The Obama Tax Plan: People need to truly digest what this man is saying

Charlton Heston, in his role as time traveler Taylor in the Planet of the Apes, utters to no one, "It's a mad house...a MAD HOUSE!!!"

Well, the economic house under a Obama presidency will be a mad one. Note that he wants us to revert back to Clinton-era taxes: 54% ALONE to the federal government. Couple that with Americans who do not pay taxes; 40% by some accounts, and we're giving them a refund.

On top of that, we've Obama and Joe Biden waver when it comes to which income brackets will pay through the nose in taxes. A year ago, we heard Obama say that he won't tax anyone making less than $1 million; six months ago, it was $500 thousand. Lately, we've heard him refine those numbers to anywhere between $200 thousand and $250 thousand. Then, FINALLY, we heard the Mr. Smirk, Biden, state that no one making less than $150 thousand will see their taxes increased.

Can you say DISASTER?

In a recent FOX News Dynamic Poll, 81% of Americans think that they should pay NO MORE than 30% of their income to taxes. Yet, by a 51%-39% margin, people trust Obama to fix the economy.

HUH?

We cannot trust the numbers.

We've heard mistruths uttered from the Democrats on an endless basis. We've heard that Bush gave the rich tax truths while hurting the middle class. That is a complete fabrication. Note the following from David Limbaugh:

How can these class-warfare demagogues sleep at night saying the rich don't pay their fair share when 2006 official figures show the top 1 percent of income earners pay 40 percent of the income taxes; the top 5 percent pay 60 percent; the top 10 percent pay 71 percent; the top 25 percent, 86 percent; and the top 50 percent, 97 percent? Just how much would the wealthy have to pay for it to be fair?

Furthermore, when increase taxes on the rich, you punish the middle and lower classes. Why you ask? Because the rich are the entrepreneurial class; they invest money in businesses. These investments usually come in the form of JOBS...jobs for people in the middle and lower classes.

If this entrepreneurial class does NOT invest money, what will happen to the jobs? They'll disappear. That's common sense, something Obama and his cultists REFUSE to understand.

Moreover, what the Obama crowd cannot understand is that if you LOWER taxes, you create revenue. Would Americans rather have a JOB or have some $500 rebate check. Almost certainly under an Obama presidency, you cannot have both.

Wake up people; this man is the worst thing that can happen to this country. Are you listening to what

Liberals and their Democratic Enablers: INTENTIONALLY trying to destroy this country?

Consider this the "darkest before the dawn" edition.

I've read a slew of soothsayer articles from the likes of David Limbaugh, Pat Buchanon, etc, forecasting Barry Soetoro/Dunham/Obama's first 100 days as President would entail, coupled with an near-certain Democratic increase in Congress.

The prognostications are truly scary for those of us on the Right, whether's it's the "wealth redistribution," repeal of Marriage Defense Act, enactment of Freedom of Choice Act, increased SHOVING of progressive values down our throat, open borders, etc.

It's pretty clear that an Obama presidency and filibuster-proof Democratic Congress could have drastic consequences for this country; couple that with the potential for Obama to fill anywhere from three to four vacant Supreme Court spots, and the possibilities are truly frightening.

Here's what Buchanon portends in an Obama presidency and filibuster proof Congress:

What does the triumvirate of Obama-Pelosi-Reid offer?

Rep. Barney Frank is calling for new tax hikes on the most successful and a 25 percent across-the-board slash in national defense. Sen. John Kerry is talking up new and massive federal spending, a la FDR's New Deal. Specifically, we can almost surely expect:

-- Swift amnesty for 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens and a drive to make them citizens and register them, as in the Bill Clinton years. This will mean that Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona will soon move out of reach for GOP presidential candidates, as has California.

-- Border security will go on the backburner, and America will have a virtual open border with a Mexico of 110 million.

-- Taxes will be raised on the top 5 percent of wage-earners, who now carry 60 percent of the U.S. income tax burden, and tens of millions of checks will be sent out to the 40 percent of wage-earners who pay no federal income tax. Like the man said, redistribute the wealth, spread it around.

-- Social Security taxes will be raised on the most successful among us, and capital gains taxes will be raised from 15 percent to 20 percent. The Bush tax cuts will be repealed, and death taxes reimposed.

-- Two or three more liberal activists of the Ruth Bader Ginsberg-John Paul Stevens stripe will be named to the Supreme Court. U.S. district and appellate courts will be stacked with "progressives."

-- Special protections for homosexuals will be written into all civil rights laws, and gays and lesbians in the military will be invited to come out of the closet. "Don't ask, don't tell" will be dead.

-- The homosexual marriages that state judges have forced California, Massachusetts and Connecticut to recognize, an Obama Congress or Obama court will require all 50 states to recognize.

-- A "Freedom of Choice Act" nullifying all state restrictions on abortions will be enacted. America will become the most pro-abortion nation on earth.

-- Affirmative action -- hiring and promotions based on race, sex and sexual orientation until specified quotas are reached -- will be rigorously enforced throughout the U.S. government and private sector.

-- Universal health insurance will be enacted, covering legal and illegal immigrants, providing another powerful magnet for the world to come to America, if necessary by breaching her borders.

-- A federal bailout of states and municipalities to keep state and local governments spending up could come in December or early next year.

-- The first trillion-dollar deficit will be run in the first year of an Obama presidency. It will be the first of many.

As a Christian Conservative, I'm almost preparing myself to worship my God in secret and essentially go "underground."

The BRIGHT side, contrary to what conservative pundits like Michael Medved believe, is that we WILL get so disgusted with the miserable circumstances under a blanket Democratic leadership that we WILL throw these disgusting sons of bitches OUT of office.

After some deliberation and reading from the authors like the aforementioned Limbaugh and Buchanon, and I ponder openly: are the liberals attempting to destroy this country? I mean, they HAVE to know what the potential consequences would be of there actions, right? They can't be THAT stupid...

Can they?

Yesterday's Syrian Raid will be a thing of the past in an Obama presidency

Oh how soon we forget.

According to media sources, a senior Al Qaeda leader was killed by a U.S. forces in Syria.

Naturally, Democratic presidential candidate Barry Soetoro/Dunham/Obama and his crew are furious. That shouldn't be surprising.

We've seen tepid, emasculated responses from Democratic presidents in the past (see: Jimmy Carter/Bill Clinton), so it should come as no surprise that 1.) Obama would rather engage terrorist fomenters in "dialogue;" 2.) this is a portent of an Obama foreign policy.

So what does this mean?

We'll be back to square one with Obama; we'll be relegated to pre-Bush days when the previous administration allowed ourselves to bullied by Islamic fundamentalists and when forced to retaliate, offered nothing more than a token military gesture.

Furthermore, in an Obama presidency where dialogue in the only option, terrorist groups like Al Qaeda will be allowed to reconstitute, once again becoming a threat not only in the Middle East, but to our national security.

Again.

We're weakening ourselves again. This is like a bad dream, replayed over and over again. We've been down this road before under Bill Clinton, where a liberal administration consternated over political and legal ramifications of staving off the terrorist threat. We're already experienced the feeling of retreating, with our tail between our legs, and the feeling of not hitting back HARD against aggression and violence against Americans and its interests.

Couple that with the near-certainty of Obama closing Guantanamo Bay and stopping military tribunals against terrorists, as well as the eradication of the Patriot Act; I think we can guarantee that we'll see attacks increase.

Say what you will about George Bush, but he kept us safe. Terrorists, domestic and international, were cut off at the pass. They weren't allowed to develop nor implement their plots.

Massachusetts: Judges and ACLU at it again

In the perverse world of the liberal, criminals are canonized; victims are ostracized.

It's bizarro world in liberal land, where you say goodbye upon greeting, and hello upon leaving.

According to AM 1280 the Patriot, a Massachusetts judge has "has ruled that parts of Missouri's new law restricting registered sex offenders' actions on Halloween night are unenforceable, saying the law lacked clarity and could cause confusion for sex offenders and those charged with enforcing it."

After hearing arguments in a case brought by four sex offenders, U.S. District Judge Carol Jackson on Monday granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of some parts of the law.

(O)ther aspects of the statute were too broad and raise questions, the judge said.

For example, Jackson said, may a sex offender have contact with his or her own children on Halloween? Passing out candy is clearly prohibited, but what else constitutes Halloween-related contact? And if a sex offender planned to be out of town on Halloween, he or she would not technically be "inside the home" as the law requires, Jackson pointed out.

The law allows sex offenders to leave home on Halloween night if there is "just cause" such as work or an emergency, but Jackson criticized the measure for failing to define the term more clearly.

Such vagueness would cause confusion among sex offenders, police and prosecutors, she said.

