The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment.
Do yourself a favor and get educated on The Fair Tax. The Fair Tax is the result of $22 million worth of research by credible economists from around the country whose task was to come up with another way to fund the operations of the country. The task was qualified to the extent that the result would be ‘revenue neutral.’ That is to say the system must be able to generate as much money as the government is currently generating with the current system through federal withholding and payroll taxes, self-employment taxes, alternative minimum tax, estate and gift tax, and capital gains tax, all of which would be replaced by the Fair Tax. And from that point as the economy grows, so grows the treasury. It is a pro-growth, as opposed to punitive growth, taxing system.
Consequences paramount to converting to the Fair Tax system are three-fold.
First, your individual take-home pay increases dramatically. Without the federal withholding and payroll taxes being deducted from your pay, you get all your pay in every paycheck. This alone is the biggest stimulus to your personal economy as well as our national economy. And it doesn’t put the nation further into debt in the process. Because the taxing revenue is generated by consumption, the tax base includes everyone who buys anything new, not just the working people in America. ‘Everyone’ includes citizens and non-citizens including illegals, foreign diplomats and tourists. And because it is a sales tax, the so-called underground economies are no longer exempt from contributing. Everyone will contribute to funding the government and our Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs.
Secondly, it takes the ‘tax hammer’ away from politicians who use it to control every aspect of our lives and business and industry in the United States. It transfers the power from Washington politicians directly back to you. It is this stripping of power from the political class that generates the most objection from the political class, and the most outrageous criticism and unfair demagoguery, of the Fair Tax. Under the Fair Tax, our politicians will be left with nothing to do except their job of governing and living within their means, just like you and I have to do. And since filing of your personal income taxes will cease, April 15th becomes just another day to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
While it is still fresh in your memory, take a look back at the presidential campaign and the amount of press and attention that was given to taxation by both candidates. Besides energy, the other topic was ‘my tax plan is better than your tax plan.’ And polarizing political tactics like class envy and class warfare became all too prominent. Absent tax laws to talk about, the voters would have learned more about the candidates and ‘the real issues.’
Third, but certainly not last, the change to the Fair Tax alone would bring back foreign-held capital, estimated at between $10 to $15 trillion, that economists predict will flow into the US economy with enactment of the FairTax. That is trillions of dollars of business that has fled this country because of its taxing system, the second highest in the world. As an added bonus, companies looking to do business in the United States that have not yet come here, would have the incentive to come here. The job creation and wealth creation associated with it will spur the economy more than any tax-and-spending Democrat or Republican in Washington could dream of.
Among the first items on President-elect Obama’s agenda will be to pay back labor unions for their generous campaign contributions in the name of the Employee Free Choice Act. As if government is not already involved in all kinds of things of a socialist nature that it should not be involved in, but is, Democrats in Washington, if not by executive order itself by our new President, will resume the effort to boost labor union membership by enacting new legislation. Since when does boosting labor unions membership become a responsibility of the government? The easy answer to that is to follow the money. If you do that then you’ll know why the bill was sponsored solely by Democrats including Barack Obama.
The bill was mis-named on purpose. Had it been named correctly, it would have been named the Employee Forced Choice Act. The meat of the bill will remove the private ballot in union organizing and replace it with a public one. It is more than a little ironic that Democrats would have such contempt for a private ballot when every other kind of vote Americans participate in is a private one.
And be prepared also for the Left to attach this bill to their favorite political tact, class warfare. Last year, Sen. Hillary Clinton was speaking for this bill and said that it is for ‘the middle class’ because, she asserts, labor union members are middle class. Although Democrats purport to support ‘the working people,’ what they really support are labor unions.
Didn’t we just learn that small businesses create something like 80 percent of jobs in this country, and that most of these small business owners and their employees are ‘middle class?’ And that’s why Obama wants a ‘middle class’ tax cut while raising taxes on ‘the rich.’
Let’s examine Barack Obama’s economic theory. He wants to increase minimum wage to over $9/hr. He wants to increase taxes on small businesses with incomes higher than $120,000. He wants to enable labor unions to unionize small businesses. Does this sound like a pro-growth economic policy to you? It sounds like disaster that will only worsen our economic woes.
