The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Taliban Wants “Peace”; Obama Bows, Says, “Yes, Master”.

What exactly does the United States get in return for negotiating “peace” with Taliban terrorists?  Considering that the Taliban only wants to negotiate for one provision, and that “peace” apparently will only ensue after their demands are met.

Said Maulavi Qalamuddin, the former minister of vice and virtue for the Taliban:

“The only thing is the negotiations over release of Taliban prisoners from Guantánamo, which is still under discussion between both sides in Qatar.”

The Obama Administration seems to be beating down the door in order to meet the Taliban’s “request”.

So again, after Obama bows down before terrorists, licks their blood stained boots and acquiesces to their demands; after Obama frees some of the worlds most fierce terrorists back into the hands of the Taliban, what does America get in return?  A hearty hand shake and a “thank you”, from the same terrorists who slaughtered 3000 of us on September 11, 2001?  A reassurance that the Taliban will no longer kill American soldiers, so long as those soldiers pull out and leave the Middle East; so long as America does not interfere with the Taliban’s cruelty, its inhumane treatment of its own people, especially women and girls; so long as the Taliban can continue buying weapons for its own use against America’s allies (like Israel) and selling weapons to its allies, to be used against America’s allies (like Israel); so long as America looks the other way as the Taliban regroups, retrains its forces and expands its political and military power and reemerges stronger, and more defiant than ever – and looking for revenge?

Mr. Grossman, [the Obama administration’s special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan] at a news conference in Kabul last week, said that real peace talks could begin only after the Taliban renounced international terrorism and agreed to support a peace process to end the armed conflict.

But the Taliban won’t even consider doing that until after its comrades in Gitmo have been released.  And supposing they actually remain “true to their word” and “renounce international terrorism”, what then becomes of the point to their organization?  In other words, the Taliban is a terrorist organization.  That was what it was created to be.  Does the world expect its members to so rashly trade in their assault weapons for flowers and transform themselves into hippies?  Can anyone imagine a Taliban soldier uttering, “Peace, man”, or “Make love, not war”?

If the Taliban ever gave up its terrorist agenda, how well would that sit with Al-Qaeda or any other fanatical, terrorist, Muslim Jihadist cult?  To say the Taliban would become a mere laughing stock within terrorist circles is an understatement.  They would be annihilated by their fellow terrorist comrades, and the Taliban knows it.  They have absolutely no intention to give up, to “renounce international terrorism”, to turn a new page, to “give peace a chance”.  Here’s some evidence to that:

The latest Afghan National Intelligence Estimate warns that the Taliban will grow stronger, using the talks to gain credibility and run out the clock until U.S. troops depart Afghanistan, while continuing to fight for more territory, say U.S. officials who have read the classified document.

Let’s assume Obama has been briefed, and he knows full well the Taliban’s real intentions.  What does that say about Obama himself, his character, his real intentions?  If Obama knows the Taliban is both lying and stalling for time, what does it say about a President, a Commander-in-Chief, who is willing to bow down to the feet of a terrorist group, give them what they want and be humble and grateful when they cover him in a barrage of spit afterwards?

Couldn’t we posit that Obama is more concerned about being reelected than anything else, including the War on Terror and stability, real peace, in the Middle East?  That Obama is using the “peace” negotiations to his advantage, to further his own reelection bid, the same as the Taliban is using it to theirs, to further their own continued terrorist agenda?  That Obama’s motivations for “peace” are driven by his desire to be reelected at any cost, and nothing more?  That Obama is intelligent enough to know the Taliban will never be provoked into “renouncing international terrorism”?  And once Obama is reelected, should that unfortunate mistake be made; and after the Taliban prisoners at Gitmo are released – and after the Taliban reneges in its assurance of “peace”, can we expect the same grotesque smile from Obama he is apt to make after one of his weak jokes, and an even weaker response such as, “The Taliban has acted stupidly”?

Of course, there is the possibility his cabinet is hiding the information from him.  But, how likely is that?  And, which is more likely the real reason Obama is in such a hurry to make “peace” with the Taliban?

