Deceit Thy Name Is Obama

The Loyal Media always filters whatever President Barack Hussein Obama says, and unless one listens to him directly speak, it is impossible to appreciate what a devious liar he really is.  Here the folks at Politzoid review less than two minutes of Presidential Monologue and do some fact-checking, in their short video "Politicians Say The Darndest Things".  

Hiking The Cost of Gasoline One "Endangered Species" At A Time

H/T Free Republic: Obama Clears the Way For America's 2 Largest Oil Wells to be Shutdown in Texas

In a previous post, I shared the story about the Delta Smelt in the Central Valley of California and how a US Circuit judge had ruled that since this tiny fish was considered an endangered species that the irrigation system that allows this fertile part area of US agriculture to supply food for a large part of the nation must be essentially shut down.  That's right, there is a man-made drought in California because of an "endangered species" of fish.  Now, much of the food that we used to get from the Central Valley in the winter is supplied by farmers in Mexico and South America, shifting still more money outside the US economy.  In addition, this situation has destroyed the livelihood of many US citizens and also a good number of nut trees which would take years to re-establish.  While the majority of the agricultural crops could likely be planted once the irrigation water is restored (if it ever is), it takes a few years for a tree to reach maturity before it can produce.  The initial ruling in this case was made in 2009 but was upheld in 2011 in the 9th Circuit Court.  This situation puts the US government in control of a major part of the domestic food production of the United States, and all on account of an "endangered species".  

Now, we have been informed that, due to another "endangered species", the Dunes Sagebrush Lizard, that the government will be shutting down more US oil production, this time in the important West Texas fields.  Free Republic writes:  

The earth worshiping environmentalists running the USF&W have used an owl to shut down logging in the Northwest, a mouse to shut down wheat farming in Colorado, a minnow and rat to end vegetable growing in California, a frog has closed fish hatcheries in the deep South, while the reintroduction of wolves are endangering the lives of ranchers, farmers, and hunters all across America from the Rockies to Maine.  Now they are planning to use a lizard to shut down two of Americas largest oil wells in Texas. We already have one of the largest oil reserves put off limits by the EPA in Anwar Alaska, while Obama is ignoring a Federal judges order to allow drilling to continue in the Gulf. This while almost every communist country in the world has oil wells operating in our backyard, the Gulf of Mexico.

The current threat to America's freedom comes from a 3 inch lizard called the Sceloporus Arenicolus, or better known as the Dunes Sagebrush Lizard or the Sand Dune Lizard. It was originally classified as a subspecies of the Sceloporus Graciosus, or Common Sagebrush Lizard. Before they designated the Dune Lizards as a separate species, there were so many of them you could feed them to the Chinese as a delicacy and never run out. It was in 2002 that the Center for Biological Diversity first petitioned to have the lizard listed as endangered. The Bush administration stood in the way of the lizard being listed for 6 years, but last year Obama cleared the way by ordering his administration to back off from delaying the listing. This in spite of the news that Obama has repeatedly refused to grant species the protection for which they are known to qualify adding them instead to the waiting list. So why did he allow this lizard to be listed? There can be only one reason, and that is because Obama wants to destroy America's ability to be energy free.

We keep hearing folks lamenting the fact that gasoline may cost $5 per gallon by summer of 2011, but in some areas of the USA we are already over $5 per gallon in April.  I would say that there is a distinct possibility that if enough factors come into play, we could see gasoline in the $7 to $10 range before 2011 ends. Actually, this new "endangered species" and the associated restrictions on oil production has not likely had much of an effect yet on prices, but it will. Barack wants $7 to $10 per gallon, or more if he can arrange it.  Why? Because he knows that the price of gasoline, probably more than any other single factor, can paralyze and collapse the US economy, and make the people dependent for their survival rather than independent as they would be in a Free Enterprise economy. 

One should not expect The Obama Administration to be made accountable as the US media have been running interference for President Obama in this process regarding the spike in fuel prices.  As Ron Futrell writes at Big Journalism:  
"The first rule for the media on high gas prices, do not make a connection between Barack Obama and rising prices, in fact, make it look like he is doing everything he can to help stop the suffering."

