• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

Abraham Lincoln Died, April 15, 1865

The Lincoln Assassination:

New research unravels old myths

at realclearpolitics    by civilwarweek
………………
By Jeffrey S. Williams   

Concordia University-St. Paul, Minn.

Written for Dr. David Woodard’s “Readings in American History” class – April 2011.

The Northern States were celebrating the end of the Civil War when President Abraham Lincoln was shot at Ford’s Theater in Washington, D.C. shortly after 10 p.m. on April 14, 1865. When the president passed away at 7:22 a.m. the next morning, the celebration abruptly stopped and the nation mourned the passing of its wartime leader.

Read More:

http://thisweekinthecivilwar.com/?p=450/

Dem Howard Kurtz Conducts Top Notch Interview with Mole at Fox News

Fox News Mole Tells Howard Kurtz

He Wanted To Leave

But Got ‘Blackballed’ At Other Networks

 

 Video  at  Mediate:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-news-mole-tells-howard-kurtz-he-wanted-to-leave-but-got-blackballed-at-other-networks/

 Joe Muto, the “Fox News Mole,” sat down for an appearance with Howard Kurtz that aired on CNN’s Reliable Sources today to recount his tales of working at Fox and explain why he went rogue. Kurtz confronted Muto on why he stayed with the network for so long if he could not stand to work there, and what kind of financial arrangements he had worked out with Gawker, the site that Muto was posting as the mole on.

RELATED: Fox News Lawyers’ Letter To Gawker Mole: Your Admissions Are Likely Of ‘Criminal And Civil Wrongdoing’

Muto admitted that he “broke the code” by betraying the trust of his peers at Fox News by attempting to leak information to the public through another news source. Kurtz brought up the report that Gawker paid Muto $5000 for his work, but Muto refused to comment on his financial arrangements “that [he] may or may not have had with Gawker.” He described his actions as a “primal scream” coming with someone who had enough with Fox News and needed to share his knowledge with the world.

At the outset, Muto seemed very confident about his mission, but as time went on he began to realize that he was not very good at keeping his identity hidden, which is how Fox was able to track him down and fire him so quickly. His first post on Gawker popped up at 3:11 last Tuesday and he was identified by Fox around noon the next day. Kurtz noted that Fox is currently considering taking legal action against Muto, which he dismissed as “completely baseless.” Then Kurtz went down the list of tidbits that Muto made public on Gawker, including the less-than-pleasant work environment and a video clip of Sean Hannity palling around with Mitt Romney before an interview. He told Muto that the information he was providing “didn’t seem to amount to all that much.”

Muto said his original plan was to leak out information in bits and pieces, but chose not to give any indication as to what his upcoming features on Gawker will be. Kurtz asked Muto why it was only now that he started to stand up to his now-former employer.

“If you felt so uncomfortable with your situation at Fox News, why stay there and draw a paycheck for eight years?”

Muto explained that he tried to leave earlier, and sent out his resumé to a lot of other news organizations, including CNN, but he realized that Fox’s name on his resumé was a deterrent for other prospective employers.

“The truth of the matter is, I was blackballed within the industry, that people… hiring managers see Fox News on your resumé and say, ‘This guy’s a conservative. This guy’s a nut. We don’t want him in our organization.’ I was completely blackballed within the cable news industry.”

However, the current president of CBS News, David Rhodes, previously worked at Fox News for over 10 years and eventually rose to become the network’s Vice President of News. And fellow CBS News employee Tim Gaughan previously worked at Fox News for 12 years and Bloomberg News in between the two. Also, Rick DiBella left Fox News after 10 years and went to CNN – He’s now the Executive Producer of their Sunday shows, including Reliable Sources. These few examples call into question Muto’s claim of being ‘blackballed’ because he worked at Fox News.

Muto admitted that he didn’t feel very comfortable with all the “right-wing bias at Fox” and “the way they’re slanting the news.” He said that when he was at Fox News for the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections, the network went after John Kerry and Barack Obama with much more force than the other candidates. Muto broadened this criticism out to the whole network, including Fox News’ anchors who are not supposed to be in the business of promoting an opinion or agenda.