In 1983, 20 percent of workers in the U.S. were union workers. In 2007 that percentage was 12.1 percent, up .1 percent from 2006.
Much of last year’s growth came in the West. California’s rate of union membership rose one percentage point, to 16.7 percent, an increase of more than 200,000 members. Nevada showed an increase of 15,000 union members, reflecting the organization of casino and construction workers.
As you might expect, union membership in the Midwest decreased.
In the Midwest, manufacturing job losses reduced union membership. Michigan lost 23,000 union members. The largest decrease came in Illinois, where union rolls dropped 89,000. Ben Zipperer, research associate at the Center for Economic Policy Research, said the manufacturing sector — long the stronghold of U.S. unions — is being supplanted by the construction and private health-care fields, where union membership is growing.
The reason union membership has declined over the years is that employers have negated the need for them by paying more and offering benefits that employees want, without them having to pay dues to a union. This so-called Card Check legislation is a mistake for a number of reasons. Not the least of which is that it is not the government’s job to increase labor union membership. The other reason is the negative impact on business that come with unions in vastly increased overhead and payroll expense.
Look what labor unions do the the auto industry. Did you know that . . .
At a time when the average American company requires workers to pay more than $2,000 a year toward family health insurance premiums, the auto industry is among the 4% of employers that offer free family health coverage.
And these figures are from 2005, it is only worse now . . .
The cost of providing health care adds from $1,100 to $1,500 to the cost of each of the 4.65 million vehicles GM sold last year, according to various calculations. GM expects to spend at least $5.6 billion on health care this year, more than it spent on advertising last year.
Granted that it was the management of these automakers that agreed to such extravagant benefits, at the threat of a strike, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see how labor unions can put not only the auto industry, but any industry at a competitive disadvantage, including small businesses that need all the help they can get. If unions go away, no one suffers. If small businesses go away, everyone suffers.
The Obama campaign is responding to posts like this ‘How Obama Supports The Coal Industry‘ by dismissing it as ‘“right wing blogs” that “wildly edited to take it out of context.”’ They go further to say that Barack actually said the opposite of what he actually said. ?? OK, so they are lying and the dumb masses will accept it rather than check it out for themselves. Consider this, have you ever known anyone, let alone a presidential candidate, that needed so many people to explain what he says? Or rather, to explain away what he says? Their problem is simple. When he actually says what he means, his surrogates come out to say that no, that’s not what he means. The whole Obama campaign has been an illusion in so many ways. But I digress.
To this subject, the Obama campaign added ‘“In the full interview Obama actually praises coal and says that the idea of eliminating coal is ‘an illusion,’” the campaign explained.’ They are word wizards for sure. In fact, Obama did praise coal (as a fossil fuel) as being responsible for about half of the electricity production in the country. He did not praise coal power plants that use it, and certainly not the building of more coal power generating plants. In fact, as far as coal power plants go, he wants to ‘take it off the table.’
Here are his words, not taken out of context.
What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as an ideological matter, as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.
That is a statement, ‘for us to take coal off the table.’ His position is to take coal power plants off the table. That was not a conditional statement to use coal power plants in a cleaner way. He intends to NOT use it. He intends for the ‘caps and trade system’ to penalize any company that wants to build a coal-fired power plant, and if they are stupid enough to try it and risk bankruptcy, through fines that he defines as a ‘huge sum’ that he says ‘will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel, and other alternative energy approaches.’
Where am I missing the part that says, like his campaign claims, that the idea of eliminating coal is an illusion?
But don’t take my word for it. Here is the entire transcript from the above video. Then have the courage to call a spade a spade and recognize that the only illusion here is the Obama campaign’s spin on Obama’s own words.
