by Austin Hill
“The popular media narrative is that this country has shifted away from conservative ideals, as evidenced by the last two presidential elections. That’s what they think. That might be true if Republicans had actually nominated conservative candidates in 2008 and 2012.”
Governor Rick Perry (R-Texas) drew applause with that line, as he spoke at last week’s “Conservative Political Action Conference’ (“CPAC”) in Maryland. And if there’s any sure-fire way to draw applause from a conservative audience in 2013, taking a swipe at both the media and the Republican Party is probably a good strategy.
Yet if there is somehow a false narrative in “the media” about America abandoning conservative ideals, it may also be true that the notion of America adhering to some set of conservative ideals is, perhaps, a bit of a false narrative as well. Implicit in Perry’s message is the assumption that, if only a “truly conservative” presidential candidate had appeared at the top of the ballot in the 2012 presidential election, then the outcome of the election would have been quite different, and our nation’s public policy would therefore look very different. And there is no doubt some grain of truth to his claim – neither fiscal conservatives nor social conservatives had any particular affinity for Mitt Romney, and this was probably part of what led to the lackluster voter turnout.
Yet evidence suggests that, even in heavily Republican regions of the country, very left-leaning, socialistic, Obama-styled public policy ideas are nonetheless thriving. Voters in these regions may give lots of lip service to things like the sanctity of life and traditional marriage, but the ideals of limited government and fiscal conservatism seem to have been abandoned in favor of President Obama’s explosive growth of social welfare programs. This would seem to refute Governor Perry’s assumptions about our country – and it should be alarming to all Americans.
Consider, for example, the predominantly Republican state of Arkansas (a state that Romney won in 2012). The state’s Governor, Mike Beebe, and U.S. Senator Mark Pryor are both Democrats. But Lieutenant Governor Mark Darr, U.S. Senator John Boozman, all four of the state’s U.S. House members and the majorities in both the state House of Representatives and State Senate, all belong in the Republican category.
Yet despite all the “R’s” that abound in the state, Arkansas has nonetheless gone full-tilt with the implementation of Obamacare. This is to say that the state has implemented a government-run health insurance exchange (26 states in the country have thus far refused to do this), and they have also voluntarily chosen to lower eligibility standards for Medicaid and, thus, to expand the number of Medicaid recipients.
Jay Bradford, Commissioner of the Arkansas Department of insurance, openly admits that the implementation of the insurance exchange will actually raise the price of insurance that cash-paying consumers have to face, but notes that the federal government is currently offering so much money in subsidies so insurance companies can offer either free or reduced-rate coverage (to those who qualify), that the opportunity was too good to pass-up. One can imagine that the decision to expand Medicaid in Arkansas was also based on another one of the President’s “too good to pass up” offers, in as much as the Obama Administration is currently offering to pay 100% of a state’s Medicaid expansion costs (the offer expires at the end of this year).
In case that isn’t sufficiently eye-opening, consider Idaho (yet another state that Mr. Romney won last year). Every one of Idaho’s statewide elective offices, including the office of Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Superintendent of Education, Controller, Treasurer, and Secretary of State, is occupied by a Republican. The state’s two U.S. Senators, and its two U.S. House of Representatives members, are all Republicans. And the Republican Party holds super-majorities in both the state House of Representatives, and the state Senate.
Yet, despite Idaho being an extremely “red” state, a majority of Republicans in the state House and Senate have nonetheless sided with the minority of Democrats in the legislature and have voted to implement an Obamacare insurance exchange in the state (Republican Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter has been pushing his party to do this since last December). Estimates are that, despite the state’s tiny population of less than 1.8 million, insurance companies that operate in the state will take in upwards of $200 - $300 million in federal subsidies, once the insurance exchange is put in place.
Both Arkansas and Idaho have historically qualified as “pro life” states. Socially conservative Protestantism reigns supreme in Arkansas, while both Mormonism and Protestant Evangelicalism are predominate among the Idaho electorate. And three weeks ago Arkansas adopted the toughest statewide abortion restriction in the country. Yet these two states have both embraced Obamacare, despite the fact that the Obamacare insurance exchanges promise to provide funding for abortion-inducing drugs, and, likely, for the procedure of “mechanical abortion” itself.
The point of all this is obvious: in regions of the country where voters still profess to be “conservative,” “pro life,” and “Republican,” they are nonetheless empowering state and local leaders who are bringing about very liberal, socialistic public policy and who are expanding government dependency. Ideas about competitive private enterprise, private sector charity, and personal self-sufficiency are giving way to the promises of government welfare, even as the rhetoric of “traditional marriage” and “the sanctity of life” remains intact.
Rick Perry may be right, and America may once again “choose conservatism” as long as it is presented by the proper candidate.
It may also be true that Barack Obama has more fundamentally altered the fabric of America than anybody cares to admit.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Showing posts with label Socialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Socialism. Show all posts
Sunday, March 17, 2013
Sunday, August 19, 2012
The American Dream, Or The Dreams Of Obama’s Father?
