Andrew Klavan: We Report, You Obey - The MSM's Dirty Tea Party Fetish

Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis

America waits with bated breath while Washington struggles to bring the U.S. economy back from the brink of disaster. But many of those same politicians caused the crisis, and if left to their own devices will do so again.

Despite the mass media news blackout, a series of books, talk radio and the blogosphere have managed to expose Barack Obama's connections to his radical mentors -- Weather Underground bombers William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis and others. David Horowitz and his Discover the Networks.org have also contributed a wealth of information and have noted Obama's radical connections since the beginning.

Yet, no one to my knowledge has yet connected all the dots between Barack Obama and the Radical Left. When seen together, the influences on Obama's life comprise a who's who of the radical leftist movement, and it becomes painfully apparent that not only is Obama a willing participant in that movement, he has spent most of his adult life deeply immersed in it.

But even this doesn't fully describe the extreme nature of this candidate. He can be tied directly to a malevolent overarching strategy that has motivated many, if not all, of the most destructive radical leftist organizations in the United States since the 1960s.

Chapter III. Socialist and Communist Literature

1. Reactionary Socialism

Obama Lied about Taxes on those making Less than 250000

The correct response to being called a “teabagger”

The correct response to being called a “teabagger”
“Suck my balls!”

Charitable giving: Conservatives vs. liberals

WASHINGTON -- Residents of Austin, Texas, home of the state's government and flagship university, have very refined social consciences, if they do say so themselves, and they do say so, speaking via bumper stickers. Don R. Willett, a justice of the state Supreme Court, has commuted behind bumpers proclaiming "Better a Bleeding Heart Than None at All," "Practice Random Acts of Kindness and Senseless Beauty," "The Moral High Ground Is Built on Compassion," "Arms Are For Hugging," "Will Work (When the Jobs Come Back From India)," "Jesus Is a Liberal," "God Wants Spiritual Fruits, Not Religious Nuts," "The Road to Hell Is Paved With Republicans," "Republicans Are People Too -- Mean, Selfish, Greedy People" and so on. But Willett thinks Austin subverts a stereotype: "The belief that liberals care more about the poor may scratch a partisan or ideological itch, but the facts are hostile witnesses."

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.

The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.

Reviewing Brooks' book in the Texas Review of Law & Politics, Justice Willett notes that Austin -- it voted 56 percent for Kerry while he was getting just 38 percent statewide -- is ranked by The Chronicle of Philanthropy as 48th out of America's 50 largest cities in per capita charitable giving. Brooks' data about disparities between liberals' and conservatives' charitable giving fit these facts: Democrats represent a majority of the wealthiest congressional districts, and half of America's richest households live in states where both senators are Democrats.

While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." Brooks, however, warns: "If support for a policy that does not exist ... substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others."

In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word.

When I think about what Al Gore's income must be and how little of it he is willing to give away to help make a personal difference in changing the wrongs that almost all of us would agree exist in this country, well, it pisses me off. That anyone can admire this man -- this very embodiment of hypocrisy (in a wide range of disciplines) -- amazes me.

This is the same guy who castigates the rest of us for the little things we do in our everyday lives and yet whose carbon footprint would stamp a ****ed-fancy tootsie-size swimming pool that all of our kids (and all of their friends) could splash in.

Obama's charitable donations expressed as a % of his income

I found this to be rather interesting list, it's Obama's charitable donations expressed as a % of his income...do you notice how his hitherto miserly contributions suddenly INCREASE as his political prospects increase? Mmmmm...now surely Obama wouldn't be just another calculating political opportunist, would he?

2006: 6.1%
2005: 4.7%
2004: 1.2%
2003: 1.4%
2002: 0.4%
2001: 0.5%
2000: 0.9%

VID: How the Federal Reserve Enabled the Greatest Theft in American History

Uninsured must pay or get a fine! This so called 'health care' is a hoax. It's 'wealth care'!

March 22nd 2010 - This so called 'health care' is a hoax. It's 'wealth care'! Because contrary to what is said by the propaganda-media, all citizens of the U.S. are now, som 200 years later, obliged to pay premiums to Big Pharma. And most of those - and in reality it's at least fifty million neglected people - even couldn't pay the sky-high premiums for so called 'health care' one way or the other. Now they must, or get a fine... Victory? For whom? Who profits?

So now, thanks to Obama who's the 'front man' for the criminal cartel and the rest of the collaborators in the US, everybody must pay or get a fine. What a 'victory'! How the hell can this the world over be 'sold' as 'an overhaul'? As 'a reform for the better'?

People must wake up more and more to the ugly reality. Know that they are ruled by psychopathic murderers, thieves and robbers. The pharmaceutical firms - which are, and always have been, part and parcel of the criminal cartel - are killing the people which they first make sick, and making a lot of money on it, that's what. And nothing else.