First, we have an activist judge defying common sense and the welfare of the general public. In her own odd interpretation, she's essentially given sex offenders carte blanche to do whatever they want on Halloween.

Second, the ACLU has naturally interjected itself into the fray; once again siding with the perpetrator rather than the criminal:

The injunction stemmed from a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri. Attorney Dave Nelson called the law's requirements a "scarlet letter" for sex offenders. He said the statute also results in additional punishment by requiring what amounts to "house arrest" one day each year.

Too bad. We're talking sex offenders that, if allowed, would commit indescribable actions towards youngsters if allowed. Yet, "civil liberty" groups like ACLU fight for their rights. What rights do they possess? These people have committed arguably some of the most egregious acts in judicial history, and instead of focusing concern on the potential victim, the ACLU is instead defending the criminal.

Further blatant MSM bias: LA Times suppresses Obama's Khalidi bash tape

Andrew McCarthy, courtesy of the National Review, provides analysis of yet another blatant attempt from the corrupt, liberal mainstream media to deliberately suppress negative press for "Dear Leader."

In case you haven't noticed, "Dear Leader" is term that is synonymous with "The Chosen One," "The One," "The Messiah," "The Obamessiah," etc. The aforementioned glowing nicknames are those bestowed on Democratic presidential candidate, Barry Soetoro/Dunham, Obama.

But one can't be surprised that the mainstream media has refused to publish a potentially damaging story to said Dear Leader. Whether it's Obama and Infanticide, his support for domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, his marination in Jeremiah Wright's hate, his welfare redistribution, his Gods and Guns remark, the embarrassing institution known as the Mainstream Media, would rather focus on, as McCarthy states in his article, Sarah Palin's wardrobe, Joe the Plumber's money problems, or an absolutely isolated case of some idiot stealing an Obama sign from someone's front lawn.

It's almost laughable how "in-the-bag" the MSM is in for Obama. But yet it's not funny, because the very future of our country is as stack. Couple the possibility of elected the most liberal Democrat in presidential history with the notion of a filibuster proof Democratic majority in Congress, and the Marxist possibilities exist.

I stated this morning that with the way so many Americans have greedily lapped up his charismatic, quixotic message, Obama is more geared to be a cult leader or dictator.

I digress; the latest MSM "non-story" comes courtesy of the Los Angeles Times: "Why is the Los Angeles Times sitting on a videotape of the 2003 farewell bash in Chicago at which Barack Obama lavished praise on the guest of honor, Rashid Khalidi — former mouthpiece for master terrorist Yasser Arafat?"

Again, if this was someone on the Right lavishing praise for Eric Rudolph, would the corrupt leftist MSM even bat an eye at running story on every front page, and opening segment of the nightly news?

Not bloody likely.

With Obama, it should be no surprise he cavorts with terrorists; he's right at time associating with people like Khalidi and Ayers.

Here's the complete story:

The L.A. Times Suppresses Obama’s Khalidi Bash Tape
Obama, Ayers, and PLO supporters toast Edward Said’s successor, but the press doesn’t think it’s quite as newsworthy as Sarah Palin’s wardrobe.

By Andrew C. McCarthy

Let’s try a thought experiment. Say John McCain attended a party at which known racists and terror mongers were in attendance. Say testimonials were given, including a glowing one by McCain for the benefit of the guest of honor ... who happened to be a top apologist for terrorists. Say McCain not only gave a speech but stood by, in tacit approval and solidarity, while other racists and terror mongers gave speeches that reeked of hatred for an American ally and rationalizations of terror attacks.

Now let’s say the Los Angeles Times obtained a videotape of the party.

Question: Is there any chance — any chance — the Times would not release the tape and publish front-page story after story about the gory details, with the usual accompanying chorus of sanctimony from the oped commentariat? Is there any chance, if the Times was the least bit reluctant about publishing (remember, we’re pretending here), that the rest of the mainstream media (y’know, the guys who drove Trent Lott out of his leadership position over a birthday-party toast) would not be screaming for the release of the tape?

Do we really have to ask?

So now, let’s leave thought experiments and return to reality: Why is the Los Angeles Times sitting on a videotape of the 2003 farewell bash in Chicago at which Barack Obama lavished praise on the guest of honor, Rashid Khalidi — former mouthpiece for master terrorist Yasser Arafat?

At the time Khalidi, a PLO adviser turned University of Chicago professor, was headed east to Columbia. There he would take over the University’s Middle East-studies program (which he has since maintained as a bubbling cauldron of anti-Semitism) and assume the professorship endowed in honor of Edward Sayyid, another notorious terror apologist.

The party featured encomiums by many of Khalidi’s allies, colleagues, and friends, including Barack Obama, then an Illinois state senator, and Bill Ayers, the terrorist turned education professor. It was sponsored by the Arab American Action Network (AAAN), which had been founded by Khalidi and his wife, Mona, formerly a top English translator for Arafat’s press agency.

Is there just a teeny-weenie chance that this was an evening of Israel-bashing Obama would find very difficult to explain? Could it be that the Times, a pillar of the Obamedia, is covering for its guy?

Gateway Pundit reports that the Times has the videotape but is suppressing it.

Back in April, the Times published a gentle story about the fete. Reporter Peter Wallsten avoided, for example, any mention of the inconvenient fact that the revelers included Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, Ayers’s wife and fellow Weatherman terrorist. These self-professed revolutionary Leftists are friendly with both Obama and Khalidi — indeed, researcher Stanley Kurtz has noted that Ayers and Khalidi were “best friends.” (And — small world! — it turns out that the Obamas are extremely close to the Khalidis, who have reportedly babysat the Obama children.)

Nor did the Times report the party was thrown by AAAN. Wallsten does tell us that the AAAN received grants from the Leftist Woods Fund when Obama was on its board — but, besides understating the amount (it was $75,000, not $40,000), the Times mentions neither that Ayers was also on the Woods board at the time nor that AAAN is rabidly anti-Israel. (Though the organization regards Israel as illegitimate and has sought to justify Palestinian terrorism, Wallsten describes the AAAN as “a social service group.”)

Perhaps even more inconveniently, the Times also let slip that it had obtained a videotape of the party.

Wallsten’s story is worth excerpting at length (italics are mine):

It was a celebration of Palestinian culture — a night of music, dancing and a dash of politics. Local Arab Americans were bidding farewell to Rashid Khalidi, an internationally known scholar, critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights, who was leaving town for a job in New York.

A special tribute came from Khalidi's friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi's wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.

His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation — a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world."...

[T]he warm embrace Obama gave to Khalidi, and words like those at the professor's going-away party, have left some Palestinian American leaders believing that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say.

Their belief is not drawn from Obama's speeches or campaign literature, but from comments that some say Obama made in private and from his association with the Palestinian American community in his hometown of Chicago, including his presence at events where anger at Israeli and U.S. Middle East policy was freely expressed.

At Khalidi's 2003 farewell party, for example, a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, "then you will never see a day of peace."

One speaker likened "Zionist settlers on the West Bank" to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been "blinded by ideology."

Obama adopted a different tone in his comments and called for finding common ground. But his presence at such events, as he worked to build a political base in Chicago, has led some Palestinian leaders to believe that he might deal differently with the Middle East than … his opponents for the White House....

At Khalidi's going-away party in 2003, the scholar lavished praise on Obama, telling the mostly Palestinian American crowd that the state senator deserved their help in winning a U.S. Senate seat. "You will not have a better senator under any circumstances," Khalidi said.

The event was videotaped, and a copy of the tape was obtained by The Times.

Though Khalidi has seen little of Sen. Obama in recent years, Michelle Obama attended a party several months ago celebrating the marriage of the Khalidis' daughter.

In interviews with The Times, Khalidi declined to discuss specifics of private talks over the years with Obama. He did not begrudge his friend for being out of touch, or for focusing more these days on his support for Israel — a stance that Khalidi calls a requirement to win a national election in the U.S., just as wooing Chicago's large Arab American community was important for winning local elections.

So why is the Times sitting on the videotape of the Khalidi festivities? Given Obama's (preposterous) claims that he didn’t know Ayers that well and was unfamiliar with Ayers’s views, why didn't the Times report that Ayers and Dohrn were at the bash? Was it not worth mentioning the remarkable coincidence that both Obama and Ayers — the “education reform” allies who barely know each other … except to the extent they together doled out tens of millions of dollars to Leftist agitators, attacked the criminal justice system, and raved about each others books — just happen to be intimate friends of the same anti-American Israel-basher? (Despite having watched the videotape, Wallsten told Gateway Pundit he “did not know” whether Ayers was there.)

