Government in Exile

Is American Culture Dying?

"Ernie" has some thoughts of the demise of American culture.

Obama made it very clear in his 2008 campaign that he was going to fundamentally transform America.  He didn't say how, or what he was going to transform it to, but after 5 years of this disastrous administration we have a pretty clear idea. 

 

     As much as he'd like to take full responsibility for what's befallen us as a country and a people, this ideology really started long before his regime took office.  You can go all he way back to that Woodrow Wilson, the nation's first "progressive" statists who preached the growth and power of the government.  But wait, let's not forget Teddy Roosevelt.  For all his admirable qualities, he was the first conservationist president who took millions of acres out of the private sector and gave it to the government to "preserve the natural environment".  

 

     Back to the "how" part of the transformation, that too was designed and implemented back in the FDR days.  It began with the work projects designed to defeat the Great Depression.  What it really did was transfer personal responsibility to various government welfare programs.  Though the media gave him full credit for ending the depression, it was the second world war that put America back on a path for economic growth, primarily by creating a massive industrial revolution.  

 

     It was FDR's charisma that began transforming the media from journalism to the propaganda wing of the democrat party.  That situation has grown out of control and probably irreversible.  In addition the "progressives" gained control of the educational system and eventually the entertainment industry.  The influence of these 3 entities to implement Obama's ideology is insurmountable.

 

     Most recently beginning with Clinton and exploding under the Obama regime, the fuel that runs the "transformation" engine is in these new phrases....Political Correctness (PC) and diversity.  As with integration, affirmative action, Head Start, quotas and numerous other welfare programs, the lower classes (primarily blacks) were going to be freed from their slavery mentality and lifted up to become part of the great American culture.  Such things as learning about personal responsibility, love for country, work ethic, career opportunities, unity with other ethic groups, Christian values, etc.  You know, the culture that made Americans proud and productive for 150 years.  Has it worked?  Absolutely not.  School integration didn't lift the black culture up, it brought their inner city culture into public schools and helped destroy the best educational system in the world.  But we cater to this backsliding into the abyss in the name of diversity and PC.  As a result the number of blacks feeding at the government trough has skyrocketed, new welfare programs keep on coming, and America is on the verge of bankruptcy.

 

    But this destruction of the proud American culture doesn't stop there.  Look at the worlds of music and sports.  Music is nothing more than drug enhanced screaming, and sports arenas have become the Roman coliseums of the new century.  Sportsmanship has been replaced with endzone dances, chest pounding, trash talking, tattoos, body piercing, in-your-face boasting, and other inner city inventions. 

 

     Add to this the influx of hispanics flooding across the border.  Again in the names of PC and diversity, we have to let them bring their cultures with them, and sacrifice our American culture and traditions to accommodate theirs.  Heaven help us as the Islamic influence continues to grow and begins crowding out Christianity, Judaism and American traditions.  Come to think of it, it's already happening.  Are you ready for Shariah law?  You wouldn't want to offend the people who are trying to destroy us, now would you?

 

    Abandoning the tradition of the proud American culturalism that built this country into the worlds most powerful, wealthiest, freest, most compassionate (internationally & domestically) and innovative nation in the history of mankind, we are dooming the country to failure.  Just like Greece, Spain, Italy, and most of the other Euro Zone, only worse.  When the giant falls, the noise is much louder, the destruction more devastating.   

 

     Would the last person left alive please turn out the lights?     

Is Political Correctness Destroying America?

"Ernie" has some thoughts on political correctness. 

I enjoyed reading Peter's article because it touched on a topic I wanted to write about....political correctness and how it's destroying our freedoms from top to bottom.  Whether its practicing our freedom of religion, our right to disagree, our freedom of speech or any/all of the other freedoms we've come to take for granted in a free society, they're being taken from us.  In simple terms we're losing the freedom to make our own life choices, or to just be ourselves.  Check out Common Core.  This travesty will take our career choices and our education choices away from the family and giving them to the government.  It would eliminate the right to home school our children.  Just another liberal program designed to "transform" America.

 

Many people think PC began under the Clinton administration, but actually it's been alive and well for thousands of years.  Everywhere there was an authoritarian style government, people were not allowed to voice an opinion or do anything that wasn't approved by the government.  Joseph Stalin was the most recent autocrat who demanded that people buy the government ideology or face punishment ranging from death to living forever in a Siberian gulag.

