Economic vision, Part 3: A fairer tax ~ By Herman Cain

Replacing the current tax code with the Fair Tax is Phase 2 of my Economic Vision for America, discussed in Parts 1 and 2 in the two previous commentaries. We must take some time to introduce and explain the concept of shifting taxation from income to consumption, and how it is fairer, flatter, simpler and less burdensome and costly than what we are doing today.

As president, I will end the insanity of the current tax code.

It's common sense.

One of the major reasons why I support Herman Cain is because he favors the Fair Tax method for collecting revenues, rather than the graduated (progressive) income tax, payroll taxes, corporate taxes, and death taxes.

Our current system of income tax has become a complex monstrosity. Unless you are filing a 1040-EZ, the complexities may require you to have somebody else with tax preparation expertise to prepare your taxes for you. Another major problem with the income tax system as it is now is that it has allowed our U.S. Representatives and Senators to be lobbied into giving tax breaks to special interests. But, of course, the major problem will always be that the income tax, being graduated - meaning that the higher the income, the higher the rate an individual has to pay - is nothing but redistribution of income. That's right, folks, the graduated income tax is one of the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto.

There seems to be several major issues that Conservative and/or Republicans voters may have with the Fair Tax. However, it is painfully obvious that there is a lot of misunderstanding about the Fair Tax plan. I can help solve that problem. Let's start with the videos below, allowing you to hear Herman Cain's explanation of several of it's elements:

Video provided by IAmCitizenCain on May 1, 2011

Video provided by FoxNewsInsider on May 5, 2011

And here is a video presented by FairTax.org, which will verify what Herman Cain has said about the Fair Tax in the videos above:

Video provided by FairTaxOfficial on Apr 21, 2010

Of course, the biggest opponents to the Fair Tax will be the liberals who claim that it is regressive (which is refuted by the video above). But what the real hatred the liberals possess for the Fair Tax would be that it would eliminate all their weapons of class warfare through income tax, inheritance tax, and payroll tax. Because the liberals do not want to see the Fair Tax go into affect, they will be doing everything they can to stop it from happening, including the use of deceptive misinformation. This is why it is important for us to inform ourselves of how the plan is going to work, and then be able to use that information to inform others - with the TRUTH!

It is true, though, that it would still take quite the fight to get this plan through Congress. You know that tax professionals in the law and accounting fields would fight against this plan, tooth and nail. The Fair Tax would be putting many of them out of business. H & R Block would no longer have a purpose.

The only way to get the Fair Tax enacted will be to elect candidates that can't be bought off by the lobbyists that would be against the Fair Tax. That is definitely no small task. Tea Party candidates would be our best bet. And most certainly, we would need a President in the White House that would sign the bill. Herman Cain is the only Republican candidate that we can count on to sign Fair Tax legislation. The Fair Tax is part of Herman Cain's strategy to get our economy going again. It's time to "raise some Cain." I'm just sayin'...


RELATED STORIES:

• My economic vision: A job for every home ~ By Herman Cain

• Economic vision, Part 2: America thrives again ~ By Herman Cain

*    *    *

Economic vision, Part 3: A fairer tax

HERMAN CAIN

By Herman Cain

July 11, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Paying taxes is a fact of life, because there are certain things that our federal government must provide as enumerated in the Constitution. But paying taxes does not have to be unfair, burdensome and costly. Our current system of taxation is all three, and it got that way little by little over time since 1913.

The Fair Tax, or H.R. 25, is a fairer tax because it is just the opposite. It is fair because consumers determine their taxes based on their purchase behaviors instead of being determined by the government based on their capacity to produce. Our production is measured in terms of personal income and business profits.

The Fair Tax is a one-time, one-point national sales tax on new goods and services. It is not collected on wholesale purchases, but rather, it is collected on retail purchases when the consumer consumes, and not when the consumer or business produces. This is totally consistent with Economic Guiding Principle No. 1 as described in "My economic vision: A job for every home."

The Fair Tax is also fair because everybody pays the same consumption rate of 23 percent. Liberals hate that concept because it does not give them a tool to redistribute the income of others as with the current tax code. The rate is revenue-neutral and replaces all federal income and payroll taxes.

That's right! There will be no more income tax fillings and no more Internal Revenue Service! That would be another day of independence worth celebrating.