IRS to Serve as Health Reform Enforcer, but Lacks Authority to Enforce

The health care reform bill to be signed Tuesday by President Obama would give the IRS a new mandate to enforce some of measures key provisions — but apparently not the means to do so.

Under the Senate bill approved Sunday by the House, the Internal Revenue Service would be called on to ensure Americans are obtaining health care insurance and businesses are offering it, or else they could face fines. Many would receive subsidies to help pay for insurance.

The emphasis is on incentives for healthy people to buy insurance, thereby spreading the risk of older, less healthy people over a broader pool of customers. For those earning between $22,050 and $88,200, there are tax credits for health insurance premiums. In addition, individuals initially face fines of up to $750 for not buying in; businesses would face fines of up to $3,000.

It will cost the IRS $5 billion to $10 billion over 10 years to handle the new workload, according to a March 11 estimate by the Congressional Budget Office. But the Senate bill doesn’t provide any funding for the expansion of the IRS, and it virtually ties the hands of the IRS to collect fees on individuals and businesses who don’t buy health insurance.

“The use of liens and seizures otherwise authorized for collection of taxes does not apply to the collection of this penalty," according to the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation. "Non-compliance with the personal responsibility requirement to have health coverage is not subject to criminal or civil penalties under the code and interest does not accrue for failure to pay such assessments in a timely manner."

That means there’s virtually nothing the IRS can do to enforce the fines in the legislation, forcing the tax man to rely on the consciences of taxpayers or to skim off any federal benefits, tax credits or refunds they have coming to them.

"In other words, if you're due a refund or some other federal benefit, and you didn't obtain qualified insurance, your refund or benefit will be tapped for your fee,” said Bill Ahearn, director of policy and communications for the Tax Foundation.

“People who aren't due any refunds or federal benefits will apparently face no collection action, as the IRS's hands will be effectively tied and it will be a truly voluntary tax."

Supporters of the bill, however, believe that while the IRS needs to be able to enforce the fines, it’s unlikely that the agency's inability to do so will give people a reason not to buy into health care.

“Surveys routinely show that people don't pay for health care because they can't afford it,” said Timothy Jost, a professor at Washington & Lee University Law School. “This bill gives them a way they can afford it.”

Wouldn't it be funny if no providers except Obamacare. Walgreens: no new Medicaid patients as of April 16

Effective April 16, Walgreens drugstores across the state won't take any new Medicaid patients, saying that filling their prescriptions is a money-losing proposition — the latest development in an ongoing dispute over Medicaid reimbursement.

The company, which operates 121 stores in the state, will continue filling Medicaid prescriptions for current patients.

In a news release, Walgreens said its decision to not take new Medicaid patients stemmed from a "continued reduction in reimbursement" under the state's Medicaid program, which reimburses it at less than the break-even point for 95 percent of brand-name medications dispensed to Medicaid patents.

Walgreens follows Bartell Drugs, which stopped taking new Medicaid patients last month at all 57 of its stores in Washington, though it still fills Medicaid prescriptions for existing customers at all but 15 of those stores.

Doug Porter, the state's director of Medicaid, said Medicaid recipients should be able to readily find another pharmacy because "we have many more pharmacy providers in our network than we need" for the state's 1 million Medicaid clients.

Tax Bloat: Your Fat State Government Won't Give The Money Back They Took From You - Where's the Interest

New York State Tax Refunds Put On Hold
Gov. Paterson Freezes $500 Million, Says Financial Situation The Case, Won't Start Sending Again Until April 1

For hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers, the check won't be in the mail -- at least not on time. New York State has stopped paying tax refunds and won't start again until next month.

The tax refund delay is part of a bigger cash crunch.

"deem and pass" = Virginia & other states will sue over health care

A spokesman for Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II (R) said this afternoon that Virginia will file suit against the federal government if the Democratic health care reform bill is approved by the U.S. Congress.

Cuccinelli has long said he was examining the legal issues and suggested he would likely file suit. Brian Gottstein, a spokesman for the office, said this afternoon that a lawsuit is now a definite. Gottstein would provide no details of the legal rationale for such a suit, indicating the process is "still being worked out."

Virginia last week became the first state in the country to pass a state bill declaring it illegal for the government to require individuals to purchase health insurance, a key part of bills under consideration on Capitol Hill.

We are also expecting to receive a letter shortly that Cuccinelli is sending to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) warning her that using the so-called "deem and pass" procedure to pass the Senate health reform bill in the House would open the measure to additional constitutional challenges from the states.

VIDEO: How Modern Liberals Think by Evan Sayet

The modern liberal looks back in history and says none of the religions, ideas, philosophies, ideologies, or forms of government have created a society devoid of war, crime, poverty nor injustice. Therefore, the real cause of these must be caused by the attempt to be right.