Muto accused the opinion website Fox Nation of being a “vile, race-baiting site” that should not be connected to a mainstream news organization. Kurtz rebutted that point by saying every news website has a few bad eggs in the comments section (hi, guys!), but Muto argued that Fox Nation deliberately tries to “stir up” some of the unpleasant sentiments seen in the comments. He insisted that it is more connected to Fox News than Kurtz seemed to think it was.

However, in spite of everything he’s said about the network, Muto said he worked with some decent people within Fox News. Kurtz ended by asking Muto if he thought he would be able to find another job in cable news again. Muto joked that no one short of Current TV would want him at this point.

Watch the video below, courtesy of CNN:

Islam, ‘the Religion of Peace’, to Supply Germans with Koran Handouts

Korans for Everyone!

 
Ibrahim Abu Nagie is a Palestinian Islamic radical living in Germany. He is spearheading a campaign to give out 25 million German-language Korans, so that all non-Muslims in Germany might become familiar with the word of Allah.

Nagie is a member of a Wahhabist organization that is already being monitored by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution in Germany.

Many thanks to Hermes for translating this German news video, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

A more recent report in English is available here.

Hermes has arranged the video transcript in article format:

The so-called Salafists want to hand out 25 million Korans to people all over German-speaking territory, an activity which has caused quite a stir in the whole country, mostly because the man who promoted this action has been for years under scrutiny by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution. Critics of this initiative speak out mainly not against the distribution, because it comes under the freedom of religion.

What many are concerned about is the radical nature of Salafism, Islam Scholar Ralf Gathban says: “The Salafists… this is the other name for the Wahhabis. This is the Wahhabi branch, a totalitarian ideology with fascist elements, which divides mankind into two groups: the good and the bad. The good are the Muslim believers and the bad are the rest of mankind, and this latter group must be proselytized, or conquered, or even killed. These are the given options. And even when they affirm here in Germany that they oppose terrorism and so on, the ideological background is there, and it does not rule out that one of their followers might eventually drift and engage in terrorist activities, something which has already happened.”

Ibrahim Abu Nagie is a preacher in Cologne. The Palestinian-born is believed to be an influential exponent of Salafism, that branch of Islam known to be a very conservative and radical one. With the campaign called “Read!”, in which he establishes as goal the distribution of German translations of the Koran to non-Muslims, Salafists push forward to this day an unprecedented campaign of proselytization. Anybody can order a Koran in through this website, copies have been distributed for weeks now at info stalls in many German towns. Mutlu Guenal, Abu Nagie’s advocate, cannot understand the preoccupations of the administration.

“I give you the example of Petra Pau, the vice president of the German Federal Parliament. She is also being monitored by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution. This is also something exaggerated. I can’t figure out why is Mr. Abu Nagie being monitored by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution. Perhaps it is that some people must be given some work to do.”

Some journalists have already made critical reports about the effort to distribute Korans, which resulted in the appearance on internet of a video in which a reporter from the Frankfurter Rundschau and from Tagesspiegel were identified by their names and publicly threatened by Salafists.

The cases already made known will be subject to preliminary penal proceedings, a spokesman for the Interior Ministry said on Friday.

The ministry takes very seriously the Salafist efforts. It was absolutely not acceptable that journalists were threatened, and press freedom was obstructed.

However, the Interior Ministry makes distinction between the necessary surveillance of radical Salafist Islamists, and the distribution of free copies of the Koran, which comes under the freedom of religion.

 
Posted by Baron Bodissey at 4/15/2012 04:48:00 PM

The Scandal at Secret Service

Secret Service team booted

from Colombia for misconduct

 by Ed Morrissey  at   HotAir:

Call me old-fashioned, but I liked it better when Secret Service agents focused on protecting the President when working on advance teams — especially when traveling to potentially volatile areas, like Colombia can still be.  Instead, a team of a dozen agents that worked to set up security for President Obama’s visit to the Summit of the Americas has been sent back home, as at least one member of the team apparently focused more on going, er, undercover:

The U.S. Secret Service is investigating allegations of misconduct by agents who had been sent to Cartagena, Colombia, to provide security for President Obama’s trip to a summit that began there Friday.