READ MORE at WND.com

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

What, me redistribute? ~ By Erik Rush

A key objective of the social engineering implemented by the left through our educational system, the press and the entertainment industry, as well as the encouragement of hedonistic indulgence, was indeed to cultivate a populace that wouldn't hear the hammer blows as the last nails were pounded into America's coffin lid. The abject ignorance of many Americans in the face of such stark evidence – and their vigorous defense of our would-be slavers in some cases – indicates that while this endeavor wasn't universally successful, it did come off pretty damn well. At times, the phenomenon brings to mind stories and films depicting entire populations falling victim to dark magic or sinister alien influence.

If nothing else, the national Republican leadership should place Obama's wealth-redistribution "inconsistency" front and center for the next 20 months. If they fail to do so, they may either be considered fools or suspected as complicit in the campaign to irrevocably undermine this nation. In lying about his comportment as a wealth redistributor and his record on taxes, President Obama has placed a very valuable weapon in our hands.

And we can use every lawful implement of aggression we can get.

Simply said, about everything Obama has ever said is on audio or video. It will be so easy to show Obama's lies or inconsistencies when it comes to the campaign season in 2012. However, the question will still be whether or not those that voted for Obama in 2008 will still have their heads stuck in the sand, or have we had enough pain in this country because of the economy and the wars, will at least some of them actually wake up and listen?

RELATED STORY:
Did Washington green light Mideast uprisings? ~ By Erik Rush


What, me redistribute?

ERIK RUSH

By Erik Rush

February 10, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

I thought I had said all that could be said with regard to the abundance and frequency of President Obama's gross misrepresentations last week – and then his Feb. 6 interview with Fox News' Bill O'Reilly was aired.

O'Reilly: Do you deny that you are a man who wants to redistribute wealth?

Obama: Absolutely. I didn't raise taxes once. I lowered taxes over the last two years.

Perhaps I ought to be beyond surprise at this point, but I'll admit I was slack-jawed with astonishment. Obama, who has gone on record numerous times advocating redistribution of wealth – from the notorious "Joe the Plumber" footage from the 2008 campaign to his interview faulting the Constitution for not including provisions for same – unequivocally denied supporting this policy.

His words also contradict most of what he's proposed and executed since taking office, since nearly all of his policies, legislation and executive orders have had wealth-redistribution components. In fact, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed last year (and crafted in part by hard-line Marxists) is one of the largest wealth-redistribution plans ever proposed.

As far as taxes go, Obama was compelled to compromise on taxes in the wake of the 2010 midterm election; his intentions were to raise taxes on everyone making over $250,000 a year – people whom progressives label as "the rich." His mendacity was quickly exposed by taxpayer advocacy groups that thoroughly documented the fallacy of his statement.

At times, I find it challenging to convey to my children just how pivotal a time this is. Not that such periods as World War II and the civil-rights era weren't pivotal, but America has never faced a circumstance in which those with a manifestly evil agenda (as opposed to a profoundly flawed one) held high office and wielded so much power. Never before have we had an administration in place with an objective of fundamentally weakening us in every significant area and at a time in which we also face a deadly, intractable, zealous enemy.

You see, it isn't Obama's lies or even Obama himself that is the issue. Yes, it is profoundly sad and decidedly disconcerting that an American – even an American politician – would possess sufficient sociopathic tendencies to make such monumentally false pronouncements on camera, with the existence of evidence to contradict them readily available. What illustrates the dire nature of our situation is the fact that they are not likely to be challenged in any meaningful way.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

People don't get rich by being dumb ~ By Patrice Lewis

When the time comes that the government removes too much of the money my husband and I work so hard to earn, we will be too poor to move. In many ways we already are.

But the rich are not. And unlike the useful idiots, rich people are smart enough to know when enough is enough. "Atlas Shrugged" is not fiction. It's a blueprint.

Video provided by iwanttomarrycarrie

I think I understand what Patrice is saying here. Unfortunately, other people will think they understand what she is saying, and it won't be quite the same thoughts I have. I am betting that Patrice knew when she wrote this that many would misunderstand her column, and that she already has her responses written for those that don't get her point.

Right off the bat, there will be people that will think she is saying that people that don't ever get rich are dumb. Those people that would think that are wrong. No, because Patrice would know as well as anyone that there are many people that are not dumb that never get rich. In fact, she is also probably aware that there are people who are rich that may be dumb. Of course, there will always be people that are rich because of the luck of the draw: Inheritance of a large family fortune, winning the jackpot in a multi-state lotto, or getting a large settlement in a law suit. It happens.

