Is Beauty a Danger to the Marxist Rule of Equality?

 

HOW IS THE UNIVERSITY BRED, MARXIST SNOT FACTOR, COMING ALONG IN YOUR LIFE?

 

There is a snot factor in modern  human life.   It is one of the most powerful drives among today’s  human herds.     No one seems to have engaged in studies about this  human snot factor, perhaps because most of   its  origins  and of its poisons  emanate  from a culture’s ‘learned’, today’s modern university.

 

University people, as is true of all leftists, don’t like to examine themselves or ever be examined.   They are  ‘learned’.   Most  are Marxists and other kinds of leftists.

 

Snottery is an art form of  human behavior.   Snots are usually so pleased with themselves and their own personal achievements,  they  develop  disdain for those brothers and sisters and moms and dads  who have not been able to reach their exceptional  lofty heights.

 

Most snots live and work at university…….very likely  not, however,  in the natural science world of human inquisitiveness.    The farther one delves into the infinite small or into the infinite large as well as the inbetween, the more unlikely one is to believe that the universe centers around ones self. 

 

The main enemy of  universal snottiness is the human male.    It’s a problem of his birth.    He was born curious.

 

Snottiness is a new phenomenon in Western life, I am guessing.    When husband and wife, sisters and brothers have  lived, or have tried to live in the rurals throughout  the millenium, there is not much to get snotty about.    Survival is the name of their  game.   Every hour and day have their demands, some never before seen or experienced.

 

I am certain aristocrats of King Louie the fourteenth’s court  enjoyed the raptures of snottiness.   A couple generations later a queen of France was alleged to have said, “Let them eat cake”……the them being the rabble in the Paris streets and French countryside.   The  ‘snottied upon’ rebelled however, replying with tricks of their ‘low’ trade to take action they thought appropriate for the time and situation, rape, pillage and burn.     What was no longer thought  useful, was discarded.

 

Snots wield much power in modern  society.   Actually, many of them become so skilled in snottery they become supreme leaders of nations.   Barack Hussein Obama, present president of the United States is one of the most successful, most skilled snots in our  nation’s history.

 

Mr. Obama belongs in the ‘soft snot’ category of the species.   His is a sub-group of Supreme Snots, usually Marxists, the ones who are so pleased with themselves in  look and sound, they become determined to sculpt  their subjects  not to be clones, for that might  become a danger  some day, but to become  obedient children all playing the same games.

 

“Tough snots” are Marxists who don’t waste their time fooling around training folks to remain  hungry children.    Josef Stalin, Adolph Hitler, Mao Tse Dung,  Pol Pot, are some of the ‘tough snots’ from history  whose names  come to mind.    They were so pleased with themselves, they  tried to eliminate all   those  whom they suspected   had  tendencies to become  snotty……those who ‘didn’t know their place’.     They were hugely  successful in their conquests….for a period of time.    Scores of millions of  snots and snots-in-the-bud  disappeared to make more room for obedient,   lefty children-for-life.

 

Modern Western snottiness has devolved from the good old  days of  ‘tough snot’ rule by  loudly denouncing the bloody parts of snottiness past.      It’s  bad for publicity in places which still hold elections.     In the USA Snot-in-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama promised “Change We Have Been Waiting For” for ‘his’ people to win his throne for the moment.     The promise  of Obamachange was that  half of the population would never  again be pressed  to pay taxes.    Instead, these folks would be trained to become eternal children, prayerfully forever snotless, and always obedient to Obamarule in exchange for food, shelter, and controlled knowledge.   

 

(Note, the adverb, ‘prayerfully’, inserted into the sentence above.    Like the major snots,  i.e., those who rule snottily,  whether the Mao hard line, or the Barack soft line,  Marxists DO pray…….They pray to themselves, the only god they have ever known.)

 

It is likely most, perhaps  all  peoples ‘above’ the enslaved peasant,  have snot moments….in speech, writing and thought.   “Why aren’t all  people like ME” moments with the required condescension added.      All of us have our own special knowledge, some vast and shallow, others narrow but deep and  any mix in between.   However, snots and snottiness can be ugly, very ugly.   

 

So much of today’s American ‘ugly’ both in thought and deed’, come from the ‘Liberal Arts’ madrassas of its universities……These institutions have become leftwing snot havens, taught by snots of the worst kind, by those  toned with all of the hates of the worst slaughters in the human experience……Marxist class hate.   

 

These university snots  preach Marxism.    They preach that everyone must go to the Marxist ‘churches’ not just on Sunday, either.    This  Lefty  faith must be preached in texts, by video, throughout all worlds of entertainment,  in church and synagogues, in all places where snots gather.    Snots must be made to snot-think alike for  peace’s sake!

 

Most gross snots are incurious…..and so, are likely to be female, either by sex or training.     They are so totally pleased with their own snotstatus, they find no need to ‘look’ further in life beyond being served. 

 

Personally, I have had long bouts with lefty snottiness.   I first  sensed the disease  after I graduated from my first round of college.    I saw it in others while I was at college.   The professors then, knew so much more than I did, that is to say, in the world I felt I wanted to imitate and compete, they had a right to be snotty, I thought.    I knew I was practicing snottiness when pontificating among my peers, but so were they.  

 

Then I went into the military as a nobody.   It was one of the greatest experiences of my life.   The snot was still in me, but I had to learn to  keep it under control which helped me recognize  its symptoms.    After service I re-entered university to qualify for a trade…..I became a teacher.    I remained somewhere between the snooty and snotty for the next several years by remaining at university as a teacher.     Eventually, I purposely chose to enter the ‘real’ world…..a world I had never really known since my childhood, the world of the everyday guy and gal and their families.

 

I learned to admire and respect guys who could remove part of my car to examine and solve problems.    I met builders of houses, not just the plat makers, but the ‘nail’  and ‘saw’ men and the salesmen  and their families as well.   They had other interests than I, but in their fields they were knowledgeable,  honest, and everyday commanded a duty to do good work.    They were proud people.    I became very proud of them and by that, lossed so much of my snot power.

 

Later, I chose to ‘teach’ in a black school community, where the daily exercises  for survival  were entirely different.   There was no peace.   Ugliness was always in the air and around the corner.

 

 Yet, there was faith and  nobility among those folks of that neighborhood, mostly women, trying to make the best for  a good, loving life in  a cage  of  crime and violence, lies and pretense where snottiness was a mere mosquito bite.

 

With all of this special experience, I remained a lefty snot.   I returned to university and toned up my self assurances working on another graduate degree which kept me on campus for the next 15 years.   I remained lofty left.

 

The epiphany of my life occurred in a world I had never really known or respected.   I had never learned it in school.  

