The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

If They Just Called It A “Holiday Tree”, Would The Christmas Tree Tax Still Apply?

What do Barack Obama and atheists have in common?  Hint:  It has to do with something “real”.

Christmas, apparently, is still that most divisive time of the year.  If it isn’t misguided atheists decrying and taking the name of “Christmas” in vane, doing all they can to remove all that is Christmas, the “realness” of Christmas, from the public square, it’s Barack Obama using Christmas, its “realness” to impose yet another tax.  Obama and atheists, working in unison for a shared goal, even if their methods are diametrically opposed.  (Remember, two perpendicular lines will eventually meet.)

Thanksgiving has not yet come and gone, (in some instances the Thanksgiving turkey is, let us say, still being fattened up) and, as usual, we are already deep into the heated debate that is the Christmas holiday, or the “Holiday” holiday.  Holiday, by the way, is derived from “holy” day.  But atheists are more comfortable with that than Christmas.

The Agriculture Department, a part of the Obama Administration, wants to tax Christmas trees to pay for the board that promotes buying real Christmas trees instead of artificial Christmas trees.  A tax which, if imposed would, like all taxes in general, be passed down to the consumer.  The tax is needed, they say, because of competition from “fake” Christmas tree sellers.  And in the “spirit of Christmas”, real Christmas tree sellers want some extra cold, hard cash.  Without it, they contend, they cannot promote their real Christmas trees.  Not being able to promote their real Christmas trees, they fear, will mean more people will purchase fake Christmas trees.  And if more people buy the fake version than their real version, that will be less of that cold, hard cash in their pockets.  With less of that cold, hard cash they themselves will ultimately have less of a “Merry Christmas”.  Therefore – a “nominal” tax, they are certain, will put that “Christmas cheer” back in their pocket books.  That is, for real Christmas tree sellers, the “real” spirit of Christmas.

And now, apparently, Obama has called off the Christmas Tree tax altogether, for now.  Perhaps he was visited by one of Dickens’ ghosts, or the ghostly apparition of Joe Biden.  Still, the idea of taxing the “realness” of Christmas is something worth pondering.  because this will not be the last we hear about it.

One might wonder whether these sellers of real Christmas trees could have “gotten around” paying for the tax if they called it a “Holiday” tree instead.  After-all, calling it a “Holiday” tree is just as fake as selling a plastic tree.  And it’s the “realness” of Christmas that Obama wants to tax.  It’s also the “realness” of Christmas that has, for decades now, been at odds with some in America who continue to be offended by it.

For example:

In Wisconsin, Gov. Walker is embroiled in another major controversy.  He has decided to break the long 25 year tradition of referring to the tree that stands in the capital’s rotunda as a Christmas tree, that had, up until this year, been referred to as the “Holiday” tree – and that had, for longer than 25 years prior to 1985, been called a “Christmas” tree.  The Governor, who took on the unions earlier this year and won, is now taking on an even more massive and hotheaded group of people – atheists.

How long will it be before atheists such as those from the Freedom From Religion Foundation begin complaining?  Or American Atheists?  Or even counterfeit Christians like Barry Lynn from Americans United for Separation of Church and State?

The ‘realness” that is Christmas for scores of millions of Americans has been under assault for decades now.  While Obama tried to tax the “realness” out of Christmas, atheists who are uncomfortable with Christmas use the courts to try to remove the “realness” altogether.

The Christmas tree tax is postponed for now, but could be reenacted at any time.  Ironically, that time may come when more and more Americans begin to see, and to celebrate, the “realness” that is Christmas.  Because, after-all, the more “fake”, the more phoniness, that creeps into Christmas, the less of Christmas there actually is to tax.  This is the goal both Obama and atheists share.  And while atheists use the courts to remove all vestiges of Christmas, the “realness” of Christmas, from the “Holiday” holiday, whatever is left, whatever “realness” atheists and the courts could not scrub away, Obama will seek to tax.

The upshot to all of this?  If ever the “realness” of Christmas was completely removed from Christmas; if Christmas became 100% fake; if atheists were ever successful in making Christmas just another “holiday” – liberal politicians would still find a way to tax it, not with a Christmas tree tax, of course, but something along the lines of a “fake” tax.

Do we really need another “fake” tax?

November 9, 2011 Posted by | Obama, politics, silly laws, taxes | , , , , , , | Leave a Comment

Of Herman Cain, And Why Some Who Cry “Rape” Ought To Be Ignored

How do you know when liberals are deathly worried about losing their political power to conservatives?

When desperate times call for desperate measures.  And when playing the “race card” back fires on them (which it has) they pull out the old “rape” thing from their bag of dirty tricks.  Whether its sexual assault, sexual harassment or sexual innuendo, what “rape” means to a liberal, besides a woman “playfully resisting” one of them, is an opportunity to smear their conservative opponents.

So it is with Presidential contender, Herman Cain, who has been accused of sexual harassment.  Not while running for President.  Not even recently.  Many, many years ago, back in the 1990′s when he was head of the National Restaurant Association.  Two unidentified women, at that time, alleged he sexually harassed them.   Although a settlement was reached, and agreed to by the women in question, which consisted of a severance package in the five figure range, proof of their allegations was just as sketchy, rudimentary and shady then as it is now.  No charges were ever actually filed after the women agreed to the terms of the package deal.  Hmm?

‘Tis most foul.  Sexual harassment in the work place is bad regardless of the situation, but it is worse when it is the employer sexually harassing his employee.  And the stakes are higher than if it is one employee sexually harassing another employee.  Also at stake is the whole “women’s movement”, feminism, and equality between the sexes in the world place.  If women want to be treated as equals, how does either falsely accusing a male employer of sexual harassment, or dropping an allegation of sexual harassment in exchange for money, help their cause?