Oh, by the way, the core inflation rate calculation used by the US government does NOT take into account the cost of fuel or food, and as a result, the inflation rate is artificially low when compared to the real cost of living.  Once the cost of gasoline and diesel fuel start to spike, the cost of everything that moves by the use of these fuels will spike as well.  What prices with this affect?  ALL prices on EVERYTHING, that's what!
 
What will the Federal Government declare as the next "endangered species" and what will be the cost that we all have to pay? I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that The Feds can declare ANY species to be endangered, at any time, for virtually any reason.  Having witnessed what this Obama federal government is willing to do to bring about "Change", there is nothing, nothing, that I would be surprised to see them do.  

The only Endangered Species that is being ignored in this process is the taxpaying US citizen, who has seen the government move rapidly from being a servant to a master, and watched The Constitution mocked along the way to boot.

Racist Democrats Invade Allen West Town Hall Meeting

Racist Democrats are recruited via robocalls and then are sent to a town hall meeting held by US Representative Allen West (R-Florida).  Colonel West must be over the target because the flack is getting heavy.

Bill Whittle - Ghosts Of Independence: Old Ink, Eternal Ideals ... Spread the Word.

YouTube - Bill Whittle Ghosts Of Independence: Old Ink, Eternal Ideals ... Spread the Word.

Andrew Klavan: How to Behave During an Islamic Massacre

YouTube - Andrew Klavan: How to Behave During an Islamic Massacre

The IRS: Even Worse Than You Think

H/T theblogprof  The IRS: Even Worse Than You Think



Watch this video and find out how much more the IRS detracts from your life than you may have even imagined. (5 minutes and 11 seconds in length)

Barack Hussein Obama Expounds on His Micromanagement of The USA

Obama Logic: Raising Taxes On Rich Will Encourage Rich To Keep Their Businesses In America 

The Constitution gives the Executive Branch the authority to provide for National Defense, but NOT the authority to micromanage every detail of our personal lives.  Barack Hussein Obama continues to ignore that inconvenient truth.  

The Associated Press Really Likes the Progressive Income Tax for the “Rich”

The Associated Press Really Likes the Progressive Income Tax for the “Rich” - Big Journalism

As stated in my post of yesterday, anyone, wealthy or not, can contribute money to the US Treasury above and beyond what they have to pay in taxes.  

Here's an interesting fact for you: If 100% of the income of the top income individuals was taken by the US Government, it would still leave the US with a massive deficit.  That would have been true in 2009 (the most recent year that figures are available for) and would certainly hold true in 2011 since the deficit has only enlarged since 2009.  

Big Government notices that the Associated Press
seems to be promoting the idea of a Progressive Tax, rather than just reporting on the issue.  From the post at Big Government:

The article, entitled “Super rich see federal taxes drop dramatically,” seems less dedicated to straight reporting than to the subtle promotion of progressive tax policy: taxing the “rich” more while removing tax breaks.

By the fourth paragraph of the article, the AP reporter is already asking the question: “The top income tax rate is 35 percent, so how can people who make so much pay so little in taxes?” The reporter never clarifies exactly who the “people who make so much” are (are they the top 400 income earners? Or the top 1 percent of taxpayers? Or just the “wealthy” in general?), and he never explains how much (or how “little”) any of them pay in taxes.

But despite the vagueness of the question, the article goes on to answer it. How can “people who make so much” pay “so little” in taxes? Why, the answer is tax breaks, and the article doesn’t let you forget it.

What if the government were to tax the top income individuals 100% and still be left with a massive deficit?  How would those individuals react?  Would they continue produce income knowing that 100% would be taken away from them, or would they move to another country?  Or alternatively, if a $500,000.00 wage earner pays a flat 35% on their income with no tax breaks, their tax bill would be $175,000.00 in federal taxes alone.  I don't have that kind of income, but you can believe that if I did I would do everything within the law to try to reduce that tax bill, and I'm sure you would too.  

What Barack Hussein Obama is trying to do, simply, is promote Class Envy through the use of an aggressive Progressive Tax strategy which would lead to a further weakening of the United States, and The Associated press (AP) is apparently his willing accomplice toward this goal. 

-----------

Note #2 on THE TEN STEPS OF KARL MARX below. Taken from the Communist Manifesto (from Bob 1776).  You can be sure that the other steps are either in process or coming soon in the USA under Barack Hussein Obama.

