Bill Maher: "I thought when we elected a black president, we were going to get a black president. You know, this [BP oil spill] is where I want a real black president."

HBO's Bill Maher: "I thought when we elected a black president, we were going to get a black president. You know, this [BP oil spill] is where I want a real black president. I want him in a meeting with the BP CEOs, you know, where he lifts up his shirt where you can see the gun in his pants. That's -- (in black man voice) we've got a 'motherfu**ing problem here?' Shoot somebody in the foot."

VID: The Wisdom of Bill Maher

10 Steps to Understanding Liberal Thinking

The liberal brain does not collect and process information in a logical, reasonable, and objective manner. Rather, liberal thinking is dominated by an obsession with power, and use of that power to preserve elitist advantages.
This distorted perspective makes it very difficult to understand exactly how liberals think without advanced training in Abnormal Psychology.
Nonetheless, the following non-technical summary should be useful to lay people.
How liberals think on 10 major issues of the day:
1. The U.S. Constitution Is Unconstitutional
According to liberal dogma, the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, and Bill of Rights are unconstitutional because all were crafted by an exclusive conclave of white male Christians.
Women, Hispanics, African-Americans, Asians, gays, lesbians, transsexuals, the handicapped, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and the blind were all under represented, if at all.
Because of this devastating lack of diversity, the Constitution must be regarded as a “living document,” subject to change in accordance with ever changing demographics and contemporary values.
2. Free Speech
Freedom of speech must never be quashed, except for criticism directed at minorities and sensitive constituencies of the Democrat party.
Burning Old Glory is protected free speech, whereas expressions of conservative values by people like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage are unacceptable “hate speech,” which must be subjected to “fairness” censoring by the federal government.
3. Abortion, the Death Penalty and Assisted Suicide
On issues of life and death, liberals are especially vulnerable to tripping on their own hypocritical double talk.
Namely:
A woman’s right to abort the life of an innocent child is inalienable; whereas execution of a convicted killer is cruel, unusual & barbaric.
Starving a helpless victim like Terri Schaivo to death is acceptable; but using lethal injection to end the life of a brutal killer is not.
4. Religion
Religious faith and belief in God are outdated pagan concepts, which do more harm than good. Sophisticated citizens can rely on the Democrat party for support from cradle to grave, obviating the need to rely on beliefs and rituals long since debunked.
Symbols of Christianity such as the Ten Commandments, the Cross, Christmas trees, nativity scenes, and the like must be hidden from public view so as to offend no one.
Publicly wishing a friend or family member “Merry Christmas” is clearly an act of civil disobedience and unconstitutional.
While Christianity is to be suppressed at all costs, Islam must be openly promoted in the name of religious awareness, sensitivity and tolerance.
The separation of state and government applies fully when dealing with Christianity or Judaism, but is irrelevant with regard to Islam and all other religions.
Delivery of Christmas cards and gifts by the United States Postal Service is an unconstitutional violation of state-religion separation and must end immediately.
5. Taxes
Leveling the playing field between haves and have-nots is the most important function of government, even more critical than national security.
To support that objective, no government role is more essential than levying and collecting taxes, otherwise known as redistribution of wealth.
Tax cuts are wrong when returned to people who actually paid taxes, but are perfectly fine when sent to those who paid none.
Although most liberals deny that Jesus even lived, many use the quote in Matthew 22:21, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s…” to justify higher taxes.
Paying taxes is the “Christian Conservative” thing to do!
6. Marriage and Same-Sex Issues
The traditional American family consisting of one man and one woman is just one of several possible arrangements, all of which are equally moral and acceptable.
Marriage is no longer necessary to sanctify man-woman relationships.
Although the institution of marriage is no longer vital to heterosexual partners, it is absolutely essential that same-sex couples be allowed to marry. To deny them that basic right is discriminatory, immoral, unfair, and clearly unconstitutional.
7 Racism, Diversity and Affirmative Action
Liberals believe that discrimination based on race or gender is wrong. Except when waged against Caucasian men, in which case it is mandated by law and called Affirmative Action.
“Our Diversity Is our Greatest Strength” is the liberal pledge of allegiance to socialism.
Enforcing U.S. borders and immigration laws, including deportation of illegal aliens, is wrong because it targets Hispanics, obviously based on racial profiling.
Those who support English as the official language of America are racists. But those who prefer Spanish and other foreign languages over English are not because of the inherent value of diversity.
Conservatives who seek to preserve American language and culture are bigoted hate mongers, whereas new immigrants, including illegal aliens, must be allowed to maintain and celebrate their cultural heritage at all costs, even if it interferes with assimilation into mainstream America.
8. Preserving the American Dream for Working Class Americans
According to liberal propaganda, they are the only hope for American families, notwithstanding the fact that Democrats support the influx of millions of illegal aliens who work for lower wages and without benefits, and drive down the standard of living for working families.
Skyrocketing gasoline prices devastate working American families, but protecting Alaskan wild life is a greater priority.
Businesses are oppressive institutions that must not be allowed to become too large and powerful. By contrast, government creates wealth & happiness and should be expanded whenever possible.
Outsourcing of American jobs to foreign nations is driven by immoral corporate greed.
By contrast, open borders and amnesty are acceptable because most illegal aliens are future Democrats.
Huge profits are obscene and un-American, except when enjoyed by Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, George Soros, Oprah Winfrey, Ted Turner, Teddy Kennedy, and other liberals.
9. Global Warming, the Environment, and Energy Independence
According to liberal technocrats like Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Katie Couric, and Dennis Kucinich, global warming is a greater threat to the health and well being of humanity than the war on terror.
Some liberal extremists even think that the colors of the American flag should be changed to green, white, and blue so as to reflect the importance of the environment to our nation, while simultaneously deleting the color red, which symbolizes blood shed in illegal wars waged by Bushes 41 and 43.
10. Use of Military Force, Invading Foreign Nations
Military force must never be used, except when needed to advance interests not vital to the United States, or to obscure a Democrat president’s sexual misconduct in the Oval Office.
Invading a foreign nation is wrong, except when aliens from Mexico invade America.
Understanding liberal thinking is probably more trouble than it is worth. The more prudent action would be to take all necessary steps to assure that liberals are not elected or reelected to political office.

Why are we drilling in 5,000 feet of water in the first place?

Here's an excellent question from Charles Krauthammer:

"Why are we drilling in 5,000 feet of water in the first place?

Many reasons, but this one goes unmentioned: Environmental chic has driven us out there. As production from the shallower Gulf of Mexico wells declines, we go deep (1,000 feet and more) and ultra deep (5,000 feet and more), in part because environmentalists have succeeded in rendering the Pacific and nearly all the Atlantic coast off-limits to oil production (see map above).

And of course, in the safest of all places, on land, we've had a 30-year ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.  So we go deep, ultradeep — to such a technological frontier that no precedent exists for the April 20 blowout in the Gulf of Mexico."

How to argue like a liberal

It is inarguable that liberals – in the modern American sense of the word – are the most flawless human beings on the planet. They are smarter, better-educated, wealthier, kinder and morally superior to those benighted quasi-Neanderthals called conservatives, who would like nothing better than to drag society back to the Middle Ages, or, according to some high-minded liberal theorists, the Iron Age.

How do we know this? Why, liberals tell us so!

Perhaps it has escaped me, but I have not personally witnessed any call for a return to the monarchy, much less land grants held in fief, on the part of even the most conservative Republican. And the last time I looked, the Bush administration was very much in favor of steel – certainly the U.S. steel industry appears to be most appreciative of his efforts in enacting a 30 percent tariff on their behalf.

But being a liberal means never having to worry about the facts. Facts can be uncomfortable, and of course, anything that makes anyone uncomfortable is a violation of our constitutional rights. The only fact that matters is the foundational fact that you can only feel what is right, so if a fact happens to contradict your feelings, obviously that fact must be wrong. Sentio, ergo rectum.