Why won’t the Times tell us what was said in the various Khalidi testimonials? On that score, Ayers and Dohrn have always had characteristically noxious views on the Israeli/Palestinian dispute. And, true to form, they have always been quite open about them. There is no reason to believe those views have ever changed. Here, for example, is what they had to say in Prairie Fire, the Weather Underground’s 1974 Communist manifesto (emphasis in original):

Palestinian independence is opposed with reactionary schemes by Jordan, completely opposed with military terror by Israel, and manipulated by the U.S. The U.S.-sponsored notion of stability and status-quo in the Mideast is an attempt to preserve U.S. imperialist control of oil, using zionist power as the cat's paw. The Mideast has become a world focus of struggles over oil resources and control of strategic sea and air routes. Yet the Palestinian struggle is at the heart of other conflicts in the Mideast. Only the Palestinians can determine the solution which reflects the aspirations of the Palestinian people. No "settlements" in the Mideast which exclude the Palestinians will resolve the conflict. Palestinian liberation will not be suppressed.

The U.S. people have been seriously deceived about the Palestinians and Israel. This calls for a campaign to educate and focus attention on the true situation: teach-ins, debates, and open clear support for Palestinian liberation; reading about the Palestinian movement—The Disinherited by Fawaz Turki, Enemy of the Sun; opposing U.S. aid to Israel. Our silence or acceptance of pro-zionist policy is a form of complicity with U.S.-backed aggression and terror, and a betrayal of internationalism.

SELF-DETERMINATION FOR THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE!

U.S. OUT OF THE MIDEAST!

END AID TO ISRAEL!

Barack Obama wouldn’t possibly let something like that pass without a spirited defense of the Israel he tells us he so staunchly supports … would he? I guess to answer that question, we’d have to know what was on the tape.

But who has time for such trifles? After all, isn’t Diana Vreeland about to critique Sarah Palin’s sartorial splendor?

— National Review’s Andrew C. McCarthy chairs the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies’s Center for Law & Counterterrorism and is the author of Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad (Encounter Books 2008).

An Obama Presidency: our "Barabbas" moment

That's where we as a nation have arrived. The masses have lustily drank the kool-aid, ignoring every warning and red flag.

We're on the cusp of an "Obama Nation." We've ignored Joe the Plumber, Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and other episodes from this demented reality show.

After watching a recent Obama rally, I was reminded of a scene in "The Passion of the Christ," where Pontius Pilate when faced with angry mob, asks whom he release from custody, Jesus of Nazareth or Barabbas. According to various books of the Bible, "the crowd chose Barabbas to be released and Jesus of Nazareth to be crucified. A passage found only in the Gospel of Matthew^[2] has the crowd saying, 'Let his blood be upon us and upon our children.'"

That seems to be where we are with a potential Obama presidency. The populace has so taken to Obama's "hope and change" rhetoric, that we're completely blind to the man's shortcoming, his associations, and his socialist message. We're essentially giving common sense and rationality a giant collective middle finger.

"Let his blood be upon us and upon our children."

For the "proverbial" bloodshed will be great after Obama passes draconian tax measures, enacts the Freedom of Choice Act, ushers in the Fairness Doctrine, enforce wealth redistribution, repeals the Marriage Defense Act, and pushes Congress to pass cap-and-trade environmental laws.

As Mark Levin from the National Review states, "I honestly never thought we'd see such a thing in our country - not yet anyway - but I sense what's occurring in this election is a recklessness and abandonment of rationality that has preceded the voluntary surrender of liberty and security in other places."

Is this man running for the office of Presidency of the United States, cult leader, or dictator? Where is the humility that other presidents before him have demonstrated? Through so many of his actions, Obama has displayed an air of superiority to working class people.

There is a cult-like atmosphere around Barack Obama, which his campaign has carefully and successfully fabricated, which concerns me. The messiah complex. Fainting audience members at rallies. Special Obama flags and an Obama presidential seal. A graphic with the portrayal of the globe and Obama's name on it, which adorns everything from Obama's plane to his street literature. Young school children singing songs praising Obama. Teenagers wearing camouflage outfits and marching in military order chanting Obama's name and the professions he is going to open to them. An Obama world tour, culminating in a speech in Berlin where Obama proclaims we are all citizens of the world. I dare say, this is ominous stuff.

So what's in store for us under an Obama presidency? Levin adds the following:

Obama's entire campaign is built on class warfare and human envy. The "change" he peddles is not new. We've seen it before. It is change that diminishes individual liberty for the soft authoritarianism of socialism. It is a populist appeal that disguises government mandated wealth redistribution as tax cuts for the middle class, falsely blames capitalism for the social policies and government corruption (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) that led to the current turmoil in our financial markets, fuels contempt for commerce and trade by stigmatizing those who run successful small and large businesses, and exploits human imperfection as a justification for a massive expansion of centralized government. Obama's appeal to the middle class is an appeal to the "the proletariat," as an infamous philosopher once described it, about which a mythology has been created. Rather than pursue the American Dream, he insists that the American Dream has arbitrary limits, limits Obama would set for the rest of us — today it's $250,000 for businesses and even less for individuals. If the individual dares to succeed beyond the limits set by Obama, he is punished for he's now officially "rich." The value of his physical and intellectual labor must be confiscated in greater amounts for the good of the proletariat (the middle class). And so it is that the middle class, the birth-child of capitalism, is both celebrated and enslaved — for its own good and the greater good. The "hope" Obama represents, therefore, is not hope at all. It is the misery of his utopianism imposed on the individual.

We've fallen victim to (H)is quixotic message. It sounds so alluring, so intoxicating. So much so that we've ignored the blinding warning lights. Let us usher in a socialist era, and the let the blood be upon our children.

For it will be generations that suffer from an Obama nation.

Townhall's Burt Prelutsky offers the same questions:

Why are so many Americans so eager to accept that corporations are the enemy when corporations not only provide employment, but pay dividends to tens of millions of middle-class Americans either directly or through their pension funds? Why are the same folks who are waging war on corporate America so reluctant to utter even an unkind word about Islamic terrorism? I realize that a lot of people get upset when CEOs get paid a ton of a money, particularly when it comes in the form of a golden parachute. But why don’t they get equally upset when a movie actor who’s generally a liberal gets paid $20 million to star in a movie that tanks?

Vote NO on Minnesota Clean Water, Land, and Legacy Amendment

Here in the Democratic stronghold of Minnesota, we voters are presented with a slew of interesting senatorial races and initiatives, notably the Minnesota Clean Water, Land, and Legacy Act.

According to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, "The current general sales and use tax rate is 6.5%. Sales tax revenue is deposited in the state General Fund. If the ballot question passes, it would increase the general sales and use tax rate by three-eighths of one percentage point (0.375%) to 6.875%."

We're witnessing these sorts of environmental initiatives dictate dominate our lives, when things like the economy, national security, energy, border security, social security, health insurance, supersede these trivial environmental matters. The environmentalists, if given tacit approval, will tax us to death 1.) to impose these draconian measures; 2.) send us, economically and developmentally, back to the Stone Age; 3.) lower our productivity (and thus our GDP) through bogus global warming claims.

Furthermore, as Paul Gilje, coordinator of the Civic Cause think-thank states, enacting this store of legislation could open a proverbial pandora's box: "Gilje likes the outdoors, the environment, and the arts but doesn't like the precedent. He said a vote for the amendment would open the door to California-style government by referendum.

'What we've got to do is get the legislators to remain on the hook for their decisions,' he said. 'They've got to make the decisions, rather than passing them off on you and me.'"

Is this worth a constitutional amendment? Hell no. Furthermore, it typifies the brazen arrogance of the environmentalists when, as the WCCO story above reports, it will "only" cost us a dollar a week. That's $52 a week, perhaps to some, a mere pittance.

Moreover, the wording of the act itself is ambiguous. It seems to create a slush fund of sorts; how will this money be spent? Where will the proceeds of the tax itself be used?

Finally, we've heard, ad nauseum, that Republicans like Norm Coleman, Erik Paulsen, and Michelle Bachmann, have take large sums of money from lobbyists (big oil, Wall Street, etc.). But what about those that have lobbied FOR this bill? These same elected officials (*cough* Democrat) have decided to heed to special interest groups that keep them in power and have affectively endorsed a misleading campaign that is telling people if they vote YES they will be helping to fund clean up of our water.

This is NOT the economic climate to be enacting these sorts of measures.

Personally, I can think of several other things that I can use the $52 for.

Liberal Lies: the Bush Tax Cuts

It's a daily occurrence to open up the newspapers, turn on the news, watch a campaign ad and hear some bonehead Democrat uttering inane references to "big oil" and "disastrous Bush tax cuts." Subsequently, said bonehead Democrat impugns either Republican colleague or opponent in a political office with the above mentioned issues.