 

Late in my life I turned to private enterprise.    I turned to this world unsnottily.   It was to be my own struggle for survival.    I was totally  ignorant of everything  in this enterprise  except

the subject of my business…..landscaping gardening.    I had the fire, but didn’t know how to control it and what to do if and when the fire  caused trouble.    There was no room for snot, and I knew it.   I was alone in my task.   I’s loose sleep reminding myself of that fact.

 

But the business grew.   I had to hire, and the guys I hired  had to become skilled quickly.   And they did…..and had to be properly paid……so properly, that in order to continue success in ‘my’ business, I discovered that they would get paid first and I, last, and I got nothing those times  when there wasn’t enough money    for payroll. 

 

I am often  still a snot, especially about lefties   like president Obama.   I hate the disingenuous, the dishonest.   In my life and business I learn they cannot be trusted.   They are the worst snots of all…….

 

……..except for those lefties who are so pleased with themselves, so certain of their superiority of their  goodness   forcing  equality among peoples,  that they censor  the beautiful from our lives, whether it be the beauty of  music, art, garden,  language, thinking,  behavior, or God.     Such beauties are contrary to the word of Marxism, for if something is universally  beautiful, it suggests that something, then, could be universally ugly.    This truth exposes the ugliness and falseness of the Leftwing god, Marxism.   

 

I little bit of personal snottiness is a help to make us unique as individuals.    Snottiness can become  a  mental disease  and  a grave  threat to mankind  when it becomes politicized  and its leaders cannot tolerate others, especially those who seek truth.  

 

Test this assumption of mine regarding beauty  yourselves, dear readers……Is what you hear (click below)  more beautiful than many  other sounds you perceive with your ear?    If so, should it be censored from our human’s lives because its beauty might be  a threat  to Marxist  ‘forced’  equality?

 

 

Click on this site: http://www.clarrissegill.com/videoclips/amazing_grace.php

 

Obamaview of American Industry while Speechifying

The following was sent from Lisa Rich in California……Lisa did not not the source:

 

 

“When Barack Obama gives a speech, whether it’s a State of the Union address or a campaign pitch, an unfavorable fact check is practically de rigueur.  However, Obama’s effort to make his point on corporate taxes got so badly botched on so many points that actually negated his entire argument that taken together they make for a rather potent Obamateurism.  The Cato Institute did the research that Obama should have done for himself:

Claim: “Right now, companies get tax breaks for moving jobs and profits overseas.”

False: There are no such breaks. Instead, we punish U.S. and foreign businesses for investing and creating jobs here.

Claim: “If you’re a business that wants to outsource jobs, you shouldn’t get a tax deduction for doing it.”

 

False: There is no such tax deduction.

Claim: “No American company should be able to avoid paying its fair share of taxes by moving jobs and profits overseas.”

 

False: America is not a prison camp. Besides, imposing a 40-percent tax rate on corporations that invest here is not a “fair share.”

Claim: “From now on, every multinational company should have to pay a basic minimum tax.”

 

False: We’ve already got a corporate “alternative minimum tax,” and it’s an idiotic waste of accounting resources that ought to be repealed.

Claim: “It is time to stop rewarding businesses that ship jobs overseas.”

 

False: We penalize them for locating jobs here. Besides, the overseas operations of U.S. companies generally complement domestic jobs by boosting U.S. exports. …

Claim: “If you’re an American manufacturer, you should get a bigger tax cut. If you’re a high-tech manufacturer, we should double the tax deduction you get for making your products here. And if you want to relocate in a community that was hit hard when a factory left town, you should get help financing a new plant, equipment, or training for new workers.”

 

False: It’s a horrible idea to create special breaks for certain types of government-favored businesses. It would simply encourage the exact type of tax game-playing and lobbying that the president decries. What’s a “high-tech” manufacturer? What’s an “American” manufacturer? What’s a “manufacturer”? How “hard hit” do towns need to be?

Obama managed to get only one thing correct about the corporate tax: it’s the highest in the free world.  That’s why every effort to reform it, whether from Republicans or from the President’s own deficit commission, proposes to reduce it.  The Bowles-Simpson committee gave those recommendations to Obama more than a year ago, and Obama has yet to act on it.  And he’s given two SOTU speeches since, apparently without bothering to read the report or the laws he’s demanding to change.”

Millionaire Elizabeth Warren claims she is not among wealthy individuals

Multimillionaire Elizabeth Warren: I’m not wealthy

 January 27, 2012 by Allahpundit    at   HotMail

“Actually, I don’t think that’s what she’s saying here but that headline is simply too sweet to resist. (That was HuffPo’s original headline too before they changed it.) The quote from BuzzFeed:

“I realize there are some wealthy individuals – I’m not one of them, but some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios” she told [Lawrence O'Donnell].

Hard to see how Warren wouldn’t be, by most standards, wealthy, according to the Personal Financial Disclosure form she filed to run for Senate shows that she’s worth as much as $14.5 million. She earned more than $429,000 from Harvard last year alone for a total of about $700,000, and lives in a house worth $5 million.

She also has a portfolio of investments in stocks and bonds worth as as much as $8 million, according to the form, which lists value ranges for each investment. The bulk of it is in funds managed by TIAA-CREF.

Here’s her financial disclosure form, which is brimming with TIAA-CREF mutual funds plus IBM stock valued somewhere between $100,000 and $250,000. The confusion comes when she says “I’m not one of them.” It sounds like she means “I’m not wealthy,” but all she actually means, I think, is “I don’t have a big stock portfolio.” Which is kinda sorta true: She’s got a hefty mutual-fund portfolio, but shares in a fund are different from shares in a company because the investment’s being managed by someone else and it’s spread out among hundreds or thousands of holdings. That’s not an insuperable obstacle to insider trading as a congressman — if you own a fund that invests in a single industry, legislation to benefit that industry as a whole will pay off — but it makes things more difficult. (A lawyer friend tells me that he’s allowed to invest in mutual funds at his firm but, for conflict-of-interest purposes, has to get approval for investments in individual corporations.) Her IBM shares are obviously a problem, but does that constitute a big investment in stock? Remember, for comparison purposes, we’re talking about a Congress here where bigwigs like Pelosi lay down $2 million on can’t-miss IPOs (via their spouses, of course).

Follow the BuzzFeed link and scroll down and you’ll see that Warren’s spokesman is framing her comments this way too. But who knows? Maybe I’m wrong and she really was moronically trying to insist that she’s part of “the 99 percent” despite her many, many millions in assets. That would fit with the Democratic narrative of things you can never be if you’re a liberal: Racist, “out of touch,” uncivil, rich. If that’s what she was trying to say, though, then she’s missing an opportunity. This pitch is more effective in Massachusetts coming from a would-be benevolent rich philosopher-king who wants to help the poor than as some sort of blue-collar “just folks” type who so happens to teach at Harvard. Ask the Kennedys.”