The former Taliban officials here described fairly advanced discussions in Qatar about the transfer of prisoners. One former official, Syed Muhammad Akbar Agha, who had been a Taliban military commander, said that five Taliban prisoners were to be transferred in two phases, two or three in one group and then the remainder.

There has also been discussion in Qatar of removing some Taliban members from NATO’s “kill or capture” lists, the former Taliban officials said.

And America gets what, again, in exchange for bowing down before a group of blood-thirsty, Jihadist rabble-rousers whose ideology is rooted in the 7th century A.D.?  What exactly does the United States get in return for negotiating “peace” with Taliban terrorists?  Ah, but of course!  We get Obama reelected to a second term in the White House.

Ladies and gentlemen – Is an Obama second term worth the price of “peace” the Taliban has brought to the table?

January 29, 2012 Posted by | Barack Obama, politics, War On Terror | , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment

Arianna Nation, Catherine Crier Says To Government, “Stay Barefoot And Pregnant”

Apparently Catherine Crier thinks jobs ought to come from the womb of federal government.  Imagine that picture.  And although the federal government does not create a single job in the private sector, the harmful policies and regulations passed by Barack Obama and the Democrat Party have caused the deaths of millions and millions of private sector jobs which has resulted in the collapse of our economy.

Catherine, pregnant with liberal lies and falsehoods, and shilling for the Democrat Party by adding her one and a half cents to the Huffington Post, now known as the Arianna Nation, a soft arm of the Democrat Party, treats the federal government exactly like a fertile womb.  In that sense, government has birthed millions of public sector jobs, millions more than are necessary.  And while it’s time for government to have its tubes tied, that is hard to do.  Democrats want even more “government babies”, millions more.  Democrats essentially want to keep the federal government barefoot and pregnant, cranking out “government baby” after “government baby”, ad infinitum.  The problem is – someone has to pay for all these “government babies”.  That’s us, every single tax payer in America.

Catherine writes:

Yesterday morning, I listened as Romney surrogate Chris Chocola, Club for Growth, repeated the Republican mantra that government doesn’t create a single job.”

This supercilious diatribe, common among Democrats, is consistent with their belief that job creation is the domain of the federal government and we ought to be grateful for all the millions of unnecessary public sector government jobs the Democrats have had a hand in creating.  Indeed, millions of Americans have “benefited” by being hired to do the jobs, at taxpayer expense, which could be done more efficiently within the private sector, which does not cost taxpayers anything. (That is – if these jobs are even necessary, which, in many cases, are merely a waste of taxpayer dollars.  Think of the Education Department.)

Except for the defense of our nation, government does not create a single job, nor is it its responsibility to do so.  Government certainly does not create a single job which drives the engines of our economy.  That is the domain of the private sector, which is being, and has been, ravaged and raped by Catherine’s liberal comrades in the Democrat Party; the same party that wants to annihilate our Defense Department while expanding every other area of our already over-bloated government.  It’s exactly what the Democrat Party, her party, and Barack Obama want to do at the same time Catherine writes:

Try shutting down our national security apparatus — defense, homeland security, intelligence, all the support contractors right down to farmers, uniform suppliers…”

Have Democrats ever supported homeland security?  Considering border security falls under homeland security, as does Gitmo, it can be said there is not much love or respect among Democrats for the defense of our nation.  In fact, the Defense Department is the one and only area of government Democrats would be willing to abolish.  Every other area of government, irrelevant to our nation, is nonetheless vital to the Democrat Party itself.  The billions of dollars Democrats are able to funnel into the Education Department, HUD, Agriculture, the EPA, Energy and others is what has helped the Democrat Party remain as politically powerful and influential as it is.  So it is not shocking that Catherine would defend them.

…We don’t have to argue about all those public employees outside the military-industrial complex that seem to be dispensable these days — the cops, teachers and firefighters, or the scientists and engineers that, thanks to taxpayer R&D, gave us the Internet, GPS and countless life-saving drugs or, gasp, clean air and water.