Whatever actually did, or did not transpire, between Cain and his accusers, the two women, rather than take the issue to court, instead took the money and ran.  What does that tell you about the women?  In other words, if there actually was sexual harassment, whether physical proof existed or not, why wouldn’t the women have been more determined to take Herman Cain to court, see him prosecuted, and hopefully charged and sentenced for the very serious crime of sexual harassment so he could not do this to another woman?  Why was is more important to these women to take the money, if the charges they alleged against him were real?  And what does that say about women who cry “rape”, only to calm down and shut up when they are offered money?

And – why now?  Why some 15 years after the fact is this being brought up once again?  Ask  They are the ones who apparently dug up this old and ancient and forgotten, and politically irrelevant, story of alleged sexual harassment.  At Obama’s and the Democrats bidding, perhaps?

What is known fact is liberals are in a panic and in crisis mode.  Public opinion of, and support for, Obama is floundering.  They see a political opportunity to use a very dated charge against Herman Cain, who is, by all recent polling,  (with 24%  to Romney’s 20%) a legitimate and serious contender for the Republican Presidential nomination.  Liberals never waste an opportunity to smear their opponents.

And should Cain win the Republican nomination and go head to head with Obama, one recent poll has Cain beating Obama.  With barely a year to go until the real election, Democrats aren’t taking any chances.  Oh, by the way, for those of you who still don’t know – Cain is black.

That’s important to note because should these two men, Obama and Cain, be our choices for President, it will take race, the factor of race, and the Democrats favorite dirty trick, the “race card” out of the equation.  Authentic blackness aside, Cain is just as much authentically conservative as Obama is authentically liberal.  That difference will be the only factor in Americans, white and black, deciding who the next President of the United States will be.

Cain has his 9-9-9 plan, and while there are flaws in it, such as the fact that if implemented people who pay nothing in taxes now will end up paying 18% under the 9-9-9 plan – 9% in federal taxes plus 9% in a federal sales tax.  However, that problem is easily overcome by shifting the numbers upwards so that poor people will still be exempt from the federal 9% taxation.  They would then only pay a 9% sales tax like everyone else.  And even there one can find wiggle room if such necessities as food and clothing are exempt from the federal sales tax.

Cain also has a problem with his stance on abortion.  It is not entirely clear whether he opposes abortion in any case, including to save the life of the mother.  However, that in itself is a non issue because the vast majority of Americans, including religious, conservative, pro-life Americans, support abortion if it is used to legitimately save the life of the mother.  In other words, should Cain be elected President, and should he actually hold the view that abortion be outlawed even to save the mother’s life – such a bill would never even come to his desk for him to sign into law anyway.  And so long as Roe v. Wade is “law”, such a bill would be struck down by the Supreme Court as Unconstitutional.

Obama, on the other hand, has his Obamacare, and that screws us all.  Well, all of us that aren’t politically connected and can’t get waivers.  He has his “jobs” (job killer) bill he’s trying to force upon us as well.  Higher taxes on the rich; more “green” initiatives which ultimately wastes more green, as in money, than it generates (we’re still sifting through the Solyndra files); abortion on demand, for any reason; more government programs, more government “solutions” to the problems government itself created in the first place, more government itself; higher deficits, more national debt; more excuses why he can’t get his plans passed by congress, more whining about how Republicans are obstructionists, more complaining about partisan politics, more stumbling through his speeches, etc.  Do we really want another four years of all that?

Cain is a major threat to Obama, and he would be an even greater threat than Romney or Perry, or anyone else.  It’s true some white conservatives will not vote for Cain because he is black.  However, the vast, vast majority of white conservatives (in the very high 90 percentile range) absolutely will vote for Cain.  Not because, or whether, he is authentically black, but because he is authentically conservative.

That is the only reason why liberals have sunk back down to the bottom of the barrel and scraped out the sludge on Cain’s passed charges of sexual harassment.  Charges that did not stick then, nor would they now, nor should anyone seriously consider or ponder or wonder about.  Charges that ought to be ignored, as they were ignored back in the 1990′s when they were fresh.  Charges that are as stale now as are liberals themselves, and all their phony, doctored, made-up cries of “rape”.

And by bringing up these charges, how much does it, will it, bring down the whole “women’s movement” in America if the charges are once again shown to be as irrelevant now as they were then?  Are liberal feminists really willing to see their “cause” thrown under the bus just to slander another strong, black conservative in the hopes he will falter enough in the polls to pull out?

What say you, women of America?  A good gamble?  Or just aces and eights?

November 1, 2011 Posted by | 2012 election, Obama, politics | , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment

Barack Obama’s America: Small vs. Big (More Obama Lies)

In a televised address, pandering to Gay rights groups and touting his support for repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Barack Obama has called Republicans visions of America “small“.  Somehow, in the mind of Barack Obama, and liberals, a  “small’ America” encompasses a world view that is anti gays in the military, and where a “big America” encompasses a world view, and a more compassionate one at that, which is anti life in the womb.

Only a liberal like Barack Obama would be more concerned with ending the practice of discrimination in the military than say ending the practice of murder in the womb.  Only a liberal like Barack Obama would conflate military discrimination with a “small America”  (i.e., a small and narrow minded point of view) while bolstering support for other issues like abortion rights in a “big America” (i.e., big and kind-hearted and open minded).  And only a liberal like Barack Obama could not see how wrong-headed he is actually being.