Barack Obama: I voted against the Clear Skies Bill. In fact, I was the deciding vote. Despite the fact that I’m a coal state. And that half my state thought that I had thoroughly betrayed them. Because I think clean air is critical and global warming is critical. But this notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion. Because the fact of the matter is is that right now we are getting a lot of our energy from coal. And China is building a coal-powered plant once a week. So what we have to do then is figure out how can we use coal without emitting greenhouse gases and carbon. And how can we sequester that carbon and capture it. If we can’t, then we’re gonna still be working on alternatives. But…let me sort of describe my overall policy. What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade policy in place that is as aggressive if not more aggressive than anyone out there. I was the first call for 100% auction on the cap and trade system. Which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases that was emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants are being built, they would have to meet the rigors of that market. And the ratcheted down caps that are imposed every year. So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted. That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel, and other alternative energy approaches. The only thing that I’ve said with respect to coal–I haven’t been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a ideological matter, as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it. That I think is the right approach. The same with respect to nuclear. Right now, we don’t know how to store nuclear waste wisely and we don’t know how to deal with some of the safety issues that remain. And so it’s wildly expensive to pursue nuclear energy. But I tell you what, if we could figure out how to store it safely, then I think most of us would say that might be a pretty good deal. The point is, if we set rigorous standards for the allowable emissions, then we can allow the market to determine and technology and entrepreneurs to pursue, what the best approach is to take, as opposed to us saying at the outset, here are the winners that we’re picking and maybe we pick wrong and maybe we pick right.
It is bad enough that the United States spends over $700 billion per year on oil resources from the Middle East and elsewhere, when we have enough resources of our own which could be developed right here in the United States, creating jobs all over the country in the process.
The confluence of two problems, energy dependency and the financial market meltdown, seem to have the world looking to the Middle East and Saudi Arabia for help. President Bush took a trip to Saudi Arabia with his hand out for more production and lower oil prices. Now British Prime Minister Gordon Brown goes there looking for money for the International Monetary Fund’s ‘bailout reserves.’
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said Sunday he is confident that Saudi Arabia will contribute to the International Monetary Fund’s bailout reserves after he promised business leaders in the Gulf that they would have a say in any future new world economic order.
When you are the one in control of the oil spigot, with cash reserves that are as large as your oil reserves, it is not hard to imagine, nor is it surprising, to see this kind of attitude ‘from those that don’t like us very much.’
A senior British government source, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment, said that during talks the Saudis had been concerned about becoming a “milk cow” to prop up “basket case” economies in other parts of the world.
Both the energy and economic ‘crises’ can be solved by restoring common sense to both. By using our own resources and by paying attention to sound business practices by not offering mortgages to people that have no ability to pay. Those people are called ‘renters.’ In the meantime, with help from Saudi Arabia or not, the world will have to pay the consequences of our bad decisions.
On Tuesday, Nov 4, Americans can choose which of the two candidates, which of two parties, have the answer to today’s problems. Or at least an inclination as to which way to proceed. The choice seems pretty clear to me. One party wants to cut oil dependency by a small percentage, the other party wants to eliminate it. One party wants to make home ownership a ‘right,’ and the other wants to enable every citizen to get their own home based on their own efforts.
Socialism is easy, the government makes decisions for us, and innovation and productivity are depressed. Freedom is hard, you have to make your own decisions, innovation, productivity and the rewards that come with it are unlimited.
There is a plethora of information ‘out there’ about Democratic Presidential Candidate, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) that, for whatever reason, you may not have heard or seen. Most of it is negative and has to do not only with the kind of people who Obama deals with and has dealt with over his entire political career and before, but also with what Barack Obama has in mind when he speaks of the kind of change he has in mind for our country, his ‘core beliefs’ if you will.
This is a recap of what has been discovered about Barack Obama that the mainstream media has chosen to ignore, for obvious reasons, but, because he is vying for the presidency of the United States, you have a right and a need to know. Please take the time to check it out before you go to the polls November 4th.
I don’t know where this tape was during the primaries, maybe it was ‘the tape’ that was referenced by Clinton campaign staffers but was never released. There is also a video tape of Rashid Khalidi that you will learn about which could also be what was called ‘the tape.’ I don’t know, but either one would have ended his run if it had been released before the Democratic National Convention.
The job of the President of the United States consists of only two tasks. To protect and defend its people, and to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution. After you listen to this radio interview that Obama gave in 2001 to an NPR interviewer, you’ll have to ask yourself how this man could even put his and on the bible and take the oath. It is obvious that he feels the founding fathers erred in the creation of this country and its Constitution. And in this interview, he explores ways to fundamentally change it. Not protect it.