By Austin Hill
You think President Obama is avoiding the subject of the economy?
Think again.
In reality, thoughts and ideas about the economy, and about economics, and about money – especially thoughts about other people’s money – animate just about everything that President Obama says and does. He is fixated on his belief that it is a grave injustice for a private individual, family or organization to be financially successful, and he is determined that his presidency will be the one to save our country from this “problem.”
So, while President Obama conveniently ignores the data on our current economic conditions – 8.3% unemployment, a decline in manufacturing, a rise in unemployment benefits claims and a drop in the labor force participation rate – he nonetheless cannot stop talking about the economy, and his vision of economic “transformation.” His contempt for individual economic achievements is a part of who he is – he cannot stop being himself.
The President’s recent obsession about Mitt Romney’s tax returns is only his latest in a long history of fussing about other people being wealthy. And the President’s disdainful attitude towards privately possessed wealth should surprise absolutely no one- his own father was also a powerful governmental figure who displayed this same kind of indignation.
Barack Hussein Obama Sr., the biological father of our President, was a bureaucrat in the communist government of Kenya back when the nation first declared its independence in the 1960’s. And while Kenya’s government was at that time moving towards pro-Western, free-market economic reforms, Obama staunchly opposed such changes.
Thus, Mr. Obama published an academic paper in 1965, responding to his government colleagues who supported the westernization of Kenya. Entitled “Problems Facing Our Socialism,” Mr. Obama advised Kenya’s then-President Jomo Kenyatta against relying on private investors, private capital, and private property ownership, as a means of improving the country’s dreadful economy. Why was private capital and investment a problem? Because, Mr. Obama reasoned, private investors inevitably seek to earn “dividends” from their investments, and “turning a profit” was the gravest of all immoralities. Instead, Mr. Obama proposed higher taxes on the wealthy, and a redistribution of that money, for the “collective good” of the nation.
“Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income,” Mr. Obama wrote, “so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed.” In the view of Barack Hussein Obama Sr., the right of the individual person to freely work, earn, and invest, meant nothing. All that mattered was the “collective good” of the nation. And if confiscating certain people’s hard-earned money could help benefit “everyone,” then so be it. That wealth would be put to better use, Mr. Obama argued, if it were controlled by the leader of the government.
Given this bit of President Obama’s familial history, it is not surprising that throughout his public life he himself has advocated for many of the same ideas that his father did over half a century ago. During the last presidential election cycle, alone, then-Senator Obama pushed for higher income taxes on “the rich” and higher business taxes on “excess profits” (his definition of “rich” and “excessive” changed almost weekly during the campaign); higher taxes on energy companies; government-imposed limits on private corporate salaries; and – his father would be so proud – higher taxes on dividend earnings. He even suggested at one point that the U.S. government should start taxing capital – not a new tax on interest or dividends derived from investment capital, but a tax on money sitting in banks doing nothing.
Now, four years later, the President is running for re-election in an economic environment made weaker by his own policies and ideas. And it is easy to dismiss as “mere politics” the President’s obsession with Mr. Romney’s net worth, his past work at a venture capital firm, and his annual tax returns – presumably the President is trying to portray Mr. Romney as a heartless aristocrat who is “out of touch” with everyday middleclass Americans.
But given what we know of President Obama and his expressed views of the world, it also stands to reason that, for him, the wealth that private citizen Mitt Romney possesses – as well as the wealth possessed by other private citizens like Mr. Romney – really is the most serious problem facing America today. Even just last week, amid more negative economic reports, the President delivered yet another of his speeches on his “new vision of America where prosperity is shared.”
What the President does not seem to understand (and what his father seemingly never understood), is that prosperity must first be created – by inventors, executives, entrepreneurs, investors, small business owners, and yes – sometimes even by “rich people” – before it can be re-distributed and “shared” by anybody. And if a society chooses to punish its wealthy members with ever-expanding taxation, rather than encouraging them to create more wealth, then eventually even the smartest of politicians run out of wealth to re-distribute.
So will the U.S. return to being a country where anybody can pursue the “American dream” without fear of retribution? Or has President Obama successfully supplanted the American dream with – to paraphrase one of his book titles – the dreams from his father?
We, the people, will have our say on this in November. Let’s hope we all make an informed choice.
Comments are invited! Send feedback to: WatchDog .
You think President Obama is avoiding the subject of the economy?
Think again.
In reality, thoughts and ideas about the economy, and about economics, and about money – especially thoughts about other people’s money – animate just about everything that President Obama says and does. He is fixated on his belief that it is a grave injustice for a private individual, family or organization to be financially successful, and he is determined that his presidency will be the one to save our country from this “problem.”
So, while President Obama conveniently ignores the data on our current economic conditions – 8.3% unemployment, a decline in manufacturing, a rise in unemployment benefits claims and a drop in the labor force participation rate – he nonetheless cannot stop talking about the economy, and his vision of economic “transformation.” His contempt for individual economic achievements is a part of who he is – he cannot stop being himself.