That being said, those that focused on the relationship of wealth and intelligence probably missed the main point of her column. Patrice was saying that those with the financial freedom to move to a location with a lower tax burden or less regulatory restrictions or without high union wages, will do so. The states that assume that the producers are not aware, or too dumb to know, that other states have a better business atmosphere, will lose the potential revenue of the businesses and the jobs that could be provided. So, who are the dumb ones? Just sayin'...

I realize it's counterintuitive for politicians to allow people to keep more of their own money, but it's an indisputable fact that lower taxes (for everyone) stimulate economic growth through job creation and discretionary spending.

But politicians still prefer to dress up their redistribution schemes in pretty words about egalitarianism and helping the poor. My goodness, after 50 years of hearing such nonsense you'd think people wouldn't fall for that kind of twaddle, but I guess I'm wrong. Some people still believe politicians are working for our good rather than chaining us into government dependency. Some people still want something for nothing. "Those evil rich people should give me some of their money," is the logic, "because they have too much and I don't have enough. They should share." It's immaterial that the sharing isn't voluntary; it's theft at the point of a gun.

Meanwhile, elite liberal professors at elite liberal universities reinforce this mantra to their students, thus ensuring another generation of useful idiots who will toe the Marxist line. Oooh, this makes me mad.

People don't get rich by being dumb

By Patrice Lewis

Posted: October 02, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010



A long time ago, I visited some friends who lived in a tiny town of about 500. Everyone knew everyone else. Like most of the folks in and around the area, these people were low income. One day at the grocery store, my friend's mother wrote a check for some groceries. "If this check bounces," she joked, "we'll have to skip town."

"Nah," the clerk replied with a smile. "You're too poor to move."

I was surprised at the implied insult and later asked my friend's mother to explain. "We're all poor around here," she said. "Even if we wanted to move and even if we could find someone who wanted our house, we couldn't sell it for enough money to afford a house anywhere else, so we're stuck."

I've remembered that incident for almost 30 years because I realize how true it is. Poor people are often too poor to move.

Rich people are not.

In this week's column, John Stossel explains in his typically blunt style that rich people, when taxed too much, simply choose to move away rather than surrender more of their money to government goons. It's a simple case of Atlas Shrugged. "Progressives want to raise taxes on individuals who make more than $200,000 a year because they say it's wrong for the rich to be 'given' more money," he writes, then adds, "A tax cut is not a handout. It simply means government steals less. What progressives want to do is take money from some – by force – and spend it on others. It sounds less noble when plainly stated."

To me, this is perfectly logical. If conditions are not suitable where you live and you have the resources to move, then you leave. That's the purpose of having individual states, which can compete with one another for citizens and, by extension, tax revenue. If someone doesn't like the taxes levied upon him in one state, he can move to another – and the left-behind state loses the taxes it might have collected from that person.

Astoundingly, politicians seem unable to grasp this concept.

But then, the intelligence level of politicians has always been questionable. "Politicians are not economists," my husband notes caustically. "Most get elected for being photogenic and having the best speaking ability." We expect politicians to be experts in economics when in reality they're merely experts in pretense.

This simple, basic concept – that rich people provide jobs, and if they're harassed to the breaking point they'll simply depart and take those jobs with them – is apparently beyond the understanding of politicians and progressives alike. More than two centuries ago, Thomas Jefferson noted, "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

To me, punishing people for being rich is like killing the goose that laid the golden egg. If you keep the goose alive, it gives gold forever. If you give rich people the ability to keep more of what they earn, they create endless jobs in the private sector. As the saying goes, I've never seen a poor person give anyone a job.

Now, before all my progressive readers e-mail and tell me why rich people are scummy jerks who receive endless government back-scratching deals and therefore deserve to be taxed to death – let me say that I agree with you, to a point. Doubtless there is as much of an unholy alliance between the government and some rich people as there is between the government and bankers (too often it's the same people).