Beyond the archived web page from the Socialist New Party is the recognition by the “Progressive Populist” magazine in November 1996 that Obama was indeed an acknowledged member of the Socialist Party.
New Party members and supported candidates won 16 of 23 races, including an at-large race for the Little Rock, Ark., City Council, a seat on the county board for Little Rock and the school board for Prince George’s County, Md. Chicago is sending the first New Party member to Congress, as Danny Davis, who ran as a Democrat, won an overwhelming 85% victory. New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago.
The Democratic Socialist Party of America published in their July/August Edition of New Ground 47 Newsletter.
The Chicago New Party is increasingly becoming a viable political organization that can make a different in Chicago politics. It is crucial for a political organization to have a solid infrastructure and visible results in its political program. The New Party has continued to solidify this base…[T]he NP’s ’96 Political Program has been enormously successful with 3 of 4 endorsed candidates winning electoral primaries. All four candidates attended the NP membership meeting on April 11th to express their gratitude. Danny Davis, winner in the 7th Congressional District, invited NPers to join his Campaign Steering Committee. Patricia Martin, who won the race for Judge in 7th Subcircuit Court, explained that due to the NP she was able to network and get experienced advice from progressives like Davis. Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration.
Years later, Obama still believes that ‘spreading the wealth’ is where it’s at. Which is the anathema to the ‘American Dream.’ Here is where Barack Obama mounts his assault against Joe and middle class Americans.
Isn’t it amazing how the media is all over ‘Joe the plumber?’ Within 24 hours, we know all about this man’s personal and professional business. And for over two years now, the media is still not motivated to tell us about Barack Obama’s alliances with people who hate America, and his proclivity for supporting directions in education that promote socialism. But I will. Then there’s his working for and with ACORN, and so much more.
Looking at Obama’s foreign policy expertise. Beyond telegraphing that he would raid Pakistan’s tribal region, making an already shaky political situation even more fragile with a nuclear power, he is already trumped by Iran with his ‘no preconditions’ talk.
Well isn’t this just too rich? Iran has two preconditions of its own before it will engage in any talks with the United States.
Get all our troops out of the Middle East
End our support of Israel.
Well, I’d say that presents quite a challenge to the Democratic presidential candidate, who has already capitulated to Iran by saying that he would meet with Iran without preconditions.
Are we still believing that Obama is ready to lead?
Are we feeling any safer now? This also, btw, has not been reported by the mainstream media.
It’s not about Obama’s associations, it’s about Obama’s alliances.
By the time a person rises to the level of the leader of his party and becomes their nominee for the office of President of the United States, people already know a lot about what kind of person he is. Like John McCain, they know his history, his legislative background, his core beliefs, and his character. That is, until now. So when you have a candidate for the top spot that has limited legislative experience, no executive experience, and no public presence beyond a well delivered speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, knowing more about who our candidate is rises to a level that it would not otherwise be.
Critics of Obama, and I’ll include myself in this, are wrong when they bring up Obama’s ‘associations’ with unsavory people. Until I read Thomas Sowell’s article regarding who ‘the real’ Barack Obama is, I’ve come to the realization that it is not Obama’s associations that matter as much as his ‘alliances.’
Critics of Senator Barack Obama make a strategic mistake when they talk about his “past associations.” That just gives his many defenders in the media an opportunity to counter-attack against “guilt by association.”
We all have associations, whether at the office, in our neighborhood or in various recreational activities. Most of us neither know nor care what our associates believe or say about politics.
Associations are very different from alliances. Allies are not just people who happen to be where you are or who happen to be doing the same things you do. You choose allies deliberately for a reason. The kind of allies you choose says something about you.
About the names that are part of Obama’s past and present, Sowell writes . . .
Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Pfleger, William Ayers and Antoin Rezko are not just people who happened to be at the same place at the same time as Barack Obama. They are people with whom he chose to ally himself for years, and with some of whom some serious money changed hands.
Some gave political support, and some gave financial support, to Obama’s election campaigns, and Obama in turn contributed either his own money or the taxpayers’ money to some of them. That is a familiar political alliance- but an alliance is not just an “association” from being at the same place at the same time.