Liberals view a “big America” as one in which an ever expanding government exists to protect us all from ourselves, and any past, present and future mistakes we might make, as well as to “protect” the rights of everyone, regardless of how outlandish – unless you are a Christian, and unless you are still in the womb – but in reality to “protect” the vote and keep liberals and Democrats in office.

But that’s not a “big America”, that’s just big government.  And Barack Obama, as with all liberals, would have you pay tribute for that protection through steeper taxes, more regulations and more government oversight into your personal lives so that you might enjoy living in Barack Obama’s “big America”.

Obviously Obama’s “small America” speech was nothing more than liberal code for his support of big, and bigger, government.  And ironically, for all Obama’s hatred of “small America” it was after all a small group of political figureheads which coerced the military into dropping DADT.  If Obama had gone out to “big America”, the American people themselves, DADT would still be in effect because most Americans supported it.

The question, then, is – how exactly does Barack Obama define a “Republican vision of small America”?  (Keeping in mind that this is merely a code for conservative bashing)

A “small America” from a liberal Obama’s point of view is, to name a few, an America in which:

  Our borders are protected from waves of illegal aliens, arms and terrorists sneaking back and forth into our country

  Our children are protected from a liberal in-school indoctrination including a biased, untrue and unchecked, anti-American point of view

  Our culture and society is protected from an out of control Judiciary system that refuses to adhere to our Constitution and insists on making up laws, throwing out others, which suits their own personal views and liberal agendas.

Conversely, a “big America”, from a liberal Obama’s point of view is, to name a few, an America in which:

  America has no borders, does not seek to repatriate (deport) those who have come to America illegally, and instead allows for a blanket amnesty for all illegal aliens, (which, out of fairness, would have to include all future illegal aliens) despite the fact that this is a slap in the face to the millions of immigrants who have, and are trying to, come here through legal channels.  It’s also a slap in the face to common sense as it then becomes ridiculous for anyone who wants to come here to do so legally if, under Obama’s “big America” it becomes that much less of a hassle, and that much easier, to make the trek illegally, enter America and then claim the right of citizenship simply because they “have made it across” the border without being caught.

  Our children are taught (brainwashed) into despising America, its history and its principles, and our founding fathers because slavery was not abolished at our founding; women were not immediately given the right to vote until 1920 (and presumably not given the right to kill their child in the womb until 1973); poverty and homelessness were not wiped out, healthcare was not a “universal right”, the American Indian was uprooted from their ancestral land to make way for white Europeans, despite the fact that they never actually had a legal deed to the land, other than it had been occupied by their ancestors, to show proof of ownership; that all wealth creation in America was a direct result of the back breaking labor of both slaves and the poor, despise the fact that, slavery aside, many of the richest and wealthiest Americans made their money, rather than inherited it; that America, for all its mistakes, is inherently an evil and intolerant construct and therefore must be remolded into a nation which is continually “atoning” for its past mistakes and setting up government run program after program to better assist all those who have been “disenfranchised” throughout all of America’s history.

  Our judges are not held in check; are not held accountable for their actions; are not bound by the United States Constitution, as they are required, but rather are able to redefine and reinterpret law as they see fit – as they did in the 1973 Roe vs. Wade abortion case where the Supreme court cited a protection in our Constitution giving women the right to kill their unborn child in the womb – a right that did not exist then, nor exists now, anywhere in the Constitution.   But a “right” that exists solely within the liberal agenda.

Barack Obama’s “big America” is nothing more than one big lie.  And within that big lie are more Barack Obama lies, one lie after another.  Which makes Barack Obama himself one “big” liar.  And one in which will turn out to be a big mistake for Obama, and all liberals, in the 2012 election.  Big time!

October 2, 2011 Posted by | 2012 election, abortion, attackwatch, Don't Ask Don't Tell, gay and lesbian, government, homosexuality, Obama, Obama's lies, politics, Right To LIfe | , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment

Solyndra: An Environmentalist’s Chernobyl

UPDATEMore bad news for government subsidized energy.

When news broke that Solyndra, a manufacturer of solar panels, had gone belly up, it provoked more than a little attention.  After all, this was not just any “green” start-up company.  The federal government provided it with 535 million tax payer dollars to get the ball rolling, and Barack Obama was there heavily promoting it back in 2010 as a wonderful example of renewable energy.  Now that we have learned this money was wasted, and will probably never be recovered; that the employees of Solyndra are vying for even more of your money in the form of government Trade Adjustment Assistance – i.e., jobs retraining -  what is this going to do, and what does this all mean, to the whole “going green” movement in America, and to environmentalists who have been pushing this initiative on us for decades?

Probably nothing.  Still:

What Solyndra has proven is that the more government gets involved in anything it was never intended or designed to do, promoting, pandering and funding programs, even when the intentions are good, it is usually a ticking time bomb waiting to go off.

Solyndra blew up.   A huge, a significant, environmental catastrophe that will take years to clean up.  And making this mess all the more difficult to resolve, when its executives were summoned to Washington to explain themselves, they all plead the fifth.  Why would they do that unless they had something to hide?  And remember – they got 535 million federal tax dollars, and a “green” thumbs up from Barack Obama.  In the coming weeks and months, and years, we will find out more of what was behind this very big, very personal, government backed, Barack Obama supported debacle.  It will be a factor in the upcoming 2012 Presidential election and may be one of Obama’s “Waterloos”.

Make no mistake about it, alternative, renewable energy, is a wonderful, and absolutely necessary, goal America needs to obtain.   And the sooner we can do this, the better off we will all be.  But right now, as an alternative, and in large quantities, renewable energy – solar and wind in particular – is unattainable.  And while America is forced to continue using fossil fuels, we are not forced, as liberals would have us believe, to remain dependent on foreign fuel supplies.  We have plenty at our door step.  Underneath continental America and lying out in the ocean.