 

A noted authority on terrorism was asked by FOX yesterday what we need to do to protect ourselves from being destroyed by Muslim extremists.  His answer...."do away with political correctness".   How can we justify kissing the feet of people who want to wipe us off the face of the earth?  PC says because we want to show them that we're tolerant and respect their beliefs.  Okay, we've shown them so can we now shut down all the mosques in America, denounce Islam as an unrecognized religion, and quit sending them trillions of dollars for  their oil when we have more oil underground than they have?   An imam can rail against America, Jews, Christians, capitalism, American "luxuries", etc, and that's fine.  But just let a Methodist preacher read (from the Bible) something negative about same sex marriage, homosexuality or abortion, and the progressives want to shut him down, close his church and turn the ACLU loose on him.

 

I saw recently where a teacher was fired for giving a student a Bible.  It seems the student was constantly asking the teacher (outside the classroom) about various verses in the Bible.  When he asked the teacher if he could get him a Bible, the teacher took his own small Bible from his pocket and gave it to him.  He specifically told the student that it was a personal gift and had nothing to with school.  When the principal found out about it, he fired the teacher.  This is just one more example of PC gone crazy.  He could have given him a copy of the Koran and nothing would have been said.

 

There is an endless string of such examples of how PC is destroying our lives, and our country.  Over time I've even grown proud of some of the spiteful, insulting labels they hang on people like me.  Anything that shows I'm not "one of them" is OK fine with me.

Is Hollywood Responsible for Gun Violence?

"Ernie" has some thoughts on the violence coming out of Hollywood.

 Liberals are continuing to demand that congress initiate laws that will make it difficult to (A) buy a gun, (B) by ammunition for guns,  (C) to restrict magazine sizes, (D) ban guns altogether, and/or (E) confiscate all guns.  In other words they continue to blame the guns for the violence in today's society instead of going after the real cause which is entertainment violence.  Everything you read on violence in America focuses on gun control, improving mental health, filling schools with armed officers, stopping " bullying", etc.  There's no question that  all these areas are contributing factors that need to be addressed.  However, noticeable by their absence, you read very little on how video games, violent movies, violent rap music (so-called), and violence on TV screens are major contributors to violence in America.

  

     Considering the fact that millions upon millions of dollars pour into political campaigns each election cycle, plus the fact that Hollywood is filled with progressive liberals who have the ears and eyes of millions of Americans, most notably young people, it's easy to see why the self described leaders of congress don't want to point fingers towards the west coast.   

     Let's take a quick look at some of our recent mass killers.

     Eric Harris & Dylan Klebold:  Both of these teens were seemingly very intelligent, unpopular victims of high school bullying who liked to say they belonged to a popular but dark "mafia" type organization.  Both were extremely computer literate and heavy players of violent video games.  Besides assisting in maintenance of the school computer server, they created a set of levels for the game "Doom" which were later known as the Harris Levels.  They even made a video called "Hitmen For Hire" showing shooters killing students.  Together Eric & Dylan killed 13 people in Columbine High School.

    James Eagan Holmes:  He was a somewhat deranged young man of above average intelligence who killed 24 in a theater in Aurora, Colorado.  He also was a heavy player of violent video games and an avid Batman fan.  It was not a coincidence that he committed his act of violence at a Batman movie, "Black Knight Rising".

    Adam Lanza:  Another deranged (most likely) young man of above-average intelligence who was also an avid player of violent video games.  He was fascinated with mass killers and whose goal was to kill more than the 77 killed by Anders Breivik in Norway.

    A couple of questions.  If video games don't desensitize people to killing why does the military use them to train soldiers, specifically snipers?

    There's long been a saying in Hollywood (I use this term to include movies, TV, music and video games) that "if it bleeds, it leads".  Scorsese gets credit for proving this by making a hero of mass murder with his mid-70's movie, "Taxi Driver".  From then on the "bleeds-Leads theory took over filmaking.  It's interesting to note that a trailer shown before Black Knight Rising in most theaters was called "Gangster Squad", a movie that shows characters going into a school and killing students with machine guns.   The industry denies that the violence, drugs and sex that they exploit causes anyone to be influenced by them.  If people aren't influenced by what they see on the screen/tube then why do companies spend billions of dollars every year advertising in their industry?

    Following the Columbine travesty, the makers of Black Knight Rising pulled the movie from theaters all over the country and stopped the heavy advertising campaign.  DC Comics delayed the release of Batman Incorporated #3.  This "epic" showed a female taking a gun into a classroom while disguised as a teacher.   