Comment:   Does Millionaire Obama consider himself ‘wealthy’?

My Death as a Public High School Teacher: Part IV…… Meeting the Hero of My Life

For most of us human beings life is growth moving through  a tunnel  of   woundings.   

Not all of life’s wounds are equal.

Personally, I have been very foruntate.   Although life’s  tunnel by the Law of Nature,  keeps slicing at me every day of my existence, I have experienced only two that have made  their  way deep  into my mind and body.   A third might be visiting me shortly while I am still alive, but, as it is said, ‘time will tell.”

To feed my family, my imagination, and  ‘end’  my formal intellectual training, I became an  educator…..the teacher ‘kind’……..the real kind, a classroom instructor of knowledge.   Despite many shortcomings cultural and personal, I was quite good at it and  I thoroughly enjoyed what I was doing.   

After several years of teaching in a Minneapolis public high school, trouble was brewing in the community where I taught; trouble  coming from the  ’outside’ world beyond the walls and lives of the young at the high school where I was employed.    I took battle to defend the students and their community against a powerful, often well meaning, city establishment, the Minneapolis School District, a bureaucracy causing and abetting a war against  this very  community.

At the time, although I was tenured,  I lost the battle, my job, and my career as a public school teacher.  I was in some ways wounded for the rest of my life.   Through time  although initially painful, the deep wound eventually healed over  leaving a scar as such wounds do.     I thought my Crusade was the right thing to do based on my cultural background.

I have never doubted that thought.   I was a teacher fulfilling my civic duties despite the costs  of losing.    Yet, although I was chronologically an adult, a father with a wife and  three children, I was still  a teenage dreamer never thinking evil could overcome good.

My agony from my  ’rightousness’ was temporarily soothed when both the Court and the School Board admonished the Administration to allow me to be reinstated, but without tenure, back into the school system to teach if I agreed to do so.    

I knew I would be on trial.   I knew my teaching would be attacked, for I was transferred to a  predominantly black school which was advertised as a “Magnet School”.   Despite major efforts by the school district and  by most of  the teachers, both the standard and the lefty loonies,  the environment was made a powder keg by the viscious in the black community both in and beyond  school  enrollment.

Half of the victims assaulted and threatened by these black hoodlums were black, the others white.   Assaults,  occuring almost daily included the sexual, a shooting, robberies and  beatings of whites, setting fires to clothing in lockers usually  to send messages,  and daily intimidations by these hoodlums  against white teachers.   Car tires were flattened.   Objects including spit, were aimed  at white targets when these teachers  walked from car lot to the school  each morning through the boiler room for our safety.   

The administration, of course, denied all of these truths.   The city newspapers and politicians  protected the school district.   All hoped the schools would successfully retain a civilized educational  tradition and termed any criticisms of the ideal at any of its schools in black neighborhoods as   ”WHITE RACISM”.   

Black racism was endemic throughout the  school system particularly in the ‘black’  high school to which I was transferred in the autumn of 1971.   Hate whitey was at fever pitch.    During the days before the opening of the school term for students,  I got a phone call from a fellow teacher at the school.    She was a white gal who  taught English.  

I had never met her  in my life.    She didn’t mention her name,   but  in the foulest language a female anywhere could produce, the crux of the message she passed on to me was ….”You f…ing, *****,  racist pig.   We’ll have you out of here by Christmas.”  

She was so proud of her Crusade for she had informed some of her English class students of her noble deed calling me especially of the vocabulary she chose to use.   She and some other white  teachers were more enraged black racists, than any blacks.     After all, some blacks were simply hoodlums who from no racial prejudice at all, picked on any victim closest by.

This English teacher sexually, was a married gal, so we should remember these were also the days of feminist insanity which  competed with  her racism in the flow of her  vocabulary and swearing choices.

I lasted longer than Christmas.   It was February 9th, 1972, as I remember, when I received notice in the middle of my last  class of the day.     The note read something like:   “Please collect all of your belongings by the end of this day.   Henceforth, you will report  to Room  xxx  at the  School District office for further assignment.”

One of the students in that class was Joey Lykken about 14 years old.   He was the youngest  among twenty others, almost all  seniors about to graduate.    A quiet, polite, articulate, confident kid who asked all the right questions a student would ask when seeking  to expand ones knowledge, including mine.     There were other choice students in other classes I taught at the school.    “Choice” student in my thinking, was any student who sought to improve his or her understandings of the mysteries of life around them.   

I admit, however, Joey, was exceptional.   I knew nothing about him except for his youngness and behavior as a student of mine.  I might have teased him about his Norwegian name.   I did know of a ‘Lykken’ who was a teacher at a nearby public high school.   I don’t think I mentioned it to Joey.

I also knew the Lykken name from the Minneapolis newspapers.    This family’s home had been raided  by the Minneapolis police about December of the previous year.   They were seeking evidence  that these “Lykkens” were subversives  plotting something or another not particularly  good for the Minneapolis community.    I never associated the name, and it is possible that the name was not mentioned in the article which I read.

I had taught Russian at  previous schools  and on three occasions my own world had been  ’visited upon’  by FBI agents checking out the degree of  loyalty to my country.   I admit I enjoyed the notoriety and the pleasure that the investigators would discover I was a model citizen…..which was reaffirmed each time both to me and the agency.

During the evening of the day of  my exile from teaching I got a phone call from a Harriet Lykken.   She introduced herself as Joey’s mother.   She said some wonderful words about my teaching and how much her son had enjoyed my class.     He was profoudly upset, she said.

I had read the firing notice directly to the students of  that last class before my exile.   The  school principal’s secretary who personally had handed me the notice in front of the class, shouted at me  that I had  ”no right”  to read the notice to the students.   But, I did.    Afterwards as I was cleaning out my desk, Joey approached  and asked  if I had been fired.   “Yes” I replied.

And then he asked…..”Does that mean you won’t be back?”    After I answered,  he teared up and left the room.    That was one of the most painful moments of my life….the ones you can never forget until the final moments  of release.

Harriet asked if she could be direct with some questions.  Joey was terribly upset.    She wanted to know if there was anything behind the scenes  I had done which instigated the firing.      “Absolutely nothing.   I have become an irritation to them, that is all.”   We talked a bit and then she asked….”Would you mind if I did a little investigating into this business on my own.”

I was thrilled!   “Please do!  Search anywhere!  Ask anyone anything!  I have nothing to hide!”    

“Is this person for real?” I asked myself.

About three weeks later she called back  and asked if I could come over for  dinner to meet her family.    I did so about a week later.     I met Harriet and her husband, David, and a son Jessie…..and was introduced to Joey as a human being rather than a just another  public school teacher.