Due to this inescapable and irrefutable logic, I have finally been convinced that I will be healthier, happier and wealthier if I join the large-brained ranks of the morally superior elite. I have therefore decided to become a liberal. Already I have benefited greatly from my decision – whereas many previous discussions ended in a frustrating impasse, now, being inestimably more clever and better-looking than before, I am able to win any argument with the greatest of ease. Let me share with you the secret of my success.

1. Make an untrue statement, preferably on the subject of something about which you know nothing.

2. Express astonishment that your source could possibly be inaccurate.

3. Demand what motivation your source would have to lie.

4. Assert that the other party's inability to articulate this motivation is tantamount to proof that your source is not lying.

5. Question the motivation of the contrary source.

6. Argue that all sources are equal and that therefore the contrary source is irrelevant.

7. Change the subject.

Alternatively ...

1. Make an untrue statement.

2. Deny that you said what you said.

3. Deny that the other party understood what you said.

4. Deny that the words you used mean what the other party claims they mean.

5. Redefine your definition and hope the other person forgets the previous one. Repeat as needed.

6. Assert that since definitions are irrelevant and subjective, the other person is mean-spirited, racist, sexist, intolerant and obsessive.

7. Change the subject.

Remember: As long as you haven't admitted you're wrong, you are right. Any attempt to demonstrate otherwise is evidence of criminal hate and probably mental imbalance, too. Never forget that an answer to a question you have asked should always be regarded as a personal attack if the answer is something you don't like, and that the answer to all evils personal, spiritual, moral and societal is more government money.

Now, if you don't mind, I should probably go exercise my newfound moral superiority. The world won't save itself, after all – not without the fount of all that is good and wise and smart and cute, which is to say, me.

How to Argue with a Liberal

Health Alert | Rescissions: Much Ado About Nothing

How many times have you heard President Obama say, “Health insurers won’t be able to drop your coverage just because you get sick?” Or Kathleen Sebelius? Or the Democratic leadership in Congress? Or the mainstream news media?

As I wrote at Kaiser Health News the other day, you would think that the private health insurance industry was being revolutionized.

In fact, it has been illegal since 1997, under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, for insurers to drop coverage because someone gets sick. And even before then, the practice almost never happened.

Think of it this way: Do you think there would be a vibrant, active, ongoing life insurance industry if insurers could renege on their part of the contract after someone dies? How many of us would buy fire insurance if the insurers could change their minds and refuse to pay after our house burns down? Would you buy auto insurance from Allstate if the “good hands” could disappear after a collision occurs?

These things do not happen because

1. Insurers are contractually obligated to keep their side of the bargain and courts enforce these obligations just like any other contract;
2. Regulatory agencies enforce good behavior, quite apart from any lawsuit, and;
3. An insurer that routinely refused to pay claims would lose customers and go out of business.

So what’s the fuss all about?

Admit it; it's easy; Obama is dumber than you...

Do We Need an Individual Mandate?

Should everyone be required to have health insurance? The short answer is no. There is nothing that can be achieved with a mandate to buy health insurance that cannot be better achieved by a carefully designed system of tax subsidies. Beyond that, a requirement that everyone obtain insurance (as ObamaCare dictates) creates problems greater than the problem it is designed to solve.
They only argument that has ever been advanced for an individual mandate is a very sloppy…(no, make that a very, very sloppy)…inference from the free rider problem. Jonathan Cohn purported to give three arguments in favor of mandates in the New Republic the other day; but on digging below a somewhat shallow surface, we found that it’s actually the same argument three times over. Similar thinking can also be found on the political right.
Okay, so what is the free rider problem? Answer is below the fold.
Imagine a community in which everyone dutifully pays health insurance premiums every month, except Joe — who spends his money instead on other consumption. Then one day Joe gets sick and finds that he cannot pay the full costs of his medical care. So the rest of us — being compassionate sorts — chip in and pay for the remainder of Joe’s care. Upshot: When he was healthy, Joe got to consume all his income instead of paying premiums and after he got sick he managed to “free ride” on everyone else’s generosity. You can think of this as both an ethical problem and as an economic problem. Ethically, Joe is getting an undeserved benefit paid for by others bearing an undeserved cost. Economically, Joe is imposing an external cost on others. If we let Joe get away with not paying his own way, others might emulate his example, and the cost could grow through time.
Turning to the “mandate solution,” let’s add a bit of realism here. On the average, people without health insurance consume only about half as much health care as everyone else — after adjusting for other characteristics; and of the amount of care they consume, they pay for about half from their own resources. So, roughly speaking, the “free ride” for the average uninsured person is equal to about one-fourth of what everyone else spends on health care.
With these facts in mind, it should be clear that forcing Joe to buy insurance that pays for the same amount of care everyone else gets is not fair or equitable. That would be overkill. It would be overkill four times over. To get Joe to pay his own way, we need to take from him an amount of money equal to one-fourth the average health care spending of insured people and either distribute it to everyone else or put it in a fund to pay for uncompensated care required by Joe and others like him.
How could that work? Let’s say that $X is the average health care spending by insured people. Then, one solution would be to make Joe pay $X/4 in extra taxes each year. Or, we could achieve an equivalent outcome by giving everyone who has insurance a tax break equal to $X/4, but deny the break to Joe and everyone else who is uninsured.
Alert readers will realize that what I am describing is not all that different — at least in principle — from the current tax system. For people who get insurance at work, the employer’s premium payments avoid income and payroll taxes, unlike the payment of wages. For a broad stretch of middle-income earners, that means avoiding a 15% FICA tax and a 10% federal income tax. If there are state and local income taxes, the subsidy is greater than 25%.
By contrast, families with similar incomes who are uninsured (and, therefore, receive extra compensation in the form of taxable wages rather than nontaxed health insurance) will face a tax bill that is higher by an amount roughly equal to one-fourth of the cost of employer-provided insurance.
If we want to build on this structure to create a much fairer and equitable answer to the free rider problem as well as one with better incentives, however, there are three fundamental flaws that need to be corrected.
First, although the subsidy/penalty system seems to be broadly adequate for the middle-class, it is far less so for the rest of the population. For the upper middle-income families, the subsidy for employer-provided health insurance approaches 50%; whereas for lower-income families it is as low as 15%. Generally speaking, we are over-subsidizing the health insurance of the wealthy and undersubsidizing it for the poor. A fixed-sum tax credit — essentially giving everyone the same subsidy, regardless of income — would solve this problem once and for all.
Second, there is no connection between the penalties and the subsidies. That is, the extra taxes paid by the uninsured for the most part go to Washington, while the uncompensated care must be delivered locally. In terms of our example, even though Joe is paying an appropriate penalty for being uninsured, his penalty is being spent on other things by another political jurisdiction. His neighbors will have to cough up additional amounts if he needs free care.
Third, although we subsidize employer-paid insurance — in some cases very generously — there is virtually no subsidy for people who obtain insurance on their own. Whereas employees through their employers can buy insurance with pretax dollars, people on their own must pay with aftertax dollars. (The self-insured get a partial subsidy.)
Now let’s stop and take stock. We began with the free rider problem, which can generally be described as some people reaping benefits and other people bearing costs which are undeserved. Then, in thinking about how to solve this problem, we discovered that the health care system is riddled with undeserved benefits and undeserved costs. Fortunately, sensible reform can solve all these problems in one fell swoop.
But…and this will come as a surprise to some…ObamaCare leaves intact all three flaws discussed above. Plus, it adds a new dimension — a bizarre system of new subsidies that give a whole new meaning to the idea of undeserved costs and benefits. As previously explained:

• A $30,000-a-year worker with family will be forced to take a $14,000 health plan instead of wages (overkill four times over) and get a tax subsidy of little more than $2,000.
• Someone at the same income level in a health insurance exchange, however, will get an identical plan almost completely paid for by Uncle Sam, plus reimbursement for most out-of-pocket expenses for a total subsidy in excess of $19,000.
• A $60,000-a-year family getting insurance in the exchange will get a subsidy twice as large as a family earning half as much income ($30,000).