    But forget these "unfortunate coincidences", we all know it's guns, the NRA, conservatives and the 2nd Amendment that kills people.  

Is the Republican Party Dying?

"Ernie" has some thoughts on the Republican party.

 Accounts of the pending death of the Republican party may not be far from wrong.  It must be comforting to libs knowing all they have to do is stand by and watch as the GOP goes about destroying itself...and without any help from them.

     Rand Paul took a stand regarding Brennan and the use of drones inside the US with a 9-hour filibuster.  It was courageous and necessary, especially after the appointments of Kerry and Hagel.   ( A known liar and a closet anti-semite).  Ironically, the dems didn't have much to say about Paul's action, seeming content to let the progressive republican RINOs attempt to discredit and even destroy him politically.  The first to jump on him was McCain, a 2-time loser for the White House, and someone whose usefulness to the conservative movement is zilch.  When Paul responded, McCain jumped on him again claiming Paul was going against the GOP and trying to appeal to young pro-liberalism college students in their dorms.  These are the same critics who complain that the GOP has lost the youth vote.  Which is it, John?  Is appealing to college students good or bad?

     The next notable critic was Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard.  His comments must have made Bill Buckley and Ronald Reagan turn over in their graves.  Anyway, thanks Bill and John for giving the dems plenty of soundbytes to use in the 2014 election.  You may not realize it yet, but Obama's going to come out all guns blazing the win back the House.  God forbid that he and his Marxist pals ever get control of the House, the Senate, the Judiciary and the executive branches. Can you imagine?  Who would be left to stop him from totally destroying the constitution, the economy, the conservatives, the military, and most likely the 22nd amendment?  Please don't tell me our saviors will be McConnell, Boehner, Kristol, McCain and the rest of the progressive republicans.  Or as I like to refer to them...the doormat wing of the Democrat party.

 

     Just because the GOP is devouring itself, don't think that the dems will just fall over laughing and not do anything to help out.  The trashing of Paul, Lee, Cruz and all other TEA Party types is just beginning.  When the libs are so good at destroying their political enemies, can you possibly believe they won't get Hollywood, the state run media and the Oprah Winfrey types geared up for an onslaught against GOP opponents in 2014?  They were all too busy singing the praises of that great statesman, humanitarian multibillionaire, Hugo Chavez. 

 

     Let us not forget, in this next election the prize is the House, not the White House.  The few conservatives left breathing need to stand up and be counted.  The future of the country is at stake.

Senator Kerry's Upcoming Confirmation Hearing

"Peter" has some thoughts on Senator Kerry's upcoming confirmation hearing for Secretary of State.

Suggested questioning of John Kerry at his Senate hearing to confirm Obama's appointment of him as Secretary of State:

 

Senator, your life story is a long and storied one...well known throughout the world. And the Chair has praised your integrity and diplomatic experience.

 

I'd like to start by asking you to once again describe your famous Christmas Eve, secret mission into Cambodia, which I find most interesting since you weren't even in SE Asia during the Christmas time of year?

 

Is consorting with our nations enemies part of your "Diplomatic Experience"... Like North Vietnam while we were at war? The Sandinistas while we were engaged in conflict in Central America? The butcher Assad and Saddam Hussein in the Middle East... And the Russians and Chinese when we were engaged in the Cold War?

And would you explain to us how you recruited your fellow "Winter Soldiers" to come and testify before Congress about atrocities committed by our American Soldiers and Marines, when most of the so called witnesses you recruited were never even in the military, or had ever gone to Vietnam?

 

Remind us of your eye witness accounts of our Vietnam Veterans being as ruthless as the hordes of Gangues Khan? Tell us when and where you observed that first hand, Senator Kerry?

And then I'd like to know why your citations for your Silver Stars were signed by a Secretary of the Navy many years after the war was over?

 

Is it true, as charged by eye witnesses, that your Purple Hearts were as a result of your own incompetence? Friendly fire by your own hand?

 

Why couldn't you pass the Bar Exam, if you are so brilliant?

 

Why did you park your boat in Rhode Island? Was it to avoid taxes on it in your home state?

 

Is it true that your wealth was derived by marrying homely rich heiresses and widows?

 

And why do the men who served with you in Vietnam universally hate your guts, along with 99.9% of all Vietnam Veterans?

 

Is it true that of all the men and women in the U.S. Senate, you are known to be the most egotistical of them all?