1.  Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2.  A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3.  Abolition of all right of inheritance.  (The Estate Tax)

4.  Confiscation of the property of emigrants and rebels. 

5.  Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.   (Federal Reserve Bank, anyone?)

6.  Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.  (Net Neutrality and "high speed rail"?)

7.  Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.  (including Government Motors?)

8.  Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.  (Service Employees International Union a.k.a. SEIU? Service industries have been predominant in the USA over agriculture for at least 50 years)

9.  Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.  (This is taking a different tack toward the same end, control of the population, in that the environmentalists within the government have stated that they want to centralize the population in cities for "green" purposes)

10.  Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.  (Well, "free" is not what I would call it based on the school tax levies that I see on almost every election ballot where I live, but I would agree that US government education is more indoctrination than education).

Why Increase Taxes on The Rich? It Concentrates Capital at The Capitol!

The talk among the "elite" is that "the rich" should pay more taxes than they are currently paying because they are not paying their "fair share".  As I have posted in the past, the US Treasury will accept additional voluntary tax payments from anyone at any time, so those wealthy elites who really believe that they are not paying their fair share can always go beyond what the US Government requires when it comes time to pay taxes. 

The idea of a Progressive Tax (a tax structure where the more income that one has the more that person is taxed) has been around in the USA for quite a while.  Ironically named, the Progressive Tax does tax those with higher incomes more than those with lower incomes, and nearly half of US taxpayers pay no tax at all because their income is too low to tax.  

The first income tax in the USA as enacted in 1862, and that income tax was eliminated in 1872, although it was revived in 1894-1895 before the Supreme Court declared it to be Unconstitutional.  In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution made the income tax permanent, although it was sold to the American people at that time as only a temporary tax to finance the war effort in WWI.  This is the Progressive taxation system which has evolved into the one we have today.   

It is most interesting that the Progressive income tax is part of the Communist Manifesto.  

In the USA in 2011, we have Progressives (not the tax but those of the Progressive ideology) who are convinced that by taxing those who have higher incomes at a higher rate than they currently are taxed then the US government, and therefore the USA itself, will be in a better position to operate.  

What taxing those with higher incomes at a higher rate will do is simply transfer more money the the US government and strengthen the central power of that government.  This is contrary to the intent of the US Constitution, and the intent of the Founders who wanted a weak central government whose powers were limited.  

The current economic state of the USA and most of the citizens here is of simple survival.  Those few who have greater incomes than average would simply be bled dry of their money by a government intent on imposing control over every aspect of life in America.  It takes money to do that, and it also helps to weaken the citizens by draining capital from those who possess it. 

When Barack Hussein Obama told Joe the Plumber that, if elected President, he wanted to "spread the wealth around", what Barack really meant was that he wanted to move the money into the government system so the government could control the lives of their citizens.  The citizens with excess money, i.e. disposable income, don't fit into that Progressive plan, so the US government wants to move all of their capital to The Capitol, and they are well underway in that process.

In Honor of April 15th

  Yeah, I know the Tax Deadline has been extended this year to April 18th.  April 15th still has a symbolism all its own.

A Senator Making Sense Re: Our Debt Ceiling

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.

And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.

Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America’s priorities."

Senator Barack Obama
Senate Floor Speech on Public Debt
March 16, 2006

               __________

Yes, as a Senator, Barack Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling. But when White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney, was asked at a press conference on March 15th of this year about that vote in 2006, he said that the president now views that vote as a "mistake." It is quite unfortunate indeed that Obama has flip-flopped regarding the issue of raising our national debt ceiling.

"If President Obama knew then what he knows now, he would not have voted against raising the debt limit in 2006", explained Carney. The White House was attempting to clear up any questions about Obama's current position before today's address at George Washington University. Although he had already presented his 2012 budget, Obama scheduled this speech as a response to the GOP after Rep. Paul Ryan unveiled his "Path To Prosperity" last week.

I believe that what he gave us today was a kick-off for his re-election instead of a speech about his fiscal policies! He gave very few details, as usual, about his plans. The next month is going to be more political theater as discussion of the debt ceiling, the 2012 budget, & the fiscal policies of the next 10 years will be volleyed between the White House and Capitol Hill. Should be interesting! 