But the fact remains, we need the wealthy – and not for the money we can steal from them. We need them to provide private-sector jobs for the rest of us poor saps who don't have the brains, capital or drive to start multi-million dollar companies that employ hundreds of thousands.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

King Obama ~ By Joseph Farah

In his column today, Joseph made a point that stuck in my mind: "It's about being set apart, not about being like the rest of the world." That is absolutely correct, and a very good point. It is what has made The United States of America something very special, by NOT being like the rest of the countries. There is no reason why we should try to be like Europe, but the President seems bent on doing just that. The proposed VAT tax comes to mind...

You can organize. You can protest. You can sign petitions. You can rally. You can vote – all good things to do.

But ultimately, there is one real solution found in 2 Chronicles 7:14: "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

By Joseph Farah

Posted: April 12, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

"The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history."

Friedrich Hegel didn't get much right in his life. But he was right about that.

It's a story as old as the prophet Samuel, before David slew Goliath and before Solomon was a twinkle in Bathsheba's eye.

The people wanted change.

They wanted to be like all the other nations – presided over by a king.

They rejected self-government with accountability directly to God.

The Israelites pleaded with Samuel: "Make us a king to judge us like all the nations" (1 Samuel 8).

Samuel was greatly distressed by this popular uprising. So he asked God about it.

Here's what God advised Samuel: "Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them."

God recognized that His special, beloved, disobedient, chosen people didn't appreciate what they had – probably the freest, safest society on the face of the Earth. They were envious of other nations that were ruled by a king.

So He was inclined to grant them their wish. But, before doing so, He issued a warning to the people about what life would be like under the rulership of an earthly king:

• he would take their sons for his own purposes – making war, working for his government;

• he would take their daughters to do his bidding;

• he would take their property and redistribute it as he saw fit;

But the people didn't listen.

"Nay; but we will have a king over us; That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles," they said instead of heeding the warning.

Do you get the picture?

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies!

(And maybe even buy a new computer someday!)

All issues are 'social issues' ~ By Joseph Farah

Those on left are trying their hardest to divide the TEA Party movement. Joseph Farah writes about the "social issues" that unites the TEA Party and Conservative movements.

I know the heart and soul of the tea-party movement.

It is populated by people who think just like I do about these big issues. It is a movement of prayerful people, people who love God, people who go to church and synagogue. And it is a movement of people who revere the Constitution. It is not just a movement founded upon issues of materialism and economics.


Furthermore, I would submit to you that "all issues are social issues." The great economic plundering taking place by a rapacious government and the elite they serve is a "social issue." The victims are people. Private property rights is a "social issue." Equal protection under the law is a "social issue." The rule of law is a "social issue."


And, most of all, the will of the people is a "social issue."

By Joseph Farah

Posted: March 15, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Just as many Americans don't understand the left-right political spectrum extends from totalitarian government control on the left to anarchy on the right, there's much confusion over the phony divide between "economic issues" and "social issues."

A story in last week's edition of Politico attempts to stir up conflict between what it calls the "evangelical right" and the tea-party movement. I am certain it will be the first of many like it in media determined to see an end to both movements.

"A reeling economy and the massive bank bailout and stimulus plan were the triggers for a resurgence in support for the Republican Party and the rise of the tea-party movement," explains Politico's Ben Smith. "But they've also banished the social issues that are the focus of many evangelical Christians to the background."

The story goes on to say the tea-party groups "eschew social issues."

We have become conditioned to hearing that "social issues" are abortion and the gender-bending agenda. However, I would like to make the case that all political issues are, in fact, "social issues." And just as those entering the political fray as tea partiers should recognize this, so must the traditional "conservatives" who have focused their attention on abortion and gender-bending.

I have some familiarity with both camps.

The problem both have is not always seeing the forest for the trees.

America is not just in trouble because government no longer respects the sanctity of life.

America is not just in trouble because government no longer respects the sanctity of marriage.

America is not just in trouble because government is spending more money than it has.

America is not just in trouble because government is redistributing wealth.

America is in trouble because government is doing all of these things and more to exceed the strict limits of its constitutional authority.

And, America is in trouble because government has, to paraphrase Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, "forgotten God."