Is yours the face America wants to present to the rest of the world, a man who has made a career of lies and deceit, while smiling broadly?

 

Is there anyone who symbolizes the term; "Ugly American" more than you?

Can any foreign leader ever trust a single word out of your mouth?

 

Are you the best that Democrats have to offer?

 

Aren't you an insult to all who have served?

 

Obama: It's All Bush's Fault

"Peter" has some thoughts on the Presidential Election.

My mind is made up, don't bother me with facts. It is Bush's fault. Everything is Bush's fault. 

 

Indeed, even though the e-mail below is absolutely correct, IT IS STILL BUSH'S FAULT. Why? Did he VETO any of the garbage that Pelosi and Reid pushed through Congress? Even if Congress were to override his vetoes, at the very least he would have been on record and made political points. But Bush the "compassionate conservative" was/is too nice a guy to stand up for principles and values.

 

The forwarded e-mail fails to point out that the original source of the problem traces back to the Community Redevelopment Act signed by Carter, the "redlining" campaigns against banks by Clinton, and the stupid new financial laws and regulations imposed in response to the Enron mess -- itself created by infernally stupid regulations imposed on the energy generation and distribution industries in the Clinton and earlier years both at the state and federal levels. Enron did not create the brownouts in CA, it was stupid state regulations that did. Bush did not create then burst the housing bubble, the Democrats did. Bush did not create the financial collapse, the Democrats and their cronies did. Bush was not in cahoots with Wall Street, the Democrats and later Obama were. It was Pelosi, Reid and Obama who did not "let a good crisis go to waste," especially after having worked so hard to create it.

 

And just in the past couple of months the news was that Obama is reimposing the same lax lending rules that had created the mortgage lending crisis in the first place, and this week it Obama had the gall of actually suing the Bank of America for ... having followed the federal lending rules...! 

 

But hey, this is HISTORY, and if anyone is good at erasing and rewriting history, it is the Democrats. Take a look at this stupid letter to an editor:

 

Let me just present some facts regarding Democratic vs. Republican governance to add some perspective. Personal income grew six times more under Democrats than Republicans; gross domestic product grew seven times more under Democrats than Republicans; corporate profits were 16 percent more under Democrats, minus 4.53 percent under Republicans; average compound returns on the stock market were 18 times greater under Democrats than Republicans; $100,000 invested over 40 years of Republican control yielded $126,000, $100,000 invested over 40 years of Democrat control yielded $3.9 million and Republicans added 2.5 times as much debt as Democrats. Source: Forbes Magazine, not exactly your average liberal source.

So my question is: Why would anyone, especially someone as learned and worldly as Mr. Farmer, choose to support a Republican and the return to the failed policies of the last administration in the face of such demonstrable evidence that Republican control is so negative for the country?

I have no illusions about Obama, I strongly disagree with his policies regarding drone warfare, assassinations, secrecy, national security and domestic surveillance, etc., and none of that would change with Romney. But economically and particularly considering the Supreme Court of the United States, I have to support the Democrats. 

 

Or this:

 

The Tea Party Republicans claim Obama has not repaired the Bush and Republican mistakes fast enough. Pelosi passed several job bills out of the House. McConnell filibustered and stopped those job bills.

In 2010, the Tea Party Republicans ran on jobs, jobs, and, oh yes, hate Obama. Please note, not one job bill was offered by Boehner and the Tea Party Republicans. Further, they killed all of Obama's job bills.

McConnell and Boehner proclaimed we must stop Obama from doing his job, just what you want from real American leadership. So be it, if 50 million Americans suffer. Their nay-saying has hurt our economy ad made things harder for the rest of us. Can you justify what they are doing? The Tea Party Republicans have the brass to ask us to vote for them and their hurtful policies. 

Before you vote, think about what Bush did to us and what Romney and Ryan have in store for us. Ask yourself how you stand on outsourcing American jobs? More tax cuts for the very rich? You can see all the jobs that were created in 12 years. Do you care about our social safety net? Does our infrastructure need repair and would that work create jobs? Romney, Heller and Amodei support the Ryan budget and Norquist anti-tax pledge. Was this action taken for our benefit or the Tea Party?

 

Clinton is given credit for achievements of the Gingrich Congress and the Contract With America... Bush is maligned because he recognized the threat to "entitlements" and the "safety net." The TEA Party is condemned for knowing the difference between public and private jobs, spending vs. investing, growing vs. destroying the economy. Bush is blamed for doubling the national debt -- actually done by Pelosi, Reid and Obama since January 3, 2007. 