But whereas Barack Obama, liberals and environmentalists have successfully blocked oil and gas exploration on American territory for years, they have supported other countries in their exploratory initiatives.   America has been stymied because liberals tell us it takes too many years to bring an oil rig online; because exploring for oil, and removing it from the earth, harms the environment; because it disrupts animal life, their migration patterns, their very survival and existence.

Who do they think they are kidding anymore?

This isn’t the 1800′s, and big oil companies are not intentionally and wantonly destroying nature and the environment to get at the Earth’s riches, laughing wildly all the way to the bank.  That type of malicious greed and insensitivity simply no longer exists, except in the minds of liberals.  Great care, and great financial expense, is taken to ensure that the environment, habitats, wetlands and animals are not intentionally, negatively disrupted, harmed or killed.  There is some “discomfort”, obviously, but it is not enough in this day and age for liberals to use as a justification for shutting down all new exploration.

What is going on here is that liberals are showing their bias and their true hatred of Big Business, Corporate America, the free market and capitalism.  And because liberals so vehemently despise the American drive for independence and the creation of wealth, especially vast wealth in the billions of dollars; because liberals loathe big businesses like the oil industry, (because they reap huge financial benefits as a result of their investment endeavors all the while poverty exists in America) liberals are willing to make all Americans suffer (think the gas pump) in their attempt to destroy capitalism in America.  Liberals are willing to make us all poor and dependent on them, to settle their own, their old, anti business score.

If there is a practical and economical way to harness the energy of the sun and of the wind, then let private investors and businesses find those ways.   They are far more intuitive, resourceful and creative than the federal government, and not only can they can do it cheaper, they can do it without the use of tax dollars.  Which means that if they lose the money, we the American tax payer don’t get screwed with the bill.  It also means that when they succeed, new jobs are created, people are put back to work and everyone involved in the endeavor, and all of America, profits.

But when government, liberals and radical, anti business environmentalists – when Barack Obama – support federal programs, sustained through tax dollars, controlled by bureaucrats, and when those programs blow up in their faces, no one wins.   And perhaps the biggest loser of all in these boondoggles is the very thing liberals and environmentalists purportedly are trying to save -  the environment itself.  Because as Solyndra goes, so goes the image of environmentalism.

Solyndra very well could be, and could have, a lasting “Chernobyl effect as more Americans realize the games and shenanigans liberal politicians are willing to play with their tax dollars in the name of environmentalism.  Solyndra has created a vacuum, a deep, black hole in the environmental movement that can only be refilled with common sense approaches to solving our energy crisis.  Cheap, flashy gimmicks such as the green initiatives being put forth by these liberals and radicals are all show and nothing else.

Oil is real.  Oil is plentiful.  Oil is, for the immediate future, the way to go.  We can harness the power of oil now.  Are we willing to wait for another Solyndra to happen before we realize this?

September 30, 2011 Posted by | 2012 election, capitalism, environment, government, Obama, Obama's lies, politics, scams | , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment

Sometimes Peace Can Only Be Secured Through War…

An impetuous and confused Hillary Clinton has put her foot in her mouth calling Israeli Settlement Expansion In East Jerusalem ‘Counterproductive’.

Said Clinton:

“We have long urged both sides to avoid any kind of action which could undermine trust, including, and perhaps most particularly, in Jerusalem, any action that could be viewed as provocative by either side.”

Clinton calls an additional 1,100 units “provocative” and says she wants to “avoid any kind of action which could undermine trust” at the same time the Palestinians are demanding statehood, refusing to recognize the state of Israel and promising to exterminate all Jews.  Who the hell is it who is being “provocative” here, and who is she trying to fool with her double talk?  It is Hillary Clinton, not Israel, that is being “counterproductive”.  It is Hillary Clinton who is “undermining trust”.  It is Hillary Clinton who is going out of her way not to “avoid any action”.  Clearly her inflammatory, anti-Israel rhetoric demands “action”.  It demands her apology to Israel!  Good luck with that ever happening.

Thankfully a level headed Benjamin Netanyahu has dismissed her anti-Israel grumblings and will proceed with the expansion of Jewish settlements.  However, this is not the end of it.  Hillary Clinton, like most in the Obama Administration, appear to be closely imbedded with, and growing closer to, the enemies of Israel who have grown more emboldened since Barack Obama became President.  And remarks like those Clinton made against Jewish expansion will not make Israel’s enemies bite their tongues or curb their desire to make peace with Israel a real possibility any time soon.

On the contrary, you have Islamic Imams threatening Jihad against the United States; an arrogant Iranian government taunting America with its navy, ramping up its own military forces, confident America is in a weaker position, both politically and militarily, to counter attack; and now Egypt wants all Jews, Israelis and Zionists expelled from its nation.

All this going on throughout the world and Hillary Clinton is worried that 1,100 housing units for a growing Israeli population is going to upset the peace process?  Someone needs to inform Clinton there isn’t any “peace process”, there won’t ever be a peace process; that the so called “peace process” is, and always has been, a charade.  Arabs and Muslims don’t want peace – not with Israel, not with  America.  Not now, not in the future.

Hillary Clinton and the Barack Obama Administration have the audacity to talk of peace between Israel and the Palestinians through Israeli concessions, while the Palestinians talk openly of annihilating the Jews and taking the whole of Israel for themselves.  These bizarre actions, the deafening silence of Barack Obama to not scold the Palestinians, demand an explanation.