The President’s recent obsession about Mitt Romney’s tax returns is only his latest in a long history of fussing about other people being wealthy. And the President’s disdainful attitude towards privately possessed wealth should surprise absolutely no one- his own father was also a powerful governmental figure who displayed this same kind of indignation.
Barack Hussein Obama Sr., the biological father of our President, was a bureaucrat in the communist government of Kenya back when the nation first declared its independence in the 1960’s. And while Kenya’s government was at that time moving towards pro-Western, free-market economic reforms, Obama staunchly opposed such changes.
Thus, Mr. Obama published an academic paper in 1965, responding to his government colleagues who supported the westernization of Kenya. Entitled “Problems Facing Our Socialism,” Mr. Obama advised Kenya’s then-President Jomo Kenyatta against relying on private investors, private capital, and private property ownership, as a means of improving the country’s dreadful economy. Why was private capital and investment a problem? Because, Mr. Obama reasoned, private investors inevitably seek to earn “dividends” from their investments, and “turning a profit” was the gravest of all immoralities. Instead, Mr. Obama proposed higher taxes on the wealthy, and a redistribution of that money, for the “collective good” of the nation.
“Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income,” Mr. Obama wrote, “so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed.” In the view of Barack Hussein Obama Sr., the right of the individual person to freely work, earn, and invest, meant nothing. All that mattered was the “collective good” of the nation. And if confiscating certain people’s hard-earned money could help benefit “everyone,” then so be it. That wealth would be put to better use, Mr. Obama argued, if it were controlled by the leader of the government.
Given this bit of President Obama’s familial history, it is not surprising that throughout his public life he himself has advocated for many of the same ideas that his father did over half a century ago. During the last presidential election cycle, alone, then-Senator Obama pushed for higher income taxes on “the rich” and higher business taxes on “excess profits” (his definition of “rich” and “excessive” changed almost weekly during the campaign); higher taxes on energy companies; government-imposed limits on private corporate salaries; and – his father would be so proud – higher taxes on dividend earnings. He even suggested at one point that the U.S. government should start taxing capital – not a new tax on interest or dividends derived from investment capital, but a tax on money sitting in banks doing nothing.
Now, four years later, the President is running for re-election in an economic environment made weaker by his own policies and ideas. And it is easy to dismiss as “mere politics” the President’s obsession with Mr. Romney’s net worth, his past work at a venture capital firm, and his annual tax returns – presumably the President is trying to portray Mr. Romney as a heartless aristocrat who is “out of touch” with everyday middleclass Americans.
But given what we know of President Obama and his expressed views of the world, it also stands to reason that, for him, the wealth that private citizen Mitt Romney possesses – as well as the wealth possessed by other private citizens like Mr. Romney – really is the most serious problem facing America today. Even just last week, amid more negative economic reports, the President delivered yet another of his speeches on his “new vision of America where prosperity is shared.”
What the President does not seem to understand (and what his father seemingly never understood), is that prosperity must first be created – by inventors, executives, entrepreneurs, investors, small business owners, and yes – sometimes even by “rich people” – before it can be re-distributed and “shared” by anybody. And if a society chooses to punish its wealthy members with ever-expanding taxation, rather than encouraging them to create more wealth, then eventually even the smartest of politicians run out of wealth to re-distribute.
So will the U.S. return to being a country where anybody can pursue the “American dream” without fear of retribution? Or has President Obama successfully supplanted the American dream with – to paraphrase one of his book titles – the dreams from his father?
We, the people, will have our say on this in November. Let’s hope we all make an informed choice.
Comments are invited! Send feedback to: WatchDog .
Monday, August 15, 2011
Questions For A Nation That Has Lost Its Way
By Austin Hill
A new poll shows that 73% of Americans think our country is on the wrong track.
Are you one of the seventy-three percenters?
The poll from Reuters/Ipsos Public Relations was conducted between August 4 and August 8. Given the turmoil over the federal government “debt deal,” the downgrade of federal government debt, and the dramatic shifts in the global stock markets during this period, it’s not surprising that the “wrong track” figure leaped ten percentage points – up from 63% - compared to the same poll conducted exactly one month prior.
What was a bit surprising, however, was that this relatively high percentage of Americans reported “wrong track” status for the country, despite the fact that there were slightly more registered Democrats surveyed than there were registered Republicans. Given that Democrat ideology rules the U.S. Senate and the White House, it would make sense that registered Democrats in America would be more pleased with the leadership of their fellow Democrats who hold elective office.
But if the United States is on the wrong track – if our nation has truly lost its way - then a couple of other questions should follow: A) what is the “right track” for America ? And B) How will we know when we’re “on” it?
Rather than try to quickly answer these two questions, I’m suggesting that we all should first contemplate several other questions. As the title of a famous sales training book once noted, “questions are the answers” – so here are a couple that can help move the process forward:
Who manages wealth the best – private individuals and groups, or politicians and government bureaucrats? For most of my adult life – that is, since the days of the Reagan presidency - the United States federal government has been fairly respectful of every American’s right to create, and possess monetary wealth, and has mostly avoided being punitive towards the wealthiest in society.