 

This is not just plain ignorance or stupidity. This is a full blown mental disease. These people live in an alternate universe, like in a bad science fiction flick. And the rest of us are victims of their delusions, having no choice but to live in THIS reality, not in some "progressive" fantasy land.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Begin forwarded message:

 

  PLEASE READ AND THINK ABOUT WHAT REALLY HAPPENED...............

 

                                                                                                   )

Please note carefully!!!     Some people have short memories... DO YOU REMEMBER JANUARY 3, 2007? I've been saying this for years, but this email probably explains it better and more clearly. This is NOT a political message, but rather a clarification to remind us all of the correct facts. Remember that on October 9, 2007, 11 months before our "economic crisis" occurred (that was actually created), the Dow hit its highest point ever, closing at 14,164.53 and reaching 14,198.10 intra-day level 2 days later. Unemployment was steady at 4.7%. But things were already being put in place to create the havoc we've all been experiencing since then. And it all started, as this email explains, on January 3, 2007. --LFL I'm sending this to each of you regardless of your party preferences because I believe it is something you may not have considered. This tells the story, why Bush was so "bad" at the end of his term. Don't just skim over this, it's not very long, read it slowly and let it sink in. If in doubt, check it out!!! The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007, which was the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress. The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995. For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this: January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress. At the time: The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77 The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5% The Unemployment rate was 4.6% George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB GROWTH Remember the day... January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee. The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy? BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES! Unemployment... to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES! Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy. And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie? OBAMA and the Democrat Congress. So when someone tries to blame Bush. REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!" Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party. Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases. For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets. And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009. If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself. In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th. There is no way this will be widely publicized, unless each of us sends it on! PLEASE DO YOUR PART!

 

An Open Letter to Obama Voters

By Matt Barber   Did you vote for Barack Obama in 2008? A lot of people did – obviously. What a time. There’s still room for improvement, but what a testimony to just how far we as a nation have come in terms of racial harmony, tolerance and diversity. Only decades earlier a man like Barack Obama – a black man – couldn’t even drink from the same water fountain as a white man, let alone become president of the United States. A hundred years prior to that, and he may well have been counted another man’s property. On Nov. 4, 2008, millions gathered at the ballot box to prove, once and for all, that, in large measure, we as a nation have healed from our disgraceful, self-inflicted wounds of racial abuse, bias and division. That we could elect an African-American to lead the free world is indeed a very good thing. We just happened to elect the wrong African-American. In life, we sometimes find that the idea of a thing is far better than the thing itself. As a boy, I once ordered, from a comic book, a pair of X-ray glasses that promised to allow me to see the bones beneath my hand (my motives were a bit more ignoble). The two weeks it took for the glasses to arrive seemed like an eternity. Once they did arrive, I ripped into the package and put them on, darting my head to-and-fro. It’s difficult to express my level of disappointment. As I quickly discovered, the glasses merely formed a halo effect around objects, creating the illusion of transparency. I felt embarrassed. I got took. Barack Obama’s presidency has been a halo effect. Like I did so many years ago, in 2008 America fell victim to false advertising. As the past four years have demonstrated beyond any serious debate, the idea of President Obama was far better than the reality of President Obama. We were promised the world. We were promised transparency; but we were sold an illusion. We got took. Indeed, during the 2008 campaign, a then-Sen. Barack Obama promised us that, if elected, we would look back upon the moment he took office and “tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth.” That was the idea of President Obama. That was what many good, well-meaning people voted for. That was the hope offered and the change promised. That was not what we got. Though it’s certainly not a comprehensive analysis, during the second presidential debate, Mitt Romney, in response to Mr. Obama’s attempts to gloss over his mounting leadership failures, summarized a few of the big ones. While addressing an audience member who, perhaps like you, voted for Obama in 2008, Romney observed, in part, the following: I think you know better. I think you know that these last four years haven’t been so good as the president just described and that you don’t feel like you’re confident that the next four years are going to be much better either. … He said that, by now, we’d have unemployment at 5.4 percent. The difference between where it is and 5.4 percent is 9 million Americans without work. … He said he would have, by now, put forward a plan to reform Medicare and Social Security, because he pointed out they’re on the road to bankruptcy. He would reform them. He’d get that done. He hasn’t even made a proposal on either one. He said in his first year he’d put out an immigration plan that would deal with our immigration challenges. Didn’t even file it. This is a president who has not been able to do what he said he’d do. He said that he’d cut in half the deficit. He hasn’t done that either. In fact, he doubled it. He said that by now middle-income families would have a reduction in their health insurance premiums by $2,500 a year. It’s gone up by $2,500 a year. And if Obamacare is … implemented fully, it’ll be another $2,500. … The middle class is getting crushed under the policies of a president who has not understood what it takes to get the economy working again. … [T]he number of people who are still looking for work is still 23 million Americans. There are more people in poverty, one out of six people in poverty. How about food stamps? When he took office, 32 million people were on food stamps. Today, 47 million people are on food stamps. How about the growth of the economy? It’s growing more slowly this year than last year – and more slowly last year than the year before. … The president has tried, but his policies haven’t worked. Recently, my wife and I attended an outdoor festival in central Virginia. Although the event was not political, there were people from both the Obama and Romney camps handing out campaign stickers and other items. I suspect that if a poll were taken, liberals out-numbered conservatives by about two-to-one. That’s why I was so taken aback. Although we saw dozens of people wearing Romney stickers, we only saw one man wearing an Obama sticker. We walked up to a fellow with a gray pony tail, John Lennon glasses and Birkenstocks. He was wearing a Romney sticker. “Mind if I ask why you’re voting for Mitt Romney?” I asked. “I assume you are.” His reply – and these were his words, not mine – was short and to the point: “Because I refuse to be that stupid twice.” Changing one’s mind doesn’t always reveal a tendency toward indecision. Sometimes, changing one’s mind reveals a tendency toward wisdom. Matt Barber (@jmattbarber on Twitter) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action. (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)