The longer we continue to merely talk of peace, the more our enemies the world over are becoming less fearful of America’s might and moving toward war, all at a time when Barack Obama does not have a plan to avert deep cuts in our defense spending.  If these cuts in defense occur, America will be made that much weaker, that much more vulnerable, that much less able to provide military assistance to our allies, Israel included, if war were to break out, let alone ourselves.

The time for talk is passed.  The time for peace negotiations had ended.  It is time to talk of war.  It is time to threaten war against America’s enemies and those enemies that would harm Israel.  We’ve tried for years, for decades to “give peace a chance”.  Our enemies don’t want peace, they want war.  They want war!  And how do we contend with a people who are so staunchly set on war if we don’t acquiesce to their ridiculous demand that Israel give up its right to exist and its people give up their right to live?  How do we rationally deal with a people who have every intention of making war against Israel and America until this ridiculous, idiotic demand is met?  How, and why, do we continue to deal with them at all?

Have we really become a nation that readily bows to our enemies like Obama bows to foreign leaders?

Perhaps it is for the best to continue the “talk”, ever stalling for time, for hope, for better, more courageous leadership, until at least after the 2012 election.  Obama is weak now.  But if he wins a second term, how much longer can we merely talk before our enemies, and Israel’s, realize we have no stomach for war, no desire for war, no funding in the budget to pay for war?

All that giving “peace a chance” accomplishes is to give our enemies that much more time and leverage, that much more of an advantage.

It’s time to “give war a chance“!

It’s time to elect a strong, solid Presidential candidate who is willing to “give war a chance“.  It’s time to stop fooling ourselves into believing our enemies want peace.  It’s time to accept that sometimes in order to secure peace, that peace can only be secured through war.

History has proven that war better solves the problems, and more quickly ends the wide spread suffering, that peace talk merely prolongs.  History has also proven what happens the longer that war is prolonged.

September 28, 2011 Posted by | government, Israel, Obama, politics | , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment

Obama’s Lies; Obama’s Damned Lies; Obama’s Damnable Lies! – Part 2

UPDATE:  Obama wants a second term “badly”.  Hasn’t the damnable lying going on long enough?

Here is the link to Part 1 of Obama’s Lies; Obama’s Damned Lies; Obama’s Damnable Lies!

In President Barack Obama’s latest lie he asserts that:

Republican vision of government would “fundamentally cripple America.”

It must then be asked, what is the “Republican vision of government”?  Why does Obama say this vision will “cripple” America?  And why is this really nothing more than another Barack Hussein Obama lie, mmm, mmm, mmm?

The Republican vision of government, and of America, is very simple – a government that taxes less; a government that is smaller; a government that does not interfere so heavily in states rights and the personal freedom and liberty of all Americans as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

Why is the Republican vision of taxing less “crippling” to America?

Obama, Democrats, liberals – they all assert that when taxes are cut this somehow equates to less overall revenue generation and this screws the poor.  In their minds, less money coming into government means less money for all the social programs they create and fund – and want to create and fund (and expand) – they say are intended to help “less fortunate” Americans.  They further attest that when taxes are raised, especially on the rich, this creates the new revenue necessary in order to provide for these programs.  Conversely, when taxes are cut, the money allocated for their social programs dries up, and said programs wither need to be cut or abolished.

This is yet another Barack Obama lie!

Whenever taxes are raised, whenever new taxes are created, whenever more money is taken out of the pockets of taxpayers this actually stifles revenue growth.  The reason is simple to anyone with a clear mind.  Rich people, in sound economic conditions, will invest capital in new projects; new innovations and inventions; research and development of new drugs and products that benefit everyone; the growth and expansion of their businesses, including the hiring of more employees, higher and more competitive salaries and benefit packages for those employees – all of which increases, not decreases, tax revenue.  The programs that Obama touts are absolutely unnecessary, absolutely useless, and are only there to tighten the grip of poorer Americans and ensure they keep voting Democrat.

Barack Obama hates entrepreneurship, in particular the non union, private business sector.  Obama hates wealth, as wealth equates to being independent of government.  What other explanation is there for someone who has waged a war on the American business sector?

Why is the Republican vision of less government “crippling” to America?

With all the red tape, bureaucracy and roadblocks in getting legislation passed, one would naturally assume a smaller government would also be a more efficient government.  Not liberals.  Not Barack Obama.   They demand an even larger, more encompassing government that reaches into the lives of all Americans, American business and American lifestyle.  Obama insists on the creation of new programs, like Obamacare, that has added trillions of dollars in new debt, and will continue adding trillions of dollars in even more debt for years to come.  More government programs to ensnare and entrap more Americans into government dependency.   More departments, more agencies, more government employees, more government in of itself is not the solution to poverty in America, nor is it the solution to economic growth and prosperity.  Obama says that it is.

This is also another Barack Obama lie!

More government creates more problems and allows for more money to “disappear” into thin air.  More government allows for more money to be hidden into obscure programs which either don’t really exist or are used merely as a front to payoff groups and organizations that voted for, and helped elect, a specific candidate.  More government allows huge sums of money to be transported virtually, if not completely, unseen, until long after it is too late to recoup it.  More government strangles economic growth, freedom and prosperity, individual liberty.  More government gives more power to politicians, and unelected governmental bureaucrats, who would desire to use that power in unethical and immoral ways to create artificial chaos for the purpose of tricking Americans into believing they need more government.

What would happen, for example, if the Department of Education, created in 1979, was abolished?  All that means is that the control, decision making and policies and funding of all public schools reverts back to the individual states.  It means states, and local communities, have greater power and influence and more flexibility to change what’s not working and become even more competitive, thereby becoming that much more attractive to parents wishing to relocate to another state and another community.  What’s wrong with that?  Only liberals, only Barack Obama, would see that as a problem.