Thus, although ObamaCare has an individual mandate, it does not solve the problem of the undeserved benefits made possible by free-ridership. Instead, it creates even more undeserved costs and benefits — creating far more inequities than were there before.
Even more bizarre, it may not even reduce the number of uninsured. As Marty Feldstein has pointed out, the penalties are low and enforcement may be weak. We may end up with more free-riding uninsured people than ever before.

How Large Employers Plan to Respond to ObamaCare

This is a Chris Jacobs report on a new Towers Watson study:

• “The overwhelming majority (90%) of employers believe health care reform will increase their organization’s health care benefit costs;”
• Nearly nine in ten firms (88%) plan to pass increased costs from the law on to their employees through higher premiums;
• Nearly three in four firms (74%) plan to pass the law’s higher costs on to their employees by changing plan options, restricting eligibility, or increasing deductibles or co-pays;
• More than one in ten firms plan to pass on the law’s higher costs by reducing employment (12%) or reducing employer contributions to retirement plans like 401(k)s (11%);
• Of those firms offering coverage, 43% are “likely to eliminate or reduce retiree medical programs” as a result of the law’s enactment

Obama Lowers Sea Levels, But Sadly Discovers Atlantis

Despite the predictions that Barack Obama would not act on his promise to lower the sea levels until he officially becomes President, the presumptive Democratic nominee went ahead and lowered the oceans last month in a hectic attempt to boost his own shrinking poll numbers. However, the resulting growth of landmass turned into a mixed blessing when it unexpectedly revealed the lost world of Atlantis with a history so shocking and controversial that Obama is now contemplating re-sinking the island by returning the seas to their previous levels.
What the artifacts of Atlantis have told the world, is a story of the demise of a once great nation whose citizens grew spoiled and apathetic as they forgot the reasons for their success and allowed a sense of entitlement and self-loathing to set in.

An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen vs. Obamacare - a false analogy

This 1798 statute (5 Cong. Ch. 77, July 16, 1798, 1 Stat. 605) is currently making the blogospheric rounds as purported proof that the 2010 congressional mandate to purchase health insurance from a private company is based on long-established practice. Incorrect.

Sections 1 and 2 of the act impose a 20 cent per month tax on seamen’s wages, to be withheld by the employer.
Section 3 requires that all the withheld taxes be turned over to the U.S. Treasury on a quarterly basis, and that the revenue shall be expended in the district where it was collected. The revenue shall be spent to support sick and injured seamen.
So the Act is totally dissimilar to the Obamacare mandate. In the 1798 Act, the government imposes a tax, collects all the tax revenue, and spends the revenue as it chooses. This is a good precedent for programs in which the government imposes a tax and then spends the money on medical programs (e.g., Medicare), but it has nothing to do with mandating that individuals purchase a private product.


Full text of 1798 Bill (pdf)

Health insurance mandates vs. Auto liability requirements - a false analogy

A frequent argument for nationalized healthcare is the comparison to auto insurance. Obamacare advocates reason that since government requires people to purchase auto insurance government can also require people to purchase health insurance. The flaws in that argument are numerous.

Compulsory auto insurance coverage is a state issue. Each state establishes minimum bodily injury and property damage liability coverage requirements as it deems appropriate. However, liability insurance provides no benefits to the policyholder beyond the transfer of risk. The auto insurance requirement serves to protect the public from catastrophic losses the insured may cause.

While auto liability is compulsory, drivers aren't required to purchase coverage that protects personal interests. The state isn't concerned with how someone replaces their vehicle or pays personal medical expenses that result from their actions.

Antagonists may counter that banks require collision coverage. But the banks aren't government. Banks are lien holders with vested interests in the collateral. Thus borrowers are required to protect their vehicles. Once loans are repaid banks have no interest in the vehicles and the insurance requirement disappears.

Whether liability or collision, the government healthcare advocate still argues that auto insurance is government mandated. This is a half truth. States require drivers to carry liability insurance as a condition of using the public roads. However, there is no actual demand on anyone to buy auto insurance. If a person chooses not to drive a motorized vehicle on the public roadways the auto insurance requirement is inapplicable.

Federally imposed health insurance isn't comparable to a state's auto liability insurance mandate. First, the federal government is forcing us--under threat of fine or possible imprisonment--to buy personal insurance from a private company. Second, you have no viable option to avoid the federal government's imposition. Everyone will be required to carry personal health insurance. Third, congress has no legitimate authority to force free people to purchase products or services no matter the perceived good or value they may bring to the individual.

The Constitution's interstate commerce and general welfare clauses (Art. 1, Sect. 8) don't provide cover for nationalized healthcare either. In Federalist #41 James Madison declares that applying those clauses to areas beyond Congress' enumerated powers is, at best, a total misconstruction. Those powers are applicable only within the authority specifically granted to the central government.

Providing individual medical care or requiring individuals to buy insurance aren't enumerated powers. Therefore, according to the Tenth Amendment, those powers are retained by the states and the people. Via their auto insurance requirements, states have indicated that their interest lies in protecting the general public against loss incurred from an individual's negligence, not in protecting a person against their own actions. Thus health insurance and medical decisions are rights retained by the people.

No government has a vested interest in your health or health habits. Personal health is an individual responsibility with the rewards and consequences of each persons decisions borne accordingly.

What about catastrophic medical expenses? Doesn't society bear that cost for the uninsured? Yes, but only in a collectivist society. In a free society people bear their own burdens whenever possible and seek charitable assistance when necessary. Involving government inhibits individual responsibility and encourages risky behavior.

Suppose government required drivers to carry collision insurance at a government-mandated cost. The financial incentive for safe driving is reduced. While personal expense motivates responsible behavior the opposite is true when consequences are shifted to third parties.

To argue for federal healthcare mandates based on the existence of state auto liability insurance requirements is political sleight of hand. Anyone making that case is banking on public ignorance for their success.

VID: Obama and Khalid Mansour

Percy Sutton was the attorney for the Black Panthers. The Black Panthers were recently charged with voter intimidation to get ppl to vote for Obama, but Obama had his Atty Gen. Eric Holder step in and remove all charges. Obama pays back his supporters, like he is doing for ACORN and the Unions - giving UAW OWNERSHIP in the auto industry, and all the construction, infrastructure jobs from Stimulus Bill is going to Unions!

This is fricken amazing. Obama is connected with 15-20 associates/friends/Reverends/f

amily members that are COMPLETE RACIST RADICAL SOCIALIST COMMUNIST THUGS .. And not a damn thing is being said about it! The MSM has lost it's f*cking mind!

Why Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Continue To Cost US Taxpayers Billions

Of all the companies bailed out by the federal government, mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are shaping up as the deepest money pits. A close look at their past and recent financial filings shows why their losses continue to mount.
Fannie and Freddie effectively became wards of the government in 2008. The Obama administration had promised to reveal its plans for the agencies last month, but Washington's focus on reforming the banking system pushed them to the bottom of the to-do list. Fannie and Freddie aren't mentioned in either the Senate or House financial regulatory reform bills.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner may reveal some of the administration's ideas on Tuesday when he testifies before Congress about Fannie and Freddie. But in general, the companies' troubles have drawn less attention than the rest of the financial industry. For example, unlike bonus announcements made on Wall Street, Fannie and Freddie's recent disclosures of about $40 million in executive compensation and bonuses for 2009 caused little stir on Main Street.
Together the two firms have already tapped $125 billion from government lifelines and the Congressional Budget Office predicts they ultimately will drain $380 billion. That would far exceed the final tabs for rescuing the big banks, the automakers or even insurance behemoth American International Group (AIG).
"These calls on taxpayer funds are troubling to all of us," Edward J. DeMarco, acting director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, said in a letter to congressional leaders last month.
DeMarco's predecessor at the housing finance agency, Fannie and Freddie's regulator, has acknowledged that taxpayers are unlikely to ever see a full return on their investment.
Why are the two companies in such dire shape, when many large banks have been able to turn a profit even as they take huge losses from their real estate investments?

