Pages

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Obama Supports Birthers

Birther, the name for those who question the legitimacy of BHO's presidency under the constitutional American birth requirement, have gained more fuel. The newly elected governor of Hawaii reopened the controversy by vowing to release what ever documentation he can under Hawaiian law. Left wing pundit, Chris Matthews, of the tingling leg fame, has also called on the president to release his birth certificate. A recent poll found that only 58% of the respondents were convinced that BHO was born in the United States and therefore eligible to be president. The president has produced what is essentially an affidavit from Hawaii stating that the certificate is on file. Although this is not the best evidence that he claims is available, he says it is adequate to meet constitutional requirements. This is considered a 'short form' Hawaiian certificate. The left leaning press, have not press him, until now.

In the view of Chickenshit New World, the debate has been ended by the president himself. In the recent election he accused the US Chamber of Commerce of illegally accepting foreign campaign contributions. He reasoned that this was something the people deserved to know and therefore he would not drop his accusations until they produced their records to the contrary. His left leaning media sycophants accepted and reiterated this logic. Therefore it appears that the president supports the birther claims until he produces his birth certificate or other definitive proof to the contrary.

See the Washington Post article from the election campaign:

'President Obama, speaking at a rally in Philadelphia, said "the American people deserve to know who is trying to sway their elections" and raised the possibility that foreigners could be funding his opponents.
"You don't know," Obama said at the rally for Senate candidate Joe Sestak and other Democrats. "It could be the oil industry. It could even be foreign-owned corporations. You don't know because they don't have to disclose."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/10/AR2010101004009.html?wprss=rss_politics

Sunday, December 5, 2010

National Socialism: Genghis Groans Again

In the first segment of his 12/3/10 program, Mark Levin addresses the issues of taxation currently before our congress. In fact, Mark delineates the conservative position in the age old debate between economic freedom and government economic control. Recordings of Biden and other Democrats represent the opposing views. Mark pulls no punches with his refutation of the Democrat, that is statist, view.

"We are witnessing the collapse of the welfare state ... They have led us to the precipice and they continue..." -- Mark Levin

This program is available for free for the next month at Mark Levin Show Audio Rewinds. Mark is refining his presentation. This is one of his best shows. http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930#

It seems to me that the public spoke in the last election. They do not want any more big government interference, we have had more that we can take. Obama and his far left wacko commissars have been exposed for what they are and we do not want any more. What we do not know is what to call them. It used to be liberals, but that is confusing; they sound like communists, but they say they aren't; they act like socialists, but the media tells us the definition does not fit. Glenn Beck points out how "state capitalism," which is a currently used term, is really the same thing as national socialism. Listening to the Ed Schultz show callers, one can get an education regarding our current national socialists. They call in sounding like thugs and he encourages them. I call them statist progressives: they propose control by a totalitarian state as the best means of improving our lot (so they say, I think it's their own lot they want to improve). If we are still around, it will be interesting to see how this all turns out.

Will Republicans stick to their guns?

Republicans should agree to meet the Democrats half way to freedom, not half way to tyranny,(to paraphrase Mark Levin). As Ayn Rand explained, how can you compromise with someone who wants you to take poison? Should you agree to take only half the poison? You would still be dead. Bad economic policies are like poison. For example conservatives legislators should not agree to even a watered down form of cap-and-trade,such as government regulations to reduce 'carbon' emissions. (At least until they prove their man made global warming theory, which they never will, or they would have by now.)

Conservative Republicans agree that the federal government needs to drastically reduce spending and reduce its bureaucracy. However congress keeps passing more massively intrusive and expensive legislation. Sometimes, as with the food control bill, we hardly get a peep out of Republicans. In increasingly large numbers, they vote with the Democrats. What is going on?

Currently there is discussion regarding extension of current income tax rates. We seem to have three options: keep the current rates, increase rates for all brackets (which will happen automatically if they do nothing), or increase rate only for higher brackets. There is no option to actually reduce any one's rates. The Democrats themselves want to maintain current rates for lower brackets; not for economic but for political reasons, i.e. to buy votes. The Democrats say they want Republican input and support and that they are willing to compromise. However, the only compromise that they seem to be offering is option three above, that is raise tax rates on higher income brackets (over $250,000). Again for political reasons, to advance 'class' warfare propaganda. In a compromise deal they would get the higher rates that they want but they offer nothing in return. Where is the compromise there?

If Republicans agree to any higher rates on anyone, they should insist upon cuts in spending and reduction in bureaucracy. The taxes would still be economic poison, but spending cuts would to some extent counteract the economic damage of higher taxation.

Just today, there appears to be some movement for such a deal. Next week the president and Democrats in congress may agree to a keep the current rates for all wage earners in return for Republican agreement to extend unemployment benefits from two years to three. (Initially, before other extensions, the limit was half a year.) Extending these payments is bad economic policy because unemployment benefits create unemployment.

One other factor makes this potentially a bad deal. If the higher tax rates for all go into effect because of congressional inaction, the increase can be reversed by the new Republican congress next year. The Democratic Senate and the president would be under political pressure to agree. Therefore, The Republicans should not compromise now unless it is a good deal for the economy. For example, unemployment benefits for only an additional six months and at amounts reduced by about 30% would be one possibility.

The tea party has been leading the way toward freedom and away from the 'liberal', statist progressive agenda (which is becoming more and more to resemble the national socialist agendas of days past.) To remedy economic problems now as always, we need to focus on the philosophy of free enterprise. Economist Frederich Bastiat suggested the true path nearly 200 years ago to deal with the collapsed French economy: We have tried everything else, why not try freedom.