Edwin Donovan, an agency spokesman, said that an unspecified number of agents have been recalled and replaced with others, stressing that Obama’s security has not been compromised because of the change. Obama arrived in Cartagena on Friday afternoon for this weekend’s Summit of the Americas, a gathering of 33 of the hemisphere’s 35 leaders to discuss economic policy and trade.

Donovan declined to disclose details about the nature of the alleged misconduct. But Jon Adler, president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, said the accusations relate to at least one agent having involvement with prostitutes in Cartagena.

Both the Post and the AP reported on this protectus interruptus late last night.  The Post got the story from its former reporter Ronald Kessler, who has written a book about the Secret Service’s personal protection mission, specifically regarding the presidents.  The story flew around Twitter last night; I got it from Marc Ambinder, who like me couldn’t recall a scandal like this in the Secret Service.  The Post recalls two recent cases of potential misconduct in the last few months, however.  One involved charges of drunken driving by an agent on an advance team in Iowa last August, and in November an agent got charged with second-degree murder for an off-duty shooting in Honolulu — again while working on an advance team for an Obama summit [see update II].

As it turns out, the Secret Service sent an advance team to Colombia for a good reason:

Fears of violence marred Saturday’s opening of a summit gathering US President Barack Obama and Latin American leaders when four bombs went off here and in the Colombian capital.

Two of the crude devices exploded in the resort city of Cartagena just hours after the US leader arrived for regional talks set to focus on the vicious drug wars stalking the region.

Two other small bombs exploded near the US Embassy in Bogota, in an area which is also home to important government buildings.

“Nobody was killed, nobody was injured, and there was no damage,” a police official told AFP on condition of anonymity.

Brothels are legal in Colombia in certain “tolerance zones,” but the Secret Service forbids agents to indulge while traveling.  (Several of the members of this unit are married as well, which should make for some interesting conversations when they return home very early from their travels.)  In case some readers believe that the Secret Service’s concern is mere prudery, having agents engage in this behavior is not just distracting, but potentially exposes them to blackmail and extortion attempts, and possibly a “honey trap” espionage operation, although probably less likely.  And let’s not forget that the State Department’s official position on prostitution in Colombia is not that it’s staffed by self-actualized libertarians who voluntarily join for the great salary and benefits, emphasis mine:

Colombia is a major source country for women and girls subjected to sex trafficking in Latin America, the Caribbean, Western Europe, Asia, and North America, including the United States, as well as a transit and destination country for men, women, and children subjected to forced labor. Within Colombia, some men and children are found in conditions of forced labor in mining and agriculture, and the sex trafficking of women and children from rural areas into urban areas remains a significant problem. …

Some Ecuadorian children, many of them indigenous, are subjected to forced labor and sex trafficking in Colombia. Illegal armed groups forcibly recruit children to join their ranks; an international organization estimates that at least 10,000 children participate in illegal armed groups. Members of gangs and organized criminal networks force relatives, acquaintances, and displaced persons – typically women and children – into conditions of sex trafficking and forced labor, including in the illegal drug trade. Colombia is a destination for foreign child sex tourists from the United States and Europe, particularly to coastal cities such as Cartagena and Barranquilla.

Byron York Believes Obama’s “Buffett Rule has bit the Dust at last

by Byron York   at  the Examineer:

At times it seems President Obama believes the Buffett Rule — his proposal that Americans making more than $1 million a year pay at least 30 percent in federal income taxes — is the only solution needed to solve the nation’s staggering fiscal crisis.  But with a Senate vote coming Monday in which the measure faces united Republican opposition — plus no future in the House — this week is likely to mark the end of the Buffett Rule as a major part of the Obama agenda.  That’s not just because of the political opposition; just as important, the Buffett Rule is running into a dead end because a significant part of the political class in Washington has finally admitted the idea is little more than a gimmick that would do nothing to fix the country’s problems.