Looking over my life, and my distance from them, they were the finest people I had and have ever met.   They, like I, were liberals and NOT Liberals.   They displayed all of my values in practice and not just preachments.  

I have always loved people from the time I began to understand the human struggle.   I think we are all heroic enduring our daily pain  yet seeking to know the unknown all the time knowing our future of  ’dusty death’….’signifying nothing’.    These four, from all that I was to learn about them,  were the ideals of my American dreams.  

Harriet and David asked  all kinds of questions, many of them based on interviews Harriet had conducted with many who had worked with me, including some administrators.   Outside of occasionally irritating people, (a talent I knew I had all of my older-than-teenage life and a weapon I often use in my style of teaching)   Harriet told me that she was shocked at the school adminstration’s actions.

I had no legal recourse.   The school board had voted 4-3 to fire me…..and had to do so to show their support for their Superintendent of Schools, John Davis and his assistant superintendents.    (Outside of my personal case, I then, and in retrospect, have  considered  Superintendent Davis an outstanding person to occupy that office.   He was caught in the same tsunami of  racial politics as was I, a teacher.  I am critical as a teacher of the anti-white racism  associated with his administration, but that a common  tyranny of that  day. 

I had but one trump card left…..only a deuce perhaps…..but still a trump card  over the administration actions against me.    I asked Harriet if she could represent me at the administrative hearing which I,  by state law, was entitled to.   

She happily agreed to do so.

Immediately the  District School Administration fought the idea.   I could have an attorney to represent me.   The District’s legal team  had expected me to bring along the Federation of Teachers Union attorney, for I was a member of the teachers’ union.   They opposed allowing Harriet, a leading citizen in the Minneapolis school community to speak.

This union was, in the early 1970s  toothless in defending  education and its needs.   It had heroically battled an illegal teachers’ strike against the school district  two years earlier, was exhausted,  and was nurturing obedience and kindness to the School Administration.   I think it was also financially  broke.    Its leaders, both local and state, were outstanding guys and citizens  who did what they could to push a cause and heal a pain.   

The union had never shown much  interest  in anything beyond basic and usually inane labor issues.   It was an old time union, an  extension of Minnesota’s   Democratic-FarmLabor Party in which I was sometimes active.    On the issue of whom I asked for representing  me at the administrative hearing,   the union was tenacious.    It  was willing to  pay for an attorney of my choice, offer the union’s attorney, or challenge the school administration if it denied me my choice, Harriet Lykken.

Who would have ever known that my hero in life turned out to be a woman.    Not I.   The School Administration was forced to back down and allow Harriet to represent this ousted  teacher.

A History of the Believing Conservative who’d “Rather go down in FLAMES, than Compromise Principles!

Comment:     Remember readers, among the great truths of life are the following:  

“Not all university professors are loony lefties”.   

“Not all lefties are loonies”.   

“Life’s  churnings come from  its  variables and  blendings. surrounding its core of habit”.  These churnings are usually caused by mistakes in Nature’s habit.    To ‘quote’ the ancient saying,  These mistakes “are neither good nor bad.   Only thinking makes it so.”

 A few Americans read  statistics, even those accurate and truthful, when seeking  answers to their questions.   Even the female animal is occasionally curious……Because English is a living language,  its speakers, over  time, will produce a variety of  fresh definitions as to who is lefty and who is a loony.

How the GOP can snatch defeat from

 the jaws of victory — a playbook

by   Robert Hardaway    at   Fox News:

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/28/how-gop-can-snatch-defeat-from-jaws-victory-playbook/#ixzz1kmC1QUew

In 1964, the GOP nominated a conservative purist rather than a candidate who might actually have won the election against one of the most liberal presidents in American history. 

Now in 2012, history seems poised to repeat itself even as polls show a sitting president with high disapproval ratings. 

This might be explained in part by the fact that social conservatives were spoiled in 1980 when the charisma and likeability of the Great Communicator overcame the reservations of independents to win two presidential terms. 

 

But with no GOP candidate showing these same qualities, it looks increasingly likely that the GOP will, with pathological zealotry, find a way to repeat1964 rather than 1980. 

Here is a playbook for the GOP to snatch defeat from victory in 2012: 

First, continue to cater to the demands of social conservatives and nominate a candidate who takes gratuitous positions on social issues that most Americans not only oppose but consider peripheral to the critical issues of the economy, unemployment, and national security. 

Second, reward with primary votes those GOP candidates who violate the Great Communicator’s Eleventh Commandment, and selfishly seek short term advantage in the primaries by expending money and energy on political ads that can be used by their opponents in the general election. 

If, for example, a candidate says he opposes ObamaCare because he thinks patients should be able to choose their own doctor, reward with primary votes an opposing candidate who spins this as “see, my opponent likes to fire people.” 

Third, ignore polls that show which GOP candidate has the best chance of attracting the votes of the independents who will decide the winner of the general election. 

Reward with GOP primary votes a candidate who claims that, even if polls show he is 12 to 15 points down in a match-up between him and the incumbent president, his glowing personality and bedrock social conservatism will win over independents and overcome that deficit in the general election. 

Likewise, withhold primary votes from any GOP candidate who has actually shown executive success in both business and government, has firmly advocated balancing the budget by putting on the block any government program that cannot justify borrowing from the Chinese to keep itself in existence, and advocates fairness to legal immigrants by not letting illegal ones jump in front of them for residence and scarce jobs, and push down their wages to poverty levels by flooding the market with cheap foreign labor. 

Oppose such a candidate on grounds that he is “not conservative enough.” 

Fourth, continue to expend precious resources and energy on GOP primary battles by catering to conservative purists who either don’t think a leading candidate is sufficiently zealous on social issues, or who can’t stand the thought that his religion is different from theirs. 

If such a candidate succeeds in gaining the nomination, insure that his victory is a Pyrrhic one, leaving him so injured that he cannot win the general election. 

Finally, as in 1964, take the “principled stand” that, it would be far better to go down in flames with a social conservative purist than to win the general election with a candidate who will concentrate on reviving the economy and addressing unemployment. 

Robert Hardaway is professor of law at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law and the author of 18 books on law and public policy.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/28/how-gop-can-snatch-defeat-from-jaws-victory-playbook/#ixzz1km7QxOZm

When Barack Hussein Obama Commits His Sins……People have said, “It Doesn’t Matter!”

Reviewing the Legacy of Barack Hussein Obama during his three years as ‘president’ of the U.S. of A.

           listing sent in from Brian Ross:

“WHEN – he refused to disclose who donated money to his election campaign, as other candidates had done, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he received endorsements from people like Louis Farrakhan, Muramar Kaddafi and Hugo Chavez, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – it was pointed out that he was a total newcomer and had absolutely no experience at anything except community organizing, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he chose friends and acquaintances such as Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn who were revolutionary radicals, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – his voting record in the Illinois Senate and in the U.S. Senate came into question, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he refused to wear a flag lapel pin and did so only after a public outcry, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – people started treating him as a Messiah and children in schools were taught to sing his praises, people said it didn’t matter.