Additionally, our government’s leadership has been fairly accepting of the notion that when Americans are permitted to keep more of their own wealth, rather than less of it, they usually do productive things with it that ultimately benefit the overall economy. Even Democrat President Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisors noted in 1994 that "It is undeniable that the sharp reduction in taxes in the early 1980s was a strong impetus to economic growth."
Yet today our nation is afflicted with a terrible philosophical malaise – I call it “the politics of envy.” With a President who campaigned on a pledge to “spread the wealth around,” many Americans today make the assumption that the wealthiest among us achieved their earnings by questionable if not immoral means and deserve to have ever-increasing portions of it taken from them in the form of “higher taxes.” Likewise the assumption is made that when individuals possess large sums of wealth they only do “selfish” things with it, whereas politicians can force wealthy people to expand their businesses and “create jobs” and can spend people’s money in ways that benefit “everyone.”
This esteemed view of government seems terrific – but is it really accurate? The agenda of President Obama and his Democrat party has helped create an environment where roughly half of the population pays no income taxes, so presumably the President has spread at least some wealth “around.” But have the new controls and mandates and regulations placed on businesses – all in the name of the “collective good” – really been beneficial to anybody? As Steve Wynn, CEO of Wynn Resorts, LTD recently noted, “those of us who have business opportunities and the capital to do it are going to sit in fear of the President…” Indeed treating business owners and “the wealthy” as though they are something less than dignified respectable human beings has produced a stagnant economy, and the constant threat from the President to raise taxes on the wealthy makes matters worse not better.
And here’s another soul-searching question for a nation that is on the “wrong track:” is America strengthened when growing portions of its citizens are content to live off of the largess of others? According to the Congressional Budget Office, the signature domestic agenda item of our current President – “Obamacare,” if you will – has led many of our fellow Americans to believe that they simply no longer need to work for a living because of all the “free” assistance they can get from our government.
This is not just political “spin” or partisan punditry. It comes directly from Douglas Elmendorf, the Director of the non-partisan C.B.O. It was none other than Mr. Elmendorf himself who noted in late 2010 that, outside the healthcare sector of our economy, the greatest impact of the Obamacare agenda will be in the labor market as the program incentivizes people to not work. Is this really something that puts America on the “right track?” It may be helping to bring down the unemployment rate, but it is certainly not leading our country to prosperity and productivity.
The pain of a stagnant economy and high unemployment is quite evident, while the flaws of bad government policy are not always so obvious. Americans should be contemplating these, and lots of other questions, as we seek to get our nation back on course.
Email: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
A new poll shows that 73% of Americans think our country is on the wrong track.
Are you one of the seventy-three percenters?
The poll from Reuters/Ipsos Public Relations was conducted between August 4 and August 8. Given the turmoil over the federal government “debt deal,” the downgrade of federal government debt, and the dramatic shifts in the global stock markets during this period, it’s not surprising that the “wrong track” figure leaped ten percentage points – up from 63% - compared to the same poll conducted exactly one month prior.
What was a bit surprising, however, was that this relatively high percentage of Americans reported “wrong track” status for the country, despite the fact that there were slightly more registered Democrats surveyed than there were registered Republicans. Given that Democrat ideology rules the U.S. Senate and the White House, it would make sense that registered Democrats in America would be more pleased with the leadership of their fellow Democrats who hold elective office.
But if the United States is on the wrong track – if our nation has truly lost its way - then a couple of other questions should follow: A) what is the “right track” for America ? And B) How will we know when we’re “on” it?
Rather than try to quickly answer these two questions, I’m suggesting that we all should first contemplate several other questions. As the title of a famous sales training book once noted, “questions are the answers” – so here are a couple that can help move the process forward:
Who manages wealth the best – private individuals and groups, or politicians and government bureaucrats? For most of my adult life – that is, since the days of the Reagan presidency - the United States federal government has been fairly respectful of every American’s right to create, and possess monetary wealth, and has mostly avoided being punitive towards the wealthiest in society.
Additionally, our government’s leadership has been fairly accepting of the notion that when Americans are permitted to keep more of their own wealth, rather than less of it, they usually do productive things with it that ultimately benefit the overall economy. Even Democrat President Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisors noted in 1994 that "It is undeniable that the sharp reduction in taxes in the early 1980s was a strong impetus to economic growth."
Yet today our nation is afflicted with a terrible philosophical malaise – I call it “the politics of envy.” With a President who campaigned on a pledge to “spread the wealth around,” many Americans today make the assumption that the wealthiest among us achieved their earnings by questionable if not immoral means and deserve to have ever-increasing portions of it taken from them in the form of “higher taxes.” Likewise the assumption is made that when individuals possess large sums of wealth they only do “selfish” things with it, whereas politicians can force wealthy people to expand their businesses and “create jobs” and can spend people’s money in ways that benefit “everyone.”