She has probably already received that email from Al Gore about the internet.  Cops, teachers and firefighters ought not be, if they are, paid by the federal government but by their own states.  Abolishing the Education Department will help to do that.  As for R&D, the billions of dollars government “invests” in new technologies could be better and more wisely invested by private entrepreneurs and investors if government was not so over-taxing, literally.

The same Democrat Party Catherine applauds for do so much for American innovation by taking money away from working Americans, giving it to government, which in turn hands that money over to research and development could be better filtered through the hands of private investors directly.  Doing this will find a cure for cancer much quicker than having to first go through the enormous roadblocks and red tape government has set in place.  That we do not have a cure for cancer, or cures for more types of cancer, now is the direct fault of the Democrat Party interfering in the private sector.  Government, led by the Democrat Party, and with all its multilevel public sector government bureaucrats, has hindered and slowed the  growth of new and improved inventions and technologies – not improved it.  One can only wonder about the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted and forever lost by government in schemes which never came to be.

Catherine is also worried Republicans are tying to shut down all those government “companies making million dollar toilet seats”, and terrified that eliminating any government public sector jobs will result in “global depression”.  But she is not all that worried about tens of thousands of military personnel losing their jobs, nor is she worried about border security agents losing their jobs.  Her priorities with regards to what jobs government creates, and which ones it eliminates, are dangerously askew.

And if there are “companies making those million dollar toilet seats”, is there any doubt these seats were meant to be “graced” by the backsides of Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Wassermann Shultz and other Democrats who think they are too good, too important to use a public toilet?  If our government really is spending that much money on toilet seats, which is not that hard to imagine it is, this is an area both Democrats and Republicans can agree needs to be stopped.

Each Republican candidate says they will push through lower taxes and cut regulations — a sure way to unleash the currently oppressed private economy. If this oft-repeated theory of domestic growth is correct, then why were the Bush years, with a Republican Congress cutting taxes and regulations in six of the eight years, such an abysmal time for job creation?

An unexpected attack on our nation, the necessary war which followed, a natural recession in a twenty year cycle (but which the Democrat Party let get out of hand) and still too high taxes and tax rates on business is why job growth, business expansion and our economy stagnated, then tanked.  George Bush, and the Republican Party had an opportunity after the 2004 election victory to correct this.  They failed, for whatever reason.  In that sense, Bush was “at fault” in part for the collapse of our economy.

However, Democrats made it worse in 2006, and after the election of Barack Obama in 2008.  It has only gotten slightly better after the 2010 election and the Republican victory in the House, and the added pick-ups in the Senate which took away the majority 60 votes Democrats needed to override Republican vetoes.  Had the Democrats regained the House and kept at least sixty Senate seats, our economy, our nation would be much worse off than it is now.  We would still continue to be pummeled by the reckless policies and legislation they were able to pass in the first two years of Obama’s Presidency.  Those Bush tax cuts which Democrats hate, but which gave life to our economy would now be abolished, more businesses would have failed, millions more people would be out of work and unemployment percentages would be in the teens.

Cutting taxes and tax rates works.  Getting government the hell out of the private sector allows for job creation, and Catherine is simply lying that we need government to create jobs in America.  The only jobs government creates are those we, the American taxpayer, must foot the bill for.

Catherine is right about one thing she writes:

Whether you’re a liberal or conservative, you should demand honest information before making decisions. Supporting policies based on utter nonsense is insane, period.

And supporting policies which enlarge and expand an already obese government “based on utter nonsense” is also “insane, period”.  But Catherine wants even more “government babies” for fear the sky will fall.  In the meantime, taxpayers are on “diaper duty”, forced to clean up the mess made by the Democrat Party’s insatiable urge for a large “family”.

So, do go ahead and repeat after Catherine:

Government doesn’t create any jobs, tax cuts at the top and corporate deregulation does, and yes, dear, the stork delivers babies.”

This will help you from living the fairy tale Catherine is, sadly, living for herself, and for which she is instilling in her children.

Do you want her teaching this all too scary fairy tale to your children?

