the truth. Or by misleading the innocent." First officer Spock, USS Enterprise, star-date 5029.5

...And so it begins. The effort to dismantle the basic freedoms guaranteed in Western Civilization are accelerating in earnest. The European Union is under direct attack from Muslims demanding...yes, DEMANDING, that the West adopt a policy of silencing critics of Islam. Yet, in what can only be described as a shocking turn of events, one of the first successful acts of suppressing free speech has occurred in...Colorado? Ye who mock God should be very careful who you crawl into bed with...

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan will ask the European Union countries to amend laws regarding freedom of expression in order to prevent offensive incidents such as the printing of blasphemous caricatures of Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) and the production of an anti-Islam film by a Dutch legislator, sources in the Interior Ministry told Daily Times on Saturday.

What! No mention of the Babylon Mystery Orchestra CD "Axis Of Evil?" I tell you its just not fair the way they go about choosing who constitutes the leading offenders of Islamo-blasphemy! It's not really about who says the most "Inconvenient truths" about Islam. It's all about who you know. I'm feeling so rejected.

They said that a six-member high-level delegation comprising officials from the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Law would leave Islamabad on Sunday (today) for the EU headquarters in Brussels, Belgium and explain to the EU leadership the backlash against the blasphemous campaign in the name of freedom of expression. The delegation, headed by an additional secretary of the Interior Ministry, will meet the leaders of the EU countries in a bid to convince them that the recent attack on the Danish Embassy in Pakistan could be a reaction against the blasphemous campaign, sources said.

Ahh yes. The "I wouldn't blow up your embassy if your country didn't allow the publication of blasphemous Muhammad cartoons" excuse. Kind of reminds you if that line in the movie "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" where Paul Newman exclaims: "If he'd just pay me what he's spending to make me stop robbing him, I'd stop robbing him." But alas, it gets better. Our Muslim friends go on to threaten more violence in the event that their demands go unfulfilled.

They said that the delegation would also tell the EU that if such acts against Islam are not controlled, more attacks on the EU diplomatic missions abroad could not be ruled out.

Strong words to be sure. So when are we going to start believing these people mean what they say? In this case it was the Danish Embassy that they blew up, killing six people. Yet they have the audacity to claim that it is they, the Muslim population, that are the victims.

'It isn't just the people of Pakistan that feel they have been harassed by what your newspaper has begun, I'd like to know if your newspaper is satisfied with what it has done and what it has unleashed?' Fauzia Mufti Abbas, Pakistan's ambassador to Denmark

The ambassador's perspective on Muslim violence is not unique. It follows the same trajectory established by Muhammad himself, to justify removing criticism of his, and thereby Islam's, policies. His influence remains alive and well. Will the European Union fall prey to this foolish logic that sees Islam as a perpetual victim? Will Europe surrender one of the most precious freedoms in Western Civilization in hopes of thwarting future Muslim violence? Is there any "fight" left in our European friends or would they prefer to surrender and become dhimmi servants to their new Muslim overlords. Overlords such as Pakistani ambassador to Norway Rab Nawaz Khan. What? You haven't heard about the new Norwegian cartoon controversy? Lets remedy that.
A caricature of Muhammad was published in the Norwegian publication Adressearisen. Nothing new or original about that. What is new is that a high ranking official like ambassador Rab Nawaz Khan would go off the deep end and say this about it:

"Muslim societies all over the world will be insulted. Therefore it's a terrorist act,"

Wow! The very basic right of the freedom to express oneself is itself a terrorist act because someone will be insulted. In this case it is Muslims claiming to be offended, but it could have been anybody. Is not this the very reason we have the right of free speech? To guarantee that one cannot have his views restricted by those who would oppose them? But wait, it gets better. Like his Pakistani compatriots in the EU delegation, he too adds a threat to his statement. Fearing that news of the publication will cause "strong reactions" and cause people to "lose control." He then adds:

"People shouldn't forget that there's many Norwegian businesses in Pakistan"

It might remind you of another classic Hollywood scene from the movie "The Untouchables." When one of Capone's men notices that his victim has a little girl he tells him:

"Its Nice to have a family. A man should take care, see that nothin' happens to them."