This esteemed view of government seems terrific – but is it really accurate? The agenda of President Obama and his Democrat party has helped create an environment where roughly half of the population pays no income taxes, so presumably the President has spread at least some wealth “around.” But have the new controls and mandates and regulations placed on businesses – all in the name of the “collective good” – really been beneficial to anybody? As Steve Wynn, CEO of Wynn Resorts, LTD recently noted, “those of us who have business opportunities and the capital to do it are going to sit in fear of the President…” Indeed treating business owners and “the wealthy” as though they are something less than dignified respectable human beings has produced a stagnant economy, and the constant threat from the President to raise taxes on the wealthy makes matters worse not better.
And here’s another soul-searching question for a nation that is on the “wrong track:” is America strengthened when growing portions of its citizens are content to live off of the largess of others? According to the Congressional Budget Office, the signature domestic agenda item of our current President – “Obamacare,” if you will – has led many of our fellow Americans to believe that they simply no longer need to work for a living because of all the “free” assistance they can get from our government.
This is not just political “spin” or partisan punditry. It comes directly from Douglas Elmendorf, the Director of the non-partisan C.B.O. It was none other than Mr. Elmendorf himself who noted in late 2010 that, outside the healthcare sector of our economy, the greatest impact of the Obamacare agenda will be in the labor market as the program incentivizes people to not work. Is this really something that puts America on the “right track?” It may be helping to bring down the unemployment rate, but it is certainly not leading our country to prosperity and productivity.
The pain of a stagnant economy and high unemployment is quite evident, while the flaws of bad government policy are not always so obvious. Americans should be contemplating these, and lots of other questions, as we seek to get our nation back on course.
Email: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Friday, May 27, 2011
That They Shall Not Have Died In Vain
It has been said that when a man or woman joins the military, they sign a blank check. That blank check is their pledge to pay any price, up to and including their life, in service to their country.
Memorial Day is a special day that is set aside to honor those that paid that blank check with his or her life.
Thousands of persons dating from the American Revolution in 1776 to the present have attempted to express the nation’s gratitude for the sacrifices made by these men and women. None have done it better or more eloquently than the following:
"It is for us, the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they have, thus far, so nobly carried on. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us - that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion - that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom; and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
This quotation is from the “Gettysburg Address" which was delivered by Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War, on November 19, 1863, at the dedication of the cemetery located on one of the fields of the Battle of Gettysburg. When Lincoln gave this speech America was only 87 years old and was engaged in a great civil war.
Lincoln did more than honor the dead! He made a plea that “we the living be highly resolved that these dead shall not have died in vain; and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.“
President Lincoln knew that no matter how many men died on the battlefield, the nation would have to be preserved by the people and their elected representatives.
And so it is today!
Last November, Republicans won a startling victory in which they gained control of the House, made major inroads to the Senate, and gained control of the overwhelming majority of the Statehouses.
It was clear that we the people were and are opposed to Obamacare and the vast majority of Obama’s agenda. It is very clear that the voters want for runaway spending to end.
A few days ago in an irrelevant New York district a Democrat defeated a weak Republican candidate for a seat in the House of Representatives. Already we see the Republican leadership has forgotten the November victories and are in a panic over this one vote. If John Boehner and Mitch McConnell and other GOP leaders are afraid to stand up for the people, lets kick them aside and get on with saving this nation from its most destructive enemy the Democrat/Marxist party.
On this Memorial Day, We Americans need to make the pledge that we the living be highly resolved that those who died in the service to this country shall not have died in vain; and that we will do whatever is necessary to restore a government of the people, by the people, for the people as is clearly defined by the Constitution. -- WD
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Memorial Day is a special day that is set aside to honor those that paid that blank check with his or her life.
Thousands of persons dating from the American Revolution in 1776 to the present have attempted to express the nation’s gratitude for the sacrifices made by these men and women. None have done it better or more eloquently than the following:
"It is for us, the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they have, thus far, so nobly carried on. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us - that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion - that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom; and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
This quotation is from the “Gettysburg Address" which was delivered by Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War, on November 19, 1863, at the dedication of the cemetery located on one of the fields of the Battle of Gettysburg. When Lincoln gave this speech America was only 87 years old and was engaged in a great civil war.
Lincoln did more than honor the dead! He made a plea that “we the living be highly resolved that these dead shall not have died in vain; and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.“
President Lincoln knew that no matter how many men died on the battlefield, the nation would have to be preserved by the people and their elected representatives.
And so it is today!
Last November, Republicans won a startling victory in which they gained control of the House, made major inroads to the Senate, and gained control of the overwhelming majority of the Statehouses.
It was clear that we the people were and are opposed to Obamacare and the vast majority of Obama’s agenda. It is very clear that the voters want for runaway spending to end.
A few days ago in an irrelevant New York district a Democrat defeated a weak Republican candidate for a seat in the House of Representatives. Already we see the Republican leadership has forgotten the November victories and are in a panic over this one vote. If John Boehner and Mitch McConnell and other GOP leaders are afraid to stand up for the people, lets kick them aside and get on with saving this nation from its most destructive enemy the Democrat/Marxist party.
