Facts about Obama's 47%

“An ever-shrinking number of Americans finance an ever-growing proportion of the government’s budget. It’s always easier to force sacrifice on an unpopular minority than it is to ask the majority to pony up." 

Howie Carr: “A huge percentage of Obama’s voters are basically wards of the state. There are millions of them, and they have no intention of voting for anyone who might want them to ever go out and work for a living.”

This graph tells you all you need to know about who pays what taxes in America. The bottom 50% pay 2% of taxes.

NEW VIDEO..UNEARTHED!! Barack Obama In 1995: 'We Need a Democracy with a Small "D"! THE SOCIALIST HUSSEIN OBAMA EXPOSED AGAIN!! If this country is willing to seat a President who has an AFROCENTRIC world view ...then we deserve what we get!! .

THE SOCIALIST HUSSEIN OBAMA EXPOSED AGAIN!! If this country is willing to seat a President who has an AFROCENTRIC world view ...then we deserve what we get!!

THE SOCIALIST HUSSEIN OBAMA EXPOSED AGAIN!! If this country is willing to seat a President who has an AFROCENTRIC world view ...then we deserve what we get!!


A 1995 video depicts Barack Obama calling for "democracy with a small 'd'  while pushing a society based on collectivism and "common good." In the video unearthed by KleinOnline, Obama hails unions and collective bargaining as encapsulating the societal "common good" of
which he speaks. Obama urges society to collectively move "forward" -- a word that would later serve as his 2012 campaign slogan.


Obama was speaking in an Aug. 11, 1995 interview pushing his just published book, "Dreams From My Father." At the time, Obama was a community organizer planning to launch a political career.
Obama tells the interviewer the "best part" of the dream of his "African father and white American mother," was the "notion that we collectively can decide on our fate." He continued: "That things like technological change, things like mass media, things like the market are all subject to our control. That
we can make decisions for better or for worse and continue to move forward and progress."The interviewer then asked Obama whether he is "willing to stake your political career on your common ground?"


"That's the core of my faith," Obama replied.

HELL NO!!! UN Resolution 1618, Free speech banned by UN, UN tries to usurp our laws

You Could You Be A Criminal for speaking against ISLAM !!
HILLARY CLINTON AND HUSSEIN OBAMA Supports UN Anti-Free Speech Measure

Comment by Jim Campbell
Of course this is absolute nonsense the US can’t participate in this attempt at political correctness.  This entire charade was cooked up by Secretary of State Hilary Clinton.  You know this same ignorant lawyer that believes the US could be bound by her favorite the U.N. Gun Ban Treaty.

In March, the Obama administration thwarted the OIC’s attempt to win United Nations Human Rights Council passage of a resolution calling for criminal penalties for the “defamation of religions.” The following month, Washington engineered Council passage of Resolution 16/18, a nonbinding measure which did not censor speech.

 

Our Motto: Cooperate or die.

The victory didn’t last long. In July, Secretary of State Clinton revived the issue when she co-chaired an OIC session in Istanbul dealing with “religious intolerance.” Clinton called on countries to “counter offensive expression through education, interfaith dialogue and public debate,” while emphasizing that speech restrictions were unacceptable. She invited conference attendees to a follow-up meeting to continue the dialogue.

OIC officials seized on Clinton’s offer by stepping up their campaign for blasphemy laws and speech codes.
So here’s a quick refresher on the Constitution Mrs. soon to be X-Secretary of State .  It’s called the Constitution.  Of course you refuse to acknowledge the existence of the U.S. Constitution but it dose not bind the United States to any treaty or legislation that is Unconstitutional.  I know you hate it but we still have the First Amendment and let’s not forget the Tenth Amendment either.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it, I’m J.C. and I approve this message.

You got to love it when those that oppose free speech as part of their totalitarian cult demand it when others speak out against the atrocities committed at the behest of a Seventh Century mad man. 

Forbes Magazine
While you were out scavenging the Wal-Mart super sales or trying on trinkets at Tiffany and Cartier, your government has been quietly wrapping up a Christmas gift of its own: adoption of UN resolution 16/18. An initiative of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (formerly Organization of Islamic Conferences), the confederacy of 56 Islamic states, Resolution 16/18 seeks to limit speech that is viewed as “discriminatory” or which involves the “defamation of religion” – specifically that which can be viewed as “incitement to imminent violence.”
Whatever that means.
Initially proposed in response to alleged discrimination against Muslims in the aftermath of 9/11 and in an effort to clamp down on anti-Muslim attacks in non-Muslim countries, Resolution 16/18 has been through a number of revisions over the years in order to make it palatable to American representatives concerned about U.S. Constitutional guarantees of free speech. Previous versions of the Resolution, which sought to criminalize blasphemous speech and the “defamation of religion,” were regularly rejected by the American delegation and by the US State Department, which insisted that limitations on speech – even speech deemed to be racist or blasphemous – were at odds with the Constitution. But this latest version, which includes the “incitement to imminent violence” phrase – that is, which criminalizes speech which incites violence against others on the basis of religion, race, or national origin – has succeeded in winning US approval –despite the fact that it (indirectly) places limitations as well on speech considered “blasphemous.”