An American Inflation Story

Let's explain this on a 7th grade level so all the victims of government schools with union teachers will have a chance to understand:

Financial Revolution, Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) Style

Numbers do not lie, nor are they partisan.  Representative Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) outlines a plan that is very feasible and would give us a chance to get the financial ship of the USA back on course.  We are at an historical breakpoint in our country, and the choices we make now will affect future generations of Americans.  Put simply, if we are not willing to be making sacrificial choices now, then there will be unavoidable sacrifices in the future. 

glenn beck interviews the $6 trillion dollar man

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) caught my attention months ago. He is now getting noticed because of his leadership on the Budget Committee which is proposing $6 trillion dollars in cuts for the next 10 years. The question is, will President Obama and Senator Harry Reid prevent the Republican led Budget Committee from saving our economic future and that of our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren?

Check out this interview with Rep. Ryan as he gives a brief synopsis of the major cuts in their proposal: the $6 trillion dollar man.

Ask any CEO who has been hired to save a failing company and they will tell you that hard, seemingly cruel cuts must be made to save the company from certain death. Closure of the entire organization is even more distressing. However, there are people who cannot see the forest for the trees and view the staffing cuts, those necessary to salvage the business, as too harsh. I sometimes wonder if those same people would fail to cut off a limb that was afflicted with gangrene if it meant saving the remainder of their body? Having said that, I believe (and many economists concur) that this body (The United States) has been inflicted with a disease (budget deficit & debt) by an infected host (our government: Congress & our President).

Leadership (of a CEO; or of a President, Representative, or Senator) sometimes requires making hard decisions which are not generally popular, like cutting off a leg to save the body. These budget cuts will eventually affect us all, but we cannot continue with the status quo and essentially

bury our heads in the ground like an ostrich! 

We are seriously heading towards a cradle-to-the-grave wealfare state. One in which our government will be in charge of practically every aspect of our lives...the opposite of freedom...NOT what our founding fathers

anticipated, I'm sure! As a "nanny state", what kind of care will the government be able to afford their citizens when they are essentially bankrupt? Do you honestly expect our politicians to give their "kids" the best and sacrifice their wants & needs like a "dad" does?

To salvage the USA, we must ALL be willing to accept the very difficult, but necessary steps to give our heirs the country that our forefathers fought and died to create! Please, contact your Representative, Senator, and your President to let them know that you expect them to make the difficult decisions of leadership and are willing to support them in making the hard cuts that must come if we are to survive & remain free!

Boehner and BYOJ Establishment Republicans Afraid To Cut Enough

The Hill: Speaker Boehner says it would cost more to shut down the government than to keep it running.

Yes, Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner (R-Ohio) said that shutting down the US government would cost more than it would save.  He is correct in this case because the Republicans are afraid to cut enough out of the budget to make it worthwhile to shut down the government.  With the relatively miniscule amount of money that they propose to cut from the budget, it would indeed cost more to have the so-called "government shutdown" than it would to keep the government running.  

First off, it must be noted that it is not truly a government shutdown.  In fact, just slightly over 79% of government functions would continue.  If you do the math you will come up with almost 21% of US government functions and staff that would be shut down.  These functions and staff are considered "non-essential". (I know this would be an obvious pace to look for permanent cuts; if you see it too then you aren't thinking like a politician.)

The Republicans are proposing a cut of maybe $60,000,000,000.00 (Sixty Billion) Dollars from the budget, which is definitely a lot of money.  At the same time, it is only a small, tiny small, part of the federal budget.  To put it in perspective, the daily spending on the US budget is around $10,000,000,000.00 (Ten Billion) when broken down over 365 days.

So Speaker Boehner is correct, but he is only correct because Establishment Republicans are afraid to propose a budget with any real cuts.  If Republicans had the courage of their convictions, they would propose cutting something along the line of $500,000,000,000.00 (Five Hundred Billion) or even $1,000,000,000,000.00 (One Trillion) from the federal budget.  Either one of these figures would be a lot of money as well, and it would also be true that they would represent only a portion (far less than half) of our entire federal budget. 

Establishment Republicans are clearly afraid of doing what the United States needs them to do in regard to the mortally bloated federal budget.  They are clearly more interested in trying to use taxpayer money to buy their re-election instead of fixing the problem.  What needs to happen is for the federal spending to line up with that which the US Constitution mandates that the government has responsibility to address.  If that happens in time then maybe the United States can come back from the brink of total collapse.  