Of course, conservatives and Republicans have thought that all along.  But in recent days, the trouble for Obama has been far broader, as commentators and politicians — faced with nonpartisan estimates that enacting the Buffett Rule would raise about $4.7 billion in revenue per year, less than a drop in the bucket of a $1 trillion-plus annual deficit — admitted that there’s just not much there.

Washington Post liberal columnist Dana Milbank opened the floodgates mid-week when he published a piece that began, “President Obama admits it: His proposed ‘Buffett Rule’ tax on millionaires is a gimmick.”  Milbank didn’t give the president the full benefit of context — Obama was trying to make the case that the Buffett Rule was worthwhile, even if it would have little effect on the deficit — but Milbank’s column started a wave of anti-Buffett talking points.

“It’s total gimmickry,” added another prominent voice in journalism, Politico executive editor Jim Vandehei.  Speaking on MSNBC, Vandehei noted that the Buffett Rule is “one percent of what you need to take care of the deficit. There’s a big danger for President Obama in that they become so insanely political in an insanely political culture…He’s not offered tax reform when he could have offered tax reform.  Did not offer budgets when he could have offered budgets.”

Some Democratic politicians agreed.  “I do question a little bit the priority of doing this right now,” said former Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, now running for a Senate seat.  Kaine likened enacting the Buffett Rule to “tripping over dollar bills to pick up pennies.”  Then Chris Coons, the Democratic senator from Delaware, made clear that, while he will vote for the Buffett Rule, he favors making some sort of exception for small business owners — “some carve-out where if they’re investing, if they’re creating jobs, they don’t face a doubling of their tax rates.”

Meanwhile, White House press secretary Jay Carney was facing skepticism in the press room about the president’s claims.  “The president said in September that the Buffett Rule or millionaires taxed would help stabilize the debt and deficits,” one reporter asked last Wednesday.  “In a conference call, the White House said the other day that it was not intended to go toward paying down the debt and deficits; that’s handled in the budget.  Today the President said, it’s not all we have to do to close the deficit but it will help us close the deficit.  So just to be clear, the White House policy on this is what?”

Carney defended the Buffett proposal as “a basic matter of fairness and economic good sense.”

The next day, a note of snarkiness crept into the briefing, when a reporter, noting that the president had scheduled talks with several local news stations around the country, asked, “Jay, what’s left for President Obama to say about the Buffett Rule in his four interviews this afternoon?”  Carney didn’t have much of an answer.

Finally, the president himself had to acknowledge the growing skepticism, even as he insisted that the Buffett Rule is needed.  “There are [people] who are saying, well this is just a gimmick,” Obama said Wednesday in the passage quoted by Milbank.  “Just taxing millionaires and billionaires, just imposing the Buffett Rule won’t do enough to close the deficit.  Well, I agree.  That’s not all we have to do to close the deficit.  But the notion that it doesn’t solve the entire problem doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do it at all.”

By the end of the week, the Buffett Rule initiative had been overtaken by the flap over Hilary Rosen and her remarks about Ann Romney.  But even without the new distraction, the Buffett Rule was in serious trouble.  It wasn’t going to pass Congress, no matter what happens in the Senate, but by a combination of the president overplaying his hand and the Washington commentariat gradually discovering the essential emptiness of the Buffett idea, what once seemed like a winner for the Obama campaign became an idea that few were taking seriously any more.

Bill Maher Worries about Mrs. Romney “Getting Her Ass out the Door”.

Bill Maher, the Gift that Keeps On Giving

by John Hinderaker    at   PowerLine:

The Obama White House desperately wants the Ann Romney fiasco to go away, and long ago tried to throw Hilary Rosen under the bus. If the administration’s allies have any sense, they will pretend the whole thing never happened. But who ever said Bill Maher had any sense? Afflicted by a sort of left-wing Tourette’s Syndrome, he can’t help himself. So, thanks, Bill, for helping to keep Obama’s self-inflicted wound bleeding:

But what [Hilary Rosen] meant to say, I think, was that Ann Romney has never gotten her ass out of the house to work.

        for a video close-up  of Maher mouth click below:

 

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/04/bill-maher-the-gift-that-keeps-on-giving.php

Obama Maneuvering to End Church Charities?