Why is the Republican vision of more personal freedom “crippling” to America?

Expect for liberal’s, and Obama’s, insistence that women have “more personal freedom” to kill their unborn child, there is not much support for “personal freedom’ among Democrats, liberals or Barack Obama.  The government must control everything and everyone, because only government knows how best to guide our lives  and our decisions.  From healthcare to education; from gun control to food safety; from the cars we drive to the gas we buy for those cars – Obama believes government must have its hand – and his hand, by extension – in everything.

This, too, constitutes, another Barack Obama lie!

More government oversight, more governmental regulations, more government control into our lives and businesses is what is “crippling to America”.  Our economy is worse now because of Obama and the Democrat Party, and because of more government, more governmental regulations, more governmental programs and scams, more out of control governmental spending, etc.

“Evil” rich people are holding onto their money because the risk of losing it, of not making a profit on it, is much too great as a direct result of Obama and his draconian economic policies.  “Evil” rich people are not growing their businesses, are not hiring new employees – are laying more employees off – because the demands for their products and services has dropped, in direct correlation to Obama’s rigid economic policies.

It is Obama, the Democrat Party and liberals that are “crippling to America”.  It is Obama, the Democrat Party and liberals, their vision of government, that is “crippling America”.  It is those Americans who accept higher taxes, more government, less personal freedom out of ignorance or a true hatred and snobbish attitude of wealth and the wealthy in America, that is “crippling to America”.

It’s not Republicans, conservatives, the Tea Party that is “crippling to America”.

September 26, 2011 Posted by | 2012 election, abortion, attackwatch, governement, healthcare, Obama, Obama's lies, politics, taxes | , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Why Black Americans Need To Abandon Barack Obama

Obama tells blacks to ‘stop complainin’ and fight – Yahoo! News.

Who is Barack Obama calling “y’all”?

Barack Obama, addressing the Congressional Black Caucus‘s annual awards dinner Saturday night, clearly showed how frustrated and how nervous he was, as well as his overall growing distrust with, and sense of betrayal from, black Americans, a voting block he easily secured in his 2008 Presidential victory,  but one that now is being chipped away at a rate which could ultimately cost him reelection in 2012.  He sincerely believes black Americans owe him big, and ought to remain loyal to him under any conditions and circumstances.  And he has a real problem with those blacks that have publicly scorned him and are beginning to turn against him.

Obama is keenly aware that blacks are angry with him, which is why he told them to “Stop complainin’.  Stop grumblin’.  Stop cryin’.”  And it is also why he made the very conscious and very deliberate move to talk “black speech” to them.  It’s not the first time Obama has talked down to blacks with this condescending speech pattern, dropping his “g’s”.  If a white person had addressed this same crowd and spoke in the same demeaning manner in which the first black President of the United States had, that same Congressional Black Caucus would be screaming bloody racism.  So would Morgan Freeman.

And if someone who had never heard Obama speak before listened to him for the first time at this annual event, they would assume Obama was both ignorant and uneducated, and wonder how such a man could ever be elected President of the United States.  They probably wouldn’t understand that Obama was intentionally speaking in a derogatory fashion, playing to his crowd, his base, his race.  Nor would they understand why.  But those of us who do know who Barack Obama is, and his ways, understand “why” he lowers himself and speaks this way to blacks.

It is the audacity of this hopeless man, Barack Obama, in believing that he has the black vote sewn up.  And while he will still win a majority of the black vote, it will not be as large a percentage as it was in 2008.  With just over a year before we go to the polls, that percentage has the real potential to plummet even further.  Barack Obama knows this, which was his cause for frustration and anger at last night’s event.

If it does, even dropping down to seventy percent, Obama’s reelection bid will be in serious trouble.  It isn’t just the black vote but whites and Hispanics as well.  There is indeed a growing sense among all his constituents that they have been bamboozled by a man who campaigned to deliver them unto the promised land, but now realize that was another broken promise, a campaign maneuver, he never meant to keep.  How many blacks even know Obama doesn’t really have a “stash”?

Which is why all Americans, but black Americans in particular, ought to come to their senses and abandon Barack Obama, and the Democrat Party as well.  A man, and a party, who have a clear and dangerous agenda to destroy the American Dream for all of us, and in doing so he will take down millions of blacks who have struggled and yearned for a piece of the American pie for generations.  His wrongheaded policies will make us all slaves to government.

Even before Obama became President, as Jr. Senator from Illinois, and along with a majority Democrat controlled House, he has sought initiatives, legislation and laws that have hurt the growth of American business, jobs, employment, housing, etc., including his fervent assault on the bill of rights.  Since taking office his efforts to undermine the American spirit of free enterprise, liberty and independence, creativity and inventiveness have cut sharply into what had been considered a unique experiment.  The American Dream is evaporating under an oppressive Obama Administration.  No one benefits from that.

If he has his way, and taxes continue to rise while others are allowed to sunset; if his push to further regulate business, and the choices we make as Americans, is successful; if he is free to spend trillions of dollars on wasteful, meaningless projects that only provide a bankroll for greedy unions and lobbyists; if the national debt continues to rise by trillions of dollars more in unfunded mandates and liabilities the likes of which will never be paid back, at least not for many, many generations to come; if Obama is reelected President and given a clear path to continue his destruction of the American Dream – it will not just be white Americans who suffer the dire consequences!

If Barack Obama will not listen to reason, why would anyone assume he would listen to the very people he refers to as  “y’all”?