January 13, 2012 Posted by | 2012 election, government, politics | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment

Ariannna Nation (HuffPost) Exposes Liberalism’s Harsh Realities, Prejudices Against The Poor

At the Huffington Post (Arianna Nation), there is a story concerning “class conflict awareness.”  This is odd for three reasons.  First, there is no real “class” structure in America.  There is income divides, but America, unlike Europe of old, does not have a system in place where by if you are born into a lower class you remain in a lower class your whole life.  In America, anyone born in poverty has a real opportunity to rise up and out of it and move into the middle and upper echelons.  There are countless, and many told, stories to prove this.  Secondly, the Arianna Nation, in its broad, but failed, attempt to sock it to conservatives once against falls flat on its own butt.  The reason for the income divide in America has everything to do with liberalism and the policies and legislation liberals have been able to pass which have crippled business in America and have resulted in America’s economy tanking, job loss, home foreclosures, the high rate of unemployment, etc.  Thirdly, “class conflict awareness” is simply another term, a euphemism, describing jealousy.  Poor people are jealous of the rich.  What else is new?

Significantly more Americans see “very strong” or “strong” class conflict between the rich and poor, according to a survey released Wednesday by the Pew Research Center. The results show that Americans think that conflicts between the rich and poor are stronger than immigrant and native born, black and white and young and old.

In other words, poor Americans who have embraced liberalism, have championed liberalism, have gone to bat and cheer-leaded for liberalism, have bought into liberalism all their lives – have been deceived and screwed by liberalism, which was liberalism’s intention all along.  Being poor and liberal is a deadly combination.  How many poor people who follow liberalism religiously ever get out of poverty?

Poor people are inundated with liberal propaganda telling them their poverty is a result of the “rich getting richer” off their backs.  But what liberalism never explains to poor Americans is how they can reverse their poverty status and become, if not wealthy, then wealthier.  That, of course, would be counter productive to liberalism since liberalism can only exist so long as a substantial number and percentage of people remain convinced their poverty is a result of the “evil rich” and conservatives who, purportedly, but not in actuality, don’t care about the poor.

Liberalism is the “Jack the Ripper” of economics.  Does anyone really believe that a business owner who has had their taxes and their tax rate raised by liberal politicians, and is threatened with having those taxes raised higher, is going say, “Well, now that I have less money for my business and myself, and will soon have even less than that, I can pay my employees more,”?  Is that how business works?

Ladies and gentlemen, if you did not already know, (and unfortunately most liberals still refuse to accept this reality) no business can function properly and effectively the higher its taxes are.  Yet, liberals demand more from business owners under the guise and smoke screen of “paying their fair share”.  It’s a canard.  It’s a type of psychological warfare liberal politicians use to keep their base, composed mostly of poor Americans, energized and brainwashed, and to psychologically stun and debilitate business owners, shaming them into thinking one’s poverty is their, the business owner’s, fault.

The ongoing economic recession also may have magnified class differences as income inequality has risen.

The economic crash America has suffered, and continues to endure, was designed by liberal politicians.  We have higher unemployment now, over 8%, than when Obama took office.  The reason for this is because during Obama’s first two years, the Democrat Party held control over both the House and the Senate, which allowed them to pass their liberal, anti-business, anti-capitalist agenda.  Had McCain won the Presidency, and/or had Republicans won the House and Senate, we would not have been in this economic mess because Republicans would have blocked Democrats from instigating destructive legislation, such as TARP, and other socialistic programs, and they would have blocked the Democrats from dramatically raising the debt ceiling.

Had Republicans retained the White House, had they won the House and Senate, this recession would have been over by now and unemployment, which was just over 7% in January 2009, would have steady fallen as conservatives began passing meaningful business tax cuts, cutting meaningless regulations, cutting out unnecessary government programs which only purpose is to keep the poor, poor, and cutting the size and scope of government itself.  We would not be over 15 trillion dollars in debt if Republicans were in control.  Why are the poor not as outraged as they ought to be that Barack Obama has spent so many trillions of dollars and provided them with little to nothing to show for it?  If poverty is getting worse, which liberals contend, and if government is spending more to “fix” poverty, why are their policies making the poor suffer more?  The answer is one in which the poor don’t want to stomach.