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

When Reds go green ~ By Jerome Corsi

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Jerome Corsi Posted: December 18, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 Divisions between the advanced countries and the Third World developing countries at the Copenhagen Climate Summit are revealing an underlying agenda to redistribute wealth globally that gives impetus for the United Nations goal to impose a cap-and-trade tax on the United States and Europe, for the benefit of China, India and the rest of the developed world. "Save the planet, scrap capitalism," a protester in Copenhagen at a socialist and communist protest, highlighted by red communist flags displaying the hammer and sickle of the former Soviet Union, told a reporter from the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, or CFACT. (See video at the bottom of this column) The U.N. Climate Summit in Copenhagen this week increasingly appeared to be on the verge of collapsing as the United States engaged in increasingly bitter exchanges with China and India, while the African Nations walked out. The crux of the issue is that the developing world, led by China and India, want the developed world, led by the United States and Europe, to pay to developing nations hundreds of billions of dollars in what amount to reparations for emitting carbon. Meanwhile, China has overtaken the United States as the world's largest producer of carbon dioxide, while China's foreign-exchange reserves grew to $2.27 trillion at the end of September, a dramatic 700 percent increase in the last five years, largely as a result of the U.S. large and growing negative balance of trade with China. To fully comprehend the extent of disregard China, in its push to produce cheap goods, has for the environment, view a series of shocking photographs of Chinese pollution taken by Lu Guang from the People's Republic of China, the winner of the 2009 W. Eugene Smith Grant in Humanistic Photography for his documentary project "Pollution in China." Basically, the United Nations and leftist-oriented climate alarmists want to produce a two-tier global carbon-tax system in which manufacturing will be punished for remaining in the United States and the European Union and rewarded for relocating to an emerging economy such as China or India. READ FULL STORY >

Socialists and Communists march to support global warming agenda Video provided by GlobalStewardship ~ December 14, 2009

Obama's 1-world government ~ By Chuck Norris

From WorldNetDaily

By Chuck Norris Posted: October 25, 2009 ~ 9:13 pm Eastern © 2009 Halloween just got scarier – much scarier. I'm not talking about a new Hollywood slasher film or a new line of grotesque costumes, but a possible political nightmare scenario in which the White House could be positioned to sell out U.S. sovereignty, shred the Constitution and leave you and yours to the whims of foreign powers. Flying deep under Washington's radar is an upcoming (December) global climate change conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, under the guise of the "United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change." Virtually nothing has been said about it from the White House. But then again, I'm sure they think, who could be against working together for climate change? It all sounds pretty politically benign, doesn't it? Not according to Lord Christopher Monckton, once science policy adviser to Lady Margaret Thatcher, who read the treaty and said the Copenhagen conference is a cover for the beginnings of a one-world government. Monckton spoke to the Minnesota Free Market Institute in St. Paul, Minn.:

I have read that treaty and what it says is this: that a world government is going to be created. The word "government" actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to Third World countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, "climate debt" – because we've been burning CO2 and they haven't. And we've been screwing up the climate and they haven't. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement. How many of you think the word "election," or "democracy" or "vote," or "ballot" occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn't appear once.

Monckton then warned, if Obama signs the treaty, he would be flushing U.S. sovereignty down the global toilet. He cautioned, "But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy and your prosperity away forever – and neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect would have any power whatsoever to take it back again." Monckton further pointed out that, even though ratification of our president's signature on that treaty would take a 67 supermajority (two-thirds) of the Senate, it could pass a simple majority as an amendment to the cap-and-trade bill. Politifact.com (as well as many Left-leaning blogs) quickly criticized Monckton's conclusions as conspiratorial and climate-skepticism rhetoric, based upon the notion that the treaty is a draft and not a finalized document. But the apologetic of Politifact.com leaves the impression that the current draft is the roughest of cuts, when in reality it is the result of seven sessions of deliberations and revisions from several subgroups, including representatives from developed and developing countries ("parties"), "with a view to modifying it in the direction of consolidation and convergence." [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

RELATED STORY: Coming in December: World government ~ By Henry Lamb RELATED VIDEO: Lord Christopher Monckton speaks on October 14th, 2009 at a climate skeptic event sponsored by the Minnesota Free Market Institute. Lord Christopher Monckton Speaking in St. Paul