Biden+Raddatz=1 - Ryan 0

"Peter" has some thoughts on the Biden/Ryan debate.

I am sorry folks, but Biden+Raddatz won. Ryan laid down with dogs and got up with flea bites.

 

Ryan had a "deer in the headlights" look, while Biden was rude, crude, arrogant, disrespectful, snide, ... He was the village idiot, smirking even before Ryan said anything, smirking at everything Ryan said, cackling as if Ryan was cracking the funniest jokes of the century. He reinforced the Democrat base by exhibiting all the qualities that appeal to their natural low-class hormone-crazed constituency. 

 

Style completely overwhelmed substance in this debate. Sure, all Biden did was repeat the stupidest Democrat talking points, but he did it with conviction and energy. Ryan let Biden andRaddatz interrupt him in the middle of his arguments and cut him off before he got to the main point at the end. 

 

I could not have resisted the urge and the necessity to put Biden in his place, to tell him to shut up while an adult is talking. I could not have resisted telling Raddatz to do her job as a moderator, not as an obviously partisan advocate. As I recall, even the deliberate tactic of hypersensitivity to media bias worked well in the primaries. It would have been HIGHLY appropriate in this "debate."

 

Let's not overlook some basic facts.

 

The Democrats keep pushing that $5T lie, because it works. They keep pushing that lie about a tax cut for the rich, because it works. They keep pushing that lie about the Ryan tax hike on the middle class, because it works. They keep pushing that lie about holding the middle class tax cuts hostage to lower taxes on the rich, because it works.

 

These idiotic lies work, not because they are based on fact but because they appeal to emotions. It's all for the better, for Democrats, that the elicited emotion is the basest of them all, envy. It fits very well into the Marxist Democrat ideology of class envy and class warfare.

 

Romney, Ryan and every other Republican candidate for any office at any level fall short on explaining some important points.

 

1. They have to explain the simple math that is the basis for the Democrat claim, that a 20% tax cut will result in a $5T deficit and addition to the national debt. Yes. If the government takes in $2.5T per year, and you cut that by 20%, you reduce that take by $0.5T. Over ten years, which is the customary projection used nowadays, that comes to $5T.

 

2. They have to realize that "soak the rich" is a poor argument -- and it is nothing new. The top income tax rate was, at least on the books if rarely in practice, 90% under Eisenhower, somewhere in the 70's or 60's under Kennedy / Johnson / Nixon / Carter, and cut to 28% under Reagan. What is new now is the resistance to hiking it back up from 35 to 39 to 43 per cent under Obama. Therefore the public sees this as greed and class envy in reverse; the rich not wanting to pay "their fair share" even though they did use to, just a generation or two ago. "Soak the rich" did work, just a generation or two ago. Or so the Democrats see it.