Obama could have allied himself with all sorts of other people. But, time and again, he allied himself with people who openly expressed their hatred of America. No amount of flags on his campaign platforms this election year can change that.
What we do know about the kind of politician Obama is, is not well-known. A testament to the effectiveness of his enablers in the mainstream media in reshaping and repackaging their chosen candidate. Ask yourself if this is the first time you’ve seen or heard this about Barack Obama.
The story of Obama’s political career is not a pretty story. He won his first political victory by being the only candidate on the ballot- after hiring someone skilled at disqualifying the signers of opposing candidates’ petitions, on whatever technicality he could come up with.
Despite his words today about “change” and “cleaning up the mess in Washington,” Obama was not on the side of reformers who were trying to change the status quo of corrupt, machine politics in Chicago and clean up the mess there. Obama came out in favor of the Daley machine and against reform candidates.
Senator Obama is running on an image that is directly the opposite of what he has been doing for two decades. His escapes from his past have been as remarkable as the great escapes of Houdini.
Barack Obama is also in tune with educator William Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist that also taught at the University of Chicago. They both co-chaired the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which calls itself “a public-private partnership improving education for 1.5 million urban and rural public school students,” it gave to some of the same groups — partnering with ACORN to manage funding for schools and giving over $1 million to the Small Schools Network.
Stanley Kurtz, a Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, found the collaborative’s original application when going through Annenberg’s archives.
Asked to comment, Yvonne Williams-Kinnison, executive director of the collaborative’s parent group, the Coalition for Improved Education in South Shore said, “I don’t want to put more fuel on the fire. You can call us back after the election…. I don’t want to compromise the position.”
Wouldn’t you be surprised to find that the curriculum is more about turning the current educational system, and our culture upside down. It goes along these lines as written by Afrocentrist scholar Jacob Carruthers . . .
‘The submission to Western civilization and its most outstanding offspring, American civilization, is, in reality, surrender to white supremacy,” Carruthers wrote in his 1999 book, ‘Intellectual Warfare.’ ‘Some of us have chosen to reject the culture of our oppressors and recover our disrupted ancestral culture.’
“One of Ayers’ descriptions for a course called ‘Improving Learning Environments’ says a prospective K-12 teacher needs to ‘be aware of the social and moral universe we inhabit and…be a teacher capable of hope and struggle, outrage and action, teaching for social justice and liberation.”
So does Obama agree with Ayers’ view of education?
Presumably as keeper of the CAC’s purse strings, Obama paid attention to where the money went. His seal of approval would have been needed to fund Ayers or anyone else asking for a grant. So does Obama agree with Ayers’ ideas for reforming education? Because they are radical and extreme, to say the least.
Two years ago, Bill Ayers spoke at the World Education Forum in Caracas, Venezuela. The event was hosted by none other than that great friend of the U.S., Hugo Chavez. Here’s more from IBD: “With Chavez at his side, Ayers voiced his support for ‘the political educational reforms under way here in Venezuela under the leadership of President Chavez. We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution…I look forward to seeing how all of you continue to overcome the failures of capitalist education as you seek to create something truly new and deeply humane.”
So I guess Ayers believes the problem with education is that it’s “capitalist,” and that education’s purpose is “revolution.”
Since Obama helped provide the funds for many of Bill Ayers’ education reform projects back in Chicago, I have to assume he agreed with the principles behind them. I hate to think how Obama as President would “reform” education, and where he’d distribute our precious education dollars.
There are two more educators that the Obamas are familiar with. That would be Rashid and Mona Khalidi, co-founders of the The Arab-American Action Network, a virulently anti-Israel organization that strongly supports the Palestinian Arab terrorist movement. From 1976 to 1982, Mr. Khalidi was a director in Beirut of the official Palestinian press agency, WAFA. Later he served on the PLO “guidance committee” at the Madrid peace conference.
Rashid and Mona Khalidi became close friends of Barack and Michelle Obama during the time when both Barack and Rashid taught at the University of Chicago (1992-2003). At a lavish farewell party for Khalidi in Chicago in 2003, when Khalidi left his prestigious position at the University of Chicago for an even more prestigious one at Columbia University in New York, Obama gave Khalidi a glowing eulogy. He said that he and his wife Michelle had been frequent dinner guests of the Khalidis, and that the Khalidis had frequently babysat for the Obama children.