CHARITY SHOULD REMAIN IN THE CHURCH

In the modern world, there has existed a constant push to take charity from the church in order to bureaucratize it; systematize it and (unfortunately) politicize it. The excuses for this are legion.

It is said that religious organizations use charity to create “rice Christians” (the false idea that faith is imposed upon recipients of charity). It is said that donation-based charity is not sustainable; and that people are not reliable.  Sometimes it is even said that charitable organizations are not sufficiently accountable. Instead – the proponents of big government claim – charity should be the work of the state; with local groups only serving as the occasional implementers of federal projects and national priorities.

This is bad for many reasons.

First, the act of charity humanizes both the giver and the receiver.  The dictionary defines charity as, “generous actions or donations to aid the poor, ill, or helpless.”  The key to this concept is generosity.  When the act of charity is wrested from its natural home and put under the coercive authority of the state – in possession of a gun – the nature of the act changes.

For those forced to give, it becomes a tax and the joy received as the counterpart to an act of generosity becomes instead the resentment at the government’s seizure of more hard earned money. For those on the receiving end, generosity is morphed from a kindly hand of a Good Samaritan – to become instead a right. The individual contact that is the glue of society is lost; the social contract is broken. Gratitude is replaced with scorn; personal responsibility with entitlement.  The result is envy, resentment, hatred, and eventually class warfare.

 

Second, Christian charity serves in its own way as a check and a balance on overactive government. “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” was Jesus’s message, clearly differentiating between the roles of the two. Unfortunately, as we have seen too often in the world and at home, activist governments attempting to socially engineer their societies do so by using people’s poverty against them. With their eye on the next elections, and using populist demagoguery, they attempt to divide the society into the 1% and the 99%; the not-so-subtle message being that the 99% should vote their way.

They create programs – funded at the point of a gun – to bind these poor to the government through these charities turned entitlements and managed by a string of anonymous bureaucrats. Even worse, they then use these entitlements to return a favor to an interest group or demand that people of faith go against their most sacred principles in response to a partisan agenda or a campaign promise.

Finally, church-based charity counters the entire toxic argument of sustainability (budgetary or otherwise). Charity is not meant to be sustainable. It is a helping hand to those most in need, in their time of most need. This is true whether it is for the survivors of an earthquake abroad or a family who loses a job and is having difficulty paying their mortgage.

The act of helping people through these difficult moments is an act of personal sacrifice (for both those helping and those being helped).  It must be motivated by the humanizing emotion of empathy and compassion, not that of pity.  Because of this, charity must be managed by activists (in this case believers), not bureaucrats; and it must thrive on donations, not coercive taxes.

For these reasons, when the function of human charity is devolved to communities of faith; it frees the act of caring for others from the murky and turbulent waters of partisan politics and empty pity.  It wrests from the government another funding stream for their use on partisan political projects and the creation of bureaucracies to perpetuate those projects; and it allows individual acts of human compassion to flourish.  The Christian can then continue to be the “salt and light” of the world; the element that both preserves it and illuminates it.

Obama advertised the frugality of his infamous Obamacare. Was he telling the Truth?

Owe No! ObamaCare Adds Billions to Debt

The following article was sent by Mark Waldeland.   Author is unknown:

“It was December 19, but it might as well have been April Fools’ Day when the President exaggerated the benefits of his health care bill. “This will be the largest deficit reduction plan in over a decade,” he said of ObamaCare in 2009. Turns out, it may be an even bigger deficit inflating plan. Thanks to a new report for Charles Blahous, the public trustee for Medicare, Americans have even more objections to ObamaCare–not the least of which is that it could tack on at least $340 billion to the U.S. debt. In a study released today, President Bush’s former economic advisor pieces together 52 pages of warning signs about Obama’s not-so Affordable Care Act.  