WHEN – he surrounded himself in the White House with advisors who were pro-gun control, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage and wanting to curtail freedom of speech to silence the opposition, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he said he favors sex education in kindergarten, including homosexual indoctrination, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – his personal background was either scrubbed or hidden and nothing could be found about him, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – the place of his birth was called into question, and he refused to produce a birth certificate, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he had an association in Chicago with Tony Rezco – a man of questionable character and who is now in prison and had helped Obama to a sweet deal on the purchase of his home – people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – it became known that George Soros, a multi-billionaire Marxist, spent a ton of money to get him elected, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he started appointing White House Czars that were radicals, revolutionaries, and even avowed Marxist /Communists, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he stood before the Nation and told us that his intentions were to “fundamentally transform this Nation” into something else, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – it became known that he had trained ACORN workers in Chicago and served as an attorney for ACORN, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he appointed cabinet members and several advisors who were tax cheats and socialists, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he appointed a Science Czar, John Holdren, who believes in forced abortions, mass sterilizations and seizing babies from teen mothers, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he appointed Cass Sunstein as Regulatory Czar who believes in “Explicit Consent,” harvesting human organs without family consent and allowing animals to be represented in court, while banning all hunting, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he appointed Kevin Jennings, a homosexual and organizer of a group called Gay, Lesbian, Straight, Education Network as Safe School Czar and it became known that he had a history of bad advice to teenagers, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he appointed Mark Lloyd as Diversity Czar who believes in curtailing free speech, taking from one and giving to another to spread the wealth, who supports Hugo Chavez, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – Valerie Jarrett, an avowed Socialist, was selected as Obama’s Senior White House Advisor, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – Anita Dunn, White House Communications Director, said Mao Tse Tung was her favorite philosopher and the person she turned to most for inspiration, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he appointed Carol Browner, a well known socialist as Global Warming Czar working on Cap and Trade as the nation’s largest tax, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he appointed Van Jones, an ex-con and avowed Communist as Green Energy Czar, who since had to resign when this was made known, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – Tom Daschle, Obama’s pick for Health and Human Services Secretary could not be confirmed because he was a tax cheat, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – as President of the United States , he bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia , people said it didn’t matter..

WHEN – he traveled around the world criticizing America and never once talking of her greatness, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – his actions concerning the Middle East seemed to support the Palestinians over Israel , our long time ally, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he took American tax dollars to resettle thousands of Palestinians from Gaza to the United States , people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he upset the Europeans by removing plans for a missile defense system against the Russians, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he played politics in Afghanistan by not sending troops early-on when the Field Commanders said they were necessary to win, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he started spending us into a debt that was so big we could not pay it off, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he took a huge spending bill under the guise of stimulus and used it to pay off organizations, unions, and individuals that got him elected, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he took over insurance companies, car companies, banks, etc., people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he took away student loans from the banks and put it through the government, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he designed plans to take over the health care system and put it under government control, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he claimed he was a Christian during the election and tapes were later made public that showed Obama speaking to a Muslim group and ‘stating’ that he was raised a Muslim, was educated as a Muslim, and is still a Muslim, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he set into motion a plan to take over the control of all energy in the United States through Cap and Trade, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he finally completed his transformation of America into a Socialist State , people woke up— but it was too late. Add these up one by one and you get a phenomenal score that points to the fact that Barrack Hussein Obama is determined to turn America into a Marxist-Socialist society.  All of the items in the preceding paragraphs have been put into place. All can be documented very easily. Before you disavow this do an Internet search. The last paragraph alone is not yet cast in stone. You and I will write that paragraph.

Will it read as above or will it be a more happy ending for most of America ?

Don’t just belittle the opposition. Search for the truth. We all need to pull together or watch the demise of a free democratic society. Pray for Americans to seek the truth and take action for it will keep us FREE. Our biggest enemy is not China , Russia , North Korea or Iran . Our biggest enemy is a contingent of politicians in Washington , DC . The government will not help, so we need to do it ourselves.

Question….will you delete this, or pass it on to others who don’t know about Obama’s actions and plans for the USA , so that they may know how to vote in November, 2012 and the ensuing years?

It’s your decision. I believe it does matter. How about you?

WHEN – November 2012 comes, it will matter who you vote for!”

 “When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing; when you see that money is flowing to those who deal not in goods, but in favors; when you see that men get rich more easily by graft than by work, and your laws no longer protect you against them, but protect them against you… you may know that your society is doomed.” … Ayn Rand

Paul Krugman Writes: Obama’s GM a greater job creator than Steve Jobs was

Jobs, Jobs and Cars

By PAUL KRUGMAN        opinion page   at the New York Times:

 

“Mitch Daniels, the former Bush budget director who is now Indiana’s governor, made the Republicans’ reply to President Obama’s State of the Union address. His performance was, well, boring. But he did say something thought-provoking — and I mean that in the worst way.

For Mr. Daniels tried to wrap his party in the mantle of the late Steve Jobs, whom he portrayed as a great job creator — which is one thing that Jobs definitely wasn’t. And if we ask why Apple has created so few American jobs, we get an insight into what is wrong with the ideology dominating much of our politics.

Mr. Daniels first berated the president for his “constant disparagement of people in business,” which happens to be a complete fabrication. Mr. Obama has never done anything of the sort. He went on: “The late Steve Jobs — what a fitting name he had — created more of them than all those stimulus dollars the president borrowed and blew.”

Clearly, Mr. Daniels doesn’t have much of a future in the humor business. But, more to the point, anyone who reads The New York Times knows that his assertion about job creation was completely false: Apple employs very few people in this country.

A big report in The Times last Sunday laid out the facts. Although Apple is now America’s biggest U.S. corporation as measured by market value, it employs only 43,000 people in the United States, a tenth as many as General Motors employed when it was the largest American firm.

Apple does, however, indirectly employ around 700,000 people in its various suppliers. Unfortunately, almost none of those people are in America.

Why does Apple manufacture abroad, and especially in China? As the article explained, it’s not just about low wages. China also derives big advantages from the fact that so much of the supply chain is already there. A former Apple executive explained: “You need a thousand rubber gaskets? That’s the factory next door. You need a million screws? That factory is a block away.”

This is familiar territory to students of economic geography: the advantages of industrial clusters — in which producers, specialized suppliers, and workers huddle together to their mutual benefit — have been a running theme since the 19th century.