Coming in December: World government ~ By Henry Lamb

From WorldNetDaily

By Henry Lamb Posted: October 24, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 It is impossible to overstate the importance of the climate-change treaty now being negotiated for adoption at the Copenhagen, Denmark, U.N. meeting in December. The Kyoto Protocol was bad enough. It required the United States to reduce its carbon emissions 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. When fully implemented, the Kyoto target was supposed to reduce global carbon emissions by 5.2 percent. Thanks to George W. Bush, the U.S. did not participate in the Kyoto accord. According to the World Bank, global emissions have risen by 19 percent since 1990. U.S. emissions have risen 20 percent since 1990. India's and China's emissions have risen by 88 percent and 73 percent respectively. Neither of these countries was bound by the Kyoto Protocol. The new treaty now under negotiation seeks to impose an emissions reduction requirement on developed countries of as much as 45 percent below 1990 levels by 2017, and by as much as 95 percent by 2050. (Read paragraph 31 on page 16 of the 181-page negotiating text). These numbers are completely ridiculous; compliance would require a return to the Stone Age. The ongoing negotiations include whether developing nations will be required to reduce emissions, and if so, by how much. China, a so-called developing nation, has now surpassed the United States as the world's No. 1 carbon emitter. Regardless of the final numbers the negotiators decide upon, it will make no difference to the climate. It will, however, make an enormous difference to people, especially the people who live in the United States and the other developed nations. This treaty will create an international bureaucracy with the authority to regulate energy use. This entity would, in fact, be a political institution with the power to govern. In other words, the treaty will create a world government to administer global governance. Lord Christopher Monckton created a tidal wave across the Internet with excerpts from his Oct. 14 presentation to the Minnesota Free Market Institute. He, too, has read the negotiating text and says without hesitation that this treaty will create a world government. He goes further, much further, to explain that while this treaty will have no impact on global climate, it will have a great impact on the global economy. The purpose of the treaty is, and has been since the very beginning of negotiations in the early 1990s, to transfer the wealth from developed nations to the developing nations – under the supervision of the United Nations. Treaty negotiations justify this action because developed nations have spewed more carbon into the atmosphere than the developing nations. Therefore, according to U.N. reasoning, it is the developed nations that caused the global warming, so the developing nations are entitled to compensation. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

Lord Christopher Monckton speaks on October 14th, 2009 at a climate skeptic event sponsored by the Minnesota Free Market Institute. Lord Christopher Monckton Speaking in St. Paul

Wealth redistribution on steroids ~ By David Limbaugh

From WorldNetDaily

By David Limbaugh Posted: October 13, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 Is there no problem Obama and his mesmerized Democrats think cannot be solved with money – other people's money? Just when you think you've heard it all, more news stories about this bunch surface to shock you. The Sunday Times reports that the administration is considering a novel approach to the war in Afghanistan: outbidding the Taliban to persuade Afghan villagers to lay down arms. So much for a "war of necessity," which was just an opportunistic sound bite for Obama to demonize Bush while cynically pretending to be hawkish enough in the war on terror to appeal to Middle America. No, for Obama, Afghanistan must just be another "street" to organize, another constituency to schmooze in his permanent – now global – campaign. Even when the Bush administration employed strategies to win over Sunnis, it was coupled with a redoubling of our military effort and a marked alteration in our strategy to "hold" territory once we had taken it. This idea that you can reduce this war to an auction, divorced from the required steps needed to strengthen the security there, is insane. That's not merely my independent assessment. One general close to Gen. Stanley McChrystal told the Times he was taken aback by the administration's attitude. "It surprised a lot of us – we thought the policy decision was made to come down on the counter-insurgency course of action." The general said the notion that "we can just cut deals with the Taliban without having to do anything" is a "crazy" idea. Why won't money alone do it? Because "at the moment you can't recruit from Pashtun communities or their families will be killed, so we need to first improve security." Apparently, this concept doesn't register with Obama, who has obviously been mentored from an early age to believe that all the world's problems can be mitigated, if not reduced, by "economic justice" – the naked redistribution of U.S. bucks. He surely missed those lessons instilling such truisms as "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." Then again, Obama's Marxist mentors – Franklin Marshall Davis, Saul Alinsky and Bill Ayers – also understood that you don't build an army of street organizers or a recurring voting constituency by teaching people of the streets to fish. When you "spread the wealth around," you make the distributees dependent on your next handout – beholden to your largesse with other people's money and personally worse off in every respect. There could be no better illustration of this reality than WJR radio host Ken Rogulski's interviews of potential recipients of "stimulus money" handouts at the Cobo Center, in Detroit. One woman described it as "Obama money" that came from "his stash." "That's why we voted for him. Obama! Obama!" That's why you'll surely vote for him again. So much for America as the land of opportunity and entrepreneurship. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]