On this Memorial Day, We Americans need to make the pledge that we the living be highly resolved that those who died in the service to this country shall not have died in vain; and that we will do whatever is necessary to restore a government of the people, by the people, for the people as is clearly defined by the Constitution. -- WD
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Soros/Obama Conspire To, “End America as we know it!”
A few weeks ago, George Soros hosted a major economic conference, called the Bretton Woods Event, whose purpose was to change the entire global economy. The main objective is to remove America as a key player in the world’s economy by destroying the Dollar. The major media paid little attention to the event.
What can George Soros do to harm the Dollar? You may ask.
It was the billionaire Soros who crushed the British pound through currency trading. He has declared that he plans to reform the world’s currency system. The America hating Soros has publicly stated, America must end its reign as the world reserve currency. In 2009, Soros wrote, “The dollar no longer enjoys the trust and confidence that it once did, yet no other currency can take its place.”
In October 2009, Soros founded the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) with a donation of $50 million of his own money. The founding of INET was a major move toward undermining the dollar.
Long time Soros friend, Nobel Prize Winner, Joseph Stiglitz chairs the ‘UN General Assembly on Reforms of the International Monetary and Financial System.’ Stiglitz is arguing for a new 'global system,' saying the current one is 'fundamentally unfair because it means that poor countries are lending to the U.S. at close to zero interest rates.'
It has only been a few weeks, since the Bretton Woods event, but the move against the dollar has gained momentum rapidly. In 2009, Soros wrote “The rising powers must be present at the creation of this new system to ensure that they will be active supporters.”
Those rising powers have begun to join together--
The BRICS member nations - Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – held a summit meeting one week after Soros held his. The BRICS nations are calling for “Restructuring of the World War II-era global financial system and an eventual end to the long reign of the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency.”
One of the options being considered is called “Special Drawing Rights” (SDRs). SDRs are essentially a mix of - the Euro, Japanese Yen, Pound Sterling and U.S. Dollar. A switch to the SDRs would result in the decline of the U.S. economy.
There is also considerable support to include the Chinese Remimbi in the SDR’s.
The odds on favorite to become the new leader of the “International Monetary Fund is former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. This is significant because Brown is a Soros believer and attended the Bretton Woods Event.
Brown’s major contribution to that conference was the line, “American and European dominance is no longer a fact.'
Soros once pledged that he was willing to spend every penny of his vast fortune to bring America to her knees. He is working hard to make that desire a reality.
For years, Soros has used his billions to influence elections, fund radical anti-American organizations including ACORN, La Raza, MoveOn.org, NOW and the Center for American Progress -- an organization that is feeding progressive talking points to the Obama administration.
There is a great deal of evidence that indicates that Soros, through his many organizations, bought the 2008 election for Obama.
Obama, who also hates America (read his damn books) is repaying Soros big time!
Just look at what Obama is doing to undermine the economy and the dollar:
1. Extremely high fuel prices cause by the administration!
2. Bankruptcy as the result of government spending
3. A total moratorium on any new Oil and Gas production
4. Destruction of the Coal Industry and forcing the shutdown of Coal fueled power plants
5. The pushing of Cap and Trade regulations by the EPA
6. The government seizure of corporations, with more to come
7. The massive redistribution of wealth
8. The takeover (and destruction) of the healthcare system
9. The absolute refusal to recognize the need for budget-cuts
10. He has done absolutely nothing to help create jobs.
All of these have led to a major reduction in the United State’s bond rating, as announced by Standard and Poors, this week.
That reduction in our bond rating has greatly strengthened Soros' hand, and you now have the makings for “The End of America as we know it!”
“The End of America as we know it!”; wasn’t that an Obama campaign pledge?
Obama's answer to everything is a big speech packed with lies.
-- WD
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
What can George Soros do to harm the Dollar? You may ask.
It was the billionaire Soros who crushed the British pound through currency trading. He has declared that he plans to reform the world’s currency system. The America hating Soros has publicly stated, America must end its reign as the world reserve currency. In 2009, Soros wrote, “The dollar no longer enjoys the trust and confidence that it once did, yet no other currency can take its place.”
In October 2009, Soros founded the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) with a donation of $50 million of his own money. The founding of INET was a major move toward undermining the dollar.
Long time Soros friend, Nobel Prize Winner, Joseph Stiglitz chairs the ‘UN General Assembly on Reforms of the International Monetary and Financial System.’ Stiglitz is arguing for a new 'global system,' saying the current one is 'fundamentally unfair because it means that poor countries are lending to the U.S. at close to zero interest rates.'
It has only been a few weeks, since the Bretton Woods event, but the move against the dollar has gained momentum rapidly. In 2009, Soros wrote “The rising powers must be present at the creation of this new system to ensure that they will be active supporters.”
Those rising powers have begun to join together--
The BRICS member nations - Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – held a summit meeting one week after Soros held his. The BRICS nations are calling for “Restructuring of the World War II-era global financial system and an eventual end to the long reign of the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency.”
