Is It Really Wrong to Call Obama A Socialist?

From the time their children begin middle school, most parents come the conclusion that with whom their kids’ associate and their interests is a good indicator of what they’re own children are up to. As the saying goes, “Birds of a feather flock together.” But it isn’t just teenagers to whom this analogy is applicable; it’s pretty much apropos for everyone, and every institution.

Consider the two of the most recent rallies in Washington DC. Attendees picked up after themselves at one (the larger) rally, and left a pig sty behind them after the other:

1.) Glenn Beck’s Restoring Honor Tour featured Beck, Sarah Palin, Alveda King (niece of Martin Luther King Jr.), and Marcus Luttrell, former U.S. Navy seal and recipient of the Navy Cross. The speakers came together with a very large crowd to discuss, guess what, restoring honor. Billed as a religious gathering, there was still plenty of politics injected into the speeches, all in support of Conservative ideals.
2.) The liberal “One Nation Working Together” which featured such speakers as Self-confessed Communist and former Obama appointee, Van Jones, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka (Socialist), NAACP President, Ben Jealous (Socialist), Mariam Wright Edelman (Socialist) and others (virtually all socialists). This crowd came together, or rather, was bussed in, to show support to Barack Obama’s agenda, and to promote Socialist change.

Not only has he appointed many Marxists to his administration (Ron Bloom, David Bonior, Rosa Brooks, Carol Browner, Heather Higginbottom, Samantha Power, Hilda Solis, and Van Jones), any and all rallies conducted in his honor or to support him are always full of the most rabidly Marxist individuals and groups who, by the way, do not represent a fringe element at such gatherings, but rather, make up the core of those in attendance. Is it any wonder that so many people believe Barack Obama to be a Socialist? Birds of a feather… Below are more pictures of the "One Nation" rally.

Hey, how about that Amnesty idea?

Get this!

“(Fox News Oct. 1, 2010)- A coalition of Mexican mayors has asked the United States to stop deporting illegal immigrants who have been convicted of serious crimes in the U.S. to Mexican border cities, saying the deportations are contributing to Mexican border violence. The request was made at a recent San Diego conference in which the mayors of four Mexican border cities and one U.S. mayor, San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, gathered to discuss cross-border issues. Ciudad Juarez Mayor Jose Reyes blamed U.S. deportation policy for contributing to his city’s violence, saying that of the 80,000 people deported to Juarez in the past three years, 28,000 had U.S. criminal records — including 7,000 convicted rapists and 2,000 convicted murderers. Those criminal deportees, he said, have contributed to the violence in Juarez, which has reported more than 2,200 murders this year. Reyes and the other Mexican mayors said that when the U.S. deports criminals back to Mexico, it should fly them to their hometowns, not just bus them to the border. But critics in America say the Mexican lawmakers are simply trying to pass the buck to the U.S. and its taxpayers. They say the Mexicans should take responsibility for their criminals, who are putting both Mexican and American lives in danger.”

So let me get this right (forget for a moment that we deport these people at the expense of the American tax payer, and that to transport them to their home towns would cost us even more); in the last three years, of the 80,000 illegal immigrants that have been deported to just one border town, 35% of them have committed crimes in our country, and over 11% have committed violent crimes here in the United States? 7,000 rapists? 2,000 murderers!?

I suppose these are the “jobs” our liberal friends say we need illegal immigrants to do since none of us selfish, lazy Americans will. What… are they working for the Mafia? All of them are, of course, criminals since they entered the country illegally. But inquiring minds want to know more, such as:

1.) How many of these illegals were convicted of crimes in Mexico before coming up here?
2.) Are the numbers and percentages similar of illegals deported to other border towns?
3.) How many are guilty of crimes for which they weren’t caught or prosecuted?

So how can anyone, especially the politicians who are charged with protecting the citizens within our borders, consider providing legal status beyond our current methods which require background checks? The only common sense conclusion is that we need better border protection and we need to justly punish those who break our laws. Besides the economic implications, giving amnesty to illegal immigrants will mean giving amnesty to the 35% who commit crimes. Over 11% of those to whom we give amnesty will be rapists and murderers.

Do you understand that Democrats? President Obama, are you so desperate for votes that you’re willing to put the well being of your citizens, and their very lives, at such risk? Doesn’t sound like the kind of change we need to me.

Immigration Facts

As I’ve noted before, when liberals say one thing, most often the opposite is true. For example, when the ’94 Republican-led Congress sought to balance the budget by lowering the amount of increases for certain welfare programs from previous years (a 7% increase instead of a 10% increase), the Democrats called these “cuts.” (For you liberals, who don’t quite understand math, a cut would have meant a reduction by some percentage, not an increase – that is, a 7% increase is still an increase, and not a cut).
When the Republicans thrice warned the Democrat-led oversight committees between 2004 and 2007 that government initiated and irresponsible lending programs would lead to a major financial crisis, the Democrats (Chris Dodd and Barney Frank in particular) called these warnings “typical Republican fear-mongering.”
The recently passed Healthcare “Reform,” is proving to be anything but a fix. In similar fashion the current administration is preparing to foist immigration “reform” upon us all. Of course, one can only guess what they mean by “reform.” Let’s take a look at some basic facts. I know liberals don’t like facts, but conservatives try to form opinions based upon them instead of pure feelings and political opportunism. Below is a chart depicting 2009 immigration numbers from the top 10 countries of origin (sources: Department of Human Services and the Office of Immigration Statistics).