The current financial mess would never have occurred in the absence of ill-conceived liberal federal policies.

This bailout was a terrible idea. Here's why.

The current mess would never have occurred in the absence of ill-conceived federal policies. The federal government chartered Fannie Mae in 1938 and Freddie Mac in 1970; these two mortgage lending institutions are at the center of the crisis. The government implicitly promised these institutions that it would make good on their debts, so Fannie and Freddie took on huge amounts of excessive risk.

Worse, beginning in 1977 and even more in the 1990s and the early part of this century, Congress pushed mortgage lenders and Fannie/Freddie to expand subprime lending. The industry was happy to oblige, given the implicit promise of federal backing, and subprime lending soared.

This subprime lending was more than a minor relaxation of existing credit guidelines. This lending was a wholesale abandonment of reasonable lending practices in which borrowers with poor credit characteristics got mortgages they were ill-equipped to handle.

Once housing prices declined and economic conditions worsened, defaults and delinquencies soared, leaving the industry holding large amounts of severely depreciated mortgage assets.

The fact that government bears such a huge responsibility for the current mess means any response should eliminate the conditions that created this situation in the first place, not attempt to fix bad government with more government.

VID: Little Boxes

This is a pretty good summary of our society... wow we kind of suck ...

30 years of Republican tax policy, with an assist from Bill Clinton, is much preferable to what Barack Obama and the Congressional Democrats have done and are planning to do.

I find that most people on the left have very few new or interesting ideas. An exception to this generalization is Robert Frank, whose New York Times columns are often a good read. One of his recent columns has sparked a lively debate between Frank and David Friedman at Friedman’s blog, with Tyler Cowen and David Henderson also weighing in at their blogs. (And, yes, a lot of the argument has to do with health care.)
Frank’s view is that status is very important to people and he uses that fact to make ingenious arguments for (1) a consumption tax on the rich and (2) redistribution of income. (See his book, Choosing the Right Pond, and his Congressional testimony, summarized by David Henderson here.)
Today I’m going to address the first argument. Here’s one of my bottom lines: If you agree with Frank’s argument, you’re compelled to agree that 30 years of Republican tax policy, with an assist from Bill Clinton, is much preferable to what Barack Obama and the Congressional Democrats have done and are planning to do.

Little Boxes

Frank’s Argument for a Consumption Tax on the Rich. Frank believes that wealthy people are engaged in a conspicuous consumption arms race. (And although I called him an original thinker, at least this part of his thinking harks back to the writings of Thorstein Veblen, almost a century ago.) One person builds a McMansion to demonstrate his success in life, provoking a neighbor to build an even larger one. To best his neighbor’s top-of-the-line BMW, one person buys a Ferrari. His neighbor responds, say, by acquiring an Aston Martin.
Further, a lot of the consumption of the rich is focused on “positional goods.” These goods not only convey high status, they are also fixed in supply. Examples include beachfront property, housing lots in good school districts, paintings by dead artists, vintage wines, antique automobiles, etc. As income and wealth grow, the demand for these items grows. But since supply is fixed, ever-increasing demand only leads to ever-increasing prices.
As with any arms race, everyone would be better off if they all declared a truce. Suppose everyone agreed to cut his conspicuous consumption by 50%. Then everyone could maintain his relative status while halving the cost of doing so. But getting everyone to agree would be impossible because of the huge transactions costs. So government can achieve the next best outcome by a percentage tax on the consumption of the rich. Relative status would remain the same (therefore leaving everyone’s utility the same) and the new revenue could be spent on something that benefits everyone, including the rich. Building statues to honor great economists, say. (My example, not Frank’s.)
Here are some implications of this proposal as well as my criticism:
The Rich are Different. From each other, that is. When Sam Walton was the richest man in the world, he drove a pickup truck. His neighbors didn’t even know he was rich until they read about it in Fortune. So under Frank’s proposal, the very richest person might not pay any additional taxes. The new tax would only apply to high-dollar consumption.
Implication: Saving and Investment Would Be Exempt. When Warren Buffett buys a yacht or eats an expensive meal he is benefiting Warren Buffett. But when he forgoes consumption and saves and invests he is benefitting you and me. (His capital raises our productivity and, therefore, our wage income.) Frank’s argument only applies to Buffett’s consumption. So, as in the case of Sam Walton, the vast bulk of Buffett’s income would not be taxed.
Implication: Most Positional Goods Would Be Exempt. Despite Frank’s focus on these items, positional goods are mainly goods high-income people trade back and forth among each other. Whether the price of these goods rises or falls affects particular individuals, but one man’s gain is another’s loss. A change in price has no net effect on the income, wealth, consumption or possessions of the group as a whole. Further, if we taxed the sale of collectibles and other assets we would likely reduce the amount of financial capital available to create jobs and improve productivity. So Frank’s argument realistically only applies to the purchase of newly produced consumption goods.
Has the GOP Been Listening to Frank? For the last three decades, Republican tax policy (with some interim help from Bill Clinton) has achieved two things: (1) a huge shift in the income tax burden from lower- to higher-income taxpayers and (2) a substantial decrease in taxes on capital. These two changes together imply that an ever-increasing share of government revenue is the result of taxing the consumption of higher-income families.
Although Democratic critics (including the president) have said over and over again that Republican tax policy favors the rich, truth is that virtually all income tax revenues are now coming from the top half of the income distribution. The bottom half pays almost nothing. At the same time, the top rate on capital gains and dividends is only 15% — the lowest tax on capital income in memory. Of course, the government is collecting more revenue at the lower rates (as Art Laffer might have predicted). But the entire object of the exercise has been to shift the tax system toward a tax on the consumption of higher-income families.
Contrast this with the Obama Administration, which is planning to pay for almost all of its health reform by taxing the incomes and reducing the health care consumption of people who are definitely not rich. As part of the same reform, the Administration has already imposed a Medicare payroll tax on capital income and it wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts for capital gains, dividends and estates. Further, the Administration is hinting, none too subtlely, that it would like to impose a hefty consumption (VAT) tax on the entire population!
What is the Relative Importance of Relative Status? To say that status is important is one thing. (Isn’t it the theme of just about every Tom Wolfe novel?) To say it is the only thing that is important at the margin is another. My 8,000 square foot house may give me more status than a 5,000 square foot one. But it also gives me room for an indoor swimming pool, a racquetball court or a state-of-the-art home theater. If everyone were forced to go from 8,000 to 5,000, relative status would remain the same but my utility would go down because I would be forced to give up other consumption that I enjoy.
So how can we sort out and measure the relative importance of status? David Henderson has a brilliant idea. Let high-income people (and only high-income people) vote on whether to tax themselves. This avoids the transaction costs problem and gets to the heart of the matter very neatly.
Do we have any reason to believe the vote would be positive? I think not. Although a lot of high-income people voted for Barack Obama, a lot of those same people are making frequent trips to Washington to lobby against paying more taxes.

VID: 2004: Dems Fight Regulations on Fannie, Freddie During Illegal Bookkeeping Hearing

Timothy P. Carney: Goldman rallies for Obama in Wall Street 'reform'

This is an odd function of government: Making Goldman Sachs feel safer in its business dealings. Blogger Ira Stoll, at his Web site The Future of Capitalism, put it well:

"It's one thing for some elderly retail depositor to ask the FDIC to protect her from risk by guaranteeing bank deposits. But the idea that the government needs to run around setting capital requirements to protect Blankfein and Cohn from the risk that their counterparties might go under or get in a liquidity crunch seems a bit odd. Let them protect themselves."