 

3. They have to debunk all that Democrat blabbering about having to "pay for" tax cuts. Well, yes, if you insist on cutting your income in one area, and refuse to cut expenses, then you have to find new income in some other area. So, if you give or preserve a tax cut to the rich, then you have to raise taxes on the middle class. Or so the simpleminded Democrats talking at their simpleminded constituency would like to convince them with simpleminded arithmetic.

 

4. They have to explain, above all else, that the Democrats are ignoring the interplay between the level of taxation and the level of economic activity, between tax rates and growth rates. If you raise taxes, you choke the economy. If you reduce taxes, you grow the economy. The historical record proves this beyond any doubt - in everybody's mind, that is, except the Democrats. The tax rate reductions during the administrations of Harding / Coolidge, Truman, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton and Bush had resulted in immediate recovery and robust growth. The high tax policies of Wilson, FDR, Johnson, Carter have resulted in recessions or depressions, and the threat or certainty of tax hikes under Obama prolongs a depression and threatens to push it into a depression.

 

The piece that is missing, and which the candidates' campaign organizations with their access to the experts must still provide, is the economic model -- the mathematical calculation and the graphical illustrations -- to show the relationship between tax rates, economic activity / GDP growth and actual tax revenues. Sure, we can repeat till the cows come home that under Reagan tax revenues doubled, but until we show the numbers and the graphs, all that talk about creating 12 million new jobs in four years is just so much empty and rather unbelievable rhetoric, especially after all these years of the "Bush tax cuts."

It frustrates the hell out of me that in debate after debate our candidates are hammered on this point and THEY DON'T HAVE THE ANSWERS AT HAND to show up the Democrats for the stupidity of the arguments they are making. 

 

5. They have to explain that you do NOT create jobs by increasing government employee head count. Government is an overhead function. As you can see from your own pay stubs, it takes one or two DOZEN private employees to pay enough taxes to cover the paycheck of just ONE public employee (teacher, civil servant, whatever) plus the other expenditures of government. That means,  if you want to add just one employee to the government head count, first you have to grow the PRIVATE sector by at least a dozen productive employees.

 

6. They need to present the same analysis and explanations with regard to entitlements. At the risk of lecturing Ryan in his field of expertise, he has to show one set of graphs and charts that explain the inevitable and imminent bankruptcy of these programs, and another set to demonstrate how his selectively, partially privatized plan would save and preserve them with no loss of benefits. 

 

We have to keep referring to the experience of countries such as Chile which did privatize their retirement programs with greater, not lesser payouts to the beneficiaries. We have to contrast the benefits of the Ryan reforms with the Democrat claim, repeated in the debate with Biden, that the system is solvent till 2030 something, when in fact all they have been doing for decades now is simply kick the can down the road for future generations to deal with. The great irony in all this is that for all the emphasis that Democrats put on "sustainable" this and "sustainable" that, but the only things that are not "sustainable" are their precious entitlement programs!

 

 

 

Presidential Debates - Romney 1, Obama - Lehrer 0

"Peter" has some thoughts on the Presidential Debates.

Did you notice how Lehrer so desperately, repeatedly tried to help Obama? How Romney wiped to floor with both of them and was able to do so with gentlemanly grace and at times childish enthusiasm? But hey, everything that could be said, was said last night. The news sites on the web are hilarious, too. 

 

There is just one point that Romney and all other Republican candidates MUST hammer on endlessly, to clear up one weakness in our argument. It takes three simple steps to clear up this weakness.

 

1. Romney and all other Republican candidates need to explain Obama's assertions that reductions in tax rates will lead to a $5T loss in revenue, $2000 tax hikes per person, etc., along with all his other stupid talking points. 

 

This is the time to take a page from Ross Perot and break out the charts. Which charts? The Laffer Curve that President Reagan used to show the relationship between tax rates, economic growth, and total tax collections (revenue). This is the time to hammer home the concept that Obama is so totally unable to grasp, that reductions in tax rates lead to INCREASED REVENUE. 

 

The Laffer Curve | Laffer Center

 

The arithmetic effect is static, meaning that if rates are lowered, the tax revenues per dollar of tax base will be lowered by the amount of the decrease in the rate, and vice versa for increasing tax rates. 