Now that's good theatre! It would appear that Ambassador Rab Nawaz Khan is familiar with the scene as well. All people in the West should take note of the ambassadors use of the threat of violence as a tactic for it reveals much about not only Islam's intentions but also its character...and you would do well to know that they and Capone"s gangsters do operate exactly alike. But the thuggish and brutish street tactics of Capone and his like are only pale imitations of the tried and true method of extortion and violence that has been perfected by Islamic Jihadists for 1400 years! They have cleverly placed the blame for their future violence squarely on their victims failure to acquiesce to their demands. The only remaining question is how will we respond?
Well, I'm glad you asked, for now you can know the answer to one of the burning questions in the current American presidential campaign. As I am sure you are well aware, democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has indicated that he has a strong desire to talk with America's enemies without preconditions. He has particularly mentioned talking with infamous Israel hater Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president of Iran. What everyone has wanted to know, of course, is what they would talk about. Now we know...
They will talk about the way Islam has been "misrepresented" and "misunderstood" and how these "blasphemous" expressions of "hatred" against Islam are terrorizing their citizens and causing them to react violently. Certainly Ahmadinejad will ask if President Obama would be willing to do something to control all of this. After all, as we have been shown, its all our fault. The fact that the EU is already being pressured to pass anti-blasphemy laws, and Barack Obama has made it plainly clear he values the opinions of people outside of the United States at least as much, if not more, than those of our own citizens, does not bode well for his acting in defense of our most important liberty. How long do you think it will take for him to call for some sort of hate speech legislation within this country to restrict criticism of Islam?
Unfortunately he doesn't have to look far for advice for dealing with this situation. Across the border in Canada they have something called the "Canada Human Rights Commission" which is a parallel legal system to the Canadian courts that is unrestrained by such arcane and outmoded concepts as due process, presumption of innocence and free speech. They have just recently dismissed a case presented before them involving conservative writer Mark Steyn and the respected Maclean's Magazine. In an article titled "The Future Belongs to Islam," Steyn claimed that Muslims are on the verge of dominating Europe and the West because of a demographic shift. The article claims that their greater numbers will eventually allow Muslims to dominate Western countries. The article goes so far as to quote a European Imam who allegedly said Muslims are reproducing like "mosquitoes." The Canadian Islamic Congress had argued that by publishing the article the magazine exposed Muslims to hatred and contempt.
Though the the Tribunal dismissed this particular case one has to ask why such a Commission exists at all? They bear too much resemblance to such entities as the "culture ministries" that exist in Islamic countries, such as Iran, to monitor and CONTROL the media. Perhaps when they meet, President Ahmadinejad will share some tips with President Obama on how to get such a thing implemented here on the United States. I know some of you may think this is extreme but to a certain extent, it is already starting.
The Speaker of the House of Representatives made it clear that a bill by Rep. Mike Pence (R.-Ind.) to outlaw the "Fairness Doctrine" (which a liberal administration could use to silence Rush Limbaugh, other radio talk show hosts and much of the new alternative media) would not see the light of day in Congress during '08. In ruling out a vote on Pence's proposed Broadcaster's Freedom Act, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-CA.) also signaled her strong support for revival of the "Fairness Doctrine," which would require radio station owners to provide equal time to radio commentary when it is requested. Experts say that the "Fairness Doctrine," which was ended under the Reagan Administration, would put a major burden on small radio stations in providing equal time to Rush Limbaugh and other conservative broadcasters, who are a potent political force. Rather than engage in the costly practice of providing that time, the experts conclude, many stations would simply not carry Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and other talk show hosts who are likely to generate demands for equal time.
The "Fairness Doctrine" is really a misnamed policy. The fact is that radio stations are commercial enterprises that must generate income to survive. Conservative talk radio has been very successful at generating the audiences necessary for the stations survival. There hasn't been a lack of alternative voices for liberals and progressives out there. Far from it. The left has poured millions into getting the best talent on the air all over the country. But you can't force people to listen to it. Liberal talk radio has as much, or less, commercial appeal as Death and Black Metal music. They can get a lot of headlines for their antics but no audience. If the "Fairness Doctrine" were reinstated it would be the death of AM radio as broadcasters would be forced to broadcast shows that they knew would fail alongside the ones that they need to survive. Effectively killing half of their potential income. How fair is that? When directly asked if she supported reinstating the "Fairness Doctrine" Speaker Pelosi answered "yes" without hesitation. (Human Events.com)
Incidentally it is interesting how the reinstatement of the "Fairness Doctrine" is always described as an attempt to control "hate radio." Once again we see speech that offends someone being called offensive. In this case, it is purely political, yet all too often conservative talk radio is accused of being "hate speech." The founding fathers knew this when they insisted on instilling this basic right into the constitution. All speech that you don't agree with could be called hate speech. By describing your opponents rhetoric as "hate speech" you are just attempting to discredit them through name calling rather than dealing with the merits, or lack thereof, of their arguments. We must not tolerate the censoring or silencing of any of it! But I'm afraid we already have...
Signed into law last week by the Governor of Colorado, SB08-200 which has this damnable clause in it:

Section 8. 24-34-701. Publishing of discriminative matter forbidden. No person, being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent, or employee of any place of public accommodation... shall publish, issue, circulate, send, distribute, give away, or display in any way, manner, or shape or by any means or method, except as provided in this section, any communication, paper, poster, folder, manuscript, book, pamphlet, writing, print, letter, notice, or advertisement of any kind, nature, or description THAT is intended or calculated to discriminate or actually discriminates against... SEXUAL ORIENTATION, marital status... in the matter of furnishing or neglecting or refusing to furnish to them or any one of them any lodging, housing, schooling, or tuition or any accommodation, right [marriage], privilege [adoption], advantage, or convenience... on account of... SEXUAL ORIENTATION, marital status... [which] is unwelcome or objectionable or not acceptable, desired, or solicited."

After 400 years of religious freedom for those who wanted to own and distribute Bibles on their own property in America, the Governor of Colorado has put an end to it. While churches are exempted for now, Christian schools, Christian book stores, private business, etc. are not. Once again we see freedom of speech disallowed because someone finds it offensive. In this case it is being sold as anti-discrimination legislation. But all laws discriminate against someone. Do not laws prohibiting rape and thievery discriminate against rapist and thieves? Every gain for someone is a loss for someone else. In this case, the loss is a right of free expression of Christian beliefs pertaining to homosexuality.
The Muslims seeking anti-blasphemy laws must be rejoicing. Certainly people who criticize Islam are just as guilty of discrimination by these standards as those who condemn homosexual behavior on religious moral grounds. The path to enacting restrictions on the criticism of Islam and its' adherent's behavior is now wide and clear. Homosexuals may think they have scored some sort of victory here but they have signed not only their own death warrant, but one for the rest of us as well. Homosexuals, like Christians, Jews, dogs, and free speech are offensive to Muslims. Muslims don't just condemn homosexual behavior...they kill homosexuals! Remember when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said "there are no gays in Iran." Where do you reckon they went? Unfortunately for the homosexual lobby in this country, they are not nearly as vicious and threatening as the Jihadists. Soon homosexuals will be able to trade their "perceived" discrimination at the hands of a forgiving Christianity who sought to redeem them, for a real discrimination at the hands of Muhammad's feral adherents. They do not offer repentance and redemption. They will simply kill them. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is even under the impression that in Iran, he has killed them all. One of the major enablers of that, or any genocide, is the suppression of the ability to criticize the actions, policies, or simply the belief system that would lead to such behavior. That is the result of stifling free speech...death! And there will be plenty of death to go around.
Consider it a fine example of how no one truly gains when someone else is unjustly deprived of their freedom. When you refuse to stand up to bullies and false grievances you only postpone the damage that will be done to you, not prevent it. It just goes to show that cowards always get what they fear most. And you know what? They deserve it too!