What’s worse, the measure codifies into the UN agenda support for the very notion democracies now wrestle with, and which threatens to destroy the very fabric of our culture: tolerance of the intolerant, or rather, the question of whether a tolerant society must also tolerate ways of life that are intolerant – that oppress women, say, or advocate violence against homosexuals, or force strangers to marry against their will. It is, in fact, this very concept that the OIC has long pressured Western governments to adopt in other ways, and that those supporting the adoption of Sharia law in the west have emphasized. Yet if we fall into that trap – as it appears we are – we will have lost the very heart of who we are.
The Good, The Bad…
Those who support the new measure rightly laud its recognition of the importance of free debate. and the inclusion of new clauses that call for “speaking out against intolerance, including advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence” and “[foster ing] religious freedom and pluralism by promoting the ability of members of all religious communities to manifest their religion, and to contribute openly and on an equal footing to society.”
What opponents (rightly) find distressing are calls to adopt “measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief.”
(Additional clauses that call for countering religious profiling are also questionable, however civil rights organizations may feel about this, given the problems of Islamic terrorism in the real world. But that’s another matter.)
Oddly, Human Rights First, which previously loudly opposed the initiative for its limitation on “blasphemous speech,” is among those who now praise the newer version. In a statement, the organization opined:
Rather than imposing new restrictions on freedom of speech, which it does not, the new consensus resolution opens the door to an action-oriented approach to fighting religious intolerance. That is very consistent with the U.S. policies and practices – combat violence, discrimination and hatred without restricting freedom of speech. Resolution 16/18 urges states to train government officials to address religious tensions, to harmonize actions at local and national level, to raise awareness of negative stereotyping of persons, to promote interfaith and intercultural dialogue, to foster religious freedom and to speak out against intolerance (among other recommendations). The only limitation on speech that is in the operative part of the resolution is incitement to “imminent violence”, which is in accordance with US law.
But others are less forgiving, noting, among other things, that the resolution does nothing to prevent the continued use of anti-Jewish materials in the schools of Saudi Arabia (where the Protocols of Zion are treated as fact, thereby absolving Saudis of charges of “racism”) or the ongoing persecution of Jews and Christians in numerous Muslim countries. And yet, ironically,it was exactly those same countries who initiated the motion, as put forth in its initial drafts by the General Assembly, with expressions of concern for “cases motivated by Islamophobia, Judeophobia, and Christanophobia.”
Indeed, as M. Zuhdi Jasser, an observant American Muslim and the founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, remarked in an e-mail, “Anyone who believes that Resolution 16’18 is some kind of a breakthrough is sadly being duped by the most obvious Islamist double discourse. The shift from ‘defamation’ to ‘incitement’ does nothing at all to change the basic paradigm where Islamist nations remain in the offen se, continuing to put Western, free nations on the defense.” Rather, said Jasser, “We should be putting Islamist autocracies on the defense and then simply reiterate that our First Amendment principles already protect the rights of all minorities — whether Muslim or otherwise — and that the best standard of free speech is the American one. Beginning to categorize speech as ‘incitement’ is a slippery slope that could open the floodgates for any post-tragedy analysis to indict what would otherwise be free speech absurdly as incitement in some far-fetched cause-effect analysis that would depend on proving that speech causes violence.”
Exactly.
It is, indeed, galling to think that we would enter into negotiations of any kind, with anyone, about the freedom of expression that is so central to our very way of life and the core of the founding of America. Ever.
The background to all of this, unsurprisingly, is an effort on the part of Muslim countries to limit what they consider to be defamatory and blasphemous speech: criticism of Islam, say, or insulting the prophet Mohammed – which, as we’ve learned, can mean anything from drawing a cartoon or making a joke in a comedy sketch to burning a Koran. Such acts – according to some readings of the Koran and, indeed, according to law in some IOC countries – are punishable by death. Hence the riots that met the publication of the so-called “Danish cartoons,” the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, the murder of Theo van Gogh, and on and on.
… And The Deceptive
And here’s where Resolution 16/18 gets tricky.
Because who, exactly, arbitrates what is “incitement to imminent violence”? Violence by whom? If drawing a caricature of the Prophet incites violence by Islamic radicals to the tune of riots, arson, and murder, all sanctioned by the IOC itself – then drawing such a caricature (or writing a book like the Satanic Verses) will now constitute a criminal act. And that is exactly what the OIC was aiming for. It is also in direct violation of the principles of Western democracy – and the First Amendment. (Though it is crucial to note that any resolution passed by the General Assembly remains nonbinding, which makes you sort of wonder what the point of all this is, anyway.)
Moreover, since many would claim that the persecution of blasphemers is mandated by their religion, conflicts emerge between guarantees of free expression and the guarantee of freedom of religion and the practice of one’s faith. In othr words: your free speech allows you to insult my prophet: my freedom of religion compels me to kill you for it.
What was that about “incitement to violence”?
Whose violence?
This is how the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation plays “Gotcha.
This is how the American government, however unwittingly, subsumes its own Constitution in deference ot the demands of the Islamic state.
It’s a dangerous game.
True, the Human Rights First position on the issue is significantly more optimistic:
“The U.S. will always enforce its own standards on freedom of expression; these are enshrined in this country’s Constitution. But its legal exceptionalism on freedom of spee ch does not necessarily mean that the U.S. administration needs to be diplomatically isolated when it comes to promoting globally the principles of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, which many in the U.S. perceive to be core and founding American values. On the contrary, since the U.S. joined the U.N. Human Rights Council, the Obama administration has openly expressed its ambition to exert leadership within the U.N. body.
The U.S. demonstrated that leadership by securing the passage of Resolution 16/18 at the Human Rights Council and by moving immediately to show through the Istanbul Process Conference that states have tools at their disposal to combat violence, discrimination and hatred without restricting free speech.”
But note that word: “combat.” That same word appears in Resolution 16/18, which states “Understanding the need to combat denigration and negative religious stereotyping of persons, as well as incitement to religious hatred, by strategizing and harmonizing actions at the local, national, regional and international levels through, inter alia, education and awareness building.” (Emphasis mine.)
“Combat” implies warfare. Is that the language we want here? Is that one of the options under the vague and wide-open term “inter alia”? And are the “tools at their disposal” – education, interfaith dialogue, and debate — really going to “combat” hatred, especially when that hatred is disguised as proper adherence to one’s faith? When racist myths are taught as historical fact to children across a large swath of the globe?
As for that “faith” thing: it strikes me that those of no faith – atheists – are not addressed anywhere in t his resolution. Are they also to be protected from hate crimes? Is atheism among the ideas to be debated and taught in these awareness-raising sessions? If so, why is that not so stated? If not, why not?
Then there is the ongoing whimpering about the “targeting” of Muslims in non-Muslim countries. Actually, that “targeting” is largely mythical, or at the very least, heavily exaggerated. Throughout the world, from France to the Netherlands to Germany to the United States of America, the majority – by a large margin – of those hate crimes and incidents of discrimination perpetrated on the basis of religion target Jews. (another resource available here) And in virtually every case, the “extremism” in question has been Islamic extremism. (Though recent reports of the despicable behavior or ultra-orthodox Jews in Israel puts a new perspective on the matter.)
The Bigger Picture
But here’s the biggest problem: when the exercise of free speech leads to violence far beyond our control. It’s called “terrorism.” And neither the U.N. General Assembly nor the United States of America has the power to stop it. More importantly: by agreeing to curb speech that could lead to “imminent violence,” we in essence accept the blame for any terrorist acts against America (and the West). We agreed not to provoke, after all.
This, of course, is an unacceptable paradigm, and one we cannot allow to stand.
Integral to the greatness of America is the simple fact that no other country in the world places so sacred a value on free speech – indeed, on free expression – as does the United States. Holocaust denial, for instance, is verboten in Germany. Mein Kampf is banned in the Netherlands. France last week criminalized the denial of the Armenian genocide in Turkey (an act that resulted in widespread condemnation by the OIC, whose Secretary General, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, had the audacity, days after the ratification of 16/18, to bluster that those who defend cartoons that mock Mohammed as “freedom of thought and expression” have no business limiting the speech of those who deny the Armenian genocide. “This is an indisputable and unacceptable paradox,” he declared). And so on.
Yet in all of this, America has stood strong in its defense of free speech – even blasphemous, hateful, racist, sexist, Pentecostal, homophobic, and ignorant speech. We must continue to do so, no matter what pressures we may face. Because in the end, limiting our rights to self-expression and – above all – the questioning of religious beliefs – will never help to make the world more peaceful – or more free.

Split America into parts, secede now, no more working FOR the Progressives!!

Secede Now! IT MIGHT BE THE ONLY WAY WE SURVIVE

When the split can't be healed, just get it over with.