Does the health care act worsen the deficit?” Blahous asks. “The answer, I think, is clearly that it does… Taken as a whole, the enactment of [ObamaCare] has substantially worsened a dire federal fiscal outlook. The [law] both increases a federal commitment to health care spending that was already unsustainable under prior law and would exacerbate projected federal deficits relative to prior law.” He debunks some of the law’s cost cutting gimmicks, explaining that the administration was “double counting” the savings in Medicare so that it could claim to slash the deficit. In reality, those Medicare savings (which don’t even take effect for the next few years–if they take effect at all!) will be wiped out by the expanded coverage in ObamaCare. That spells trouble for a program that could already be under water by 2016.

Although the White House is panning the paper, Blahous tried to balance out the predictions with various scenarios–some of which were more optimistic. Unfortunately, he couldn’t mask all of the law’s shortcomings. As he explains, some of the cost controls that Congress included in the bill aren’t triggered until 2018, and they may amount to a lot less than expected. Making matters worse, the cost of health insurance for lower- and middle-income Americans will probably be pricier than the President predicted if employers start rolling back their coverage (and at least half of U.S. businesses are considering it).

Another $80 billion in the President’s deficit reductions vanished when the administration decided to drop the new long-term care insurance program. Of course, liberals would argue that there’s a simple solution: shift more of the burden to American taxpayers. They were already bearing the brunt of ObamaCare’s deficit reduction plan, which was only to raise taxes more than the law raised spending.

Still, despite the projections, despite the outcry, and even despite a pending Supreme Court ruling, the administration insists on plowing ahead on the system’s implementation. Just last week, word leaked out that the White House was shifting a half-billion dollars from Health and Human Services (HHS) to the IRS to help “enforce” the individual mandate. Officials at the White House had hoped to divert the money quietly, but reporters sniffed out the unusual withdrawal because it bypassed the normal appropriations process. According to The Hill, the money was siphoned away from HHS’s $1 billion ObamaCare “slush fund”–yet another one of the blank checks buried in the 2,700-page law. If the President sticks to his strategy, the administration will blow through the entire $1 billion by early fall so that the program is up and running by election time.

House Republicans, meanwhile, want to know why the White House is wasting money implementing what one called an “unpopular and unworkable law.” (You can add “unconstitutional” to the list if the Supreme Court strikes it down.) But with a policy as catastrophic as this one, the bottom line isn’t always the bottom line. Financial ruin is only one part of this freedom-crushingfaith-silencingabortion-heavy policy. Repealing ObamaCare is about more than saving the economy. It’s about saving lives.”

Mark Steyn:….ConMan Obama Plays Americans as Idiots with his Buffett Rule Solution….Solutiion to What?

Mark Steyn:  BUYING  ‘BUFFETT RULE’ MAKES YOU A FOOL

at the Orange County Register:

“In the end, free societies get the governments they deserve. So, if the American people wish to choose their chief executive on the basis of the “war on women,” the Republican theocrats’ confiscation of your contraceptives, or whatever other mangy and emaciated rabbit the Great Magician produces from his threadbare topper, they are free to do so, and they will live with the consequences. This week’s bit of ham-handed misdirection was “the Buffett Rule,” a not-so-disguised capital-gains tax hike designed to ensure that Warren Buffett pays as much tax as his secretary. If the alleged Sage of Omaha is as exercised about this as his public effusions would suggest, I’d be in favor of repealing the prohibition on Bills of Attainder, and the old boy could sleep easy at night. But instead every other American “millionaire” will be subject to the new rule – because, as President Obama said this week, it “will help us close our deficit.”

Wow! Who knew it was that easy?

A-hem. According to the Congressional Budget Office (the same nonpartisan bean counters who project that on Obama’s current spending proposals the entire U.S. economy will cease to exist in 2027) Obama’s Buffett Rule will raise – stand well back – $3.2 billion per year. Or what the United States government currently borrows every 17 hours. So in 514 years it will have raised enough additional revenue to pay off the 2011 federal budget deficit. If you want to mark it on your calendar, 514 years is the year 2526. There’s a sporting chance Joe Biden will have retired from public life by then, but other than that I’m not making any bets.