And Chinese manufacturing isn’t the only conspicuous example of these advantages in the modern world. Germany remains a highly successful exporter even with workers who cost, on average, $44 an hour — much more than the average cost of American workers. And this success has a lot to do with the support its small and medium-sized companies — the famed Mittelstand — provide to each other via shared suppliers and the maintenance of a skilled work force.

The point is that successful companies — or, at any rate, companies that make a large contribution to a nation’s economy — don’t exist in isolation. Prosperity depends on the synergy between companies, on the cluster, not the individual entrepreneur.

But the current Republican worldview has no room for such considerations. From the G.O.P.’s perspective, it’s all about the heroic entrepreneur, the John Galt, I mean Steve Jobs-type “job creator” who showers benefits on the rest of us and who must, of course, be rewarded with tax rates lower than those paid by many middle-class workers.

And this vision helps explain why Republicans were so furiously opposed to the single most successful policy initiative of recent years: the auto industry bailout.

The case for this bailout — which Mr. Daniels has denounced as “crony capitalism” — rested crucially on the notion that the survival of any one firm in the industry depended on the survival of the broader industry “ecology” created by the cluster of producers and suppliers in America’s industrial heartland. If G.M. and Chrysler had been allowed to go under, they would probably have taken much of the supply chain with them — and Ford would have gone the same way.

Fortunately, the Obama administration didn’t let that happen, and the unemployment rate in Michigan, which hit 14.1 percent as the bailout was going into effect, is now down to a still-terrible-but-much-better 9.3 percent. And the details aside, much of Mr. Obama’s State of the Union address can be read as an attempt to apply the lessons of that success more broadly.

So we should be grateful to Mr. Daniels for his remarks Tuesday. He got his facts wrong, but he did, unintentionally, manage to highlight an important philosophical difference between the parties. One side believes that economies succeed solely thanks to heroic entrepreneurs; the other has nothing against entrepreneurs, but believes that entrepreneurs need a supportive environment, and that sometimes government has to help create or sustain that supportive environment.

And the view that it takes more than business heroes is the one that fits the facts.”

Comment:   There isn’t much honest reporting Professor of Economics at Princeton and the New  York Times can write about that is encouraging for anyone but tyrants  these days.   Their Marxinst intrusions into Wall Street and the American and world economy in general have not created much good news for  average Joe and Jane World anywhere.

I don’t know the statistics,  the more honest ones, which might support or reject  this or most of  this Marxist professor’s claims.    Yet, his opinions almost never have anything to do with honest or accurate statistics, this above article as an example.

Krugman writes as Barack Obama ‘teleprompters’,   throw in a seriew of numbers and nouns to support an  impression ‘facts’ are a dime a dozen in his brain, and therefore available at a second’s notice to prove his Marxist claims no matter what these claims might be.    Historical knowledge is alleged.    Surely professors ‘truth-tell’.

I do not know whether Jobs or Jobs Apple, or  the Detroit Motor Company or whatever General Motors was called before it was General Motors, has been more beneficial to the American economy.   But lets count the number of  jobs   General Motors AND  Jobs or Jobs’ Apple, have created and lost  in America and in the world directly and indirectly during the past decade or two.   

When do these Marxists ever explain why American corporations send production outside of American borders?   Why do YOU think they avoid asking such questions?

Ann Coulter Warning: RE-ELECT OBAMA: VOTE NEWT!

<:article> 

RE-ELECT OBAMA: VOTE NEWT!

January 25, 2012

by Ann Coulter     at   ANN COULTER

“To talk with Gingrich supporters is to enter a world where words have no meaning. They denounce Mitt Romney as a candidate being pushed on them by “the Establishment” — with “the Establishment” defined as anyone who supports Romney or doesn’t support Newt.

Gingrich may have spent his entire life in Washington and be so much of an insider that, as Jon Stewart says, “when Washington gets its prostate checked, it tickles [Newt],” but he is deemed the rebellious outsider challenging “the Establishment” — because, again, “the Establishment” is anyone who opposes Newt.

This is the sort of circular reasoning one normally associates with Democrats, people whom small-town pharmacists refer to as “drug seekers” and Ron Paul supporters.

Newtons claim Romney is a “moderate,” and Gingrich the true conservative — a feat that can be accomplished only by refusing to believe anything Romney says … and also refusing to believe anything Gingrich says.

– Romney’s one great “flip-flop” is on abortion. (I thought the reason we argued with people about abortion was to try to get them to “flip-flop” on this issue. Sometimes it works!)

Nearly two decades ago, when Romney was trying to defeat champion desecrator of life Sen. Teddy Kennedy, he sought to remove abortion as a campaign issue by declaring that he, too, supported Roe v. Wade.

(Nonetheless, Kennedy ran a campaign commercial against him featuring a Mormon woman complaining that Romney, as a Mormon elder, had pressured her not to have an abortion, but to give the child up for adoption. Are you getting the idea that Massachusetts is different from the rest of America, readers?)

Romney changed his mind on abortion — not when it was politically advantageous, but when it mattered. As governor of liberal, pro-choice Massachusetts, he vetoed an embryonic stem cell bill and “worked closely” with Massachusetts Citizens for Life. The president of MCL recently issued a statement saying that, “since being elected governor, Mitt Romney has had a consistent commitment to the culture of life.”

He didn’t defend his changed position by saying he was a “historian,” or denounce people who raised the switch as “fundamentally” dishonest asking “absurd” questions, or go back and forth and back and forth. He just said he changed his mind.

Meanwhile, Gingrich, who has run for office only in a small, majority Republican, undoubtedly pro-life congressional district, lobbied President Bush to support embryonic stem cell research.

– Romney is now the only remaining candidate for president who opposes amnesty for illegals. (Ever since President Bush’s amnesty plan cratered on the shoals of public opposition, no Republican will ever use the word “amnesty,” despite wanting to keep illegals here — just as Democrats refuse to say “abortion,” while supporting every manner of destroying human life.)

Romney supports E-Verify and a fence on the border. As governor he promoted English immersion programs for immigrants, signed an agreement with the federal government allowing state troopers to enforce federal immigration laws, and opposed efforts to give illegal immigrants in-state tuition or driver’s licenses.

At the same time, Romney says he’d like to staple a green card to the diploma of every immigrant here on a student visa who gets a higher degree in math or science.

Gingrich supports importing a slave labor force from Mexico under a “guest worker” program and wants to create government “citizen review boards” to grant amnesty on a case-by-case basis (i.e. all at once) to illegal aliens.

– Romney supports entitlement reform along the lines of the Paul Ryan plan, as he has said plainly, but without histrionics, in the debates.

Just last year, Gingrich went on “Meet the Press” and called Ryan’s plan — supported by nearly every House Republican — “right-wing social engineering.”

He apologized for those remarks, then took back his apology, still later doubled down, calling the Ryan plan “suicide,” and now — currently, but it could change any minute — Gingrich supports Ryan’s entitlement reform efforts.