 

It seems extreme, I know, but over the last few weeks, I have come to the conclusion that the best way for Americans to get some feeling of satisfaction with their government is for our nation to be split apart. If we are ever to move beyond the inaction resulting from our political divisions, Liberal America needs to secede from the Union, and conservative America needs to do the same. Only through a mutual decision to part ways will Americas ever get anything even close to what they want from their government.
It seems like a radical policy, and that's because it is. However, radical treatment is sometimes the only effective treatment. The union of the American states has become taken for granted even as old regional wounds are working their way back up to the surface. The time for a discussion of secession to begin is now.
To Split is to Heal The other day, I spent about half an hour talking with a veteran member of the Green Party who is running for office in my area. He accuses the Republican Party and the Democratic Party both of preventing people like him from even running in elections, although this year the Democrats don't even have a candidate, and he could have easily have become the Democratic nominee just by getting people to sign a qualifying petition.
The more I listened to him, the more I heard him give out information that was either out of date or just plain wrong. He accused anti-war activists of being pro-war just because they don't favor the Green Party plan. He talked about the progress of Green Party organization, when in fact, the Green Party in his state has been decommissioned because of lack of popular support. He went on and on, spinning an elaborate tale of persecution, built upon a foundation of profound ignorance.
The most distinct impression I had of this Green candidate is that he was a kook. However, his efforts at communication were so intensely devoted in their description of a world gone wrong that I've spent the last week thinking about how someone like him can come to feel so abandoned by the powers that be.
Certainly, the Greens, the Independents, the Libertarians and all the other tiny alternative political parties seem to feel especially alienated. It occurred to me, however, that just about everybody is feeling this way right now. Voters who identify themselves with mainstream political parties feel isolated just as much as the Green Party candidate I spoke to. They join huge teams of political activists with incredible power, and yet they feel like victims of a political process that does not listen to them.
Republicans, whose party controls all three branches of the federal government, and most state governments as well, describe themselves as marginalized. They may not be able to come up with a very coherent definition of the liberal elite that angers them so, but they definitely believe that such an elite exists, keeping them from what is rightfully theirs. Heck, even George W. Bush, the President of the United States, a man who was born to extreme wealth, casts himself as an outsider determined to shake up the establishment.
In short, when it comes politics in America these days, almost nobody is really getting what they want.
The Roots of Disaffection The way I see it, a big part of the reason for the nearly universal feeling of political alienation among Americans is that we've been forced to muddle through in a middle ground that satisfies nobody. Oh, political commentators love to talk about the wisdom of the "moderates" who take the best ideas from different groups, but nowadays that wisdom seems like garbled, inconsistent foolishness to the American voters. It's no wonder, given how long we have suffered from the nonsense of a political system in which compromises end up creating ideological hybrids that are infertile and often so ornery that they are not worth the trouble of taming.
In our national, state and local legislatures, conservative and liberal proposals alike have their most effective components stripped out in favor of legislation that can muster majority support from within a collection of politicians who do not share a common goal. It's as if the ship of state is receiving orders to steer to starboard and port at the same time. It's no wonder that we never seem to get anywhere.
America is like a dysfunctional family right now. The siblings are fighting, and our political parents give us solutions to our squabbles that suit each of us just barely, and so really suit none of us at all. In this family, when we order a pizza, half of us want mushrooms and sausage while the other half wants pineapple and barbequed chicken. Under the current system, what we get as a result is a pizza with mushrooms and barbequed chicken, and no one likes it. What's a family to do?
Unwelcome Clarity No one would argue against the idea that the administration of George W. Bush has upset the status quo. Under Bush, all the old, unsatisfying compromises are going out the window. Whatever else we think of Bush, we can recognize that he's determined to do what he wants to do with America, and is unwilling to accept any real accommodation with his political opponents.
I don't think that Mr. Bush has thought about it on a conscious level, but somewhere in that gut he keeps on talking about, I think he recognizes the deep dissatisfaction that has resulted from years of incoherent, sloppy compromises between right and left in America. When Bush talks about things like common sense solutions and moral clarity, he's really talking about putting an end to the unsatisfying, chaotic muddle of the middle ground.
Bush is right in identifying the problem, but he's dead wrong in his solution. Bush's solution is the solution of the exasperated father in a squabbling family. He's decided that everyone should stop fighting and just submit themselves to his authority. He's decided that he'll make all the decisions, and won't let anyone complain. He genuinely believes that his commanding consistency will help everyone know their place, and not suffer the anxiety of a world without a strong social structure.
Some people thought that when Bush said "I'm a uniter, not a divider," he was promising to listen to all sides and come up with solutions that would make everyone happy. In fact, Bush was promising to do everything that he could to bring all Americans together under his authority, to do what he thinks they ought to do. When Bush says "United We Stand," he means that we all must stand in the same place, whether we like it or not.
Of course, Bush's record shows that his attempt at uncompromising leadership has been a disaster. Our nation is in a record amount of debt, our economy is stumbling, we're still not really secure from terrorist attacks, and Americans are being killed in a wasteful and unnecessary war.
Compromise does give Americans what they want, but under Bush's plan, only half of America gets what it wants, and the rest of us are absolutely miserable. What we need is a solution that will allow liberal America to get what it wants at the same time that conservative America gets what it wants.
What We Really Want The first step to getting what we want is admitting what we really want. This means complete honesty, even if we don't think that other Americans will like what they hear.
For generations, American politicians (and most other Americans too) have been playing a disingenuous game in which they don't ever say what they really want to do with the power of public office. They make hints, but are careful not to upset supposed "moderates". They speak blatant untruths in the attempt to appeal to swing voters.
John Kerry says he does not want to raise taxes. George W. Bush insists he never wanted to go to war. We all know it's a load of bull, but when we get into political debates with people who disagree with us, we make the very same claims, in order to seem more reasonable to the majority in the room.
When it comes down to it, conservatives want an America in which there is almost no regulation of business, where people can do whatever they want to with their own property, and lawsuits are possible only when offenses are obvious and grave. Conservatives want to be able to whack down the forests to put in big shopping malls, and dig the heart out of the mountains, pouring huge amounts of toxins into the water and air because it's the easier way to make a living. Conservatives want to keep the petroleum-based economy. Conservatives want a higher population. Conservatives want women to get back into a more submissive role. They want blacks and other ethnic minorities to live in separate communities. They want gays to go away completely. Conservatives want guns to be readily available to whomever wants some. They want a big military with a big nuclear arsenal. They want to go to war frequently. They want almost no taxes, and almost no government service other than the military. Conservatives want abortion to be illegal, and they want protests only to be legal so long as they don't say or do anything that makes people uncomfortable. Conservatives want Christianity to be at the heart of American government.
Liberals want more taxation in order to fund more government service. Liberals want more regulation of businesses in order to keep people safe, and want to the ability to file suit when they believe that they have been wronged. Liberals want more wilderness and want less sprawl, even if it means that we can't make as much money as we would otherwise. Liberals want to keep the population down. Liberals want freedom of speech to be absolute, and would like to do away with the Second Amendment's right to bear arms. Liberals want to develop alternative energy. Liberals want equal rights for everybody, regardless of ethnicity, creed, gender or sexual preference. Liberals want stronger schools and much weaker military. Liberals want to do away with nuclear weapons. Liberals want to fight only in true self-defense. Liberals want to keep abortion legal. They want government to be secular, not interfering in people's private decisions about religion.
I say we give both groups the America they want.
Time For Divorce When a husband and wife want to do completely incompatible things with their lives, it's time for a divorce. Now, America is split almost 50/50 between liberals and conservatives. Liberals and conservatives have almost completely incompatible goals for America, and we can't come to a compromise that satisfies our needs. It's time for a divorce. I'm calling upon America to break up.