POLITICAL CARTOONS:

90 gut-busting cartoons by Steve Kelley and Rick McKee

Let’s go back to that presidential sound bite:

“It will help us close our deficit.”

I’m beginning to suspect that the Oval Office teleprompter may be malfunctioning, or that perhaps that NBC News producer who “accidentally” edited George Zimmerman into sounding like a racist has now edited the smartest president of all time into sounding like an idiot. Either way, it appears the last seven words fell off the end of the sentence. What the president meant to say was:

“It will help us close our deficit … for 2011 … within a mere half-millennium!” [Pause for deafening cheers and standing ovation.]

Sometimes societies become too stupid to survive. A nation that takes Barack Obama’s current rhetorical flourishes seriously is certainly well advanced along that dismal path. The current federal debt burden works out at about $140,000 per federal taxpayer, and President Obama is proposing to increase both debt and taxes. Are you one of those taxpayers? How much more do you want added to your $140,000 debt burden? As the Great Magician would say, pick a number, any number. Sorry, you’re wrong. Whatever you’re willing to bear, he’s got more lined up for you.

Even if you’re absolved from federal income tax, you, too, require enough people willing to keep the racket going, and America is already pushing forward into territory the rest of the developed world is steering well clear of. On April Fools’ Day, Japan and the United Kingdom both cut their corporate tax rates, leaving the United States even more of an outlier, with the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world: The top rate of federal corporate tax in the US is 35 percent. It’s 15 percent in Canada. Which is next door.

Well, who cares about corporations? Only out-of-touch dilettante playboys like Mitt Romney who – hmm, let’s see what I can produce from the bottom of the top hat – put his dog on the roof of his car as recently as 1984! That’s where your gran’ma will be under the Republicans’ plan, while your contraceptiveless teenage daughter is giving birth on the hood. “Corporations are people, my friend,” said Mitt, in what’s generally regarded as a damaging sound bite by all the smart people who think Obama’s plan to use the Buffett Rule to “close the deficit” this side of the fourth millennium is a stroke of genius.

But Mitt’s not wrong. In the end, a corporation doesn’t pay tax. The marble atrium of Global MegaCorp’s corporate HQ is indifferent to the tax rate; the Articles of Incorporation in the bottom drawer of the chairman’s desk couldn’t care less. Every dollar of “corporate” tax has to be fished out the pocket of a real flesh-and-blood human being, whether shareholder, employee or customer.

And that’s the problem. For what Obama’s spending, there aren’t enough of them, or us, or “the rich” – and there never will be. There is only one Warren Buffett. He is the third-wealthiest person on the planet. The first is a Mexican, and beyond the reach of the U.S. Treasury. Mr. Buffett is worth $44 billion. If he donated the entire lot to the Government of the United States, they would blow through it within four-and-a-half days. OK, so who’s the fourth-richest guy? He’s French. And the fifth guy’s a Spaniard. No. 6 six is Larry Ellison. He’s American, but that loser is only worth $36 billion. So he and Buffett between them could keep the United States Government going for a week. The next-richest American is Christy Walton of Wal-Mart, and she’s barely a semi-Buffett. So her $25 billion will see you through a couple of days of the second week. There aren’t a lot of other semi-Buffetts, but, if you scrounge around, you can rustle up some hemi-demi-semi-Buffetts: If you confiscate the total wealth of the Forbes 400 richest Americans it comes to $1.5 trillion, which is just a little less than the Obama budget deficit for year.

But there are a lot of “millionaires,” depending on how you define it. Jerry Brown, California’s reborn Gov. Moonbeam, defines his “millionaire’s tax” as applying to anybody who earns more than $250,000 a year. “Anybody who makes $250,000 becomes a millionaire very quickly,” he explained. “You just need four years.” This may be the simplest wealth creation advice since Bob Hope was asked to respond back in 1967 to reports that he was worth half-a-billion dollars. “Anyone can do it,” said Hope. “All you have to do is save a million dollars a year for 500 years.”