I AM THE WALRUS

The assault on the American economy by socialism is increasing in its voracity with each passing day. The sovereignty of the United States, as well as our own individual liberty, has never been in greater danger than it is now. The appetite for economically stifling environmental litigation only grows with each meal it consumes. Global warming hysteria is dragging the socialist indoctrinated lemmings of our society over the edge of a doomsday precipice that will destroy our economy and our way of life, whilst having ZERO effect in changing the course of the earth's climate. With their foolishly surprising success at deceiving the Bush administration into listing the Polar Bear as a threatened species, despite the use of dubious data, the Church of the Global Apocalypse has moved on to a new "victim" of man made global warming...the Pacific walrus.
Well, you really didn't expect them to stop did you? Their bamboozle job with the Polar Bear was impressive. No, not for the quality of their argument, but for the fact that ANYONE would fall for it. The decision to list the Polar bear as "threatened" was based entirely on politics and not on science. Unproven computer models suggested that, as the polar ice continues to decline, the Polar Bear would likewise lose substantial portions of its habitat thus leading to a reduction in its population. This fantasy from the environmentalist insane asylum is ridiculously contrasted with the reality of what has happened to the Polar Bear over the last forty years. In spite of the fact that we have been told that Global warming has been reducing polar ice for years, the Polar Bear has apparently had a more amorous reaction to the supposed decline of its habitat, resulting in a population that has more than doubled, from 5,000-10,000 in the 1950s and 1960s, to the current population which numbers some 20,000 to 25,000 bears!
In a world where success only furthers greater ambition, it should come as no surprise that the environmentalist lawyers are now filing suit to get the Pacific Walrus listed as threatened too. The Center for Biological Diversity filed a petition in February to force federal action to list the walrus as threatened because of "threats from global warming and offshore petroleum development." Shaye Wolf, a biologist and lead author of the petition, said Arctic sea ice is disappearing faster than the best predictions of climate models. "As the sea ice recedes, so does the future of the Pacific walrus," she said. And so the same organization that deceived the Bush administration in its misrepresentation of the Polar Bear's "dire" circumstances now moves forward on the walrus.
But how can they make the claim that the walrus population is threatened at all? The size of the Pacific walrus population is both unknown and very difficult to survey. Estimates place the population between 200,000 and 250,000 animals. The population estimates have stayed consistent for the last thirty years. Although Bruce Woods, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman in Anchorage, said the agency is close to finishing a new walrus survey. "We do have a population count from the 2006 survey that should be finalized soon," he said. "That will give us a better basis for evaluating the petition." Why does that statement make me skeptical?
Walruses are prone to gathering in large numbers on land and when startled, they stampede. This often results in a large number of deaths. One AP news article described how "scientists received reports of hundreds and hundreds of walruses dead of internal injuries suffered in stampedes" and quoted biologist Anatoly Kochnev of Russia's Pacific Institute of Fisheries and Oceanography as estimating that "3,000 to 4,000 walruses out of population of perhaps 200,000 died, or two or three times the usual number on shoreline haul-outs."
According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado, Arctic sea ice last summer dwindled to 1.65 million square miles, the lowest level since satellite measurements began in 1979. The recession of the ice is being blamed for causing more and more walruses to congregate on shore and thereby creating a greater risk of stampeding. Over the last ten years, every fall, walruses have congregated on the Vankarem Cape, forming a "haul-out" just a half-mile from the village. Last fall some 20,000 to 30,000 walruses were piled up there. No one has actually counted them all, but the Vankarem residents are certain the number is growing. Walruses are more vulnerable to stampedes when they gather in such large numbers. Stampedes can, however, be caused by a variety of factors. Like cats in a group, they can be startled quite easy. Once out of control, the stampede is on. Also the presence of natural predators or low flying aircraft can initiate a stampede. The kind of low flying aircraft like the ones used by environmentalists to survey them per chance?
But is receding ice really a problem for the Pacific walrus...or could there be other considerations? Considerations like, say, hunters? Consider this excerpt from a Sea World link:

As the Pacific walrus population grew, annual subsistence catches by indigenous Arctic peoples ranged from about 3,000 to 16,000 walruses per year until about 1990, and then decreased to an average of 5,789 animals per year from 1996 to 2000.