150 years ago, the Southern States seceded from the Union, and the time has come to admit that they may have had the right idea. Back East, the old split between North and South remains. Out West, there's a new split that mirrors quite a bit of the old disagreements between North and South.
The best way to determine the division of assets is to look at the Electoral College maps of recent elections. It's easy to see that there are already at least two distinct American nations developing with the artificial borders of the United States of America.
So, here's my proposal. Conservatives, we liberals are tired of fighting over Florida. We think you stole it, but go ahead and take it. Besides, what with global warming and rising sea levels, it won't be in great shape in the long term. We'll also be generous and give you New Mexico, even though it voted for Gore and is pulling for John Kerry very strongly. The last thing we liberals want is a landlocked country surrounded by conservative armies. Then, we'll also throw in San Diego and a strip of Southern California including Orange County and going all the way over to Arizona. Southern Illinois can also be yours, to add onto your conservative state of Missouri. In a final bit of generosity, we'll give you some western portions of Minnesota and Iowa, to join your Dakotas.
In return, we ask liberals ask that we retain full control of the Great Lakes. We just don't trust you conservatives to restrain yourselves from dumping more wastes in them. We think it's time to let Ohio and Indiana divide themselves into conservative-majority south and liberal majority north. Heck, we'll give you most of Indiana.
Now, given that you conservatives are always complaining about people from Washington, D.C., we figure that you don't want it. Besides, in this year's election, it looks like barely more than 10 percent of the people in Washington D.C. are voting for Bush. We also want the Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C., but you can keep the rest of that state.
In return for New Mexico, we'd like Nevada, which has not been very strong in its support of Republican presidents. Besides, it's got Las Vegas, and Las Vegas is simply not a family-friendly place. We'll help with that by just taking it off your hands.
What we end up with as a result of this secession will be four nations. In the middle, there will be the conservative Homeland States of America (sorry, conservatives, but we never knew what you were talking about with all those references to the "homeland" - only you seem to know where it is). In the Northeast, there will be the Liberated of America - it's only to be expected that we'll want to rub that "liberal" word back in your face a little bit. The West Coast and the Northeast are too far away to effectively govern as one nation, and so we'll let the Pacific States of America go their own way. The liberals will also be generous enough to allow Hawaii to be an independent nation once again.
Of course, there are conservative strongholds within the new liberal nations' borders, and there are liberal strongholds within the Homeland States of America. Secession would require many Americans to move if they wanted to live in a country that valued their interests. Places like Austin, Santa Fe and Missoula would likely empty out fairly quickly.
Keeping the Peace The trouble with secession is that it could lead internal disagreements to become international conflicts. Keeping the peace between the new, smaller American states would be quite a challenge, and it would take a huge amount of discipline.
The right way to start would be to make secession a mutual agreement. Instead of state-led secession of the kind that caused the civil war, we need an act of Congress which would then be ratified by the states - one final act of compromise.
The nuclear arsenal would be retained only by the Homeland States of America. The three new liberal nations would work toward complete destruction of the nuclear weapons on their own soil.
This disarmament would require the liberal nations to employ liberal methods for security. Using diplomacy, the liberal nations of America would have to build strong alliances with Canada, Mexico, and Europe for financial and security partnerships.
Financial prosperity would also have to be a tool of security. The fact is that as much as Republicans claim to be pro-business, the economy is actually performs better when it is under the control of the more liberal Democrats. The new liberal states would contain the powerhouses of New York City, Boston, Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles. The Homeland States of America would contain some second-rate financial centers, such as Dallas and Atlanta, but under conservative rule, these centers would have trouble competing with the liberals.
With the stability of more liberal systems of government, without the economic drain of huge military spending and privatized health care, the liberal nations of America would be able to invest much more into the quality of life of their citizens. With a stronger public education system, including the enhanced university and technical education, the liberal nations would see a resurgence of wealth, and, as we have seen, wealth brings allies. The liberal nations would replace military invasions with international humanitarian aid. As continued host to a reinvigorated United Nations headquartered in New York City, the Liberated States of America would become a beacon of democracy, freedom and prosperity cherished by the rest of the world.
We liberals would be challenged not to fall into the fears of the conservative way of thinking. We would be challenged to prove that there are other ways besides bombs and bullets to build security.
One of the best reasons for hope in the post-secession world would be the inward focus of all the new American nations. Each one would be finally free to follow, with much greater consistency, the political philosophies favored by their citizens. Their governments would be too busy, for at least the first ten years, to even think about going to war with each other. Their diminished size, in relation to the rest of the world, would also force each of the new American nations (even the Homeland States of America) to be more careful about beginning new military adventures.
To be sure, the future of a seceded America would be uncertain. However, there would be much greater potential for Americans of different philosophies to realize their political goals. The ultimate prize would be smaller, but at least the prize would be attainable. Without secession, Americans of all political persuasions would continue in their anger and frustration for generations to come. That much in anger boiling within the most powerful nation on Earth is good for no one. I say that it's time to share the power by splitting the power.

Obama In 1998: "I Actually Believe In Redistribution"

SHARE THIS !! Audio Uncovered....
At an October 19, 1998 conference at Loyola University,

Barack Obama said that Government needs to  "pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution because I actually believe in redistribution."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ge3aGJfDSg4

Is Islam the distraction? Is George Sorros Orchestrating the take over of America like a Magician using Obama/Islam as the Distraction?

WHO WANTS OUR COUNTRY REAL BAD..AND WILL DO ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING TO KILL IT ??

George Soros has a history of working against nations, their national identity, and their sovereignty. His father, Tivadar, was a zealot speaker of Esperanto, a bullshit language, invented in 1887, and was designed to be a "global" language. This is the same scumbag made his first billion back in 1992 when he "shorted" the British pound with leveraged billions, and broke the Bank of England. Like a typical liberal parasite and overall scumbag, he made his money while devaluing the homes and savings accounts of British citizens in one fell swoop. Kinda reminds the Gunny how American liberals raise our taxes while working studiously to dodge paying them, i.e., Solis, Dashhole, Hanoi John Fonda Kerry, etc. The sugar daddy for the Democrats and all of their fringe groups, i.e., moveon.org, etc., Ol Georgie wants open borders, a global government, a global foreign policy, euthanasia (for other people not him or his), legalized drugs, and ultimately, the destruction of Western morals, values, and belief systems, particularly here in America.

"Destroying America will be the culmination of my life’s work." Soros to The Australian.

For example, Mullah Obama allowed Soros, well, Soros ordered the puppet-in-chief, to give a fat loan of US tax dollars to the Brazilian oil drilling firm Petrobras. It was a huge windfall for Soros who owns a nice chunk of Petrobras (payback) and it screwed the U.S. in the bargain (a twofer for the libs) since the American Petroleum Institute estimated that: exploration and drilling in the US could create an estimated 160K new jobs and generate $1.7 trillion in revenues to federal, state, and local governments. It would also help generate OUR energy security. But we are not drilling offshore anymore, in violation of TWO Federal court decisions AGAINST Mullah Obama. (Read the Shadow Party by Horowitz and Poe on how Soros owns the Dems)

Oh, and BTW, Soros learned his lesson in 2000 by only backing (buying) Owl Gore. He bought McLame off as well in 2008. (Republican Senator John McCain was the keynote speaker at the Soros Convention in Philadelphia and has taken monet for his Reform Inst. from Soros.)

The link at the bottom of the page for Discover the Networks lists the NGO, funds, and alliances with Soros. Some of them are: Media Matters for America, Center for American Progress, Tides Foundation (who in turn donates ANONYMOUSLY to lib orgs), ACLU, ACORN, LA Raza, Defenders of Wildlife (eco-nazis), etc. Like a cockroach, this anti-American filth has built a shadow government over a span of 25 YEARS in the dark, and has put his "recruits" in positions of influence and power in finance, government, the Lapdog media, and of course, academia. Money flows to leftist organizations from the Open Society Institute, like pus from an open sore and it is estimated that Soros has donated over 5 BILLION dollars to leftists organizations who DO NOT have OUR best interests in mind.