The Democrats have excelled at propagating lies and turning them against the Republicans. Whether it's the subprime housing market (Republican Wall Street vs. Democrats/liberals forcing banks to make bank loans) or high gas prices (billions of dollars in oil company profits vs. Economics 101: SUPPLY and DEMAND and high taxes against the oil companies), the Democrats have issued inane fabrication after fabrication.

What's further maddening is that Republicans have rarely uttered a rebuttal, or attempted to truly educate the public on these hot buttons. Moreover, the corrupt liberal mainstream media has not fact-checked any of these Democrat-issued lies; instead they've enabled the mistruths through the various mediums.

Yesterday, I discussed the lies of "big oil," primarily, propagated by idiots like Stuart Smalley, er, Al Franken against incumbent Minnesota Senator, Republican Norm Coleman. In a recent TV campaign ad, Franken smugly reminds the viewing public that Coleman took campaign contributions from "big oil" lobbyists. Nevermind that his colleagues, such as Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and "The One" Barry Soetoro/Dunham/Obama took hundreds of thousands of dollars from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to avert their eyes to the then-portending housing crisis, or that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has enjoyed hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from various alternative energy providers (saving the planet, my ass).

The point here, people, is that mistruths and outright lies are being uttered ad nauseum by the Left. Today, I want to focus on the "disastrous Bush Tax Cuts." We've heard "The One," Obama, in his hope and change rhetoric, gain support by lying about the "disastrous Bush Tax Cuts." Personally in Minnesota, I've seen/heard a handful of ads from Smalley, er, Franken, indicting Coleman for supporting the "disastrous Bush Tax Cuts."

Furthermore, we're seen/heard the same Democrats proclaim that these tax cuts have benefited the rich while handicapping the poor. Note the following from columnist David Limbaugh:

(I)t is an objective fact that Bush gave greater percentage cuts to lower-income earners than to the wealthy.

How can these class-warfare demagogues sleep at night saying the rich don't pay their fair share when 2006 official figures show the top 1 percent of income earners pay 40 percent of the income taxes; the top 5 percent pay 60 percent; the top 10 percent pay 71 percent; the top 25 percent, 86 percent; and the top 50 percent, 97 percent? Just how much would the wealthy have to pay for it to be fair?

The more the wealthy pay the more actual dollars they will retain when there are marginal rate cuts, even when the rates of lower-income earners are cut more.

Let's be candid here people; the economy isn't in the shape it's in because of the "disastrous Bush Tax Cuts." True, the Bush Administration increased spending significantly, borrowing money from overseas investors; the dollar is weak, and we're engaged in two wars. The problem is NOT the tax cuts, instead it's the spending. Note the following from John Hawkins:

Liberals regularly claim that revenue from tax cuts must be "made up" somehow, which ignores the fact that government revenue usually goes up after tax cuts.

That was certainly the case after the Bush, Kennedy, and Reagan tax cuts, which makes perfect sense if you understand the Laffer Curve.

There are lots of intelligent arguments that you can make about taxes. You can argue that tax raises may also increase revenue, that tax cuts may reduce the size of the future increase in revenue the government will receive, or that we could eventually cut taxes so dramatically that they would no longer yield revenue increases, but clearly the last few major tax cuts we've had have produced increases in federal revenue, not decreases.

We've also heard "The One" Obama promise to cut taxes for 95% of American people; nevermind that 30-40% of Americans do NOT pay taxes. What that means is that he's going to be giving refund checks to people who do not pay taxes. How's he going to do that? By taxing the rich, and "spreading the wealth."

That's called socialism.

You don't do that in a sinking economy unless you want the economy to sink even further. Theoretically, you CUT taxes, especially capital gains taxes and those on businesses. I'm sorry you have to hear this, liberal boneheads, but the upper class invest; they're entreprenurial opportunities end up increasing jobs and OPPORTUNITIES for Americans. You raise taxes on the rich, they cut back on investment and job creation.

Moreover, per the Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush tax cuts, the economy actually grows and accumulates more revenue.

In his latest column, Charles Wheeler explains why cutting taxes absolutely, positively, cannot lead to more revenue flowing into the treasury as a result of the economy being stimulated:

"Economist Arthur Laffer made a very interesting supposition: If tax rates are high enough, then cutting taxes might actually generate more revenue for the government, or at least pay for themselves. (In one of life's great coincidences, he first sketched a graph of this idea on Dick Cheney's cocktail napkin.) If the government cuts taxes, then Uncle Sam gets a smaller cut of all economic activity -- but reducing taxes also generates new economic activity. Laffer reasoned that, under some circumstances, a tax cut would stimulate so much new economic activity that the government would end up with more in its coffers -- by taking a smaller slice of a much larger pie.

...Think about a simple numerical example: Assume you've got a $10 trillion economy and an average tax rate of 30 percent. So the government takes $3 trillion.

Let's cut the average tax rate to 25 percent and, for the sake of example, assume that it generates $1 trillion in new economic growth (a Herculean assumption, by the way). So now, what does Uncle Sam get? One quarter of $11 trillion is only $2.75 trillion. The economy grows, government revenues shrink.

That's basically what happened with the large Reagan and George W. Bush tax cuts, both of which were followed by large budget deficits. Yes, spending has a lot to do with that, but the bottom line is unequivocal: In both cases, government revenue was lower than it would have been without the tax cuts.

Read the following; this article sums up the BENEFITS of lowering taxes; isn't it amazing how STUPID liberals actually are?

There is a distinct pattern throughout American history: When tax rates are reduced, the economy’s growth rate improves and living standards increase. Good tax policy has a number of interesting side effects. For instance, history tells us that tax revenues grow and “rich” taxpayers pay more tax when marginal tax rates are slashed. This means lower income citizens bear a lower share of the tax burden – a consequence that should lead class-warfare politicians to support lower tax rates.

Conversely, periods of higher tax rates are associated with sub par economic performance and stagnant tax revenues. In other words, when politicians attempt to “soak the rich,” the rest of us take a bath. Examining the three major United States episodes of tax rate reductions can prove useful lessons.

1) Lower tax rates do not mean less tax revenue.

The tax cuts of the 1920s
Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.

According to then-Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon:

The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities or to find other lawful methods of avoiding the realization of taxable income. The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up; wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people.

The Kennedy tax cuts
President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).

According to President John F. Kennedy:

Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.

The Reagan tax cuts
Thanks to “bracket creep,” the inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).

According to then-U.S. Representative Jack Kemp (R-NY), one of the chief architects of the Reagan tax cuts:

At some point, additional taxes so discourage the activity being taxed, such as working or investing, that they yield less revenue rather than more. There are, after all, two rates that yield the same amount of revenue: high tax rates on low production, or low rates on high production.

2) The rich pay more when incentives to hide income are reduced.

The tax cuts of the 1920s
The share of the tax burden paid by the rich rose dramatically as tax rates were reduced. The share of the tax burden borne by the rich (those making $50,000 and up in those days) climbed from 44.2 percent in 1921 to 78.4 percent in 1928.

The Kennedy tax cuts
Just as happened in the 1920s, the share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased following the tax cuts. Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.

The Reagan tax cuts
The share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.

Harmful Spending & Complexity
Lower tax rates are important, but they are not the only critical issue. Both the level of government spending and where that money goes are very important. And even when looking only at tax policy, tax rates are just one piece of the puzzle. If certain types of income are subject to multiple layers of tax, as occurs in the current system, that problem cannot be solved by low rates. Similarly, a tax system with needless levels of complexity will impose heavy costs on the productive sector of the economy.

Barry Obama hypocrisy on foreign policy

Notice that when the RNC spends $150 thousand bucks to refurbish Sarah Palin's wardrobe, the corrupt liberal mainstream media jumps all over the story, yet refuses to mention that Obama thugs are attacking McCain supporters, or that his cronies in states nationwide are trying their damndest to quell anti-Obama dissent?

Liberal hypocrisy knows no bounds. They bitched and moaned that their civil liberties were being stolen when President Bush pushed to pass the Patriot Act and also institute warrantless wiretapping, to TRULY protect us. Yet, Democrats attempt to sift through your garbage (in the name of "recycling"), to enact the Fairness Doctrine, or ban anti-gay/Islamic terrorist speech, truly stealing our first amendments.

The dumb fuckers on the Left, including the MSM, are nowhere to be found. Instead they're all sipping their lattes, driving their Volvos, and castigating Christians.

Just another day in a soon-to-be Obama nation.