Also at play in Goldman's call for stricter capital requirements and standardization of derivatives: the confidence game. Much of America has lost some faith in the markets. Regular investors are still a bit scared of the stock market. Financial firms are lending less. Goldman thrives on free-flowing capital.

If Obama signs a financial "reform" and declares that it now safe to enter the waters of the stock market, that's good news for Goldman.

Restoring public confidence in the markets should be the job of those who profit from your investing in the market -- it should not be the job of the federal government.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Goldman-rallies-for-Obama-in-Wall-Street-_reform_-90957879.html#ixzz0oFZ3YszX

New Hawaii law shuns Obama birth document requests #birther

HONOLULU – It's now law in Hawaii that the state government can ignore repetitive requests for President Barack Obama's birth certificate.
Republican Gov. Linda Lingle signed into law Wednesday a bill allowing state government agencies not to respond to follow-up requests for information if they determine that the subsequent request is duplicative or substantially similar to a previous request.
The law is aimed at so-called "birthers," who claim Obama is ineligible to be president. They contend the Democratic president was born outside the United States, and therefore doesn't meet a constitutional requirement for being president.
Lingle didn't elaborate on her reasons for signing the bill, but state Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino previously issued statements saying that she's seen vital records that prove Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.
Both Fukino and the state registrar of vital statistics have verified that the Health Department holds Obama's original birth certificate.
Health Department officials supported the law because the state still gets between 10 and 20 e-mails seeking verification of Obama's birth each week, most of them from outside Hawaii.
A few of those requesters file repeated inquiries seeking the same information, even after they're told state law bars release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who does not have a tangible interest.
Advocates for openness in government oppose the law because they fear it could be used to ignore legitimate requests for information.
___
The bill is SB2937.
___
Online:
Hawaii Legislature: http://capitol.hawaii.gov/

Obama's Citizenship in Question #birther

Exhibit A: The Grandmother's tape

I was in the delivery room in [Mombosa,] Kenya, when he was born Aug. 4, 1961. – Obama's paternal grandmother

This is the link where Obama's grandmother says Barack Obama is a native Kenyan.
Here's the phone call where Obama's grandmother says Obama was born in Kenya.
While politicians are known for it, grandmothers seldom lie.
Exhibit B: No birth certificate
Experts have called the Certificate of Live Birth posted online a forgery. Phil Berg reported on my Faith2Action radio program yesterday, "It's clearly been altered," which invalidates it, according to the document itself. Berg added that there is no indication even on this certificate as to specifically where the birth took place. And it turns out that Hawaiian law at the time allowed people to register for this non-hospital short form certificate (without a doctor's signature) up to one year from the date of the child's birth.
New Hawaii law shuns Obama birth document requests
Exhibit C: The matter of Indonesian citizenship
Only Indonesian citizens could attend Indonesian schools at the time Barack Obama attended school in Indonesia where was registered as Barry Soetoro. His citizenship was listed as Indonesian and his religion as Islam. There was also no dual citizenship at the time.
If he was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather, he would have forfeited any U.S. citizenship he may have had, just as when a child is adopted in America, he or she becomes an American.
Exhibit D: Travel to Pakistan
U.S. citizens were prohibited from traveling to Pakistan in 1981 when Barack Obama made his visit – likely with a passport other than a U.S. passport.
Exhibit E: Immigration back to the U.S.
According to Phillip Berg on my radio program yesterday, if Barack Obama went through immigration as he re-entered the United States, he would have become "naturalized," which also would not qualify him to become President. If he did not, said Berg, there is a likelihood that he is now an illegal alien – not even eligible to serve in the U.S. Senate. In fact, Berg suggested there has been no evidence that Barack Obama legally changed his name from Barry Soetoro.
In addition, according to U.S. law, from "Dec. 24, 1952, to Nov. 13, 1986," a U.S. natural-born citizen at the time of Obama's birth must be:

1. A natural-born citizen;
2. Born to two U.S. citizen parents; OR
3. If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least 10 years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.

Since Barack Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen and Obama's mother was only 18 at the time of his birth, she failed to meet the legal requirements of U.S. residency for at least five years after the age of 16.

Leftist Radical-Turned-Hero Brandon Darby on the G. Gordon Liddy Show

The Federal Bureau of Investigation, they have a program called the human source program, and I’m sure you’ve very aware of the informant program. And these are men and women, some of them have been in trouble and are trying to avoid charges but the vast majority are simply men and women like you and me who have discovered something or realized something bad, they brought information to the FBI and then in order to serve their country they decide to work undercover with the FBI on that matter and when they do so and their name becomes public, defense attorneys and the left have a tendency to completely try to destroy their character before they testify as to what they know and the information they hold.
And this is something that has happened throughout time and it’s something that’s happening right now and when that occurs those informants, for lack of a better term, usually end up changing their name, they usually end up very depressed or sad and they question what they’ve done because they’re attacked so heavily by the New York Times and by the other mainstream media establishment and that’s what I went through. I went through that.

Immediately every good thing I’d ever done in my life was taken away in the media, they tried to. I was a womanizer. I was a violent, gun-toting, womanizing FBI evil G-man who was trying to oppress the freedoms of others and…agent provocateur…I was accused of, still am being accused of being –this is the strangest thing— a joint Mossad-CIA-FBI hit man or operative having been trained at Quantico so I mean I’ve had these really bizarre attacks but that’s what they do.
They show up at places I go. They try to poster and threaten businesses, cafes that I go to for serving me and they do these kinds of things and initially it put me in a really bad funk. It was horrible, it was absolutely horrible to have somebody, to have the entire peace movement of the United States attacking me with the help of the mainstream media and ultimately threatening me.
So it was horrible, the threats were horrible, a lot of it was horrible, but thankfully I received a phone call from a man who had heard about me named Andrew Breitbart who I think is a wonderful, patriotic American doing a good job –he has a number of websites— and he called me and he really encouraged me to say my story and to speak out so that others can be helped and right at that time I received an email, because I have a public email account, and I received an email from a former informant who had changed his name, moved to another city, and he said, Mr. Darby I just want to thank you because hearing about you and the way that you’re handling this and the pride you’re showing and what you’ve done has really encouraged me to move back to my city and just to stand up to it, stand up for what I’ve done. And that meant a lot to me and so that’s one of the things that I really try to do now is advocate for other human sources and other people who’ve testified and tried to keep our country safe.
I really try to advocate for them and provide them a resource to say, hey, no matter what they do, don’t put your head down, don’t be afraid of these people. Just make sure you stay fit and strong, eat a lot of meat, have protein and muscle mass and make sure you can defend yourself. But definitely don’t put your head down and feel ashamed that you served your country regardless of what the mainstream media and what Hollywood and what defense attorneys and the ACLU says about you.

If you’d like to listen to the complete interview… [MP3 file for you to extract is at http://www.capitalresearch.org/podcast/mp3/p1272571258.mp3 or you can get it from http://feeds.radioamerica.org/loudwater/ggl/000001960_000_000000006.mp3 ]
Darby in “Radical Awakening: From America Hater to Hero.” The article appears in the April 2010 issue of Townhall magazine and was posted here at BigGovernment with Townhall’s kind permission.

The Nation's Imminent Debt Crisis Is A Matter Of Choice - Obama's

Investor's Business Daily
March 27, 2010
By Ernest S. Christian and Gary A. Robbins

President Obama doesn't need the recently announced National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform to figure out how to prevent the debt from rising to apocalyptic proportions and ruining America for generations to come. It's not rocket science; it's a matter of presidential priorities and choices.