FUN SOROS FACTS:

1.  Gave $2,500,000 To MoveOn.Org's Voter Fund. (Voter Fraud alert)
2.  Called American Troops In Iraq "Perpetrators" and "Oppressors."
3.  Funds liberal activists in the US.
4.  Got 80+ rich libs to contribute $1 Million+ to lib think tanks, leftists groups, etc.
5.  His hedge fund made $2.9 BILLION betting AGAINST the US economy. (Makes sense now how the liberals have attacked our economy so venomously since 2004 huh?)
6.  Donated over $32 million to liberal candidates and liberal causes in the US.
7.  Convicted of insider trading in France. Fined 2.3M (That's a joke.) His conviction is being appealed.
8.  Wrote that: "in order to preserve our global open society, the world needs some global system of political decision-making in which the sovereignty of states must be subordinated to international law and international institutions," i.e., the UN. (Makes sense now about liberals like Mullah Obama running to the UN and liberals in government now referring OPENLY to getting under Int'l Law vice the Constitution.)
9.  Soros endorsed (and bought) Mullah Obama but during the campaign, also stated that he could support Hitlery. (Note the recent rise of Hitlery and BJ Bubba BACK in government?)
10.  Gave 20K to the lawyer of Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahmed, the convicted plotter of the 1991 WTC bombing. (Oct 2006, Bill O'Reilly) BTW, that lawyer was leftist pig L ynne Stewart, who was later convicted on terror charges for taking messages from Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahmed to his terror group, helping them to plan further attacks AGAINST US!

FAMOUS SOROS QUOTES:

1.  "The main enemy of the open society, I believe, is no longer the communist but the capitalist threat." February 1997.
2.  "The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States." June 2006
3.  "The separation of church and state, the bedrock of our democracy, is clearly undermined by having a born-again President." October 18, 2004.

Ah, and one from Hitlery herself, the Dems choice in 2012 for POTUS (after they dump the Mullah).

"I have known George Soros for a long time now... We need people like George Soros, who is fearless, and willing to step up when it counts." 3 June 2004.

BrianR, a friend of the Gunny's and a tireless warrior against liberalism and RINOism stated in an email (that prompted this essay) that once we retake the government in November, that we begin an email, snail mail, and phone attack on DC to force them to deport this criminal from our shores, back to France, to serve his sentence. That is, if Soros has not bought off the judges in France yet. THIS IS THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN folks, the Wizard of Libs.

Let us work tirelessly after we retake our government to purge filth like this from our shores and maybe, just maybe, we'll have a DoJ that serves up EQUAL justice, not redistributive, affirmative action type justice!

(September 2007)

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/libertychick/2010/08/04/soroswood-the-intersection-of-politics-and-hollywood-propaganda-part-2/  (Hollyweird infiltrated by Soros)
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/02/naacp-left-groups-form-tea-party-tracking-site/   Sept 2010
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=180009  July 2010
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aF7fB1PF0NPg  November 2008
http://www.newsweek.com/2009/10/26/converting-the-preachers.html  Oct 2009
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Organizations%20Funded%20Directly5.htm

The Progressive Cowards like Hillary and Islam Propagators like Hussein Obama think its OK to blaspheme about Mormonism..but not against Islam...

'Hasa Diga Eebowai" is the hit number in Broadway's hit musical "The Book of Mormon," which won nine Tony awards last year.


What does the phrase mean?   An Ugandan phrase, translated literally into English as "F*ck you, God!" 
From the Trey Parker / Matt Stone 2011 musical "The Book of Mormon."  Blaspehemy is OK if its against any religion other than ISLAM.


On the other hand, if you can afford to shell out several hundred bucks for a seat, then you can watch a Mormon missionary get his holy book stuffed—well, I can't tell you about that, either. Let's just say it has New York City audiences roaring with laughter.
The "Book of Mormon"—a performance of which Hillary Clinton attended last year, without registering a complaint—  comes to mind as the administration falls over itself denouncing "Innocence of Muslims." This is a film that may or may not exist; whose makers are likely not who they say they are; whose actors claim to have known neither the plot nor purpose of the film; and which has never been seen by any member of the public except as a video clip on the Internet.

Enlarge Image

Associated Press/Boneau/Bryan-Brown

'The Book of Mormon' performed at New York's Eugene O'Neill Theatre

No matter. The film, the administration says, is "hateful and offensive" (Susan Rice), "reprehensible and disgusting" (Jay Carney) and, in a twist, "disgusting and reprehensible" (Hillary Clinton). Mr. Carney, the White House spokesman, also lays sole blame on the film for inciting the riots that have swept the Muslim world and claimed the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three of his staff in Libya.
So let's get this straight: In the consensus view of modern American liberalism, it is hilarious to mock Mormons and Mormonism but outrageous to mock Muslims and Islam. Why? Maybe it's because nobody has ever been harmed, much less killed, making fun of Mormons.
Here's what else we learned this week about the emerging liberal consensus: That it's okay to denounce a movie you haven't seen, which is like trashing a book you haven't read. That it's okay to give perp-walk treatment to the alleged—and no doubt terrified—maker of the film on legally flimsy and politically motivated grounds of parole violation. That it's okay for the federal government publicly to call on Google to pull the video clip from YouTube in an attempt to mollify rampaging Islamists. That it's okay to concede the fundamentalist premise that religious belief ought to be entitled to the highest possible degree of social deference—except when Mormons and sundry Christian rubes are concerned.
And, finally, this: That the most "progressive" administration in recent U.S. history will make no principled defense of free speech to a Muslim world that could stand hearing such a defense. After the debut of "The Book of Mormon" musical, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints responded with this statement: "The production may attempt to entertain audiences for an evening but the Book of Mormon as a volume of scripture will change people's lives forever by bringing them closer to Christ."
That was it. The People's Front for the Liberation of Provo will not be gunning for a theater near you. Is it asking too much of religious and political leaders in Muslim communities to adopt a similar attitude?
It needn't be. A principled defense of free speech could start by quoting the Quran: "And it has already come down to you in the Book that when you hear the verses of Allah [recited], they are denied [by them] and ridiculed; so do not sit with them until they enter into another conversation." In this light, the true test of religious conviction is indifference, not susceptibility, to mockery.
The defense could add that a great religion surely cannot be goaded into frenetic mob violence on the slimmest provocation. Yet to watch the images coming out of Benghazi, Cairo, Tunis and Sana'a is to witness some significant portion of a civilization being transformed into Travis Bickle, the character Robert De Niro made unforgettable in Taxi Driver. "You talkin' to me?"
A defense would also point out that an Islamic world that insists on a measure of religious respect needs also to offer that respect in turn. When Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi—the closest thing Sunni Islam has to a pope—praises Hitler for exacting "divine punishment" on the Jews, that respect isn't exactly apparent. Nor has it been especially apparent in the waves of Islamist-instigated pogroms that have swept Egypt's Coptic community in recent years.
Finally, it need be said that the whole purpose of free speech is to protect unpopular, heretical, vulgar and stupid views. So far, the Obama administration's approach to free speech is that it's fine so long as it's cheap and exacts no political price. This is free speech as pizza.
President Obama came to office promising that he would start a new conversation with the Muslim world, one that lectured less and listened more. After nearly four years of listening, we can now hear more clearly where the U.S. stands in the estimation of that world: equally despised but considerably less feared. Just imagine what four more years of instinctive deference will do.
On the bright side, dear liberals, you'll still be able to mock Mormons. They tend not to punch back, which is part of what makes so many of them so successful in life.
Write to bstephens@wsj.com

The Romney/Bain formula works because it starts from a different point and produces a different result. Bain risks private capital on private ventures to create private jobs and private wealth.