September 25, 2011 Posted by | 2012 election, government, Obama, Obama's lies, politics, racism | , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment

Obama’s Lies; Obama’s Damned Lies; Obama’s Damnable Lies! (And More Obama Lies) Part 1…

American politicians lie, by in large.  Some more than others and some politicians are just better liars than others.  It’s a fact of life that’s been with us since the founding.  They do so, Republican and Democrat alike, to gain curry and favor from constituents and secure necessary and vital donations from influential donors.  Mostly, they lie to get elected because that is all they really care about and they will do anything to make that happen   Why, then, is it so hard to accept that President Barack Obama is above such reproach?  Why then, when Barack Obama does lie (he is not anywhere near the exception to the rule) does this become a controversy when his blatant and ridiculous lies are exposed?

Obama, contrary to his supporters beliefs ( for example, the newest running joke of the Obama Administration which has successfully both replaced and took attention away from, its other running joke, Vice President, Joe Biden) has been telling lie after lie on every topic imaginable.  He’s done this long before becoming President, and subsequently after, with and without the help of TOTUS, the infamous “teleprompter of the United States”, and certainly with the help of his entire staff, so called czars and all the minions, puppets and lapdogs at the mainstream media.  Over Obama’s 2 and 1/2 years as President he has told some whoppers that all American ought to be aware of, especially  For example:

Obama’s Lies On Taxes: (And Taxing The Rich)

Like all liberals, Obama has lied about taxes and the disbursement of taxes, the distribution of taxes and the variation in taxes among rich and poor.  In particular his red in the face temper tantrum that the rich don’t pay their fair share; that the poor are getting poorer at the expense, and on the backs, of the rich; that the rich actually pay less in taxes than do the poor and that the only way to get our economy back on track and put people to work is to raise taxes on the rich.

Barack Obama lie #1:  The rich pay less in taxes than the poor!

If someone earns a millions dollars, and pays 35% to the federal government, that’s somewhere in the ballpark of 350 thousand dollars.  Conversely, someone making under 50 thousand dollars (and paying a lower rate) pays the federal government no where near the same amount in taxes than a millionaire.  How is it even possible to say the rich pay less, when it is mathematically impossible for that to occur?  It’s a Barack Obama lie, a liberal lie, to say the rich pay less in the taxes they earn than the poor.


Poor people either pay very little in taxes or don’t pay any taxes at all.  Ideally, with this current tax structure, anyone making under 40 or 50 thousand dollars a year would be exempt altogether from paying a federal income.   And if liberals really wanted the rich to pay the same rate as the poor, that’s easy.  Enact a flat tax, say a 15% across the board flat tax for all Americans.  Or, eliminate the income tax obligation for 95% of all Americans and replace it with a national sales tax of between 2 and 5 percent.  Then exempt the first 500,000 dollars of every individuals earnings from federal taxation.  For businesses, exempt the first 5 million dollars from all federal business taxes.  This way, at least, the less money you make the less likely you will have to pay any federal income, and with a national sales tax the government is still collecting revenue.  And  -  the “evil” rich will pay more!

Barack Obama lie #2:  Raising taxes on the rich creates jobs.

How is that even possible?  If you are a business owner and the federal government raises your taxes and takes more of your business earnings away from your bottom line are you, as a business owner, going to then use this as an opportunity to start hiring more employees, paying them a higher salary, growing and expanding your business, buying more equipment for your business, etc.?  There is that expression about “Doing more with less”.  However:


In the case of raising taxes on businesses you cannot do more with less.  You can only do less with less.  It is rich people that create the jobs in America.  Poor people have not created a single job anywhere, ever, in America.  And if a poor person did create a job, what kind of job could that possible be; who would want to come work for them; where would they get the money to pay the employee, which would have to be set at least at the federal hourly minimum wage?  Who would want to work for a poor person?  Poor people are poor for many reasons.  It is a Barack Obama lie that, if you are poor, it is because the rich don’t pay their “fair share” in taxes. 

Barack Obama lie #3:  It’s Bush’s Fault

Our American economy is in a dire state and there is talk of a double dip recession, and even another depression.  Although a depression is more Democrat scare tactic that reality, Barack Obama, along with the Democrat party, helped in tanking our economy.  Prior to the Democrat takeover of the house and senate in 2006, during the George Bush Administration, our economy was in recovery and unemployment was under 5%.

Truth:  It’s Obama’s fault!

It is Obama that threw our economy under the bus, not Bush, not the GOP and not the rich.  Our economy began to stumble beginning after the Democrat majority had control and once they had the power to enact new laws and regulations which ultimately hurt business growth, job creation, the housing market, to name a few.  And when Obama became President, he, and the Democrat party took hold of their power and with no one to stop them passed a bailout scam, enacted trillions of dollars in new spending without having any way in which to pay for it, created new rules and regulations (health care and environmental in particular) against not only businesses but against the American people.  And although the House is now in safer hands, and with the 2012 election a year away and situations looking brighter for a Republican sweep, what Barack Obama and the Democrats have done to the American economy will have lasting consequences and take a long time to reverse.

Barack Obama is a politician.  Like most of them, Obama lies.  And these lies of Obama are easily disprovable, despite the attempts of crony’s like those at to spin Obama’s lies into facts.  It was Rumpelstiltskin who could spin straw into gold, but Obama and his crony’s can only spin their lies into even bigger lies until those lies eventually unravel into a huge mess.  And much like Rumpelstiltskin, Barack Obama’s lies are nothing more than a fairy tale.

Update – Here is the link to Part 2: Obama’s Lies; Obama’s Damned Lies; Obama’s Damnable Lies!