Speaking of liberal hypocrisy, try this one on for size. Undoubtedly, you've heard smug liberals proclaim that invading Iraq (in 2003) was illegal and that we had no business here. In one of the recent presidential debates, Democratic candidate Obama stated the following:

"When genocide is happening, when ethnic cleansing is happening somewhere around the world and we stand idly by, that diminishes us."

But he had stated in 2007, "Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there."

Furthermore, it was okay in the late 1990's for President Clinton to interject American military forces in Serbia to halt a genocide occurring against Bosnian Muslims?

How the hell is Iraq or Darfur ANY different? All three have or would be done to prevent or halt genocide.

The answer is that it's not different; it's just the matter of liberals, so consumed with their of Bush, Christianity and Conservatism, to concoct stories, courtesy of the aforementioned corrupt liberal MSM.

Message to Republicans; Refute Democratic Lies

Unsurprisingly, given the outrageously high cost of gas and the Left's penchant for pointing the fickle finger of blame at big corporations, we've heard a lot about how big oil is gouging consumers.

However, when you take a look at the actual numbers in California, for example, you find that the "Distribution Costs, Marketing Costs and Profits" for the oil companies make up only 8 cents per gallon of gas.

That doesn't sound like gouging, does it? But if you believe it does, what would you say about the 70 cents per gallon in taxes that's paid by California consumers? Additionally, as Karl Rove has pointed out,

(Oil companies) make about 8.3 cents in gross profit per dollar of sales....Electronics make 14.5 cents per dollar and computer equipment makers take in 13.7 cents per dollar, according to the Census Bureau. Microsoft's margin is 27.5 cents per dollar of sales.

Sure, these oil companies are huge and therefore, even an 8.3% profit adds up to billions of dollars, but when you look at the relatively small percentage that they're putting in their pockets as compared to the humongous share that the government is raking in, it's pretty clear that it's the government, not the oil companies, that is gouging consumers.

The video below epitomizes the untruths spread by Democrats.

Man admits plotting RNC bombing

According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, a "23-year-old Michigan man has admitted to plotting to set off a homemade bomb in the tunnels near the Xcel Energy Center, hoping it would cause a power failure and prompt cancellation of the Republican National Convention."

Matthew B. DePalma of Flint, pleaded guilty in federal court in Minneapolis Tuesday to illegally possessing Molotov cocktails.

According to the plea agreement:

DePalma spent about 90 minutes at the Hennepin County Library on Aug. 18 researching recipes for homemade bombs. He bought the supplies for Molotov cocktails a few days later.

He said that if he could bomb the Xcel Center on Sept. 1, "they might call off the convention."

He added that a "power outage would say a lot" and that it was his "main purpose." DePalma also said that he would like to bomb the Xcel Energy Center on Sept. 4 so that the convention would "end with a bang."

On Aug. 22, DePalma allegedly made two jugs of a homemade napalm-like substance for use in the Molotov cocktails. He was seen traveling to a remote location in Rosemount to allegedly assemble and test the Molotov cocktails.

Depalma faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. Sentencing has yet to be scheduled.

Of course the bonehead liberals castigated the St. Paul for "heavy-handed tactics," but guess what: it saved lives and prevented damage and disruptions.

So where are the idiot Leftist activists that claimed the St. Paul police department had overstepped their bounds while committing illegal searches?

They're no where to be found.

You see, the Left, like their Islamic brethren, think they can usurp our rights by screaming the loudest, bullying, and intimidation.

Furthermore, they love to fabricate untruths, especially against Christians, hard-working folks, and men/women in uniform.

A pertinent issue, if the Left decides to get REALLY tough is this, which political party do most of the gun owners in this country constitute?

Latest charge of "racism" against McCain-Palin

Courtesy of Kansas City Star editorial page buffoon Lewis Duiguid, now calling a socialist a socialist, as Republican presidential candidate John McCain and vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin have done lately, is racist.

You've got to be kidding me.

Of course the object of those remarks is one Barry Soetoro/Dunham/Obama, Democratic presidential candidate, and Mainstream Media golden child.

The "socialist" label that Sen. John McCain and his GOP presidential running mate Sarah Palin are trying to attach to Sen. Barack Obama actually has long and very ugly historical roots.

J. Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI from 1924 to 1972, used the term liberally to describe African Americans who spent their lives fighting for equality.

Those freedom fighters included the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., who led the Civil Rights Movement; W.E.B. Du Bois, who in 1909 helped found the NAACP which is still the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization; Paul Robeson, a famous singer, actor and political activist who in the 1930s became involved in national and international movements for better labor relations, peace and racial justice; and A. Philip Randolph, who founded and was the longtime head of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters and a leading advocate for civil rights for African Americans.

McCain and Palin have simply reached back in history to use an old code word for black. It set whites apart from those deemed unAmerican and those who could not be trusted during the communism scare.

Shame on McCain and Palin.

Pardon my language, but what a crock of shit. Any attack by the Right is deemed racist by liberals and propagated through the corrupt, liberal mainstream media.

Here's a newsflash for you, Lewis: Obama IS a socialist. Not only has he been affiliated with the New Deal Party, a reknowned socialist organization, but on multiple occasions he has employed the phrases "redistribution of wealth" and "spread the wealth around." Sorry, Lewis, but that is code for SOCIALISM.

It's getting sad that any dissent in this country has been stifled by the Left, notably Obama and his Thought-Police. Oh but wait, it was Bush that stole your civil rights, isn't that correct?

Idiots.

Liberal Hypocrisy of the Day: Attacks against Christians

Isn't it ironic that liberals are offended if you accuse certain minorities for causing most of the mischief in town (backed by statistics of course) or impugn homeless people for urinating in places where most people would not, or label you a racist for not wanting to want for a certain Democratic presidential candidate.

Remember, stereotypes are usually based on facts.

Said liberals are quick to cast aspersions on anyone that disagrees not with them. They love to flaunt their sophistication and enlightenment. After all, this certain Democratic president is often referred to as the "Enlightened One."

That sophistication is thrown out the window when it comes to Christianity; the gloves come off.

Note the following, courtesy of the Minneapolis Star Tribune's Katherine Kersten:

I get it -- Al Franken is a serious senatorial candidate despite his penchant for the pornographic. Franken's one-liners about rape and oral sex and his leering fantasies about big-busted women were just for yucks, right?

Last June, DFL bigwigs chose to forget about their man's decades-long record of sexual crudity after he hooked the endorsement by putting on a serious face and saying "sorry" at the party's convention.

But Franken didn't apologize for another aspect of his trash-talking shtick. He's aimed some of his most offensive material at religious believers, particularly Christians.

Why hasn't this been aired in public? We in the press are too busy searching through Sarah Palin's junior high yearbooks and tracking down the filing dates of Joe the Plumber's tax returns.

Meanwhile, Franken gets a pass for making a joke of the life and death of Jesus Christ.

Franken finds Christ's crucifixion to be a barrel of laughs. For example, in his 1999 book, "Why Not Me?" he wrote about his discovery -- as a fictional former president -- of "the complete skeleton of Jesus Christ still nailed to the cross" during an archeological dig. At the Franken Presidential Library gift shop, visitors can buy "small pieces of Jesus' skeleton."

"We would like to display Jesus' skeleton at some future point," Franken went on. "It's merely a matter of designing and building an exhibition space ... . Until then he's very comfortable in a box down in our basement near the geothermal power station."

Very funny. Anybody want to try a joke like that about Mohammed?

Reread the last sentence. Of course no one will make a joke about Mohammed or Islam in general for two reasons: 1.) liberals have aligned themselves with Muslims, despite their overwhelmingly negative views towards women, homosexuals, and non-Muslims; 2.) they fear violent retribution from Muslims if insulted.

You don't see too many Christians issuing fatwas, do you?

The enlightened liberals have no problem stereotyping and mocking Christians for their beliefs. Personally as a Christian, I'm not too offended by what Franken said; with that said, his humor is lame. He's just not a funny guy. He thinks he is, but he's not.

For a group that recoils in horror at any little verbal indiscretion, their hypocrisy knows no bounds when it comes to Christianity.

But hypocrisy from liberals shouldn't really surprise you, should it?

Liberal Lies: What the liberals WON'T tell you about Obama's "tax cuts" and rich taxpayers

In this edition, I analyze the notion that Democratic presidential candidate Barry Obama's tax program is anything more than a free ride with no incentives for poor people. I came across an article, courtesy of the Wall Street Journal, that analyzes and essentially debunks Obama's proposed tax cuts. A term I had read in a recent article is "mathemagic." From what I've gleaned from reading and listening to various sources, is that Obama would essentially give money to people that do NOT pay taxpayers.

Note the following:

- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.

- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.

- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).

- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.

- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.

- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.

- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.

Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.