If the president opts to continue with the biggest ideologically based spending spree in history - risk to the economy be damned - federal spending for 2009-2020 will as a percent of GDP increase by an enormous 23% (or more) compared to the Bush/Clinton years, the government's gross debt (public plus internal) will as a percent of GDP equal or exceed Greece's, and catastrophe will follow.

Some analysts say that America's AAA bond rating is already in jeopardy and may be lost by 2014 at the latest.

In the alternative, if the president decides not to cavalierly sacrifice America's prosperity (and standing in the world) on the altar of his own ideological ambitions, he should at the very least stop stoking the crisis. He should not deliberately pile on top of the already bursting budget his extra $4.3 trillion of optional new spending in 2011-2020.

It's not for economic recovery (that's already provided for in extra 2009 and 2010 spending), and existing social safety nets are already automatically increased for inflation and population growth.

Instead, the extra $4.3 trillion is part of the long-term cost of targeted social programs and transfer payments in the president's expanding welfare-state policy agenda for America.

About $1.6 trillion of that extra spending can be saved by stopping at the end of fiscal 2010 the long-term spending increases enacted in 2009 under the umbrella of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and other similar legislation. Another $1.757 trillion of proposed new spending for refundable tax credits and other transfer payments for 2011-2020 is disguised by being buried in the "baseline" of the president's budget. And another $881 billion of spending increases in 2011-2020 is proposed by the president for an array of programs in the "mandatory" category.

If any of these spending increases is actually vital, surely it could be paid for by sacrificing a bit of the political pork that is stowed away in hundreds of underperforming federal programs already in the $40 trillion that the president plans for the federal government to spend in 2011-2020.

(When the Office of Management and Budget evaluated 900 federal programs in 2007, spending exceeded performance levels by $250 billion per year (or $2.5 trillion over a decade).

Post-recession spending restraint by the president does not mean "cutbacks." Government would still be spending at extraordinarily high and growing levels throughout the 2011-2020 decade.

Furthermore, insofar as the recession and its aftermath are concerned, the Obama administration would still be spending an astronomical, record-setting $6.7 trillion (or more) for 2009-10, including at least $850 billion on stimulus and other arguably anti-recession spending this year.

If the president goes ahead and adds his extra $4.3 trillion of spending, interest costs will increase by at least $952 billion and the public debt in 2020 will increase by at least $5.2 trillion. Public debt in 2020 will be at least 77.2% of GDP, even according to the president's own forecasts, and the gross debt of the United States will be at least 107% of GDP.

If one uses the Congressional Budget Office's more realistic forecasts of interest rates, revenues and GDP growth, adding the president's extra spending and debt is even more risky: The public debt in 2020 will be 91% of GDP. The gross debt will be 123% of GDP (compared with 115% to 125% in Greece today) and greatly in excess of the "tipping point" identified by Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff in their recent landmark study of worldwide data.

On the other hand, the president could decide not to put America at such great risk and, therefore, to forgo adding the additional spending and debt. In that case, the public debt would be 56% of GDP and the gross debt would be 85% (or, according to CBO data, 68% and 100%).

A step-one decision by the president to forgo spending an extra $4 trillion or so is not alone going to solve the nation's spending and debt crisis, but it would hold it down to potentially manageable proportions.

It would also be a dramatic step - like a shot heard round the world - that would give some reassurance about America's long-term financial future.

Right now, the president's fiscal credibility is low and America's future is uncertain - the question being whether the president is going to ruin the economy by continuing to run up the debt or ruin it with massive tax increases.

Christian is director and Robbins chief economist of the Center For Strategic Tax Reform.

My God...Add it up and you’ve got the perfect Marxist scheme.

The Real Obama Economic Plan: Overwhelming the System to Destroy Capitalism and Freedom. 

Saturday, May 8, 2010, 09:22 PM

It’s time to stop mincing words. Obama is not a fool. He is not incompetent. He is not a madman. He knows exactly what he’s doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis, and social chaos- thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within. But the bonus is brilliant…as he destroys and taxes to death business owners, he also cripples his political opposition.

Rahm Emanuel cynically said, “You never want a crisis to go to waste.” It is now becoming clear that the crisis he was referring to is Obama’s Presidency. As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Obama’s Columbia University. In 1966, they outlined a plan to socialize America by OVERWHELMING the system with government spending and entitlement demands. Add up the clues below. Taken individually they’re alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to overwhelm the system, wreck the U.S. economy, damage or destroy the free market, in order to turn the U.S. into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival.



*Universal healthcare. The healthcare bill had very little to do with healthcare. It had everything to do with adding millions of new union and government employees (sixteen thousand new IRS agents) feeding at the public trough. Obama doesn’t care that giving free healthcare to 30 million Americans will add TRILLIONS to the national debt. Or that not one new doctor was added to the system, thereby causing a healthcare crisis. What he does care about is that it overwhelms the system and cements the dependence and loyalty of those 30 million voters to Obama and big government. Who but a socialist revolutionary would pass this reckless spending bill in the middle of a depression? Why now? Why the rush? Why risk destroying the economy on a reckless, unproven scheme? There is only one answer -- OVERWHELM THE SYSTEM. 



*Cap and trade. Like healthcare legislation having nothing to do with healthcare, cap and trade has nothing to do with global warming. It has everything to do with overwhelming the system, redistribution of income, government control of the economy and a criminal payoff to unions and Obama’s biggest contributors. Those powerful and wealthy unions and contributors (like GE who owns NBC, MSNBC and CNBC) can then be counted on to support everything and anything Obama wants. They will kick back hundreds of millions in contributions to Obama and the Democratic Party to keep them in power. The bonus is that all the new taxes on Americans with bigger cars, bigger homes and businesses helps Obama “spread the wealth around.” Who but a socialist revolutionary would pass this reckless tax and spending bill in the middle of a depression? Why now? Why the rush? Why risk destroying the economy on a reckless, unproven scheme? There is only one answer -- OVERWHELM THE SYSTEM.



*Make Puerto Rico a state. Why? Who's asking for a 51st state? Certainly not the Puerto Ricans, who have repeatedly voted against it, and certainly not American taxpayers. Who's asking for millions of new welfare recipients and government entitlement addicts in the middle of a depression? But this has been Obama’s plan all along. His goal is to add two new Democrat Senators, five Democrat Congressman and a million loyal Democratic voters who are dependent on big government. Who but a socialist revolutionary would support this reckless scheme in the middle of a depression? Why now? Why the rush? There is only one answer -- OVERWHELM THE SYSTEM. 



*Legalize 12 million illegal immigrants. Just giving these 12 million potential new citizens free healthcare alone could overwhelm the system and bankrupt America. But hey...it adds 12 million reliable new Democrat voters- who can be counted on to support big government. Add another few trillion dollars in welfare, aid to dependent children, food stamps, free medical, education, tax credits for the poor, and eventually Social Security. Who but a socialist revolutionary would support this in the middle of a depression? Why now? Why the rush? There is only one answer -- OVERWHELM THE SYSTEM. 



*Card check. This disastrous bill creates more union employees EVERYWHERE- all of them Democratic voters. More union employees mean more union dues and hundreds of millions of new dollars to spend on campaign contributions to Democrats. Who cares that it will damage the capitalist system? Who but a socialist revolutionary would support this scheme in the middle of a depression? Why now? Why the rush? There is only one answer-- OVERWHELM THE SYSTEM.



*Stimulus & Bailouts. Where did all that money go? It went to Democrat contributors, organizations (ACORN), and unions- including billions of dollars to save the jobs of government employees across the country, and billions more to hire new government employees. It went to save GM and Chrysler, so that their employees could keep paying union dues. It went to AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be bailed out (after giving Obama almost $1,000,000 in contributions). A staggering $125 billion went to teachers (thereby saving their union dues to teachers unions). All those public employees will vote loyally Democrat to protect their bloated salaries and pensions that are bankrupting America. And their union dues will be forwarded directly to Obama and Democrat politicians. All while the private sector is melting down. Pretty soon a government job will be the only game in town. The country goes broke, future generations face a bleak future, but Obama, the Democrat Party, government, and the unions grow more powerful. The ends justify the means. OVERWHELM THE SYSTEM.



