Dubya Rears His Ugly Head Again

The last thing the GOP needs now is to listen to Dubya.  The first election of Obama was revulsion against this brain-dead Cheney/Rove puppet.   If the GOP had nominated Ron Paul instead of McCain in 2008, Paul would still be President.

Dubya is, and always has been, in the hip pockets of the old "plantation politicians" who call amnesty something else and who cannot see beyond the first stage of the four cycles of illegal immigration: illegal-to-legal-to-welfare are the first three; and in less than ten years, they reach the fourth stage:  citizens with Democrat voter ID cards. The cycles are kept alive and well by the bilingual education lobby who are totally dependent on illegal immigration.  Eliminate OBEMLA and you have reached the first stage of bringing this country back to sanity.

Approaching the Financial Cliff

As we approach the “financial cliff,” ostensibly debating which entitlements to cut, as a quid pro quo for increases in taxes, few of us expect the liberals to be swayed to give up a single entitlement or even reductions in their costs. Nobody thinks Obama is serious about allowing any entitlements to be cut; he is going to continue, in the words of the late, great Darrell Royal, to  “dance with what brung him;” that is, continue to pander to the entitlement class that elected, and re-elected, him. Some conservatives believe that Obama is willing to “go over the cliff,” and that he will brazenly let the country fall into bankruptcy rather than concede any meaningful cuts in entitlements.  There are no Reagan-like negotiators among the  Republican politicians in Congress today, not like the one that walked out of the meeting with Gorbachev and refused to give up his “Star Wars” defense, in preparation for escalation of the Cold War ahead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reykjav%C3%ADk_Summit 

That Reagan coup inspired Russian dissenters, like Boris Yeltsin, to stand up to Gorbachev, and it most certainly precipitated events that eventually led to the fall of the Iron Curtain.  Obama is trying to portray the image that Nikita Khrushchev did: that of a dictatorial, maniacal leader, willing to “go over the brink” to get his way.  Khrushchev’s tactic worked against Reagan’s predecessors:  JFK gave up three overseas missile bases to get Khrushchev to take his missiles out of Cuba in that “crisis.”  JFK also made a treaty to allow Communist Cuba to exist in perpetuity, and to never invade it again.

Liberals downplay it, but Reagan’s “walk-out” was the greatest diplomatic coup of modern history.  Unfortunately, there are no Republicans with the spine that Reagan had, willing to play brinkmanship with Obama—the way Ragan did with Gorbachev.  Most conservatives believe that Boehner has the spine of a jellyfish.

CUTTING THE FAT:

 One of the biggest and most counterproductive Government wastes is OBEMLA, a Washington bureaucracy dedicated to promulgation of bilingual education.  Bilingual education has been debated ad nauseam, and many Americans still do not even know what it is.  Many, if not most, think it is the practice of teaching foreign languages in public schools.  Almost everyone agrees that learning at least one foreign language is a good thing.  However, bilingual education DOES NOT teach a foreign language to native English speakers.  Not at all.  What it does is teach core public school subjects in the language of a child’s ethnic origin.  It is therefore an obstacle, not an aid, to learning English.  Many bilingual education teachers are themselves not native speakers of English and teach students “English” in a foreign language, inevitably with a foreign accent.  English is simply one of the core courses, including social studies, math, etc., that bilingual educators teach the students in their foreign tongue.

Activists who advocate bilingualism could care less about handicapping students in public schools.  Those of us who, over the years, have observed firsthand what they have wrought, have no doubt that bilingual education retards and impedes the learning of English, the tool they need most in securing meaningful employment (outside the bureaucracy of bilingual education). The advocates’ primary interest is their own job security, growing the bureaucracy, OBEMLA, and creating thousands of more teaching jobs, especially for minorities who cannot compete on an even keel with native English teachers in subjects other than foreign languages. Illegal immigration, therefore, is the “sine qua non” of the perpetuation of bilingual education.  These activists are among the stronger forces behind demands for “immigration reform,” and essentially, open borders. They will pay lip service to immigration control, but they know that the borders will never be controlled without the magnets that bring illegal aliens here: no, not jobs, but mainly, “entitlements.” The bilingual education activists, and their corrupt allies in Congress, also know that immigration cannot be controlled without a national identity card and vigorous enforcement of sanctions against employers and those who harbor illegal aliens for self-serving reasons.  They include subversive pseudo religious and political organizations who want to increase their membership with groups beholden to them for their “assistance” in aiding and abetting them to evade immigration laws.