Here is more on Khalidi once he got to Columbia University by two writers who attended a conference on the Middle East conflict titled “One State or Two? Alternative Proposals for Middle East Peace.”
The “one state” solution is a euphemism for the destruction of the Jewish state – a trope of the most extreme rejectionist elements within the Palestinian movement and their allies in Syria and Iran.
In bringing professor Khalidi to Morningside Heights from the University of Chicago, Columbia also got itself a twofer of Palestinian activism and advocacy. Mr. Khalidi’s wife, Mona, who also served in Beirut as chief editor of the English section of the WAFA press agency, was hired as dean of foreign students at Columbia’s SIPA, working under Dean Anderson. In Chicago, the Khalidis founded the Arab American Action Network, and Mona Khalidi served as its president. A big farewell dinner was held in their honor by AAAN with a commemorative book filled with testimonials from their friends and political allies. These included the left wing anti-war group Not In My Name, the Electronic Intifada, and the ex-Weatherman domestic terrorists Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers. (There were also testimonials from then-state Senator Barack Obama and the mayor of Chicago.)
Obama’s relationship with ACORN goes way back. And as a community activist and attorney representing ACORN in Chicago in 1995, he participated in worsening the sub-prime mortgage scheme that eventually brought down not only our economy, but the global economy. ‘Giving’ mortgages to people who could not pay them.
It is his relationship with ACORN and his political ambitions in Chicago that surrounded him with America haters like William Ayers and Rev. Jeramiah Wright, all driven by the socialist agenda of something known as the Cloward-Piven strategy.
The Strategy was first elucidated in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation magazine by a pair of radical socialist Columbia University professors, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. David Horowitz summarizes it as:
The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.
Cloward and Piven were inspired by radical organizer [and Hillary Clinton mentor] Saul Alinsky:
“Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1989 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one. (Courtesy Discover the Networks.org)
No matter where the strategy is implemented, it shares the following features:
The offensive organizes previously unorganized groups eligible for government benefits but not currently receiving all they can.
The offensive seeks to identify new beneficiaries and/or create new benefits.
The overarching aim is always to impose new stresses on target systems, with the ultimate goal of forcing their collapse.
ACORN’s voter rights tactics follow the Cloward-Piven Strategy:
1. Register as many Democrat voters as possible, legal or otherwise and help them vote, multiple times if possible.
2. Overwhelm the system with fraudulent registrations using multiple entries of the same name, names of deceased, random names from the phone book, even contrived names.
3. Make the system difficult to police by lobbying for minimal identification standards.
By advocating massive, no-holds-barred voter registration campaigns, they [Cloward & Piven] sought a Democratic administration in Washington, D.C. that would re-distribute the nation’s wealth and lead to a totalitarian socialist state.
Look around at the state of affairs today in the economy and in voting registration and related activities and what do you see? Do you see Barack Obama or a Democrat administration trying to shore-up the voting process by something as secure as a photo ID? I don’t think so. Why?
Obama aided ACORN as their lead attorney in a successful suit he brought against the Illinois state government to implement the Motor Voter law there. The law had been resisted by Republican Governor Jim Edgars, who feared the law was an opening to widespread vote fraud.
And what caused the mortgage crises? The roots of it go back to a law called the Community Reinvestment Act, passed by President Jimmy Carter in 1977, under pressure from a community activist movement that started in Chicago.
In the 1980s, groups such as the activists at ACORN began pushing charges of “redlining”-claims that banks discriminated against minorities in mortgage lending. In 1989, sympathetic members of Congress got the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act amended to force banks to collect racial data on mortgage applicants; this allowed various studies to be ginned up that seemed to validate the original accusation.
And ACORN’s involvement in the mortgage crises is compounded, thanks to help from, guess who, Chicago lawyer Barack Obama.
ACORN showed its colors again in 1991, by taking over the House Banking Committee room for two days to protest efforts to scale back the CRA. Obama represented ACORN in the Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 1994 suit against redlining.Most significant of all, ACORN was the driving force behind a 1995 regulatory revision pushed through by the Clinton Administration that greatly expanded the CRA and laid the groundwork for the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac borne financial crisis we now confront. Barack Obama was the attorney representing ACORN in this effort. With this new authority, ACORN used its subsidiary, ACORN Housing, to promote subprime loans more aggressively.