Democrats in general — and President Barack Obama in specific — have also spoken out about income inequality. “Now, this kind of inequality — a level that we haven’t seen since the Great Depression — hurts us all…”

Here is a reality check.  One cannot get their-self out of poverty on a welfare or unemployment check.  Nor can one expect to move into the middle or upper class by levying higher taxes and regulations on the “rich”.  The more businesses are taxed, the less business owners have in which to invest in their businesses – including their employees.  Although this is common sense, there are too many people who still cannot understand the simplest, the most basic of economics.  The “fair share” liberals always whine about is money in which business owners will pass along to both their costumers and their employees.  Their employees will bear the brunt of the “fair share” tax hikes first by either losing benefits, hours, wages, raises, etc., or by being fired as business owners are forced to downsize their business, and their workforce, in order to remain afloat.  In other words, a business owner will sacrifice their employees before their customers, and a business owner will sacrifice their employees before they sacrifice their business.

Here is one more reality check.  Once a person actually does move into the middle class, from poverty, and realizes how much money the government is taking from their paycheck, how much more the government wants to take away, and how the government will turn a blind eye to the middle class, it dawns on them how destructive liberalism really is.  If you want the government to take care of you, remain poor.  But it comes with a heavy price.  You must always remain poor.

That is the destructive hold liberalism has over the poor in America.  And that is “the answer the poor do not want to stomach”.  Barack Obama and the Democrat Party have spent trillions of dollars, racked up more debt in three years than George Bush racked up in his eight years in office – mostly waging an important and necessary War on Terror.  For all that money Obama wasted, which must at some point be paid back, more people are in poverty now than were in poverty when he took office.  Do we see the correlation to liberal policy and poverty, and the rate and increase in poverty as a result of liberal policy?

If you were poor in 2008 and you voted for Obama, and you yet remain in poverty, who is really to blame for your economic situation?  How will voting for Obama, for Obama’s liberal policies, in 2012 make any more of a positive difference for you, your family, than was made then?

In other words – are you better off now than you were four years ago?  And, how will re-electing Obama move you out of poverty if it didn’t do so then?

January 12, 2012 Posted by | politics | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment

Obama Is A Socialist! Why Are We Afraid To Admit It?

Do we not imperil America more by denying, by repressing Obama’s socialism?  Or is it the fear of drawing increasingly negative attention to ourselves by attacking the politics of Obama that we most fear?  Shouldn’t we most fear the loss of America itself, and use that as our strength and determination, our rallying call, the reason for our vocal dissent?

Obama gave another speech we all ought to fear.   Said Obama:

Remember that in 2001 and 2003, Congress passed two of the most expensive tax cuts for the wealthy in history, and what did they get us?  The slowest job growth in half a century.  Massive deficits that have made it much harder to pay for the investments that built this country and provided the basic security that helped millions of Americans reach and stay in the middle class – things like education and infrastructure; science and technology; Medicare and Social Security.

If this is true, if this is not just another Obama lie, how does he, how does any liberal, explain the fact that we had under 5% unemployment in those early years?

How does Obama explain that during those years of  “expensive tax cuts” and despite the aftermath of 9/11, our war in Iraq and our increased involvement in the Middle East, not only were deficits not “massive”, compared to today’s deficits under Obama, the entire national debt was roughly about a third of what it is now and gas was under $2.00 a gallon?

George Bush did make a fundamental mistake with No Child Left Behind and his Medicare Prescription Drug Modernization Act.  However, the Bush tax cuts helped prevent the massive unemployment we are now living with and the recession we are living in.  If the Democrats had not taken control of congress in 2006 further cuts could have been made, legislation could have been passed to slow the growth of government, millions of jobs would not have been lost and either we would not have had a recession or it would have been a mild one – and we would have recovered from it by now.

Recessions don’t last for years and years, historically.  Yet, this recession has lasted five years, and we are being told it will last for years more, for the “foreseeable future”.  When all is said and done, this recession will have lasted longer than our Great Depression!