For the latest updates on Newt’s position on the Ryan plan, go to http//twitter.com/#whatcheapshotgrandstandymovewillworknow?

– As for crony capitalism, Romney made all his money in the private sector by his own diligence and talent — even giving away all the money he inherited from his parents. He’s never lived in Washington or traded on access to government officials.

Meanwhile, without the federal government, Gingrich would be penniless. He has been in Washington since the ’70s, first as a congressman, then becoming a rich man on the basis of having been a congressman.

Most egregiously, he took $1.6 million to shill for Freddie Mac, one of the two institutions directly responsible for the housing crash that caused the financial collapse. (Or one of three, if you consider Barney Frank an institution.)

If the tea party stands for anything, it stands in absolute opposition to government insiders shoring up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at the very time those institutions were blowing up the economy.

– Romney could not be more forceful in saying he will issue a 50-state waiver to Obamacare his first day in office and then seek its formal repeal. Whether you like a state-wide insurance mandate or not, it’s a world of difference when the federal government does it. Conservatives, having read the Constitution, ought to understand this.

It was on account of the difference between state and federal powers that the Supreme Court overturned the federal Violence Against Women Act. The court was not endorsing rape, but reminding us that states make laws about rape, not Congress.

To act as if Obamacare is the same thing as “Romneycare” is just a word game, on the order of acting like a “gun” has the same properties as a “gunny sack,” or “fire” is the same thing as a “firefly.”

Romney supported the idea of other states doing something along the lines of his health care bill, but always opposed insurance mandates from the federal government (just as I oppose the federal government issuing general laws about rape, but support state laws against rape.)

For those of you who still think Romneycare is the worst possible sin a Republican candidate could commit — even worse than taking money from Freddie Mac as it destroyed the economy — that doesn’t help Gingrich: He supported Romneycare.

(While we’re on the subject, the nation’s leading conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, helped draft Romneycare. Indeed, Bob Moffit, Heritage’s senior fellow on health care issues, can be seen in the picture of the bill-signing ceremony, standing proudly behind Romney.)

But Gingrich did more than support Romneycare. As former senator Rick Santorum has pointed out, Gingrich supported a FEDERAL individual mandate to purchase health insurance from 1993 until five minutes ago — i.e., at least until a “Meet the Press” appearance just last May.

Asked by Maria Bartiromo in the CNBC debate last November to explain what he would do to fix health care, Newt attacked the question as “absurd” and said he would need a “several-hour period” to answer it.

In a world where words have meaning, Mitt Romney is not the “moderate” in this race. He is the most conservative candidate still standing, with the possible exception of Rick Santorum, who is bad on illegal immigration. (Santorum voted in the Senate against even the voluntary use of E-Verify by employers, which means he doesn’t want to do anything about illegal immigration at all.)

Romney is “moderate” only in demeanor — which is just another word game. His positions are more conservative than Gingrich’s, but he doesn’t scare people like Gingrich does. Ronald Reagan and Jesse Helms were moderate in demeanor, too. No one would call them political moderates.

Romney is the most electable candidate not only because it will be nearly impossible for the media to demonize this self-made Mormon square, devoted to his wife and church, but precisely because he is the most conservative candidate.

Conservatism is an electable quality. Hotheaded arrogance is neither conservative nor attractive to voters.”

Comment:    Ann Coulter writes:  “To talk with Gingrich supporters is to enter a world where words have no meaning”.  

I believe there is a slight exaggeration here.   This  statement certainly is true of the Obama Left.    These are atheistically religious people who consider TRUTH an inconvenience and therefore a mere irritation to all Marxist Obamamouths for  truth spoken requires Marxists    to become ever more creative in  lie-telling  to cover their real aim in life……to gain unchallengeable government power.

Mr. Gingrich seems to promote his own lies against one particular individual than against a people or a party…….Mitt Romney.   He attack Mr. Romney from a Marxist position, smearing his credentials as a free enterprise American.

Words seldom have meaning for those people who’s goals are far more important than the methods of attaining them.   

Such thinking and consequent behaving is anti-American and anti-Christian to the core. 

The New Age America, the Obama world and America’s New Age University, such behaving has no meaning in modern life.     The open mind it trains, teaches, and respects, is the mind unfettered by JudeoChristian values tethering.   In the utopia of New Age Marxist  University preaching, for   which Barack Hussein is a priest,  TRUTH has value ONLY if it benefits the building of a Marxist society, that is, a society in which the Barack Husseins who design the blueprints of human life are free to dictate without irritating opposition.

Barack Hussein Obama almost never bothers telling truths when he orates.    Critics might claim that he is too arrogant to care about truth.    I challenge his fans and his opponents to listen carefully and critically to his words…..and seek their meaning and imagine the future  America  designed by his dictate and  governed under his  rule. 

Truth has almost totally disappeared from the tongues and writings of Obama Democrats these days.    I do believe that honesty is less valued among Republicans as well.    After all,  both Republican and Democrat  representatives of truth or untruth graduate from the same secular ‘religious schools’ called the  the American university.   

Students who view the world as Obamalings  do  receive  higher grades  at these  Marxist cathedrals of ‘learning’  across the land.    Higher grades suggest the student in heading in the correct direction.

John Stossel on Obama’s “Blueprint” for Running American Lives

The Real State of the Union

By John Stossel

Has Barack Obama learned nothing in three years? Last night, during his State of the Union address, he promised “a blueprint for an economy.” But economies are crushed by blueprints. An economy is really nothing more than people participating in an unfathomably complex spontaneous network of exchanges aimed at improving their material circumstances. It can’t even be diagrammed, much less planned. And any attempt at it will come to grief.

Politicians like Obama believe they are the best judges of how we should conduct our lives. Of course a word like “blueprint” would occur to the president. He, like most who want his job, aspires to be the architect of a new society.

But we who love our lives and our freedom say: No, thanks. We need no social architect. We need liberty under law. That’s it.

Obama — and most Republicans are no different — doesn’t understand the real liberal revolution that transformed civilization. The crux of that revolution is that law should define general visible rules of just conduct, applicable to all, with no eye to particular outcomes. In other words, as Nobel laureate F.A. Hayek taught, the only “purpose” of law is to enable us all to pursue our individual purposes in peace.

If Obama really wanted, as he says, a society in which “everybody gets a fair shot,” he would work to shrink government so that the sphere of freedom could expand. Instead, he expands government and raises taxes on wealthier people, as though giving politicians more money were a way to make society better. Instead, the interventionist state rigs the game on behalf of special interests.

What should Obama have said in his speech? Here’s what I wish he’d said:

Our debt has passed $15 trillion. It will reach Greek levels in just 10 years.