It’s that easy, folks! Like President Obama says, all you have to do to pay off his 2011 deficit is save $3.2 billion a year for 500 years.

He thinks you’re stupid. Warren Buffett thinks you’re stupid. Maybe you are. But not everyone is. And America’s foreign debtors understand that “the Buffett Rule” is just another pathetic sleight of hand en route to the collapse of the U.S. dollar, and of American society shortly thereafter.

When he’s not talking up his buddy Warren, the Half-Millennium Man has been staggering around demonizing Paul Ryan’s plan, which would lead, he says, to the end of the weather service, air traffic control, national parks, law enforcement, and drinkable water. Given what’s at stake, you might think then that the president would have an alternative plan. But he has none, save for his proposal to pay off the 2011 federal deficit by the year 2526. The Obama No-Plan plan means the end of everything. That really ought to be the only slogan the Republicans need this fall:

What’s your plan?

And all you hear are crickets chirping.

But don’t worry, they’re federally funded crickets, chirping at a research facility in North Carolina investigating whether there’s any correlation between chirping crickets and the inability of America’s political institutions to effect meaningful course correction.

Hey, relax. The Buffett Rule will pick up the tab.”

Comment:   Free Societies do deserve the government they get.   And America’s pathetically educated voters deserved four years of  the corrupt Barack Hussein Obama, graduate of 22 years of study with  his  racist ‘Father Figure’  Jeremiah Wright Cathedral of Hate Preaching in Chicago.  

Save America from an Obama Marxist Supreme Court by Working Long and Hard for Mitt Romney for President

 
Political Futures
 
“If Mitt wins the nomination, as seems very likely, I will enthusiastically support his candidacy.
 
For my friends who have hesitation on that score,
I’d just ask you to keep four things in mind:
 
Justice Scalia just turned 78,
Justice Kennedy will turn 78 later this year,
Justice Breyer will be 76 in August,
and
Justice Ginsburg turned 81 about a week ago.
 
We wish them all well, of course, but the brute fact is that whoever we elect as president in November is almost certainly going to choose at least one and maybe more new members of the Supreme Court — in addition to hundreds of other life-tenured federal judges, all of whom will be making momentous decisions about our lives for decades to come.
 
The above email was sent to me by fellow conservative, Bruce Taber.   
Mitt  Romney has an excellent chance  of being elected  the 45th president of the United States this coming November.   He is an excellent candidate…..quite the opposite in  person, character  and man of accomplishment from the divisive Marxist professor  and community organizer  who primised  to  end   blue and red battles and open  the door from change  he arrogantly claimed we all were hoping for.
Barack Hussein Obama  was expecting   a bovine strut and ‘moo’  into freedom’s slaughter house, Marxism, without a whimper from aware and concerned citizens.
Mr. Obama  deviously never mentioned  Marxism as the ‘change’ he had in mind and mouth  for the American citizen……the degrading  of  the citizen  body and mind  by force of government to be no more or less than  what  Marxist government rule  will dictate.
Whether or not  American citizens  are  on the verge of losing their  cherished personal freedoms and abilities to manage their own lives  if Mr. Obama is re-elected cannot be claimed for certain.  
 
Despite his clean appearance and clipped, biting speech, Barack Hussein Obama is not an honorable and truthful person  who  is sincerely interested in restoring principle and responsibility as  virtues  in homes, schools and business.    He clearly and habitually  honors neither in speech, leadership,  and problem solving…..or the Supreme Court as Law of the Land,  for that matter.
 
Only the Nation’s Supreme Court,   usually by a 5-4 decision stalls  the nation’s Progressive march toward  Progressive
government dictatorship 
 
Marxism’s religion is atheism.    The present Supreme Court and its subsidiary Federal District Courts already  have established atheism as the nation’s most favored  religion.
Your vote and you energy to work  for Mitt Romney in November are  essential to begin an overhaul of  the huge American bureaucracies which already determine Leftism as  the State’s  religious, the  State’s educational, and the State’s  communication industries funded by your tax dollars.
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 127 other followers