We are being told by Obama and the Democrat Party that we have to “spend our way” out of this recession.  We have been doing precisely that since Obama took office, and the more we have “spent our way” out of this recession, the more deeper we have dug ourselves into this recession.  Aren’t we smart enough to see the correlation between “more spending” and how deeper the hole becomes?

Obama says raising taxing on millionaires is the answer to solving our economic crisis; that raising taxes on millionaires will somehow create jobs ( higher paying jobs) and somehow reduce the deficit.  Aren’t we smart enough by now to know that millionaires are the ones with the capital to invest in business and the economy?  Aren’t we smart enough to know by now that millionaires have access to tax shelters to protect their money from being confiscated by the government?  Isn’t Obama smart enough to know that?  Aren’t we smart enough to know by now that once taxes are raised on millionaires, Obama will use those extra funds to further expand government, rather than reduce the deficit?  Aren’t we smart enough to know by now that there is a direct correlation between raising taxes on the rich, and the rising unemployment rate?  Does Obama think we aren’t smart enough by now to know what the real driving force behind our recession is?

Remember, this recession did not occur until after the Democrats took control of congress in 2006.  The recession only got worse, deficits dramatically increased, unemployed imploded, government dependence skyrocketed.  Conservatives won a victory in 2010 by taking back the House.  It was enough to stop Democrats from further destruction, but not enough to reverse the devastation that has laid waste to our economy.

If we continue allowing Obama to trash America, the greatness of America, America’s past greatness which freed hundreds of millions of people from the types of despots and dictators and evil men who held the same socialistic ideals Obama himself praises, and disregard the future greatness that America holds for us, our children and future generations; if we bow to Obama and his agenda of big government, more radical government, more government involvement in our lives; if we bend to Obama’s political will out of some exaggerated fear we will embarrass ourselves, we will discredit ourselves, we will diminish ourselves and our conservative cause – we will ultimately lose that cause.  There is no progress in apathy.

Socialism is defined, in part, by a system of wealth redistribution – collected and controlled by government.  In the end, however, while the people may have an “equal share” of the pie, it is government itself which controls the biggest portion of that pie; it is government, by socialistic design, which holds the deed for all the wealth, including the wealth they redistributed to the people.  It is government, by socialistic design, which has power over the people, because while the people have an “equal share” it is never enough to secure independence.  An “equal share” of the wealth does not mean, nor is it ever intended to mean, the people will ever be wealthy.

Socialism, by design, is an “equal share” in government dependence.  Socialism, by design, is an “equal share” in the perpetual poverty of the whole population.  Socialism, by design, is meant to make government all powerful and to equally disenfranchise the whole population.  Socialism, by design, is monarchy, theocracy, autocracy, disguised as something less frightening, more benevolent.  Socialism, by definition, is really nothing more than absolute government control over the people.  Socialism, by design, is dictatorship!

The people, having been lied to, misled, brainwashed by socialism’s so called “good nature”, it’s “tax the rich, give to the poor”  idealism and “wealth redistribution”, it’s call for revenge and retribution against the “evil” and “greedy” rich, its anti-capitalist ideology that millions of Americans have not had an opportunity to share in is appealing enough to those people who cannot escape the poverty they are living through.

If someone (such as Democrats and liberals do) promises to give them something they never had, they never thought they would have, and all that had to be done to make that happen was to raise taxes on the rich, that is enough to instill loyalty in an ideology that, if one were to examine closely, would understand is no different from any type of previous government dictatorship.

If this is not what Obama is advocating, if this is not what Obama is selling, if this is not what Obama is pursuing, if this is not what Obama and the Democrat Party have become, then, if not socialism, what else do you call it?

December 7, 2011 Posted by | 2012 election, Obama's lies, politics | , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Calling The Pope A Nazi Is Heroic? Calling Obama A Failed President Is Racist?