Thats 3,000 to 16,000 killed by human hunters as compared to the 3,000 to 4,000 they claim (dubiously of course) are killed by stampeding...and yet they wish to claim that the walrus is threatened because of receding ice due to global warming. Of course there is another hunter of the Pacific walrus that has a taste for their calves, and the mere sight of one will often send a herd into a stampeding frenzy. Care to guess who the hunter is? C'mon, you can't make this stuff up, its too good to be true but, alas, it is. You guessed it...The Polar Bear. Yep, increased numbers of Polar Bears over the last 40 years have led to an increase in their harvest of both walrus calves and the remains of walruses that don't survive the stampedes they cause. Isn't that a precious "inconvenient" truth?
So lets be sure we understand this. The Pacific walrus should be listed as threatened, even though there is no evidence to suggest that its population is any smaller, or larger, than it has been over the last half century. But let us not be concerned with evidence that hunters, both human and beast, regularly get upwards of 20,000 animals per year WITHOUT altering the balance of the population. No, its global warming reducing the ice that is the culprit of this phantom crime that we are sure is either happening or is going to happen. Lack of proof notwithstanding. For some strange reason, this comes to mind:

Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Perhaps as the United States drifts ever more into the realms of godlessness there are going to be more fools selling bunk like this to us. Unfortunately, these fools expect that a larger and larger portion of us are going to buy into this type of thing. Hey, it worked once already for the Polar Bear! Who would dare to bet against this now? Remember when Obi Wan Kenobi asked: "Who's more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?" My money is on the second fool. The fool who follows him. I can't stop the first fool but I can refuse to become the second one!
The cold hard truth about this is simple. Socialism is alive and well in the United States, as well as the rest of the world. This is how they intend to gain control over our societies once and for all, so that they can get along with the social engineering they have lusted over since the time of Bismarck. It is part of their "we're all in this together campaign" to save the planet from, well, ourselves. You, me, the walrus and the Polar bear all have equal worth in their eyes, and we all have to share and sacrifice for each other. Gives you a warm feeling all over doesn't it? The key word, however, is sacrifice. The bear and the walrus can't do that. That responsibility will fall to us...and there is the linchpin of the entire hoax.
Its very important to them to link these fraudulent species endangerments to the use of petroleum products and fossil fuels. Therefore they can use the legal system in an attempt to force draconian measures against us to combat global warming. The recently defeated Lieberman-Warner bill was the first such example of this sort of legislation. This bill would redistribute over $5.6 trillion from American consumers to pet congressional projects. Despite paying for the trillions of dollars mandated by this cap-and-trade scheme, American families and workers will only receive back $800 billion in consumer tax relief. That's $7 paid for every $1 returned. "The Lieberman-Warner bill was the largest pork bill ever considered by Congress. It was nothing more than a massive tax increase hidden behind the facade of "taking action to combat global warming." This bill was defeated. However, you can bet it will return again in some form. Both Obama and McCain claim to support action against the supposed effects of man-made global warming. Perhaps McCain will be more reasonable, but that remains unproven. When it comes to change, draconian measures are exactly what a President Obama has in mind:

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK." B.H. Obama

Mr. Appeasement appears to have a deep seeded desire to be liked by everyone. This is not a particularly desirable trait for a president to have. Self-perceived good intentions combined with their arrogance and hatred for industry, will bring forth a disaster to our economy. The draconian measures Obama and our socialist politicians want to implement will not have any effect on the planet's climate, but by enforcing such measures, as added taxes on fuel and businesses that consume energy, they will destroy our economy. This is an objective they have had all along. There is nothing a socialist hates so much as a free market capitalist economy. Increasing taxes is their method for confiscating our economic independence. Make no mistake about it, these policies will affect EVERYONE that uses gasoline and electricity in this country. Remember that the next time someone tries to tell you they are going to raise taxes on the rich. The rich can pay these extra costs, can you? And how about those geniuses who desire for us to pursue biofuels? This converts that which we use for food into fuel for vehicles. There is an idea that will raise food prices, as you have already seen, as farmers convert from food to the more profitable fuel crops. Do you think this idea is better for the rich, who can afford both the fuel and the higher priced food, or the poor who won't be able to afford either? Maybe the kool-aid drinking enviro-wackos actually believe in man-made global warming and get a warm (ironic isn't it) fuzzy feeling about saving polar bears and walruses, but the dyed-in-the-wool socialist couldn't care less about these creatures. They just want control. We must not give it to them!
This environmentalist litigation is nothing less than pre-emptive action to prevent any increase in domestic oil production. Because of the rising price of fuel and the fact that American wealth is being sent to foreign governments hostile to our interests, the American people are clamoring for more domestic drilling. The socialists, on the other hand, desire the higher fuel prices because they think the American people are too wealthy and they wish to punish us by destroying our economy. They are using these tactics to short circuit the public's demand for an increase in domestic oil production and exploration.
Congress has banned energy exploration in 85% of our country. China and Cuba are drilling for oil closer to our coastline than U.S. oil companies are allowed. How insane is that? It has been estimated that beneath the American coasts lies enough oil to fuel 60 million cars for 60 years! There is enough natural gas to heat 60 million homes for 160 years! The Republican controlled congress of the 90's put a bill to allow drilling in Anwar Alaska on Bill Clinton's desk. He vetoed it. During the administration of G.W. Bush the democrats in congress have continued to block all legislation to allow drilling for oil in Anwar as well as continue to uphold restrictions on domestic oil production. This May, democrats in congress blocked the American Energy Production Act of 2008. The bill would have allowed for more domestic oil and natural gas exploration, more use of coal and liquefied coal and it would have tapped into America's vast oil shale fields. The result of such a plan, if enacted, would have been more oil and natural gas on the market, easing supply constraints and lowering prices. It also would have created tens of thousands of new jobs in America and go a long way toward reducing our dependence on energy from unstable and hostile foreign regimes, many of which are actively seeking our destruction.
Just this week, the House Appropriations Subcommittee On Interior and Environment voted not to bring forth a bill to lift domestic offshore drilling restrictions. The vote was on straight party lines with ALL the democrats voting against it and all the republicans voting for it. "We are kidding ourselves, as we routinely do in this town, if we think we can drill our way out of this problem," said Rep. Dave Obey, D-Wisconsin.
And what, praytell, did the democrats have to offer as an alternative to the American Energy Production Act of 2008? Their own proposal in Senate bill S3044 which called for a windfall profits tax against the five largest U.S. oil companies! They also wished to rescind $17 billion in tax breaks the companies expect to enjoy over the next decade. This has been tried before by the disastrous administration of Jimmy Carter. The result was higher gas prices as the oil companies will just pass the extra tax down to the consumer at the pump. Worse, it also resulted in LESS domestic oil production as there was no incentive for oil companies to increase production. Way to go democrats! The Middle East may very well be holding us hostage to their oil prices but the democratic party has given them the gun to do it with!
Contrary to the claims of environmentalists, wildlife has expanded and flourished in and around Alaska's Prudhoe Bay. It has had no negative effect whatsoever. And do you want to hear another "inconvenient" truth? Of course you do. Two leading environmental groups, the Audubon Society and the Nature Conservancy, actually allow oil and natural gas production on several of their own nature preserves. Why? For the money! Don't you know how much that stuff is going for these days?
If organizations such as these can see their way to allowing gas and oil production on their land, why can't we, the taxpayers, get the government off the backs of the oil companies and let them get at the oil we know exists in our own country? Increase the supply, decrease the price. Any fool knows that...well maybe not. Or maybe the socialists that we (well, obviously not me and probably not most of you reading this) have elected to congress are getting just what they want. Choking the life out of the U.S. economy and relieving us of the burden of our freedoms. If you don't believe there are socialists actively working for the destruction of our country you haven't been paying attention. Consider this statement from California Democratic Representative Maxine Waters to the president of a U.S. oil company at a recent hearing on oil prices:

"guess what this liberal would be all about? This liberal would be all about socializing -- uh, uh, would be about basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."