One of the options being considered is called “Special Drawing Rights” (SDRs). SDRs are essentially a mix of - the Euro, Japanese Yen, Pound Sterling and U.S. Dollar. A switch to the SDRs would result in the decline of the U.S. economy.
There is also considerable support to include the Chinese Remimbi in the SDR’s.
The odds on favorite to become the new leader of the “International Monetary Fund is former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. This is significant because Brown is a Soros believer and attended the Bretton Woods Event.
Brown’s major contribution to that conference was the line, “American and European dominance is no longer a fact.'
Soros once pledged that he was willing to spend every penny of his vast fortune to bring America to her knees. He is working hard to make that desire a reality.
For years, Soros has used his billions to influence elections, fund radical anti-American organizations including ACORN, La Raza, MoveOn.org, NOW and the Center for American Progress -- an organization that is feeding progressive talking points to the Obama administration.
There is a great deal of evidence that indicates that Soros, through his many organizations, bought the 2008 election for Obama.
Obama, who also hates America (read his damn books) is repaying Soros big time!
Just look at what Obama is doing to undermine the economy and the dollar:
1. Extremely high fuel prices cause by the administration!
2. Bankruptcy as the result of government spending
3. A total moratorium on any new Oil and Gas production
4. Destruction of the Coal Industry and forcing the shutdown of Coal fueled power plants
5. The pushing of Cap and Trade regulations by the EPA
6. The government seizure of corporations, with more to come
7. The massive redistribution of wealth
8. The takeover (and destruction) of the healthcare system
9. The absolute refusal to recognize the need for budget-cuts
10. He has done absolutely nothing to help create jobs.
All of these have led to a major reduction in the United State’s bond rating, as announced by Standard and Poors, this week.
That reduction in our bond rating has greatly strengthened Soros' hand, and you now have the makings for “The End of America as we know it!”
“The End of America as we know it!”; wasn’t that an Obama campaign pledge?
Obama's answer to everything is a big speech packed with lies.
-- WD
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
“Share Your Profits” And “Sue Your Boss” Are Not Job Growth Strategies
By Austin Hill
Think back a long time ago.
Stretch your mind, and go all the way back to January 21st, 2011.
On that day, the President of the United States spoke to an audience at a General Electric plant in Schenectady, NY and said, among other things:
"We're going back to Thomas Edison's principles… We're going to build stuff and invent stuff..(thunderous applause)."
Yes, President Barack Obama said that. And never mind that one of Thomas Edison’s most profound inventions, the light bulb, is about to be outlawed by the Obama Administration. In a rather uncharacteristic moment of enthusiasm and support of for-profit American enterprise, the President made an appeal to American ingenuity and ambition and seemed to conclude that right now we need more of both.
But fast-forward a bit to last Monday, February 7th. That’s when the President addressed an audience of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (again) and had a rather different attitude towards American success.
Speaking of the improving balance sheets at many American companies, President Obama stated: “The benefits can’t just translate into greater bonuses and profits for those at the top. They have to be shared by American workers, who need to know that expanding trade and opening markets will lift their standards of living, as well as your bottom line…”
“Share the profits” in 2011 sounds eerily like “spread the wealth around,” circa 2008. In both cases, the President was speaking the language of economic collectivism – “socialism” being the more loosely defined term of choice for this type of rhetoric – and it should be disturbing to every American.
Barack Obama is, of course, facing enormous pressure from the American electorate over the high unemployment rate. After all he’s done to try and “fix” the economy – an $800 billion economic “stimulus” bill, the “Making Home Affordable” mortgage fix, a credit card “reform” law, and of course his landmark healthcare “reform” law – unemployment still remains unacceptably high, even by his own assessment.
The President’s frustration with unemployment is understandable. But his contemptuous tone for American businesses is counterproductive, even for his own pursuits. “Start hiring, or else” is not the way to incentivize businesses to assume financial risks and liabilities (and hiring new workers entails risks and liabilities). It doesn’t incentivize anybody to “build stuff and invent stuff” either, yet President Obama seems not to understand this.
But even if one does not try to see things from the business owner’s vantage point, consider how different the President’s language is in this instance, from the common language of the marketplace. For the record, American workers generally don’t just “get some of the profits” from their employer. Workers perform certain tasks for an employer, and in return workers receive a wage. Employers benefit from the labor of a worker, and in return pay the wage. And investors, those who freely choose to take risks with their money to allow a business to try and grow wealth with it, are paid a dividend if and when the company is profitable.
Historically, Americans have celebrated the fact that in our economic system one can “move up.” If you work hard and produce for your employer, it is likely that you can garner opportunities to earn more (either that or take your skills and talents to another place of business that can offer you a “better deal”).
President Obama, however, seems to assume that those at the top of a business enterprise - the managers, the executives, the owners- have necessarily achieved their position of authority by unjust means and they need to be punished for their achievement. This, by the way, is very similar to the economic views of our President’s father, Barack Hussein Obama Senior, who while working in the communist government of Kenya once proposed a 100% taxation rate for the “richest” in his country.