September 24, 2011 Posted by | attackwatch, government, gun control, Obama, Obama's lies, politics, scams, silly laws, taxes, tea party | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment

Israel Has The Right To Exist (And To Expand Their Settlements)

Israel, with roughly 8000 to 8500 square miles in total land value, is roughly equivalent with the state of New Jersey, which is actually only slightly larger.  Yet, the Palestinian Liberation Organization demands a piece of it for their own homeland.   And if it was not for the strong relationship Israel has with the United States (the Barack Obama Administration aside) not only would the PLO be demanding an even greater piece, but they would have, long ago, brazenly, and with the support of Hamas and most of the Middle East, invaded Israel and fought a very bloody, very costly war to take it.  Although Israel most likely would prevail in such a war, without the support of the United States, its only real ally, the casualties would have been considerably greater simply because, without the United States, lawless insurgents and terrorists would be that much more emboldened, leading to a greater death toll on both sides.

Israel already gave up the Gaza Strip in the name of peace, and in the hope of more peaceful relations with the Palestinians.  That has not come to fruition.  (The Israelis had constructed state of the art greenhouses which were promptly destroyed once the Palestinians took control of the land.  Obviously the Palestinians are not that much into environmentalism or the whole “going green” movement.)

Situations have only become worse.   The Palestinians have continued their attacks, and recently have stepped up those attacks, and won’t be satisfied until they get control of the West Bank and, eventually, the rest of Israel itself.  And because the Obama Administration has been, for the most part either silent, or teetering back and forth without a definitive resolution, and except for a statement Barack Obama made early on in his presidency in which he had hoped to see the United Nations welcome a new Palestinian state into it fold (he has since backed away from that), the misguided passion of the Palestinians has only grown, along with their hostility toward, and contempt for, Israel and their ever surmountable anger with Israel’s expanding settlements.

Now, the PLO is demanding the United Nations grant them statehood status, a dangerous move which, if it is aloud to proceed, will have devastating consequences, and almost certainly lead to war.   The PLO has already gone on record saying such a new Palestinian state would be devoid of any and all Jews.  Considering they want a part of Israel to claim as their own, (a piece the size of which they will never be satisfied with), land which is presently occupied with Jews, the ramifications are obvious – mass expulsions.  It’s hard to believe these Jews would go quietly.  They didn’t even go quietly when they were removed by their own government from the Gaza Strip.

The United States has promised to veto any move to allow Palestinian statehood, and to keep such a bid from ever reaching the United Nations.  Many are nonetheless fearful that in doing so, new violence would emerge.  However, it must be recognized that there would be violence regardless.  The PLO, Hamas, Palestinians in general, and the Middle East at large, have yet to affirm Israel’s own right to exist.  Quite humorous, then, and no hypocrisy whatsoever, this is exactly what the Palestinians are demanding for themselves.

The question has to be asked – do the Palestinians really want statehood, or do they really want the State of Israel itself.  In other words, would they accept statehood status if land was offered from Egypt, Syria, Iran or any other Middle east nation?  God knows these nations have plenty of open, fertile space between them to offer up the Palestinians.  (And not many, if any, Jews residing in the area.)  And such a move would be praised by the United States, and, although reluctantly, the U.N. (The U.N. is no fan of Israel.)  It would promote peace and prosperity for the Palestinians, promote pride in their newly formed state and gain accolades from leaders all over the world.  It is of no surprise the PLO is reluctant to even consider such an move.  Their agenda is clear – the annexation of all Israeli land and the annihilation of all the Jews.  This is their mantra and they won’t be satisfied until it has been met.

We, that is, America (there really isn’t anyone else) must be firm.  Absolutely no statehood for the Palestinians.  Not until long after they have ceased their attacks, given up entirely their goal of conquest, dismantled the PLO, Hamas and any other anti-Israel terror organization, accepted Israel’s right to exist and have shown and demonstrated a very real and genuine attempt to live peaceably with its Jewish neighbors.   They don’t have to invite each other over for tea, or even carry on a social conversation with one another.

But there must absolutely be peace.  A peace strongly enforced by a new Palestinian government, free of any links to terrorism or terrorists.  And if any Israeli land is to be annexed and incorporated into this new Palestinian state, (though this seems unnecessary) it ought to be done with the full cooperation of the Israeli government and its people.  Included in this agreement, a legal stipulation that if ever the Palestinians recreate the PLO, Hamas or any Palestinian organization, under any name, affiliate themselves with any anti-Israeli terror groups in any way, however remote; if the Palestinians ever again attempt to seize control of Israeli land, wage, or sponsor, attacks against Israel, or do not suppress such attacks by its own people, such a move would automatically revert any and all land earlier annexed for the new Palestinian state back to Israel.

Until that happens – the PLO, and all Palestinians, ought to keep their hands and their eyes off Israel.  It is the prize of the Israelis.

September 18, 2011 Posted by | governement, Israel, Obama, politics | , , , , , | Leave a Comment

Attack Watch Under Conservative Attack

Attack Watch, new Obama campaign site to ‘fight smears,’ becomes laughing stock of conservatives – BlogPost – The Washington Post.

Obama was probably rubbing his hands in anticipation when this farce of a website went public.  However, has become, for Obama, more of a migraine to him in just the last 24 hours of existence, than Joe, the old gaffe, Biden ever could.  It also proves that conservatives, not liberals, have a sense of humor.

So long as lasts, (which might not be that much longer) one thing is for certain – conservatives will get more out of it than liberals ever hoped to put in it.

September 14, 2011 Posted by | Obama, politics | , , | 1 Comment



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.