If we don't make it and the ship of state founders and goes down, then these BYOJ (Buy Your Own Job) Republicans won't have a job anyway, nor will they have a Federal Pension.  I guess they think that they will be part of the Elite Ruling Class no matter what form of government replaces our Constitutional Republic.  

Good luck with that.  

Sharia is Not Democracy and The Muslim Brotherhood are Not Freedom Fighters

Sharia is a totalitarian form of government that dictates every part of life, not just the law of the land.  Sharia controls how individuals are to dress and eat.  Sharia controls who people are supposed to marry and who they can ride in a car with and when.  Sharia controls how doctors and lawyers practice their craft, and how investments are made and banks are run.  Sharia is the government that The Muslim Brotherhood and other so-called "freedom fighters' want to install in Muslim countries that are now having civil conflicts within them.  This is true from North Africa to the Middle East.  

In supporting the Libyan rebels, the United States is supporting Sharia.  The goal of the rebels in Libya is not democracy but Sharia.  Of course the dictator who is currently in charge in Libya is not a benevolent dictator but instead rules in a totalitarian fashion as well.  

So why is the United States involved in supporting those who would set up a totalitarian government under Sharia law if they are successful in their overthrow of the current government in Libya?  There is certainly an answer to that question, but I can't discern what it is - at least not yet.

It could be that since most of Libya's oil goes to European countries that we are being used by the Europeans to do their military bidding because they don't have the resources for a long-term conflict.  The socialism which is the fundamental basis for the government systems in Europe doesn't allow for a military which is robust enough to carry on any long-term conflict.  Yes, you see French jets destroying targets in Libya, but the fact is that so much of the Socialist economy of Europe goes into cradle-to-grave government control of the lives of the citizens that their military forces just do not have the capability of long term war.  Does this mean that Barack Hussein Obama has bowed to the Europeans not just literally but figuratively and committed the US military to the long-term portion of this conflict?  That remains to be seen but it is a strong possibility.  

Will the US actually put troops into the field on the same side of a conflict as Muslim fighters like Al-Qaeda?  Will US troops fight for the establishment of Sharia?  The goals of Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood are contrary to what the USA stands for according to our Constitution.  Sharia is antithetical to our Constitution.  Our Commander-In-Chief may put our troops in that position anyway. 

As we have found out through many events, such as taxpayer-owned automobile manufacturing and forced government  control of health services (and the list goes on and on), Barack Hussein Obama and Democrats in US government and on judicial benches across the country are operating in such a way as to ignore the Constitution and thereby render it as moot and irrelevant.  In this way, the goals of our current President and the political party that he is part of equate to the goals of the Sham Democracy of Sharia that the fake "freedom  fighters" are trying to install in all of the largest countries in the Muslim world.  The only difference is that Obama is doing his work in a non-militaristic fashion here in the USA by laws that are in place that have not yet had their full effect and by using his Czars and government agencies (EPA regulations and DOJ inaction, for example) to install a government that has totalitarian control here in the USA.  

While those in the Muslim countries can hear the Rumble of War and know what is coming, we here in the USA are being undermined from within by those who are supposed to protect and defend the Constitution from within our government, but are instead working to push the USA to the brink of collapse.  

Sharia is not Democracy and Al-Qaeda are not freedom fighters.  Neither is Barack Hussein Obama a freedom President.  Will freedom and liberty and self-government be a thing of the past?  This remains to be seen.  I believe that unless we here in the USA are willing to risk all that we have to do whatever is necessary, then the experiment in self-government that started in 1776 has come to an end, and all that is left is the shouting.  Am I correct?  That remains to be seen.    

God had mercy on our nation in its infancy because we were true to His principles and used them as a foundation to form our principles of government and as a guideline to establish our laws.  If we forget that or rationalize that it is not relevant to today, then the vacuum that is left will be filled with something.  Will the Marxist/Socialist beliefs of Barack Hussein Obama and Democrats be what fills the vacuum?  Will the totalitarian system of Sharia end up being the law of our land?  We need to realize what is at stake and how far we've gone in the last two years.  Then we need to decide if we are going to do nothing and just let the destruction of our way of life happen or if we are willing to stand for something other than Sharia or Marxism, both of which are totalitarian and in opposition to the responsibility of self-government and the God-given liberty that is a product of taking that responsibility of self-government.