That's called "welfare," folks. Let the transformation into a welfare state begin. Of course this is now surprise. We've heard Obama state in the past, most notably with Joe the Plumber, that sharing the wealth is good for everybody.

It is?

How is an bottomless cup of handouts for lazy, unmotivated poor people good for everybody? It doesn't make said poor people any richer, instead it makes everyone else poorer. Remember that Winston Churchill once said, "The vice of capitalism is that there is an unequal share of the blessings; the virtue of socialism is that there is an equal share of the misery."

Obama has also stated that 95% of the population will receive a tax break. Technically, that's impossible since a significant chunk of this country do not pay taxes. How he can reward those that do not pay taxes is through this concept of wealth redistribution. The "tax breaks" for those that do not pay taxes will come in the form of various refunds.

Regarding the notion that "rich" people do NOT share the overall tax burden, Dick Morris states the following:

In fact, the rich are paying vastly more in taxes than they ever have. "Reality Check," by Dennis Keegan and David West, points out that the percentage of income-tax revenues paid by the top percent of the population has almost doubled in the last 20 years; it now pays 40 percent of all income tax. (The bottom half in income pays less than 3 percent.) Despite the lower rates, the rich are paying more in taxes because they are earning more and more. In the last eight years, real, after-inflation income growth for the top 10 percent of the population has been more than 45 percent.

It's easy political fodder for the Left to blame President Bush and the upper class for the mortgage crisis and the supposed disastrous policies from the former. But what happens when you start taxing the upper class, and all forms of business owners?

These disastrous economic policies lie not in the Bush tax cuts, but instead with the increases in spending and the subsequent expansion of the federal deficit. It's almost an economic given that if taxes are lowered, revenues increase. Note the following:

Let's step back from the politics and ask one simple question: Does the idea of supply-side economics make fundamental good sense or not?

I say that it does. It's so simple: Tax rates that are too high can be self-defeating, and so lowering them can increase total revenues. Bartlett told me that this idea can be traced all the way back to Jonathan Swift, who wrote in 1728 that "in the business of heavy impositions, two and two never make more than one." He noted that economists and philosophers from Smith, Montesquieu, Say, and Mill, to von Mises and Keynes, wrote about the basic principle.

In the modern era, of course, no economist is more closely associated with supply-side economics than Arthur Laffer. He embodied the idea as the famous Laffer Curve, which illustrates that government will earn no revenues at all if tax rates are either zero or 100%. Somewhere in between is a tax rate at which government revenue is maximized. So when rates are too high — too near 100% — revenues can be increased by cutting taxes.

According to the TaxProf blog, hundreds of economists have signed an letter opposing Obama's tax to plan:

We are equally concerned with his proposals to increase tax rates on labor income and investment. His dividend and capital gains tax increases would reduce investment and cut into the savings of millions of Americans. His proposals to increase income and payroll tax rates would discourage the formation and expansion of small businesses and reduce employment and take-home pay, as would his mandates on firms to provide expensive health insurance.

After hearing such economic criticism of his proposals, Barack Obama has apparently suggested to some people that he might postpone his tax increases, perhaps to 2010. But it is a mistake to think that postponing such tax increases would prevent their harmful effect on the economy today. The prospect of such tax rate increases in 2010 is already a drag on the economy. Businesses considering whether to hire workers today and expand their operations have time horizons longer than a year or two, so the prospect of higher taxes starting in 2009 or 2010 reduces hiring and investment in 2008.

Again, what Obama and his minions in the Democratic Party have done, enabled by their partners in crime in the corrupt media is simply lie to the public, whether it's about the economy, global warming, or big oil.

Obama-bots: Drinking the Kool-Aid

The parallels are eerie...the way Democratic presidential candidate Barry Soetoro/Dunham/Obama has captivated millions of people, not only in this country, but globally as well.

Is this man running for president or leading a cult?

It matters NOT what this man says or does, his followers and the corrupt, liberal mainstream media continue to figuratively fellate the man. Furthermore, at every turn, he and his minions, for that is truly what they are, have attempted to stifle free speech and dissent.

He has also made his intentions clear, the conversion of a country based on Judeo-Christian principles to a godless socialist nation where minorities and those practicing alternative lifestyles are bestowed status of "special," abortions occur at will, our taxes skyrocket, global warming is standard orthodoxy in public schools, etc.

The possibilities, if this man is elected and Democrats continue to grab seats in the Congress, are truly frightening.

What's further frightening is that the sheeple of this country are letting it happen. This man can do and say want he wants without fear of retribution. Couple the threat of the most liberal president in history with a nearly filibuster proof Congress, and the possibilities are frightening; a liberal supermajority, if you will.

Note the following, from the Wall Street Journal:

- Medicare for all. When HillaryCare cratered in 1994, the Democrats concluded they had overreached, so they carved up the old agenda into smaller incremental steps, such as Schip for children. A strongly Democratic Congress is now likely to lay the final flagstones on the path to government-run health insurance from cradle to grave.

Mr. Obama wants to build a public insurance program, modeled after Medicare and open to everyone of any income. According to the Lewin Group, the gold standard of health policy analysis, the Obama plan would shift between 32 million and 52 million from private coverage to the huge new entitlement. Like Medicare or the Canadian system, this would never be repealed.

The commitments would start slow, so as not to cause immediate alarm. But as U.S. health-care spending flowed into the default government options, taxes would have to rise or services would be rationed, or both. Single payer is the inevitable next step, as Mr. Obama has already said is his ultimate ideal.

- The business climate. "We have some harsh decisions to make," Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned recently, speaking about retribution for the financial panic. Look for a replay of the Pecora hearings of the 1930s, with Henry Waxman, John Conyers and Ed Markey sponsoring ritual hangings to further their agenda to control more of the private economy. The financial industry will get an overhaul in any case, but telecom, biotech and drug makers, among many others, can expect to be investigated and face new, more onerous rules. See the "Issues and Legislation" tab on Mr. Waxman's Web site for a not-so-brief target list.

The danger is that Democrats could cause the economic downturn to last longer than it otherwise will by enacting regulatory overkill like Sarbanes-Oxley. Something more punitive is likely as well, for instance a windfall profits tax on oil, and maybe other industries.

- Union supremacy. One program certain to be given right of way is "card check." Unions have been in decline for decades, now claiming only 7.4% of the private-sector work force, so Big Labor wants to trash the secret-ballot elections that have been in place since the 1930s. The "Employee Free Choice Act" would convert workplaces into union shops merely by gathering signatures from a majority of employees, which means organizers could strongarm those who opposed such a petition.

The bill also imposes a compulsory arbitration regime that results in an automatic two-year union "contract" after 130 days of failed negotiation. The point is to force businesses to recognize a union whether the workers support it or not. This would be the biggest pro-union shift in the balance of labor-management power since the Wagner Act of 1935.

- Taxes. Taxes will rise substantially, the only question being how high. Mr. Obama would raise the top income, dividend and capital-gains rates for "the rich," substantially increasing the cost of new investment in the U.S. More radically, he wants to lift or eliminate the cap on income subject to payroll taxes that fund Medicare and Social Security. This would convert what was meant to be a pension insurance program into an overt income redistribution program. It would also impose a probably unrepealable increase in marginal tax rates, and a permanent shift upward in the federal tax share of GDP.

- The green revolution. A tax-and-regulation scheme in the name of climate change is a top left-wing priority. Cap and trade would hand Congress trillions of dollars in new spending from the auction of carbon credits, which it would use to pick winners and losers in the energy business and across the economy. Huge chunks of GDP and millions of jobs would be at the mercy of Congress and a vast new global-warming bureaucracy. Without the GOP votes to help stage a filibuster, Senators from carbon-intensive states would have less ability to temper coastal liberals who answer to the green elites.

- Free speech and voting rights. A liberal supermajority would move quickly to impose procedural advantages that could cement Democratic rule for years to come. One early effort would be national, election-day voter registration. This is a long-time goal of Acorn and others on the "community organizer" left and would make it far easier to stack the voter rolls. The District of Columbia would also get votes in Congress -- Democratic, naturally.

Felons may also get the right to vote nationwide, while the Fairness Doctrine is likely to be reimposed either by Congress or the Obama FCC. A major goal of the supermajority left would be to shut down talk radio and other voices of political opposition.

- Special-interest potpourri. Look for the watering down of No Child Left Behind testing standards, as a favor to the National Education Association. The tort bar's ship would also come in, including limits on arbitration to settle disputes and watering down the 1995 law limiting strike suits. New causes of legal action would be sprinkled throughout most legislation. The anti-antiterror lobby would be rewarded with the end of Guantanamo and military commissions, which probably means trying terrorists in civilian courts. Google and MoveOn.org would get "net neutrality" rules, subjecting the Internet to intrusive regulation for the first time.