ROMNEY AND BAIN CAPITAL THE EPITOME OF CAPITALISM. PRIVATE MONEY WAS USED TO TAKE RISKS WITH. SOME WILL WIN..... SOME WILL LOSE.

THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES, UNLIKE OBAMA VENTURE CAPITAL WHERE HE BORROWS FROM THE CHINESE IN OUR NAMES AND GIVES IT TO COMPANIES THAT CONTRIBUTE TO HIM... AND STILL LOSE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS!
( Hows that for FAIR ?? )

The economy created a disappointing 115,000 jobs in April, and the “official” unemployment rate “dropped” to 8.1 percent (from 8.3%) as a result of more Americans leaving the job market altogether. The economic recovery is stalled and does not look to change any time soon. It is appropriate to ask: how did we get here?
After his election, President Obama wasted no time investing in green energy ventures he confidently predicted would occasion America’s next “Sputnik moment.” However, just as there were no “shovel ready” stimulus projects, the green dream was just that. Bankrupt solar company Solyndra is the poster child for Mr. Obama’s green misadventures, and representative of the wider wreckage his policies have caused.
In the past several months, the following green companies – which received state or federal funding guarantees – declared bankruptcy or laid off hundreds of workers to avoid bankruptcy: Ener1 (renewable energy storage battery technology components), Abound Solar Manufacturing (solar panels), Beacon Power (energy storage), Evergreen Solar (solar panels), SpectraWatt (silicon solar cells), and Solar Trust of America (1,000 megawatt solar plant).
The sheer volume of this waste is astounding. Solyndra defaulted on a $535 million federal loan guarantee, leaving recession-battered taxpayers holding the bag. Solar Trust received a $2.1 billion federal loan guarantee, but last month, the company sought bankruptcy protection in Delaware after failing to meet a federal Energy Department loan guarantee deadline.
Against this backdrop of waste, crony capitalism and failure arrives Mr. Obama’s opponent Mitt Romney, who represents something else entirely: private sector success at Bain Capital. Founded in 1984 by Mr. Romney and two partners, Bain has risked billions investing in hundreds of companies across America. No investment was guaranteed to succeed; many did not pan out. But here’s a very short list of Bain’s more famous successes: AMC Entertainment, Brookstone, Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, Clear Channel Communications (the largest radio network in America), Domino’s Pizza, Dunkin’ Donuts, Guitar Center, Staples, Toys “R” Us, and Warner Music Group.
Thus, if you go to the movie theater, eat a hamburger, wear a coat, listen to the radio, eat pizza or donuts, play guitar, and buy printer ink, toys or music albums, you’ve benefitted from Bain Capital and Mr. Romney’s leadership. Unlike in politics, where results too often play second fiddle to good intentions, in business, results determine survival. Mr. Romney survived and thrived at Bain.
The Romney/Bain formula works because it starts from a different point and produces a different result. Bain risks private capital on private ventures to create private jobs and private wealth. In contrast, the Obama/Solyndra formula risks public money on private ventures and creates no private jobs or (non-union) wealth. And despite the recession, Bain-esque opportunities presently exist in America, for example the private sector oil and gas boom that President Obama is simultaneously taking credit for while attempting to derail.
Beyond Solyndra, President Obama’s energy policy is characteristic of his failure-first approach. For instance, he has thwarted the Keystone Pipeline (which would create thousands of good oil jobs) and praised the virtues of algae (which promises no sure jobs) while attempting to take credit for the private sector oil boom occurring in places like North Dakota. This oil shale-rich state boasts the nation’s lowest unemployment rate (3%) as a result of its booming oil industry. North Dakota represents the Romney/Bain approach, which is why it has succeeded. Mr. Obama’s silence on this success is bewildering.
As President Obama kicks off his reelection campaign by talking about ways to “win the future” through “shared responsibility” and “shared sacrifice,” it is apparent that despite the clear evidence of what currently works (oil) and what does not (algae), he cannot or will not own up to his economic failures. Indeed, when pressed on his administration’s support for Solyndra, Obama offered a Clinton-esque dodge, “This was not our program, per se.” This was an outright lie. During a May 2010 visit to Solyndra, Obama triumphantly proclaimed, “This new factory is the result of [Recovery Act, i.e. stimulus] loans.” Further, when asked if Solyndra’s failure would cause him to rethink his support for green technology, Mr. Obama replied, “I’m proud to say that we’re going to continue to support it.”
In stark contrast, unlike Solyndra, Bain Capital is still in business and despite the recession, it is poised to invest in companies and produce jobs as a result. The reason why is simple: the Romney/Bain formula works; the Obama/Solyndra formula does not.
This November, voters have a clear choice – Solyndra v. Bain: government failure versus private sector success. No one doubts Mitt Romney’s ability to turn around ailing entities, and no one believes in Barack Obama’s ability to do so. And while it’s too late to save Solyndra, the bankruptcy process through which it traveled presents a useful metaphor. In bankruptcy, debts are discharged, creditors paid, and viable businesses emerge reorganized, often under new leadership. November’s election presents voters a similar opportunity to reject the bad deals made by the Obama Administration, reorganize America’s leadership, and oust the man responsible for it all, the Debtor-In-Chief.

Obama fawns all over the "Rich" ...Kisses their ass... and then demonizes them to the "Slaves of the Democratic Party"

Obama and the “Party of the Rich” Enjoy Mocking Americans on Tax Cuts... but takes as much money as he can from the uber rich who run his fund raisers. This is the strategy of Plutocrats!

by Brian Kelly on September 11, 2012 · 

Brian Kelly

It is a strange world indeed in which we find utterly rich Democrats waging a war on the rich. If it were real, it would be a suicide mission, would it not? But it is not real. It is pure chicanery in an attempt to charm the public into thinking that all Democrats are poor just like the rest of us. Yet, only two Democratic presidents in fairly recent times, Harry Truman, who by the time he died had become a millionaire, and Bill Clinton, who later hit the jackpot with book deals for himself and his wife, were not in the millionaire’s club on Inauguration day. The Clinton’s net worth today is about a quarter billion dollars. Yes, that is right, the Clintons are becoming billionaires. Even Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama were millionaires when elected.  Let me say it again. Every United States President selected from the ranks of the Democratic Party has been a millionaire. No wonder Barack Obama can joke about tax cuts. Neither he nor other prominent Democrats need them. Just how disingenuous can the Democrats be in their bogus war on the rich? Even Al Gore came from huge wealth and like Clinton; he too is headed for the billionaire’s club. The Kennedys, John Kerry and FDR fit nicely in the billionaire’s club. Moreover, almost every one of the mega-multimillionaire Democratic presidents inherited their loot or married it. They did not earn it. They were never quite regular Americans. Check out the net worth of your favorite Democrats such as mega-millionaires Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Jay Rockefeller, and Diane Feinstein next chance you get. Ask yourself why the “Party of the Rich” would be waging a war on the rich, and why would they be so dead set against tax cuts, which help all Americans?

Try as they may, Democrats have to lie to suggest that Mitt Romney did not earn his own wealth. Even though it is not true, Democrats persist in trying to demonize Romney for being successful. Thankfully, most Americans see through their ruse. When the Romney family came to the US from Mexico, they were penniless. But they were smart and they believed in a great education. Mitt Romney is blessed with an innate understanding of business, and a great gift that enables him to take nothing and make something out of it. Mitt Romney and his father achieved their success by relying on innovation and thinking outside the box. The Romney’s are not conformists. The Romney’s started with zero and worked hard for every penny that they earned. Additionally, they earned their paychecks honestly and engaged in honest businesses. Like many traditional American families, the son, Mitt, not only matched the success of his father, he exceeded it.