The Obama Browbeat is Back

In Monday’s debate, Obama used the old “ACORN Browbeat” against Romney, but Romney was not intimidated.  The browbeat consists of craning the neck extremely forward toward the target and staring at him with an intense frown.  

Another word for the Obama Browbeat was the”get in their faces” tactic espoused by Obama and used by many of his agitators during the election of 2008.  Now that Americans have awakened, at least to some degree, its usefulness is currently about the same as (to use another Obama cliché) “horses and bayonets.”

Obama has had some practice at browbeating and filing lawsuits against banks--as a representative of ACORN.  One lending institution that Obama filed charges against was Citibank.  See:

http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2008/09/30/obama-sued-citibank-under-cra-to-force-it-to-make-bad-loans/

There has been much controversy regarding the economic impact of the CRA. The current Administration, of course,  claims that the CRA is not to blame for so many bank failures   See The Subprime Mortgage Crisis at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis

An excerpt:

 “Conservatives and libertarians have also debated the possible effects of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), with detractors claiming that the Act encouraged lending to uncreditworthy borrowers,[134][135][136][137] and defenders claiming a thirty year history of lending without increased risk.[138][139][140][141] Detractors also claim that amendments to the CRA in the mid-1990s, raised the amount of mortgages issued to otherwise unqualified low-income borrowers, and allowed the securitization of CRA-regulated mortgages, even though a fair number of them were subprime.[142][143]

“Federal Reserve Governor Randall Kroszner and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Chairman Sheila Bair have stated their belief that the CRA was not to blame for the crisis.”

Seeing Through The Obama Fog

We have heard much Obama rhetoric about the 14% tax rate that Governor Romney pays--for most of his income. Obama has demagogued that issue incessantly and the average citizen has no real clue as to what it's about.

Governor Mitt Romney is what is known as a "capital investor." Almost every capital asset in Ohio and all the U.S., was built by capital investors (yes, they, not the Government, DID build them). That includes nearly all the factories that used to provide an abundance of jobs in Ohio.

The tax rate for capital investors runs anywhere from 5% to 15%, depending upon the amounts invested and the length of time of the investments. There is no secret society of the super rich involved here. To use a common Obama cliché, everybody "has a shot" at the 15%, or lower tax rate. It is right there on every one's IRS Form 1040, Item No. 13. To determine the exact rate on capital gains, Item 13 refers you to IRS schedule D.

Until a few days ago, Obama demagogued the fact that Governor Romney had not submitted all of his tax returns. The tax returns of large capital investors is complicated and involves a lot of bookkeeping. When Romney submitted his 2011 tax return, it had 144 pages. How many of the agitators, including Obama, has knocked themselves out reading all 144 pages? I'll bet none. Romney also submitted summaries of tax returns for the past 20 years, each showing the source and amount of incomes and the taxes paid.

The lower tax rates for capital investors is a traditional incentive for those willing to risk their private funds to create jobs for others and to grow the national economy. Obama has never had a job in the private sector and one can see why he thinks that only the Government can create jobs. He thinks that any wealth outside the Government should be "redistributed" to all the people. Capital gains are, in fact, "redistributed" by creating jobs.

Obama has said that he wants to kill the 15% capital gains tax break for investors. If he does that, he will kill the incentive intended for capital investors, and the economy will stagnate more.

Bankruptcy is not a disgrace nor the end of a corporation like GM. Bankruptcy laws lead those industries back to solvency under the oversight of a receivership--designated banks or entities, assigned by the bankruptcy court.  Obama's Government bail-outs defeat the purpose of bankruptcy, passes the bill on to the tax payers and causes more national debt and more inflation. Moreover, Obama's bail-outs keep his same, incompetent, union-loyal CEOs in place--guaranteeing the need for another bailout a few years down the road.