I don’t know how Barack Obama can say with a straight face how he has no ties to ACORN, how he so easily dismisses them as a community group that merely helps low-income people. He is clearly and deliberately deceiving you, and the media lets him get away with it. When he says that, he is telling just as big a lie as ‘I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.’ Barack Obama is not being honest with the American people about who he is and where he wants to take this country. Examining his character and his past is not a distraction from the ‘real issues’ as his campaign will have you believe. First, we need to know who he is.
Isn’t it amazing how the media is all over ‘Joe the plumber?’ Within 24 hours, we know all about this man’s personal and professional business. And for over two years now, the media is still not motivated to tell us about Barack Obama’s alliances with people that hate America, and his proclivity for supporting directions in education that promote socialism. Then there’s his working for and with ACORN, and so much more.
It is more than an little ironic that Obama and his willing accomplices in the media chose to attack this hard working middle class guy, a union member no less, that hopes to one day buy the plumbing business he currently works for. ‘Joe the plumber’ is of the kind of people that Democrats purport to champion. Working hard to get ahead and having some financial difficulty, as the media is so quick to point out, but trying to overcome the obstacles he faces. What has Obama’s hair standing up about ‘Joe’ is that Joe isn’t looking for the government to bail him out. He is wondering whether the government is going to put more obstacles in his way. This episode really shines the light on how disingenuous the Democrat platform is. Which is more about maintaining a middle-class and ‘poor’ than helping them rise above it.
The Democrat party of today is the class-warfare party, and Barack Obama’s reaction to Joe personifies it. Barack came out and said what his vision for America is. That the government should spread the wealth, which means taking from the haves to give to the have-nots. ‘A government that robs from Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul,’ George Bernard Shaw.
Convincing people how harmful this Democrat doctrine is to this country remains conservatives’ biggest challenge. The amount and scope of education necessary to accomplish that begins in our elementary schools and goes right up to the college level. It is not a coincidence that people like Obama and William Ayers want to start socialistic indoctrination in elementary school, and earlier.
Oil revenues is Mexico’s largest single foreign revenue source for the Mexican government. The second largest foreign revenue source for Mexico is money mailed or wired back to Mexico from the United States by Mexicans living in the United States. They have a nice clinical name for it. They call it remittances. And by the looks of this video , the major part of it seems to be coming from illegal alien Mexicans living in the United States.
Mexicans living in the U.S. sent home 12 percent less money in August, the largest drop on record since the Bank of Mexico began tracking remittances 12 years ago. Many towns depend on these dollars for survival.
According to the report, ‘remittances’ have dropped from $2.2 billion last year to $1.9 billion this year. It is not clear whether that was for August only or if that was a year-to-date figure ending in August. Whichever, they ‘blame’ increased border security and increased deportations, in addition to a slowing economy in the United States for ‘their’ loss. They are saying there is no work available here anymore. Can you say ‘guest worker’ program?
Looks like Mexico is going to have to learn how to take care of its own people and from within its own borders for a change. The bad guy here is Mexico’s government, not the United States government.
Since there is no compulsion in Washington or in Mexico, for Mexico to reimburse the United States for subsidizing them via remittances, and for letting the illegals here suck on the American teet, the question is whether the current financial crisis is enough for legal taxpayers to stand up and say ‘No Mas.’
A week ago, Pensacola was preparing to welcome Gov. Palin outdoors at the end of the runway at the airport. It’s a good thing they changed the venue to the Civic Center for two reasons. The original thousand tickets got swallowed up in a few hours, and, it rained. I was among the 10,000+ people who stood in line in the rain to get in the Civic Center. Afterwards, I found out that the fire Marshall had declared the event full and not everyone that came could get in.
The anticipation and enthusiasm of the crowd was as good as it gets for any rock concert I’ve been too, and I’ve been to a lot in my day. Most of them I can remember, but I digress.
The big difference was that the people in line were sober, orderly, polite, of all ages, and anxious to see Sarah Palin.