*Spend trillions on bailouts. Who needs welfare mothers, when you can addict America’s largest companies on welfare? These companies are now beholden to Democrat politicians and therefore powerless to criticize anything Obama does. The trillions to GM, Chrysler, AIG will never be paid back. But, that’s no concern to a socialist revolutionary who wants to destroy capitalism, control business, and OVERWHELM THE SYSTEM. 



*Raise taxes ONLY on small business owners, high-income earners, and job creators. Put the entire burden on 10% of the population, redistribute the income, punish success, and reward those who did nothing (except vote for Obama). Why? Because such a plan destroys the group that contributes the most money to fiscally conservative politicians and causes. Reagan wanted to dramatically cut taxes in order to “starve the beast” (by cutting off funds for government). Obama wants to starve his political opposition by taxing them to death. OVERWHELM THE SYSTEM. 



With the acts outlined above, Obama and his regime have created a vast and rapidly expanding constituency of voters dependent on big government; a vast privileged class of public employees who work for big government; and a government dedicated to destroying capitalism and installing themselves as socialist rulers by OVERWHELMING THE SYSTEM.



My God...Add it up and you’ve got the perfect Marxist scheme.



Only one thing stands in their way – you and me, the American taxpayers. If we want to save the greatest country and economic system in world history, we had better get busy. We had better fight back hard. Our children and grandchildren’s futures are at stake. And please don't assume the GOP is the answer. They had their chance. Bush spent irresponsibly; Bush never vetoed a single spending bill; Bush supported bailouts, earmarks and stimulus; Bush was responsible for the Medicare expansion; Bush spent a trillion dollars on two never-ending wars; Bush was the disaster that opened the door for Obama. 



The answer is to support true fiscal conservatives who understand that national debt is the real global threat to our survival. Libertarians who truly support economic freedom are the real Tea Party candidates who want to truly change "business as usual" in Washington D.C. Libertarians don’t just talk the talk- we walk the walk. On November 2nd let's throw every incumbent in Congress out (with a few exceptions like Ron Paul)...and if the new class let's us down...let's throw them all out again in 2012. Eventually they'll get the message- the citizens are in charge.

"Content...which don't always rank all that high on the truth meter"- Obama: Do you mean like your compaign?

"You're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank all that high on the truth meter," - Obama

Obama's campaign had a huge presence on social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter, using 24/7 media to reach his army of supporters at a moment's notice. The Black Eyes Peas' 'Will.I.Am' cut a music video in his honor that tore through YouTube.

Obama Lies: An Epic Technology Hypocrite #obamafail

PRESIDENT LASHES OUT AT MEDIA WORLD; IPADS, XBOXES, RUMORS...

BUT HOOKED ON CRACKBERRY...

BUT He told The Associated Press after Michael Jackson died that "I still have all his stuff on my iPod."

BUT He once found the iPod a device befitting royalty. He gave one to Queen Elizabeth II as a gift when he visited London last spring. 

BUT his campaign had a huge presence on social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter, using 24/7 media to reach his army of supporters at a moment's notice.
 

Consitutional Formation of Air Force and Marines Corps are Rights we Delegate to Congress

Rights vs. Wishes

27 October 2002 Walter Williams

We hear so much about "rights" -- a right to this and a righealth care, food and a decent job, and more recently, senior citizens have a right to prescription drugs. In a free society, do people have these rights? Let's look at it.

We hear so much about "rights" -- a right to this and a right to that. People say they have a right to decent housing, a right to adequate health care, food and a decent job, and more recently, senior citizens have a right to prescription drugs. In a free society, do people have these rights? Let's look at it. At least in the standard historical usage of the term, a right is something that exists simultaneously among people. A right confers no obligation on another. For example, the right to free speech is something we all possess. My right to free speech imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference. Similarly, I have a right to travel freely. That right imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference.
Contrast those rights to the supposed right to decent housing or medical care. Those supposed rights do confer obligations upon others. There is no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy. If you don't have money to pay for decent housing or medical services, and the government gives you a right to those services, where do you think the money comes from?
If you said "From some other American," go to the head of the class. Your right to decent housing and medical care requires that some other American have less of something else, namely diminished rights to his earnings.
Let's apply this bogus concept of rights to free speech and the right to travel freely. If we were to apply it to my right to free speech, my free speech rights would confer financial obligations on others to supply me with an auditorium, microphone and audience. My right to travel freely would require that others provide me with airplane tickets and hotel accommodations. Most Americans, I would imagine, would tell me, "Williams, yes you have rights to free speech and travel rights, but I'm not obligated to pay for them!"
As human beings, we all have certain unalienable rights. Of the rights we possess, we have a right to delegate to government. For example, we all have a right to defend ourselves against predators. Since we possess that right, we can delegate it to government. In other words, we can say to government, "We have the right to defend ourselves, but for a more orderly society, we give you the authority to defend us."
By contrast, I don't possess the right to take your earnings for any reason. Since I have no such right, I cannot delegate it to government. If I did take your earnings for housing and medical services, it would rightfully be described as an act of theft. When government does it, it's still theft -- the only difference is that it's legalized theft sanctioned by a majority vote.
Decent housing, good medical care and decent jobs are not rights at all, at least not in a free society -- they're wishes. As such, I'd agree with most Americans because I also wish that everyone had decent housing, a high paying job and good medical care.

The Ninth Amendment to the Constitution

To mollify Alexander Hamilton's and James Madison's fears about how a Bill of Rights might be used as a pretext to infringe on human rights, the Ninth Amendment was added that reads: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In essence, the Ninth Amendment says it's impossible to list all of our G-d-given or natural rights. Just because a right is not listed doesn't mean it can be infringed upon or disparaged by the U.S. Congress. The Tenth Amendment is a reinforcement of the Ninth saying, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." That means if a power is not delegated to Congress, it belongs to the states of the people.


The Ninth and Tenth Amendments mean absolutely nothing today as Americans have developed a level of naive trust for Congress, the White House and the U.S. Supreme Court that would have astonished the founders, a trust that will lead to our undoing as a great nation.

The Marines, the Coast Guard, and the Constitution

Is the Coast Guard constitutional? The answer to that strikes me as simple — the Coast Guard is a naval force, and as such is well within Congress's power to "provide and maintain a Navy." That Congress may choose to break the Navy down into two departments under two different heads is not, I think, a problem: Both of them, put together, would constitute the constitutionally sanctioned Navy.

The tougher conceptual question is whether the Marines can constitutionally be considered part of the constitutionally specified Navy (whether or not they are part of a federal agency labeled the Navy), or must be seen as falling under the constitutional head of "Armies." In either event they'd be constitutional, but if they are treated under the head of "Armies," then they'd have to be funded using appropriations that are for no longer than two years; if they are treated under the head of "Navy," they can be funded under unlimited-length appropriations. Recall that the relevant Congressional powers are:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy.

I don't know the answer, but I thought I'd flag the question (recognizing that it is of little practical importance, especially these days).

UPDATE: Some comments point out the long history of the Marines as a branch of the Navy, stemming from the Marines' having historically been sea-borne troops.

Nonetheless, the reason for my question is that today (as I understand it), the Marines often operate well away from all coasts, and are functionally a land fighting force.

My (somewhat vague) recollection is that the constitutional distinction between armies and the navy stems from the fact that Englishmen of the time -- including the American variety -- saw land-based forces as much more dangerous to domestic liberty than sea-based forces, and sea-based forces as much more important to day-to-day national defense. That's also why there was lots of concern about a standing army, but not about a standing navy. Modern Marines are in this respect at least potentially more like "armies" than like the "navy"; that's why the question I pose is theoretically nontrivial.