 

IF you assume that the economy is a zero-sum game -- that the only reason I win is because you lose, because I take something from you -- and 

IF you assume that the economy stays flat, and

IF you assume that the government's expenses stay flat,

THEN any reduction in tax RATES will result in loss of total REVENUE.

 

This makes sense to Obama -- and seems plausible to the average Joe who does not know anything about the economy anyway -- because you can show it with simple arithmetic; a 20% cut in a tax rate results in a 20% cut in revenue. BUT, in fact history shows that the economy is NOT a zero-sum game. People do not rob each other of existing goods; they work, they produce more goods, and thereby enrich each other. This is the second part in the Laffer analysis that Obama and the Democrats don't understand.

 

The Laffer Curve | Laffer Center

 

The economic effect recognizes the positive impact that lower tax rates have on work, output, and employment, which provide incentives to increase these activities.  By contrast, raising tax rates penalizes people for engaging in these activities.  The Laffer Curve demonstrates what happens when the economic and arithmetic effects collide, explaining why a tax increase may reduce taxed activity and raise less revenue than otherwise predicted, just as a tax cut may increase taxed activity and raise more revenue than otherwise predicted.

 

 

2. The second point that Romney and all other Republican candidates need to quantify is the expected growth in the economy if we (1) lower the tax rates, (2) repeal obamacare and all its horrific tax increases, (3) simplify the tax code and make deductions means-tested. A good starting reference I found is

 

Historic Tax Cuts and Economic Growth | Lessons of Lower Tax Rates

 

The tax cuts in the early 1920s, late 1940s, early 1960s, 1980s, mid-1990s each have resulted in huge economic growth. Other historic data also shows that the tax policy under Hoover, FDR, Johnson, Carter and Obama directly resulted in long term depressions.

 

I am not an economist, so I don't know where to look for a model that could be used to predict the magnitude of growth or recession as a result of tax reductions or hikes, but I am sure such models exist and that people in the profession know how to generate the charts we need.

 

3. The final point that Romney and all other Republican candidates need to explain is that all these claims are based on computerized MODELS. They ALL depend on starting assumptions, such as tax rates, growth rate, demographics, changes in government expenditures, etc., and you can generate ANY prediction you wish simply by manipulating the starting assumptions. GIGO -- garbage in, garbage  out. NOBODY. not even the CBO is immune to this effect; and just like in the polls, the gurus end up arguing over the "internals." But just like the projections of the national debt, shooting exponentially out of sight in just a handful of years if we don't curb spending and fix the entitlements, the economic models can be made to show the effects of different other assumptions. Someone with access to one of the more reliable models should be able to generate a few charts simple enough so even Obama could understand it.

 

The fact remains that Obama and the Democrats do not know anything about economics, whether keynesian, marxist or free market. The fact is that Obama and the Democrats have put us on a path to disaster with their totally unsustainable levels of debt and deficits, out of control spending, unfunded liabilities for entitlements, continuing losses in employment, increases in dependency on government programs, huge imminent tax hikes, stifling regulations, ...The fact remains that THIS is what we have to put an end to, and the fact remains that this election in our last chance to do so.

 

 

Can America Recover from Obama?

"Peter" has some thoughts on this year's Presidential Campaign.

I am trying to be as optimistic about this as I can, but even in this GOP convention we just concluded I have not heard a single call for, let alone a proudly proclaimed commitment to, repealing EVERYTHING that Obama has ever signed, including Dodd-Frank, Obamacare, all the executive orders, and all the regulations that the Departments and agencies under his administration have issued. Yet, without such a total erasure of his administration's misdeeds and record, we will NEVER repair the damage that has been inflicted on this Republic and the Constitution by the Pelosi-Reid Congress since 2007 and by the Obama administration since 2009.

 

And it does not help my tenuous optimism that the election of 2012 is similar to the election of 1860. That one directly and almost immediately lead to the Civil War. As it was true then, it is true now - a house divided cannot stand. 

 

As it was true then, it is true now - we cannot be half free and half slave. But this time we are talking about the freedom or slavery of ALL Americans. 

 

This week we saw on display an America of its founding values, a nation of self-starters and entrepreneurs dedicated to individual freedom and opportunity for all. Next week we will see on display an America warped by an alien Marxist ideology of class envy, class hatred and class warfare, an America executing a war on success, a war on families, a war on women, a war on racial and ideological diversity, an America of utterly helpless dependence on government, of totalitarian control over the minutest details of our entire lives. 

 

How long will THIS divided house stand?