When Susan Sarandon called Pope Benedict XVI a Nazi what exactly was she hoping to gain by the remark?  Does she really believe the Pope is a Nazi or was she just having a bad a day and needed to vent?  Does Susan even know what a Nazi is?  That is a fair question to ask of a liberal, any liberal, such as Susan who, on the one hand supports abortion on demand, but on the other hand, opposes the death penalty as much as the Pope she called a Nazi.  (She starred in “Dead Man Walking”, in 1995, a movie with anti-death penalty themes.)  And liberals have a strong tendency to simply throw around words to see where they stick.  The problem here, of course, is that there is nowhere for “Nazi” to stick when referring to Pope Benedict XVI.

Perhaps she was referring to the Pope’s earlier, albeit brief, ties to Nazism when, in his youth, and when he was known by his German name Joseph Ratzinger, he was forced to join Hitler’s Youth, as were all young Germans at the time.  But the war ended, Nazism failed, and Joseph, who never embraced Nazism to begin with, grew up to be a strong Catholic and eventually Pope, after the death of Pope John Paul II.

One is hard pressed to find a liberal who has the courage to openly show respect for such a man as Pope Benedict XVI.  Why did Susan Sarandon really call the Pope a Nazi?  More than likely it is because she is a deeply convicted liberal and he is a deeply religious conservative who opposes abortion, homosexuality and gay marriage, socialism and the socialist agenda which seeks to uproot and overthrow religion and religious institutions.  When do you ever see, or hear of, a conservative calling a liberal a Nazi?  (Maybe Rush Limbaugh when he refers to feminists as femi-Nazis.  And it might do well to examine the term more in-depth and find out how much truth there is to it.)

Liberals, hypocrites as they are, have no problem with throwing around such words as ‘Nazi” when it comes to conservatives, and in particular religious conservatives; and left wing extremist pro abortion groups like NOW, have no problem calling pro-life activists terrorists.  But when conservatives use words like “I hope Obama fails”, Obama is a failure, Obama, the first black U.S. President, is the worst President in U.S. history – we are labeled racists, despite the fact that when we use words, we can usually back them up; and despite the fact that liberals called George W. Bush, his father and former President George H. W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan much, much worse during their Presidencies.

And yet, Obama has failed to produce the millions of jobs he promised he would.  Obama has failed to turn our economy around as he promised he would.  Obama has failed to cut taxes on the middle class as he promised he would.  And Obama has failed to end partisanship in politics and in America with regards to race as he promised he would.  Race relations in America are worse now than they were before Obama took office – and that is the direct fault of black liberals in congress and all over America.  The racism we are seeing now in America is coming most directly from liberal blacks, not conservative whites.

Barack Obama is a failed President.  (And this is mostly a good thing for America and all Americans.)

Why?

Because the way in which Obama wanted jobs to be created in America would have cost American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars and would only have created government, public sector jobs and expanded government itself.  In other words, the only jobs Obama is concerned with creating are those that grow the size and scope of government, but which do not expand the size and scope of the economy.  The more we grow government, the more government jobs we create, the more it costs all taxpayers.  However, creating jobs in the private sector not only costs taxpayers nothing, it not only aides the economy and economic growth, it also generates new tax revenue.  To create a government, public sector job, you must pay someone with the money collected through taxes.  To create a private sector job, a business owner must pay someone out of their own pocket.

Certainly we, as conservatives, hope Obama fails to achieve his ultimate goal of bigger government, higher taxes and less freedom and liberty for all Americans.  Certainly we, as conservatives, know how much better off America, Americanism and all freedom loving Americans will be should Obama fail to achieve these goals.  Certainly we, as conservatives, know that by hoping Obama fails in his goals, we are not applying racism behind our motives.  If Obama were white, and he, as a white President, had the same agenda, we would hope for his failure just as aggressively.

So no, Pope Benedict XVI is no more a Nazi than conservatives are racists.  And liberals, like Susan Sarandon and Barack Obama, are no more saints, heroes or anybody to look up to and admire than was Hitler.

October 20, 2011 Posted by | 2012 election, anti-Christian, government, Hollywood liberals, Obama's lies, politics, religion | , , , , , , , , , | 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

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 (attackwatch.com 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 attackwatch.com.  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.

Truth:

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:

Truth:

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 attackwatck.com 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

   

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.