Unlike the Democratic millionaire superstars, who all have a common biography—born with a silver spoon in their mouth and enjoying old wealth and family connections—Mitt  Romney came into the world with none of these advantages. In fact, Romney is more like the rest of us than any of the Democratic presidents. He too had to work for a living.

Most Americans, me included, have never been close to being rich. That’s OK! Many of our later generations have been blessed with far more than our first and second generation fathers and grandfathers. Despite our past success, we are all hurting today from the bad policies of an inexperienced President, presiding over the longest recession since the Great Depression. Even Obama knows that the spending and the give-away policies of millionaires Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barney Frank caused the financial meltdown. It was not Bush at all. However, Obama likes to hide the truth from Americans to help his reelection chances. Blaming Bush is much more convenient, and all of the non-thinking progressives believe whatever Obama says.

After the original meltdown, this congressional trio plus Obama brought unemployment to over 8% for 43 straight months from just 4.6% when the progressives took over the Congress in the last two years of the Bush Administration.  Though Obama, had four years to get us on the right path, the economy is still in the toilet, but the blame has never shifted from Bush to a man who could handle an issue. Our “incomplete” President instead chooses to blame everybody within eyeshot or earshot, but he never blames himself.  He goes so far as baiting Americans to wage a class war against the rich and to hate the most successful people in our country. Being a millionaire himself, Obama forgets that all Americans are striving for the success he too has achieved, yet now condemns.

Perhaps our deified President did not spend enough time in the mainland to realize that real Americans begrudge nobody their deserved success or their accumulated fortunes. To each his own! The American Dream, after all is for all Americans to achieve their own fortunes.  What good would it serve to tax our individual success at such a high rate that Americans would be discouraged from being successful?  Would we not all be fools if we did not want our taxes cut?

Yet, this President speaks to us like as if we should prefer to turn our paychecks over to faceless government bureaucrats for redistribution, rather than spend them ourselves on things we decide. In fact, Obama is so sure that we are fools that he has begun to joke about tax cuts like as if he can convince sane and prudent people that keeping their earnings for their families is a bad thing. He thinks that feeding a bloated, out of control, government gone wild is the smart thing to do. Smart Americans know the President is wrong. Giving a dime to Washington helps as much as throwing it down the sewer.

And, the notion of giving your fair share to government is ridiculous. The government already takes too much from all taxpayers. Government is not designed to be a charity. Give your fair share to charities such as the United Way, please. But, willfully donating anything to our wasteful government is foolsplay.

With a federal debt now heading for $17 trillion and projected deficits exceeding $1 trillion a year forever, over-spending is on track to destroy our nation.  Recent history tells us that the federal government cannot control costs or live within a budget. In fact, it cannot even pass a budget. So, why would anybody want to hand more of their earnings over to a bunch of wild spending and misguided bureaucrats? Nobody with any sense trusts this hapless government to spend more wisely than they can spend themselves.

It always helps to remember that nobody ever got a job from a poor person.

Without the rich, America would be nothing but a third world country. We should thank God that the rich still continue to choose to live, work, and operate businesses in America. Though too many have chosen to become ex-patriots because they are sick of being abused by leaders who do not appreciate their contributions, this is not good for America.  I entreat the rich who are preparing to leave America to give our country another chance. Obama is not like most Americans, and hopefully he will soon be gone. I thank the rich every day for the many things they do. I owe my College Education to nameless and faceless rich people who paid for my education. Thank you.

Like many my age, I asked my father if he could help me with my college tuition at King’s College in Wilkes-Barre, PA in 1969 when tuition was just $950.00 per year. Can you believe that tuition? My dad said I could continue living at home without paying room and board.  That was a great start.

Rich people had given King’s College an endowment that they could use to help students pay for college. It was not government. It was private citizens who did not have to contribute a dime but chose to do so. Rich people contribute much of their wealth while they are alive and even after they pass on to charitable organizations and educational institutions. Why do we not, as a nation, thank the rich, instead of revile them for not throwing enough of their salt in the pot? Many of us have benefited from the goodness of the rich even when the rich take no credit for their giving.

Because of generous rich people, I was able to sit for a King’s Academic Scholarship test. From this fund, I received a 400.00 per year scholarship.  Since that amount was not enough to cover my tuition, King’s offered me a $500.00 National Defense Student Loan, which I paid back as soon as I could upon graduation. The loan funding again was from rich people who paid a disproportionate share of their incomes in taxes. I was still $50.00 short but I knew I was going to go to King’s one way or another. King’s then offered me a job for $1.25 per hour, the minimum wage, working as a full-time janitor in the summer and 15 hours per week part-time during the school year.  It was not a freebie. I washed floors, cleaned steps, cleaned classrooms, scraped gum from under desks and tables, etc. King’s paid 10% of my salary and the Federal Work-Study fund, subsidized by rich people’s taxes paid the other 90%. Thank you to all who contributed.

I would never have finished college without the help of rich people. Some gave their donations to King’s directly of their free will, while these and other rich people paid the rest through their taxes to the government. I like rich people for their charity to Americans to this day. Somebody in all societies is rich. The beauty of America is that through hard work and good decisions, we can all become rich, and we too can become benefactors for those less fortunate, without having government as a middle man. Reaching the top is a big part of the American Dream. Why Obama vilifies that notion is puzzlement to me.

Some rich people are not quite as generous and they choose to help the poor by taking the earnings of others to fulfill their charitable obligations. I admit that. But, the majority of the rich are very generous. They just don’t talk about it and they prefer to give directly rather than give to the government. You may know that Joe Biden and Dr. Jill Biden, his wife, in their combined tax return, just before Joe became the US VP gave little more than $300.00 to charity per year in total. Check out their tax return. It is literally better than nothing but not by much.  Many of my peers and many of you give many times that amount if not more. My peers are not rich but they are kind and generous. Obama does not give much more than Biden but he does give a higher percentage of his income to charity. Obama’s personal giving is reported to be about 1% of his income.

Yet, Obama, a tightwad as far as charitable ventures go, wants to take your taxes and do what he wants with them to help Obama. He pretends it is for the poor. If the President were actually a truly charitable man, he would use his own money and he would help his half-brother George. He doesn’t even take care of “poor George.”  Obama’s brother lives in a one person sized hut in the squalor of the raw sewage and garbage in the slums of Nairobi. Obama doesn’t talk much about George because George actually thinks like most Americans and does not expect anything from his brother. “He has his own family,” says George, explaining away his brother’s indifference to his plight. Too bad George Soros did not take a liking to George Obama instead of brother Barack.

Unfortunately, the older brother ignores George’s needs. Yet, the same person has the gall to joke about tax cuts that all regular Americans need. Obama does not need the tax cuts because he is funded by somebody who is rich, and from whose coattails, somehow, he too magically has become a multi-millionaire.

Not only does Obama choose not to help his younger brother, he has no respect for working people anywhere and he has full intentions to redistribute as much of their income as possible. The President is a taker and not a giver. That is why even those expecting that he would be giving “stuff” away from his “stash” upon election, have been disappointed. Who do you think gets the earnings the Obama government confiscates and redistributes? It goes to people whose votes the President can buy and who will thank and praise Obama for the favor eternally. Obama takes our money, gives it to others, and then he basks and grins and takes all the good will that he can. Hmmm!