But if we make reasonable cuts to what government spends, our economy can grow us out of our debt. Cutting doesn’t just make economic sense, it is also the moral thing to do. Government is best which governs least.

We’ll start by closing the Department of Education, which saves $100 billion a year. It’s insane to take money from states only to launder it through Washington and then return it to states.

Next, we’ll close the Department of Housing and Urban Development. That saves $41 billion. We had plenty of housing in America before a department was created.

Then we eliminate the Commerce Department: $9 billion. A government that can’t count votes accurately should not try to negotiate trade. We will eliminate all corporate welfare and all subsidies. That means agriculture subsidies, green energy subsidies, ethanol subsidies and so on. None of it is needed.

I propose selling Amtrak. Why is government in the transportation business? Let private companies compete to run the trains.

And we must finally stop one of the biggest assaults on freedom and our pocketbook: the war on drugs. I used drugs. It’s immoral to imprison people who do what I did and now laugh about.

Still, all these cuts combined will only dent our deficit. We must cut Medicare, Social Security and the military.

I know. Medicare and Social Security are popular. But they are unsustainable. The only way to cut costs and still have medical innovation is to free the market. So I propose that we repeal Obamacare immediately. My proposal was a mistake. We should repeal all government interference in the medical and insurance industries, including licensing. It all impedes competition.

We must shrink the military’s mission to true national defense. That means pulling our troops out of Germany, Japan, Italy and dozens of other countries. America cannot and should not try to police the world.

Those cuts will put America on the road to solvency. But that’s not enough. We also need economic growth.

Our growth has stalled because millions of pages of regulations make businesses too fearful to invest. Entrepreneurs don’t know what the rules — or taxes — will be tomorrow.

All destructive laws must go. I endorse the Stossel Rule: For every new law passed, we must repeal two old ones.

OK, Obama will never say that.

But I can dream, can’t I?”

Comment:   Stossel’s statistics are already $2,500,000,000,000 out of date.    Our Dear Leader Obama  declared this week  he is demanding another $1.8 trillion to add to the American debt.   Please know that the $15 trillion debt Mr. Stossel referred to is already crowding $15.5   trillion.

Remember Marxist Nikolai Lenin’s comment about destroying a peoples’ free enterprise:    THE SUREST WAY TO DESTROY A NATION IS TO BEBAUCH THE CURRENCY.

President Obama appears to be running full speed ahead regarding the debauchery.

Obama Deceit: Comparing Taxes of Warren Buffett and the Buffett Secretary

Why Don’t Obama and his Buffett Donate Their

Millions  $$ to Uncle Sam ?

“ANALYZE THIS’

 by Scott Johnson    at   PowerLine:

“President Obama’s use of Warren Buffett’s secretary — Debbie Bosanek — during his State of the Union address on Tuesday night raised interesting questions that deserve to be followed up. Obama used Ms. Bosanek as a prop to argue for higher taxes on the rich or, as they have lately come to be known, the 1 percent. In liberal mythology, “the rich” are never paying “their fair share,” whatever that is. Whatever they’re paying, it isn’t enough.

According to President Obama, that includes Obama himself. So why doesn’t he do the right thing on his own? He could set a good example.

One of the questions raised by Ms. Bosanek’s appearance was her status. Is she a hero or a victim? The tradition since President Reagan recognized Lenny Skutnick is to accord praise to heroes. In his speech Obama stated that she pays a higher tax rate than her boss.

So how much does she makes and at what rate does she pay the federal income tax? Obama didn’t say.

Assuming Buffett pays federal income tax at the capital gains tax rate of 15 percent (Buffett says he pays at a rate slightly north of that), Paul Roderick Gregory uses IRS tables to estimate that Ms. Bosanek must earn between $200,000-500,000 in order to pay at an average rate of 19 percent. According to the IRS tables, he concludes Ms. Bosanek must earn in excess of $200,000.

Over at Broadside Books, Michael Patrick Leahy digs a little deeper to try to fine tune the analysis, drawing on this ABC puff piece (watch the whole thing here). Still the details are hard to get straight:

The Obama campaign communications team – in this case, ABC News – teamed up this evening with Warren Buffett and his secretary, Debbie Bosanek, to selectively release some information about their personal tax returns. Note that neither Mr. Buffett nor Ms. Bosanek took the transparent approach of releasing their complete tax returns for the past four years for review by the entire public, as I called on them to do yesterday.

Here’s what they claimed in the ABC report: “Bosanek pays a tax rate of 35.8 percent of income, while Buffett pays a rate at 17.4 percent.”

It’s hard to interpret this statement without additional information. Do they mean “effective tax rate” or “marginal tax rate”?

When they say “income,” do they mean total gross income or taxable income?

Since the top marginal rate on taxable income (which kicks in when taxable income exceeds $379,150) is 35%, it’s impossible that Ms. Bosnak’s claim that she pays a tax rate of 35.8 % applies to her taxable income. Since taxable income is always less than total gross income, the claim is even less credible for that measure.

Despite these factual inconsistencies, Bosanek doubled down, putting herself forward as the face of Obama’s tax inequality mantra:

“I just feel like an average citizen. I represent the average citizen who needs a voice…Everybody in our office is paying a higher tax rate than Warren.”

If she’s really paying a marginal rate of 35%, she’s earning over $379,150 per year in taxable income, which places her in the top 1% of income earners nationally. If this is true, Ms. Bosanek is anything but an average citizen. An average citizen – say someone who earns the median salary of a secretary to a CEO, which is $67, 791, according to a 2011 survey conducted by Certified Compensation Professionals – pays a much lower effective tax rate on taxable income than Ms. Bosanek. Assuming this average citizen took about $15,000 in deductions, she would pay an effective tax rate of 17% on taxable income of $52,791, the same rate Mr. Buffett claims to be paying.

Is Ms. Bosanek a 1 percenter? Leahy observes: “Whether Ms. Bosanek is in fact in the top 1% of earners, or her claims, along with those of Mr. Buffett, are simply not correct is something no one will know for sure until both Ms. Bosanek and Mr. Buffett release their personal tax returns for the last four years.” He comments: “In either case, as the story continues to unfold it will be painfully obvious to most voters that the Obama Campaign’s attempt to portray Ms. Bosanek as the sympathetic face of tax inequality has backfired badly.”

Despite her tax burden, incidentally, Ms. Bosanek just bought a second home in Arizona.

Watching the entire ABC interview with Buffett and Ms. Bosanek — you really should watch the whole thing — it appears that they have included payroll taxes in the calculation of her income tax rate. Buffett emphasizes that “Debbie pays plenty of payroll tax” and lumps the payroll taxes in with her federal income tax. The ABC interviewer’s lack of interest in the details is astounding. I’m posting the complete interview below. Analyze this!