I guess she gets all her ideas from Hugo Chavez who has done exactly that to the Venezuelan oil industry. You can't fault her for her honesty about her socialist desires, but we can and must stop her and others like her. These nonsensical declarations of species endangerment are just an excuse to deprive the U.S. economy of the fuel it needs to survive. The socialists don't want it, or us, to survive. The world will be a better place without us and they have told us so. What are we going to do about it...or them?
As the Psalmist said: "They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." Ask yourself, what good can come of these blatant attempts at deceiving us? What will become of us? Man-made global warming may very well destroy us all...but not in the way its being sold to us. Somewhere up north there are Pacific walruses holding their little thumb/fins up to their nose, laughing and leering at us...and don't you know what they are saying?...

COO COO KACHOO

No Representation Without Taxation

NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION

It is a lie. It is probably the lie most often told by politicians of a particular persuasion, and repeated even more by their parasitic adherents in the press. "The rich do not pay their fair share." Class warfare has been the modus operandi for socialist movements all over the world, and it is a practice that is alive and well right here in the United States.
All of the candidates currently running for President will make various claims as to whose taxes they will raise and whose they will lower. The truth is, they all are lying. By themselves, they haven't the authority to do it. Or as article 1, section 8 of the U. S. Constitution says:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;..."

So the next time a Democrat claims she or he is going to repeal the "Bush Tax Cuts" it would be fair to remind them that President Bush only "suggested" them. It was the Congress that made them the law of the land. Congress had all the power in the U.S. law to resist them. And they can repeal them any time they want...if they really want to do it. We currently have a Democrat controlled House and Senate now. So what are they waiting for? Congressmen tend have a short career when they start raising taxes. Its an election year.
It is true, however, that we do have a lot of Presidential candidates eager to "redistribute" the wealth of the proverbial "rich" to the "less fortunate" in our society. Robin Hood is alive and well. This is nothing more than a flagrant attempt to buy the votes of those people who will be on the receiving end of that money. That is a primary motivating factor in the Democratic party's embracement of government controlled "Universal Health Care." The more people they can get on the "receiving" end of a government programs the more people will be inclined to vote for those people who supply those programs. Naturally, the money has to come from some place. Raising taxes is the common method of acquiring the financing. This is prototypical Socialism. Class warfare being used as a wedge to force in these expensive big government programs into existence. It's all about getting influence and control over the lives of the nation's population. The less money you have, the less control you have over your own life and the more dependent you are on government. It is typical socialist propaganda to claim the rich ought to pay more. Tax cuts, it is argued, only benefit the rich.
Well, it is a fact that you have to be paying taxes to benefit from a tax cut. It is also true that cutting taxes has the effect of increasing revenue. Why? Tax policy is the one way the government can truly effect the economy. When you cut taxes, you leave money (capital) in the economy that can then be used for investment. This leads to an expanding community that adds jobs and therefore adds more taxpayers and new businesses to the tax base. Raising taxes has absolutely the opposite effect by reducing capital in the economy and shrinking investment you therefore reduce the tax base. You would think this would be simple. Yet the Democrats feel emboldened to not only repeal the so called "Bush Tax Cuts," but also to increase taxes still more in order to finance their socialist government programs.
The argument against tax cuts is always the same. Tax cuts are for the rich and therefore if we are reducing their taxes then the burden of financing the government must be "unfairly" shifting onto the poor. But is that the truth? According to the most recent statistics from the Internal Revenue Service, it isn't even a distant relative of the truth.
In 2005 the top 1% of all income earners, which means all those whose annual income exceeds $365,000, paid a whopping 39% of all federal income taxes! In 1999 they were paying 35%. So not only are the richest 1% paying well over third of all federal income taxes, they are carrying an even greater share of the tax burden than they were under President Clinton. This AFTER the "Bush Tax Cuts!" Imagine that.