Though this essay is mostly about Obama’s mocking the notion that all Americans need tax cuts, let’s check out how Mitt Romney fares in the charity area. To make this expose’ even more exciting, let’s compare it with the President’s propensity to be charitable with his own money.

You remember Mitt Romney don’t you? He’s the guy that Obama wants us to think is the poster boy for the nasty and greedy rich. Obama would like to get you to hate Romney and he does his best to adjust your thinking every day. He works to get you to wage your own war against the rich. Like most proselytizations of Obama, his attempts to convince us all that Romney is a real bad guy are fraught with the fodder that fact checkers dream about.  And the lies go on and on and on. If Obama’s target were himself rather than Romney, the fact checkers would be having nightmares as Obama, does not have enough charity in him to be worthy of tying Mitt Romney’s shoelaces.

Compared to the rounded up 1% in charity that Obama gives from his heart to everybody except brother George, Mitt Romney is doing quite well. If Obama actually has a stash, he keeps it for Michelle and the family whereas Mitt Romney gives a large part of his stash to charity.

For example, as all members of his church, Romney pledges a whopping 10% of his earnings to the church. That is 10 times higher as a percentage than Obama’s total giving. But, that is not enough for Mitt Romney. In 2011 as an example, he donated 19% of his income to charitable causes. That is 19 times more than Obama and hundreds of times more than Biden.

When you give to charity, as we all know, your effective tax rate goes down so the disingenuous Barack Hussein Obama calls the press’s attention to Romney’s tax rate. Obama can lower his tax rate also if he chooses to up his charitable ante.

Many of us have seen the email circulating in which even the liberal Snopes couple agrees that Romney is the real deal. The verified email highlights the non-cash charitable work of Mitt Romney. For example, early in life, for a whole year, Romney volunteered in his dad’s gubernatorial campaign. Not a cent! But, just like my dad when I went to college, George Romney helped his kid in as many ways as he could. Mitt Romney was also an unpaid intern in the Governor’s office for eight years. He was a Mormon missionary in Paris for two years and an unpaid Bishop in his church for ten years. One thing is common in his public service; he did not take a salary. I wonder if President Obama took a salary in his multiple roles as a community organizer.

When Obama rescued the Olympics, again, Obama took no salary. Whoops! Wrong guy! Of course Obama took no salary because he never did anything as spectacular as rescuing the US Olympics from failure.  Yet, Obama is pleased as punch to mock any and all of Romney’s achievements. Did Obama also rescue the Olympics?  You can bet if Obama could put the Olympics in his accomplishments column, he would be bragging about it forever. But it was Romney, quietly as the hero again, with no fanfare and no salary. When Romney was governor of Massachusetts; you guessed it, he took no salary. On top of all the good that Obama says is bad about Romney, especially those who say Romney came from wealth and it was all easy for him, consider this one little fact that Obama and the demonizing Democrats have missed. Romney donated his entire inheritance to charity.

Like it or not, Romney is a self made man worthy of being admired as a good American. We should all give the governor kudos for being a great American. Instead, for political expediency, Obama makes things up about this man, and puts him down like as if he was a nothing. For twenty-eight years, even when he was not so successful, Romney did not take a salary when doing the public’s work. Yes, Romney is a millionaire for sure because he did it the old fashioned way. He earned it. Can millionaire Obama say the same? Ask him.

All I know is what I hear Obama say, and he says an awful lot and most is negative. He sure likes to mock real achievers and for my money, little though it may be, such behavior is beneath the dignity of the office of the Presidency.

Democrats and their friends in the US media love to demonize anything that can hurt progressives, including this President. The entire media is like a kennel of lapdogs trying to please the master. They expect to always be able to dupe America and Americans. Their following is so loyal that they often succeed, except for a few independent thinking break-aways. The Progressives expect you and me to fall in line and believe their malicious blather.  Their latest theme is that tax cuts are actually bad for taxpayers. Isn’t that insane?  They want all Americans to let the government spend our money.

Consider how incongruous this notion is to good thinking. Yet, at the DNC convention, the Obama Lemmings stood and cheered as the President spewed his venom both against a man of good will, and a nation in great need of true leadership. Do they really want their taxes to go up? Since calling the President a liar is disrespectful of the office, let’s just say from what I saw, Obama is a very clever Prevaricator in Chief.

Will this new demonization of those who do not donate all to government, cause the Lemming Progressives to begin to scream in the streets: “Tax me, Tax me, Tax me… oh please Tax me.” Somebody should write a song about that!

Obama’s new joke is not just against Romney; it is against all Americans who want to keep their hard earned paychecks and starve the government; instead of feeding a bloated government and starving themselves. Obama knows what he is doing and he thinks he will get away with it. He thinks that with his wiliness and his unabated charm, he can convince all Americans that low taxes are actually unpatriotic and bad for the country. The corollary of course is that big government can spend your money better than you can. Rational people will not buy the argument but those more hopeful than rational just may.  Here is vintage Obama from the DNC Convention:

“All they’ve got to offer is the same prescriptions that they’ve had for the last 30 years:  tax cuts, tax cuts, gut some regulations — oh, and more tax cuts, he said. Tax cuts when times are good, tax cuts when times are bad, tax cuts to help you lose a few extra pounds   tax cuts to improve your love life — I — it’ll cure anything, according to them, …..  Feel a cold coming on? Take two tax cuts, roll back some regulations and call me in the morning,” Obama mocked. He mocked Romney and all Americans thinking we are all too dumb to see the truth.

Ironically, while mocking Romney and the American people, Obama also was mocking the spirit of JFK. Way back in 1963, President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, a Democrat, though nothing like the liberal progressives of today, knew that rich people were the economic engine of America.  He knew that the rich needed to keep some of their earnings to expand their businesses and hire new workers.  President Obama is no JFK, and he never will be. Obama does not understand economics, but he does know how to put down honest efforts to do the right thing for America.

JFK reduced the tax rate of the wealthy from a punishing 91 percent and he reduced the corporate rate from 52%.  As Kennedy expected, after the cut in tax rates, economic growth averaged more than 5 percent a year for three years, with very low inflation. In other words, mock as Obama may, cutting taxes worked for Kennedy.  It worked for Reagan and it worked for Bush.  Which of the four is the dunderhead?  JFK was smart enough to know the solution and had no problem saying that tax cuts actually increase revenue, spark growth, create jobs and can lower the deficit. Barack Obama must have skipped school the day that lesson was on the agenda.

Ronald Reagan is another great president who well understood how a government run by a socialist / communist like Obama actually works:

“Governments view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

Reagan and Kennedy had the right idea. After four years, we know that Obama has the wrong idea. America cannot afford four more years of Obama. The people should keep their money and government should take only as much as it needs to do the things that the people cannot provide for themselves—roads, bridges, national defense, etc.  Not much else is really necessary. Big government simply does not work and it requires too much of the people’s money to keep it afloat.

There are many examples of things that America does not need from its national government. One example is that the national government should not be in charge of education. Local school boards with local teachers do just fine. Having the federal government in charge of education is very costly and very ineffective. Worse than that, it leads to the indoctrination of very tender minds towards the ideological principles of the political party in charge.

“Mmm Mmm Mmmm Barack Hussein Obama!”

Brian Kelly is a business owner and former assistant professor at Marywood University; he and his wife live in Northeastern Pennsylvania. Kelly is running for Senate in his state and believes limited government brings liberty and freedom.