But his “share your profits” and “start hiring or else” moment aside, just days before his speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce our President took the hostility towards business owners to an entirely new level. In what has been described as an “unprecedented” and “controversial” maneuver, the White House set up a program earlier this month with the U.S. Department of Labor and the American Bar Association, wherein workers who feel they have been treated wrongly by their employer can call a toll-free number, and get assistance from an attorney who will represent them against their employer on a contingency basis.
Some people, including our President and Vice President, see this as a pathway to “justice” for middle class workers, yet to believe this one must assume that every “complaint” against an employer is legitimate. Interestingly, the Obama Administration does not appear prepared to offer this same kind of “free legal help” to business owners- which again takes us back to the President’s very hostile assumptions about business owners and leaders in the first place.
“Share your profits” and “sue your boss” are not policies for economic growth. As long as this kind of hostility continues to emanate from the White House, the President’s need for more hiring will likely go unfulfilled.
E-mail: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Think back a long time ago.
Stretch your mind, and go all the way back to January 21st, 2011.
On that day, the President of the United States spoke to an audience at a General Electric plant in Schenectady, NY and said, among other things:
"We're going back to Thomas Edison's principles… We're going to build stuff and invent stuff..(thunderous applause)."
Yes, President Barack Obama said that. And never mind that one of Thomas Edison’s most profound inventions, the light bulb, is about to be outlawed by the Obama Administration. In a rather uncharacteristic moment of enthusiasm and support of for-profit American enterprise, the President made an appeal to American ingenuity and ambition and seemed to conclude that right now we need more of both.
But fast-forward a bit to last Monday, February 7th. That’s when the President addressed an audience of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (again) and had a rather different attitude towards American success.
Speaking of the improving balance sheets at many American companies, President Obama stated: “The benefits can’t just translate into greater bonuses and profits for those at the top. They have to be shared by American workers, who need to know that expanding trade and opening markets will lift their standards of living, as well as your bottom line…”
“Share the profits” in 2011 sounds eerily like “spread the wealth around,” circa 2008. In both cases, the President was speaking the language of economic collectivism – “socialism” being the more loosely defined term of choice for this type of rhetoric – and it should be disturbing to every American.
Barack Obama is, of course, facing enormous pressure from the American electorate over the high unemployment rate. After all he’s done to try and “fix” the economy – an $800 billion economic “stimulus” bill, the “Making Home Affordable” mortgage fix, a credit card “reform” law, and of course his landmark healthcare “reform” law – unemployment still remains unacceptably high, even by his own assessment.
The President’s frustration with unemployment is understandable. But his contemptuous tone for American businesses is counterproductive, even for his own pursuits. “Start hiring, or else” is not the way to incentivize businesses to assume financial risks and liabilities (and hiring new workers entails risks and liabilities). It doesn’t incentivize anybody to “build stuff and invent stuff” either, yet President Obama seems not to understand this.
But even if one does not try to see things from the business owner’s vantage point, consider how different the President’s language is in this instance, from the common language of the marketplace. For the record, American workers generally don’t just “get some of the profits” from their employer. Workers perform certain tasks for an employer, and in return workers receive a wage. Employers benefit from the labor of a worker, and in return pay the wage. And investors, those who freely choose to take risks with their money to allow a business to try and grow wealth with it, are paid a dividend if and when the company is profitable.
Historically, Americans have celebrated the fact that in our economic system one can “move up.” If you work hard and produce for your employer, it is likely that you can garner opportunities to earn more (either that or take your skills and talents to another place of business that can offer you a “better deal”).
President Obama, however, seems to assume that those at the top of a business enterprise - the managers, the executives, the owners- have necessarily achieved their position of authority by unjust means and they need to be punished for their achievement. This, by the way, is very similar to the economic views of our President’s father, Barack Hussein Obama Senior, who while working in the communist government of Kenya once proposed a 100% taxation rate for the “richest” in his country.
But his “share your profits” and “start hiring or else” moment aside, just days before his speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce our President took the hostility towards business owners to an entirely new level. In what has been described as an “unprecedented” and “controversial” maneuver, the White House set up a program earlier this month with the U.S. Department of Labor and the American Bar Association, wherein workers who feel they have been treated wrongly by their employer can call a toll-free number, and get assistance from an attorney who will represent them against their employer on a contingency basis.
Some people, including our President and Vice President, see this as a pathway to “justice” for middle class workers, yet to believe this one must assume that every “complaint” against an employer is legitimate. Interestingly, the Obama Administration does not appear prepared to offer this same kind of “free legal help” to business owners- which again takes us back to the President’s very hostile assumptions about business owners and leaders in the first place.
“Share your profits” and “sue your boss” are not policies for economic growth. As long as this kind of hostility continues to emanate from the White House, the President’s need for more hiring will likely go unfulfilled.
E-mail: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