The Air Force and the Constitution

One argument that is often made against originalist and textualist approaches to constitutional interpretation is the claim that they would render the Air Force unconstitutional. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution seems to give Congress the authority to creat an Army and Navy, but not an Air Force. It grants Congress the following relevant powers:

To raise and support Armies .....;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Citing this text, critics of textualism and originalism claim that the Air Force must be considered unconstitutional under these theories of interpretation. I think there are at least two compelling answers to this claim:

1. At most, the argument suggests that it is unconstitutional to have an independent air force. But air forces that are part of the Army and Navy are surely permissible. That is in fact the arrangement we had during WWII, and could go back to again. The mere fact that planes are a new technology that flies through the air surely does not forbid their use by the military, even under a very narrow view of textualism. Planes that fly through the air are no more constitutionally problematic than bullets that fly through the air, or balloons (whose military use was contemplated even at the time of the Founding).

2. Even an independent air force could potentially be justified by the Necessary and Proper Clause. If, under modern conditions, it really is militarily important to have an independent air service (a point I don't express any opinion on), then the creation of an independent air fo

Interpreting the Constitution Contextually

What Is Ignored

Both conservative and liberal constitutionalism, in short, ignore essential principles of the Constitution, principles that are stated clearly and explicitly in the document itself. The conservatives' chief blind spot is the Ninth Amendment (see sidebar for this and other constitutional passages), which was intended by the Founders not only to protect unenumerated rights but also to ensure that rights provisions generally be interpreted as broadly as possible. Conservatives also tend to overlook, or to interpret too narrowly, the many provisions in the Constitution—particularly the Due Process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments—that explicitly protect property and liberty rights in all their aspects, including the so-called right to privacy and other rights of personal autonomy.

Left-liberals, on the other hand, are blind to the Ninth Amendment's companion provision in the Bill of Rights, the Tenth Amendment, which affirms a fundamental feature of the Constitution: that it creates a national government of limited, enumerated powers. By dismissing the Tenth Amendment as stating a mere truism, as the Supreme Court did in its 1941 decision in United States v. Darby, liberal constitutionalism not only ignores the importance of the Amendment (which Thomas Jefferson regarded as the foundation of the Constitution) but also tends to render meaningless the Framers' carefully crafted list of Congress's legislative powers in Article I of the Constitution. Liberal constitutionalism thus overlooks the mandate of the Tenth Amendment, which was meant not merely to protect federalism but also to ensure that the power-granting clauses of the Constitution be interpreted narrowly, in light of the document's enumerated-powers scheme.

Even in the aspects of their jurisprudence that are most faithful to the Constitution, conservatives and liberals fail to appreciate fully its key principles. Conservatives, although they are correct to criticize left-liberals' blindness to the Tenth Amendment, have their own blindness to the Amendment, which they tend to see as limited to the protection of federalism or, even more narrowly, to the protection of "states' rights." Not only is that concept misleading—only individuals truly have rights; states have powers—but it also misses the real significance of the Tenth Amendment. That Amendment should be regarded as a basic rule of interpretation. Yes, as conservatives say, it is intended to limit the scope of the national government's powers and to protect the legitimate powers of state governments—but it is also intended to protect the rights of individuals. Conservatives miss the latter fact because they ignore the last four words of the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the national government either to the states "or to the people."

Left-liberals, on the other hand, while generally correct in their criticism of conservatives' unduly narrow view of individual rights, are themselves guilty of inconsistency and subjectivity in their regard for rights. A common criticism of liberal constitutionalism, and one that is entirely justified, regards its "double standard." Certain rights are given a preferential status—for example, the First Amendment's freedom of speech and the Fourteenth Amendment's right to "equal protection of the laws" (as applied to racially discriminatory acts of government). These are regarded as fundamental rights and as protected by a strict-scrutiny standard that requires a showing of "compelling" governmental needs to override them. Other rights—such as the property and economic-liberty rights of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments or the Second Amendment's right to firearms—are given lesser protection or are ignored altogether. Left-liberals do acknowledge an important implication of the Ninth Amendment—that courts should recognize the existence of unenumerated constitutional rights—but they are biased in favor of certain unenumerated rights, such as the so-called right to privacy. They reject other legitimate rights, such as those aspects of property rights and economic-liberty rights that courts in the early twentieth century protected under the rubric of "liberty of contract." By their selectivity, left-liberals fuel the conservatives' accusation that liberal judicial activism undermines the rule of law and replaces neutral, objective standards of constitutional interpretation with the subjective preferences of individual judges. As former attorney general Edwin Meese said, theirs is a "chameleon jurisprudence, changing color and form in each era."

When it comes to the mainstream debate over constitutional interpretation, therefore, modern Americans are faced with a catch-22: If they wish to avoid the dangers of liberal judicial activism, they must choose a conservative theory of strict construction, but under that theory they lose protection for certain kinds of rights. If they wish to avoid the dangers of crabbed conservatism, they must opt for the left-liberals' loose construction, but under that theory they lose meaningful limits on federal powers (as well as losing some other kinds of rights). Neither choice is acceptable to those who value individual liberty in all its aspects—economic freedoms as well as personal freedoms—and who value limited government.

The Census and the Constitution

What to do? Unless a census taker can show me a constitutional requirement, the only information I plan to give are the number and names of the people in my household. The census taker might say, "It's the law." Thomas Jefferson said, "Whensoever the General Government (Washington) assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."

Aw Shucks MSNBC, The Times Square Bomber was Another Islamic Terrorist and not #Teaparty!

MSNBC's Contessa Brewer 'Frustrated' That Times Square Bomber Is a Muslim

MSNBC host Contessa Brewer appeared on the liberal Stephanie Miller radio show on Tuesday and lamented the fact that the person arrested for the attempted Times Square bombing is a Pakistani American. She complained, "I get frustrated...There was part of me that was hoping this was not going to be anybody with ties to any kind of Islamic country." [Audio available here.]

Brewer continued, "...There are a lot of people who want to use terrorist intent to justify writing off people who believe in a certain way or come from certain countries or whose skin color is a certain way. I mean they use it as justification for really outdated bigotry."

The News live host didn't explain which ethnicity or religion she had been hoping the bomber would have been affiliated with. She did defensively mention members of a Michigan militia group arrested in March and asserted that they were "from far different backgrounds than what this guy is coming from."

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2010/05/04/msnbcs-contessa-brewer-frustrated-times-square-bomber-muslim-0#ixzz0n1XYrcok

VID: Why isn't the left calling the Mexicans terrorists?

All over the lamestream media you protests of a few thousand Illegal Mexicans who don't like the fact that the majority of Americans dont want them here.

Why are they covering a few thousand Illegal Mexicans but not 2 MILLION Tea Party protests by United States Citizens that pay taxes!

Notice the Tea Party protests were peaceful and the Mexicans protesting are violent..lol Why aren't the left calling the Mexicans terrorists?

Its really odd all the coverage considering the Tea Party 2 MILLION man march got basically no coverage except Fox.

They call themselves liberals, but they are intent upon abolishing liberty

The champions of socialism call themselves progressives, but they recommend a system which is characterized by rigid observance of routine and by a resistance to every kind of improvement. They call themselves liberals, but they are intent upon abolishing liberty. They call themselves democrats, but they yearn for dictatorship. They call themselves revolutionaries, but they want to make the government omnipotent. They promise the blessings of the Garden of Eden, but they plan to transform the world into a gigantic post office. Every man but one a subordinate clerk in a bureau. What an alluring utopia! What a noble cause to fight!

Against all this frenzy of agitation there is but one weapon available: reason. Just common sense is needed to prevent man from falling prey to illusory fantasies and empty catchwords.

VID: Obama Budget Cuts Visualization #teaparty