Those of us on the right are watching the new United Socialist States of America unfold before our very eyes; ironically, the Left bitched and moaned when the Bush Administration used warrantless wiretapping on international phone calls between suspected terrorists to ultimately keep this country safe, YET, the Obama Thugocracy, has attempted to stifle dissent at HIS urging.

I stated in a column last week that the Left's hypocrisy knows no bounds, and their lack of culpability is turning this country into a welfare-state. It's this hypocrisy is evident in the Left's collective mocking of those of us who believe in the TRUE One, Jesus Christ. Instead, the Left has embraced their own messiah, Barry Obama.

No, Barry, you were NOT born in Bethlehem.

Liberals and their utter lack of responsibility

That's really what it comes down to with liberals and their Democratic enablers, doesn't it?

Whether it's the $700 billion bailout, terrorism, abortion, taxes on the rich, health care, entitlements, their collective mentality is either the "underprivileged" are owed or are entitled to something because they've been held down, or it's okay to partake in irresponsible behavior sans fear of taking personal responsibility.

The $700 billion bailout was passed jointly by a Republican White House and Democratic Congress. But the essence behind the bill was Democratic implications that homeowners who had purchased houses and had been foreclosed upon, or were facing foreclosures, were actually "tricked" into buying houses by predatory lenders. Puh-lease. If you click the link to Michelle Malkin's column, you'll notice that the number of left-wing mortgage counseling services is staggering.

No, the problem is that 1.) instead of working and saving for a house that fit within our price range, people from all walks of life wanted a big house; in other words, something they couldn't afford. 2.) when the shit went down, because they greedily purchased said excessive home, they figured that Joe and Joanne taxpayer would foot the bill for them. So the socialists in Congress, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, et al, along with some Republican idiots, passed a bill "bailing out" the idiots who didn't belong in those house, at the expense of honest, hard working Americans.

But if you talk to a liberal, they tell you that something had to be done. The ones who couldn't afford the expensive homes (see $200 thousand on a $30 thousand budget) were tricked, they were lied to.

Bullshit, I say. Moreover, because many of these homeowners were minorities, the specter of racism looms over any accusation from those of us on the Right. If we impugn these people, it's because we've all taken off our KKK hoods long enough to point fingers.

By extension, this bailout issue seques into the notion of entitlements, welfare, and taxes. Because liberals play the victim card to perfectly, it's easy to blame those of us who work hard and pay our taxes. Somehow, according to liberals, we've kept poor Americans, once again, often minorities, from grabbing their slice of the pie. By taxing us that have worked hard, paid their bills, gone to college, etc (and notably because we're "white"), Democrats, led by presidential candidate Barack Obama, want to "spread the wealth around." Why? Because it's good for everyone?

Huh? How is it good to reward laziness and lack of motivation? Rather than make poor people richer, it instead makes ALL of us poorer. Rather than allow those of us to enjoy our HARD-EARNED prosperity, we're all supposed to suffer together.

When it comes to the War on Terror, and our subsequent "world standing," it's actually George W. Bush's fault that Radical Muslims loathe us to the extent we do. Nevermind that terrorist attacks were being committed in the name of Allah LONG BEFORE Bush became president (see: Beirut, early 1980's, USS Cole, 1998 Embassy bombings, Khobar Towers, FIRST World Trade Center bombing), or that President Bill Clinton responded ineffectually to terror attacks perpetrated against, NOR really took any action to apprehend Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

Regarding abortion, nothing epitomizes lack of responsibilty than statements from Obama, whereby he would never want to burden mothers with the "punishment" of an unwanted child. Rather than hold accountable those who engage in unsafe fornication, he wants to allow abortions occur, completely unfettered. Nevermind that we've butchered 30+ million babies in this country.

That is the ultimate in lack of responsibility.

Minnesota Update: Examining key issues (Energy, global warming, open borders) in the Walz-Davis race

On occasion, I like to dissect political issues germane to Minnesotans like me. In this case, I'm deconstructing the 1st Congressional District battle between Democratic Congressman Tim Walz and Republican challenger Brian Davis.

The Austin Post-Bulletin has provided essentially a scorecard on where each candidate stands on pertinent issues.

Here are some of the issues:

Energy philosophies

Even though the moratorium has been lifted on off-shore drilling, both candidates battled over its merits.

Davis said he strongly supported a "drill here, drill now" philosophy, reciting a mantra that has become identified with his campaign. He noted that a decade ago the price of oil was $10 a barrel but rose to as high as $147 per barrel this past summer. He said Walz has done nothing to bring down gas prices, voting 12 times against off-shore drilling during his two years in Congress.

But Walz said such a proposal would have done nothing to alleviate gas prices.

"I'll tell you what, I did vote 12 times against that, because I'm not going to give Big Oil a free ride again," Walz said.

He said the key was not simply to focus on oil drilling, but to begin a process for transitioning to the next generation of renewable fuels, such as biofuels, and wind and solar power. He said bipartisan legislation he supported would have accomplished that, taking the royalties from off-shore leases and funding an "alternative and sustainable future" based on renewal energy.

In the process, it would have created jobs, powered the economy and enhanced the country's security, he said.

"That's a real solution. That's not a slogan," Walz said.

Note the statements from Walz on Big Oil, and the long-term plan for oil. First, had Bill Clinton not vetoed a bill in the mid-1990's sponsored by a Republican Congress to open ANWR and the Outer Continental Shelf to drilling, we wouldn't be in this mess now. The oil WOULD be available. Second, the reference to "Big Oil" is merely a lame attempt by a liberal to tap into pubic resentment. Big Oil is no greater an evil than "Big Wind" or "Big Solar." In fact, Big Oil HARDLY makes money hand-over-fist. I've read numerous reports that for every $1.00 invested by "Big Oil," they recoup $.08 of profit. EIGHT LOUSY CENTS... but because you hear about their BILLIONS of dollars in profit, Democrats propagate a lie. Those billions are being shared by millions of people, not just a few oil tycoons.

What should we do about the 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States?

Davis: "If you want to have a debate about legal immigration and a guest worker program, that is a legitimate debate. But illegal immigration has to stop by almost any means necessary, 'cause we're losing our country. Unlike Congressman Walz, I do support building a border fence."

Walz: "Let's have an open and honest discussion among our workers and businesses about what we need for labor in this country. Let's have them go through a legal system that gives them a biometric card. We'll have the workers necessary, and our resources will go to stopping at the border those things that we want to stop."

You see, you can't have it both ways, Tim. You can't purport to defend the rights of working class Americans by supporting an open border policy. Illegal immigrants thus extorting said policy are taking jobs from Americans. Furthermore, these people BROKE the law. Democrats have no problems enforcing crying foul when someone insults their "Dear Leader," Democratic presidential candidate Barry Obama, or howling when someone proffers their opinions on the evils of Islam.

Is global warming man-made, and should efforts be made to control it?
Davis: "I contest (the idea) that the majority of global warming can be proven (to be caused) by fossil fuel combustion. Some of it, yes. All of it, no. I would also contest strongly that by burning fewer fossil fuels, we're going to control the climate."
Walz: "The vast majority of Americans who do see (the threat of global warming) see the concern to move toward (energy) alternatives, not only for economic reasons, not only for security reasons, but for the (purpose) of handing our planet to children in a livable, sustainable manner."

No Tim, the vast majority of us do NOT see the threat of global warming. If they have, it's because the corrupt mainstream media, in conjunction with leftist diplomats worldwide, have invented this notion, contrary to evidence that we're on the cusp on a significant cooling period instead. Did you know, for example, that global temperates are cooler by .07 degree C since 1998? I bet you didn't...the MSM won't allow it. Also, did you know there were periods, prior to the existence of humans, that carbon dioxide levels were three to four times greater than they were now? Probably not too much cars then, I would imagine.

Moreover, scientists by the truckload have denounced global warming, or at least implored governments to deliberate more on potential legislation.

Not your grandpa's Democratic party anymore

If my grandpa was alive, I have reservations that he would be a Democrat. Grandpa Twin Cities Conservative (Todd Anthony) was born and raised in Ely, Minnesota.

You see, after my grandpa returned from serving three years in the Pacific during WWII, he went to work in one of the mines on the Iron Range. If you've been to Ely or any of the surrounding communities, you probably know to which I refer. It's a region in Northern Minnesota comprised of bands of iron ore.

Traditionally, that area of Minnesota has been a Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party stronghold; it's voted almost exclusively Democrat in past elections.

More than likely, ol' Gramps would be disgusted at what the Democratic party has morphed into. Rather than represent the voice of the people, particularly that of the WORKING CLASS, it has evolved into a clique that represents the wishes of the latte liberal sect.