She spoke of how John McCain and she will change and shake up things in Washington and get the economy going with lower spending, lower taxes, on energy, and that we will continue to win the war instead of merely end it. She listed contrasts between the Obama campaing and what they want to do and the McCain campaign and what they want to do. She effectively laid it out as a clear choice for voters.
She didn’t let Obama slide on some of his unsavory alliances or associations as relates to his judgment and character. She reiterated the Bill Ayers saga. Today for the first time, she also referenced two of his recent economic advisers who were also heads of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And from their roaring response, the audience knew who she was talking about without mentioning Johnson and Raines by name.
Having been to the last VP visit prior to the 2004 election, when Vice President Cheney held an event at PJC, the difference in turnout and enthusiasm was striking. I think if they were asked who you would rather have a cup of coffee with or go hunting with, Cheney or Palin? Palin would win by a landslide. 😆
Below was the scene when Gov. Palin took the stage. Just a 60 second sample of the excitement. My position was beside the media’s camera platform where there was zero commotion during the entire event.
Countries within the European Union are reacting individually rather than collectively, in propping up their banks amid worries that a run on the banks by depositors will lead to another 1929-like rush on the banks. Fresh in their memories is what happens after severe economic troubles. Someone nasty comes to political power. In their case, it was Hitler.
Sunday’s deal came hours after Merkel and Finance Minister Peer Steinbrueck announced an unlimited guarantee for all personal savings and checking accounts. The move was aimed to shore up confidence amid a spreading global financial crisis, in a country in which failing banks bring up particularly bitter memories of the 1930s Great Depression, which helped the Nazis rise to power.
In a bid to head off a run on banks, Finance Minister Peer Steinbrueck assured that German account holders need not worry about losing a “single euro” in the crisis. “This is to give a signal so citizens do not run to their banks and savings and loans tomorrow to withdraw their money,” he said of the guarantee.
Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi was quoted as saying Italy would revive the idea of a common bailout fund for European banks at a meeting of finance ministers in Luxembourg on Monday. Germany shot back that it remained opposed to any such pooled funding for European bank rescues like the $700 billion bailout approved last week by the United States.
This bill had a lot of bi-partisan support. It also had a significant number of bi-partisan non-support. Just not enough to defeat it. My representative, Rep. Jeff Miller (R-FL) voted NO on both opportunities, last Monday and yesterday, when the bill was fast-tracked to the President’s desk, who signed it into law. Miller has proven to me that he is the kind of Republican, a real conservative, that we need more of in Congress. So kudos to him. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) also voted NO on the senate version. Good for him. Then there is Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL) and former head of the RNC. Martinez voted for it. No surprise there. Regarding this bill, I have two objections to it.
1) It is unconstitutional based solely on the preamble of it:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Promote the general welfare does not mean insure the general welfare, and, there is no liberty when it is usurped by the government.
2) By its actions, the bill totally socializes the financial industry of the country. Whether, like Bush says, the bill will save us from a financial crisis is besides the point. The right solution would be one that does not socialize the entire economy and still solves the problem.
That we are supposed to have confidence, that the same people that created this problem can fix it in a matter of a week, if I may quote a famous politician, ‘requires a suspension of disbelief.’ Congress, President Bush, and Secretary Paulson have behaved more like used car salesmen than statesmen. No disrespect to used car salesmen.
I don’t have a solution. I’m not that smart. But I do know that going the socialist route is not the correct route. Manipulating the market made the problem. Now, manipulating the market and putting taxpayers on the hook is supposed to fix it? I don’t think so. The answer lies somewhere in letting some companies fail and/or reorganize and/or renegotiate their currently worthless paper, and not allow mortgages to be ’securitized.’
What do you think?
Belly up to the counter. Politics are on the menu and Ross is on the grill.
integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment.
at between $10 to $15 trillion, that economists predict will flow into the US economy with enactment of the FairTax. That is trillions of dollars of business that has fled this country because of its taxing system, the second highest in the world. As an added bonus, companies looking to do business in the United States that have not yet come here, would have the incentive to come here. The job creation and wealth creation associated with it will spur the economy more than any tax-and-spending Democrat or Republican in Washington could dream of.