Candy Crowley Was Unscrupulous

Candy Crowley set a precedent for a political debate "moderator" by injecting her erroneous opinion into the Romney-Obama debate and judged the veracity of a debater's statement. Her malfeasance went far beyond the scope of her authority--which is supposed to see to it that the debaters stick to the topics and stay within their time limits. America is suppose to decide if one party or the other is lying in the debates, not the moderator; she is not a judge; at best, a facilitator. The lies of Obama in the debate are too many to list here, and that is another topic I have discussed elsewhere and will discuss still more.

Governor Romney was 100% correct when he said that Obama, in his Rose Garden speech, did not call the Benghazi assassination an "act of terror."

What Obama said in the Rose Garden speech was a vague, ambiguous statement that "all acts of terrorism" would be punished. He did not then specify the Benghazi assassination of our ambassador to be an act of terrorism. At that point, neither Obama nor Hillary Clinton had ascribed the Benghazi incident to be an "act of terror." Both Obama and Hillary Clinton were still in a state of denial about the breakdown of intelligence and refused to admit that their inaction and failure to respond to a desperate call for help, had insured the death of our Ambassador. Hillary later volunteered to be another scapegoat for Obama. Scapegoat-ism has become a character trait and a flaw inside the Obama administration--at least since Fast and Furious. Noteworthy, he does not ever punish those who step up to be the scapegoats. 

Candy Crowley went far beyond the bounds of ethical behavior; she revealed herself to be totally biased and unfair to Governor Romney. She was distinctively unscrupulous.

The Presidential Debate: 10/16/2012

Last night, Obama regurgitated his campaign rhetoric of 2008.  If we want the same result that we have had for the last four years, then we should re-elect him.  We should disregard January 2, 2013, "Sequestration Day," when, at the demand of our creditors, we must sequester $100 billion dollars of the next budget; $50 billion from the military budget and $50 billion from the entitlement programs and use it to pay down the national debt. January 2 is coming regardless of who wins the election, and we need an experienced economist (Romney) to lead us through the troubled years ahead.

In his closing statement, Obama complained that he had been mis-characterized as not believing in self-reliance.

In Obama's case, words have spoken louder than action. Obama once loudly proclaimed, "You did not build that! Somebody else did!" Everything he utters screams that self reliance takes a back seat to the entitlement cult. Romney was modest in saying that only 47% of the population see themselves as victims and entitled to unearned equality in the socio-economic world. With his redistribution of wealth policies, Obama wants the entitlement cult to be 100% of Americans.

Obama says he would eliminate the 14% tax break incentive for investors (like Romney) who create jobs and grow the economy. In Obama's world, only the Government can create jobs; after all the Government has provided him with the only jobs he has ever had, so we can understand his narrow frame of reference. If he kills the 14% tax break for investors, he will kill job growth completely.

Is It Correct to Call Obama a Marxist?

Ellis Washington is one of the most noteworthy African-American legal scholars. Such amateurs as Eric Holder and Barack Obama cannot hold a candle to him.

Marxists, like Fidel Castro, Lenin and Trotsky perforce deny that they are Marxists--until they take over a country.

Ellis Washington, using the dialectic method of Socrates, makes a clear-cut case for Obama’s Marxist philosophy. You cannot constantly utter the maxims of Marxism and then declare that you disbelieve them. History repeatedly documents that Marxism’s path to power is deception of the masses, or the Proletarians, who usually are venal, uneducated and lacking in perceptive discernment, or objectivity. They all think they will prosper under Marxism. Marxist advocates always follow the Machiavellian creed of the end justifying any deceptive means.

Obama, when questioned, denied that he is a Marxist. That is like a child caught with his hand in the cookie jar denying that he was going to steal a cookie. The old cliché comes into play:“If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck…”

http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/is-obama-a-marxist...

Another fact that new supporters of Marxism cannot come to grips with is that the ideology always requires a police state--like that of Cuba--and that of the former Soviet Union. The reason is that mankind is naturally competitive and creative and they like to be rewarded for their efforts with accolades and remuneration. In a Marxist society, individualism is always repressed in favor of enforced mediocrity. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," a fundamental maxim of Marxism proscribes individual excellence in anything other than exaltation of the central government. That theory is expounded in the Marxist credo of "redistribution of
wealth," and preached and practiced until everyone reaches socio-economic strata of equality.

It is therefore perfectly legitimate and correct to call Obama a Marxist. Just ask Ellis Washington.