Nothing represents the latte liberal mentality more than what Democratic presidential candidate Barry Soetoro/Dunham/Obama said to a group of San Francisco liberals: "It's not surprising that they get bitter, they cling to . . . religion . . . as a way to explain their frustrations."

The only similarities between the Democratic Party of today and that of yesteryear would be its Socialist elements. Instead, the Democratic Party listens to the voice of the diplomats, the academics, and the fringe groups. Furthermore, these groups are often represented by the left-wing elitist:

"Like the 'new class', liberal elites are often understood to be university/college educated professionals, often considered to wield immense cultural power in the media, academy, and school system. They use this cultural power to influence politics beyond their numerical significance, advocating fringe interests to the detriment of 'mainstream' opinion. Their political arguments are allegedly self-serving and frivolous, aimed at restricting public choice."

These latte liberals share no ideals with Democrats like Grandpa. To be perfectly candid, my grandpa was bigotted. He disliked minorities (or anyone different from him for that matter), he disliked laziness, he LOVED America, he saved money, he worked hard, and he was VERY religious.

Tell me how ANY of the above mentioned characteristics mirror that of the latte liberal?

They don't.

For example, how does a trendy cause, such as global warming, which is supported by the tofu class, benefit WORKING CLASS Democrats (or working class AMERICANS) for that matter? It doesn't. Instead, because global warming apologists place such an emphasis on alternative energy and opposition to this country's natural resources, it does not allow us to cultivate our domestic energy supply, whether it's oil, coal, nuclear power, etc. In the case of oil, coupled with the almost daily increase in demand from countries like China and India, we cannot place our OWN oil in the world supply, bringing demand down, and thus lowering the cost of gasoline. Add to this the environmentalists' refusal to allow the construction of new refineries in this country.

What does this mean? Well, in addition to the aforementioned increased cost of gasoline, it also drives the prices of our monthly energy bills, whether it's at home or work. People need to come up with funds to pay for higher gasoline and higher utilies, so they cut back in other areas, such as travelling, going out to eat, going to movies, buying clothes, buying food, etc.

Speaking of food, the Left's insistence that end result of oil increases "global warming" has led to a worldwide movement to embrace ethanol. What ethanol does ultimately, as well as increased sugar cane production for automobile consumption, is drive up the price of food.

"(T)he rise in prices is also the self-inflicted result of America's reckless ethanol subsidies. This year biofuels will take a third of America's (record) maize harvest. That affects food markets directly: fill up an SUV's fuel tank with ethanol and you have used enough maize to feed a person for a year."

How does that benefit Working Class Americans?

It doesn't.

Something to consider also is that the latte liberal school relies on white guilt and support for "freedom fighters" (such as Hamas and the PLO). Futhermore, this mentality is prevalent in its opposition to our nation's military. It starts at the top; note the following comment from Obama:

"We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there."

How does that support the military?

It doesn't. Instead, it fuels hatred in Muslim countries, for example, that our troops are only there to rob and rape them. Furthermore, Islamic fundamentalists have used civilians as human shields, often hiding in houses and mosques. IF they want to fight dirty, our military should fight dirty as well.

I thought we learned our lesson after former Democratic president Bill Clinton failed to truly combat Islamic terrorism.

Ultimately, Obama's presidential bid has served as an opiate for many people in this country. Unfortunately, it's also proved that people often can't truly think objectively. His message of wealth redistribution, hope, and change has an intoxicating essence to it.

What we'll soon learn is that working class American will be the ones to suffer under his portending presidency.

Barney Frank: Playing the Race Card

Here we go (rolling eyes).

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), employing TYPICAL Liberal politics, stated "that Republican criticism of Democrats over the nation's housing crisis is a veiled attack on the poor that's racially motivated."

Typical, when presented with facts, this is what the Democrats do. They play the race card. Barry Obama isn't qualified? That's a RACIST attack!! The Democrats forced Affirmative Action down our throats through essentially coercion of financial institutions to lend to people with shady histories, no or low incomes, etc? That's a RACIST attack!!!

No, Barney; that's not a RACIST attack, that is a FACT instead. We taxpayers are suffering because you and your liberal minions, since the inception of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, have, under the threat of litigation, forced financial institutions to completely disregard all common sense and lending acumen, in order to put minorities into houses.

To compound the problem, you and your aforementioned liberal minions profited handsomely from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac campaign contributions.

Furthermore, Republicans such as George W. Bush and John McCain have issued warnings for year that, due to poor accounting practices, the above mortgage institutions faced financial peril. The Morning Bell states the following:

"(C)onservatives have been critical of how Fannie, and Freddie Mac, have leveraged their government-sponsored advantages (including exemptions from state and federal taxes, lower capital requirements, and the ability to borrow at rates well below those paid by private companies), to create a co-monopoly in the housing finance sector. When Fannie’s accounting scandal came to light in 2004, conservatives pushed hard for reforms to phase out Fannie and Freddie."

USA Today also adds that Conservatives should be furious that the Democrats, who essentially caused this mess, are getting off untarnished, no thanks to the corrupt liberal Mainstream Media:

"My bottom line: The McCain campaign is underestimating how absolutely furious conservatives are that free markets, and by extension Reaganomics and the last 25 years of American economic policy, are getting the blame for the housing and credit crisis. A real morale killer, they tell me. Over and over. Every day."

John McCain needs to remind the American public of that fact during tonight's debate.

Obama: Truth equals Smears

We've heard this refrain from Democratic presidential candidate Barry Soetoro/Dunham/Obama on more than one occasion. According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Obama stated that Republican nominee John McCain is "gambling that he can distract you with smears rather than talk to you about substance. They'd rather try to tear our campaign down than lift this country up. It's what you do when you're out of touch, out of ideas, and running out of time."

When the Republicans uncover potentially damaging information pertaning to the "Chosen One," the Obama camp instantly cries "smear" or "racist." We've heard it previously from Obama and his minions. Any effort to expose Obama for the socialist radical that he is, is met with either threats of litigation or baseless accusations.

Nor does it help when the overwhelmingly libeal Mainstream Media propagates the notion that attacks on Obama are racially-tinged. Yet, they're trying their DAMNEDEST to ensure that the American public doesn't learn who the real Obama is before the election. Carol Platt Liebau states the following (in a "what John McCain SHOULD be saying about Obama" treatise):

Barack Obama has multiple ties to those responsible for the present economic crisis?:

Franklin Raines, the immediate past CEO of Fannie Mae – who has collected a $90 million golden parachute while driving Fannie into the ground – has advised Obama on housing issues.

Jim Johnson, yet another former Fannie Mae CEO, resigned from Obama’s vice presidential search team when it was revealed he had received a sweetheart home mortgage deal.

Despite serving in the Senate for only four years, Obama himself has been the second-largest recipient of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac largesse in the entire Congress, ahead even of former presidential candidate John Kerry, who’s spent two decades in the Senate?

Obama’s long-time political ally, radical group ACORN, played a key role in pressuring banks to offer loans to those who were unlikely to be able to pay them back. ACORN has taken credit for pressuring banks to accept undocumented income as a basis for offering loans, for offering loans without using credit scores, and for making 100% financed loans available to low-income people.

There is more, of course. Do voters know:

That, in apparent defiance of federal election law, the Obama campaign refuses to identify individual donors who have provided almost half the funds for his campaign, including obvious fakes like “Mr. Good Will” and “Mr. Doodad Pro”? And that 11,500 donations to his campaign – totaling almost $34 million – may have come from overseas? Or that two Palestinians living in a Hamas-controlled refugee camp spent $31,300 in Obama’s online store? Who are all these people, and why won’t the Obama campaign obey the law and identify them?

Repeatedly, we’ve heard the media denounce the “rumors” about Barack Obama that are, supposedly, circulated on the internet exclusively by the bigoted and the ignorant.

Yet, as Liebau states above, the mainstream media, in an effort to defend ITS candidate, has proffered the notion that any accusations are based on race and hatred. Notice what they did when fellow Democrats raised legitimate points about Obama's lack of experience, voting record, political affiliations, etc.

He did it with both Bill and Hillary Clinton, as well as Geraldine Ferraro. It's an easy game to play if you're a minority. Furthermore, Obama has on occasion, warned voters that Republicans are so narrow-minded that they "will try to make voters afraid of him, and suggested they would use his race to scare up votes for John McCain.

Yep, it's all about race in this country. Rather than speak freely of someone's LACK of qualifications, we're forced to play nice in order to NOT offend someone. Obama KNOWS this; he knows that if someone brings forth a legitimate claim against him, because he's black, he can employ the race card.