If we look at the top 5% of income earners, those with annual incomes over $145,000, we see they are paying 60% of all federal income taxes! In 1999 their share of the tax burden was 55%. Once again we see the tax burden of the wealthiest 5% of income earners increasing AFTER the tax cuts. Impressive.
It continues no matter how you look at the numbers. The top 10% of income earners, $103,000 and above, pay 70% of all federal taxes. The top 25%, $62,000 and above, pay 86% of federal taxes. And get this...the top 50% of income earners, those earning $31,000 and above, pay 97% of all federal income taxes!!
That leaves the 3% of income earners who earn less than $30,000 annually. They are currently paying 3% of all federal taxes but in 1999 they were responsible for 4%. So who is bearing the tax burden of the federal government? Have the tax cuts really shifted the tax burden in the direction of the poor? It would appear that tax cuts have brought nothing but desirable results all around. They have provided an expanding economy, more jobs and fair dispensation of the tax burden. Now the Democrats propose to improve this by raising taxes? Lunacy.
When it comes to unfairness in the tax system, the problem isn't the taxpayer. Any taxpayer. The problem arises from those who do not pay any taxes at all. If you have no financial stake in the government, your voting practices are going to reflect that fact. Tax cuts mean nothing to the non-taxpayer. However you might be led to believe that tax cuts could effect you negatively if you are dependent on government programs and government income. That is where the Democrats come in, providing misleading information to those dependent on the government for their wellbeing. Truthfully, tax cuts will benefit those dependent on this redistribution of income as well, but politicians practicing class warfare find these "less fortunate" people to be vulnerable to this misinformation. After all, if they have any education at all it was government provided public education. Remember, the idea is to mislead and gain control.
Consider these figures. 41%of whites, 56% of blacks, 59% of American Indians and 40% of Asians and pacific Islanders paid absolutely NO federal income taxes. They have ZERO tax liability. Yet each and every one of them has an equal voice at the ballot box as those who do fund the federal government. How "fair" is that?
The socialists, who continually present the argument that the rich do not pay their fair share, know all of this. They intentionally misrepresent this information in their attempt to gain power and influence over us. It is their desire to destroy the U.S. economy so as to eliminate the independence of the American people. It's all about control. It is a deception that has worked before when people who have a stake in government allow those who do not to participate as equals in the selection process of government officials. Once a population realizes it can vote itself money from the treasury it can hold the government hostage to its demands. We have arrived at that point in this country.
This country was founded by people who were sick and tired of paying taxes to England and not having a voice in its government. They were paying money to a government that was not responsive to their concerns. "No Taxation Without Representation" was the battle-cry of the revolutionaries. Well the pendulum has shifted too far the other direction now. People who are NOT paying taxes should NOT have as equal a say in the government as those who do! We as taxpayers are once again being governed by a government that is not responsive to our concerns. Our politicians are too busy doling out the treasury to non-producers in exchange for votes.
If more taxpayers were aware of how truly unfair and biased the tax system is against them, I believe they would insist on a "new revolution" to correct this "injustice." That is a word the socialists love. Injustice. They use it to validate all of their programs. "Social justice" is how they validate their demands for more money from the treasury to placate a variety of social ills. But "justice" for some is ultimately a crime against someone else.
Those receiving the "redistributed" benefits of the work of others should not be allowed to dictate the terms of that redistribution! When they are allowed to do so we are no longer "promoting the general welfare" of the population. Nor is this any form of charity. It's robbery! Why should the weakest, non productive element of our society be allowed to destroy our entire society with their demands? Perhaps a new battle cry is necessary to fix this "social injustice:"

"NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION!!"