Remember, these are the top 10 – if you add up the percentages they won’t equal 100%. I stuck with the top 10 to make this post as brief as possible. It’s interesting to note also that as a percentage of a source country’s population, the Hispanic nations on the list blow all other countries away.
Here is a pie chart representing the table above:



Mexico, despite its much smaller population is, by far, the largest exporter of humans to this country. And yet more pressure is being applied to the U.S., and its citizens to increase the percentages through an amnesty type “reform.”
If you look closer you will see that out of the top 10, over 51% of those immigrants come from countries with Hispanic populations. Maybe this pie chart will help:



This information should make it quite clear that current U.S. Immigration laws are in no way biased against Hispanics!!
So why does it take so long for people from other countries to become citizens of the U.S.? There are many good reasons, namely criminal background checks. And after 9/11, we would be criminally stupid if we weakened our security to accommodate anyone. Names of potential citizens are checked against multiple databases at the CIA, FBI, NSA and other agencies to make certain we aren’t giving terrorists, rapists, murderers, thieves, drug dealers and other undesirables unfettered access to the lives and property of our existing citizens who have every right to expect and demand such scrutiny in the first place.
The Obama Administration isn’t thinking about that. To them, the (cough and wink) 20 million illegals currently residing here represent a major block of voters that may help liberals turn the tide in future elections. This group is becoming more integral to the success of the Democrat party especially since ACORN has collapsed amid its voter-fraud, tax fraud, and prostitution-promoting scandals, not to mention the decline of the SEIU, the worsening employment outlook, the overwhelming national debt, and the passage of the increasingly unpopular healthcare “reform.”
Make no mistake about it; This is the reason the Obama administration failed to secure the border and opposed Arizona's immigration enforcement law. He and his cronies will politicize everything to retain power and control. Remember that come November!

Obama and the Religion Question

Poll after poll, the left-leaning media are quick to point out that the nearly 20% of the population who believe Obama is a secret Muslim are nothing but kooks from the fringe-right. In March of 2009 the number was 11%, so either the kooks are breeding more kooks, or there must be something compelling about all of the evidence. Such as:

He was born to a Muslim father who later became an atheist, his step-father was Muslim, his pastor for 20 years in Chicago, Jeremiah Wright, is a former Muslim, he practiced Islam as a young boy and attended a Muslim school, etc., etc.

Although I believe in my heart of hearts that Obama is partial to Islam, probably for nostalgic reasons, I don’t believe he is a Muslim. And I think the question of whether he is or isn’t a Muslim is not the right question to be asking. The real question is: Is Barack Obama a Christian as he claims?

It’s a difficult question, because there are over 12,000 “Christian” denominations in the United States alone, none of which seem to be able to agree on any particular body of doctrine and yet; most of them share a belief in certain core doctrines.

Fundamental to all Christian sects is a respect for innocent life, of which Obama has shown through word and deed he has none. His voting record has always sided with the pro-abortion crowd, even to the point that he voted against ending partial birth abortions. During the 2008 campaign when asked when human life begins, he stated that the answer was above his “pay-grade,” despite the fact that science has proven that life begins at conception, and that Christian doctrine says exactly the same thing.

On social issues Obama fails to even consider the Christian concept of ownership through work and earning. Instead, he prefers a more socialist (and anti-Christian) system of forced wealth redistribution. In all fairness to Mr. Obama, most Christian sects have fallen into this error over the last 50 years. But, by his own admission, it was this “social justice” that led him to convert to… Jeremiah Wright’s “church” in the first place, and not any of the fundamental Christian beliefs. It should come as no surprise that, as of this writing, Obama still has not found a church to regularly attend. Since going to Washington it appears he has attended more golf outings and vacations then any sort of Christian service.

I do not believe that he is a Christian, but I am convinced that he will begin attending services and paying lip service to the tenants of a faith, any faith, if doing so is the politically expedient thing for him to do.

Words have... consequences?

Bill Clinton has entered the rhetorical fray by attempting, on April 16th 2010, to link the TEA Party, and anti-big government, fiscal conservatives, especially those in the Talk Radio business, to violence. Never mind the fact that thus far there has been no violence stemming from conservatives, just from kooks on the left. What struck me was this statement, speaking of the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995, from the former President:

“By all means keep fighting, by all means, keep arguing. But remember, words have consequences as much as actions do, and what we advocate, commensurate with our position and responsibility, we have to take responsibility for. We owe that to Oklahoma City.”

Does this mean that Clinton is prepared to accept his role in the devaluing of moral virtue? Do his words, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” bring to his mind any of the consequences of his actions?
The complete arrogance of the liberal-minded is put on display every single time one of them attempts to lecture any conservative on values related issues, such as responsibility. Hypocrisy such as this is precisely why, among many other reasons, the Democrat party is going to lose big come November, despite any liberal’s denial of the impending political defeat. I guess if you’re a liberal it “depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is.”

“These Tea Partiers aren’t well informed”

So says the new Democrat talking point. Really? Maybe the counterpoint should be “Boy those liberals are either too stupid or too evil to govern!”
Where does one begin to discuss this takeover over 1/6 of the United States economy? It’s such a complete mess that it would take volumes of information to weed through the swamp that is Liberal legislation. How ‘bout we start with every other big government spending program? Do any of them stand the tests of time to remain solvent? Social Security? Nope. Medicare? Nope. Medicaid? Nope. HUD and government housing oversight? Nope. United Stated Post Office? Not really. And while we’re at it, why is it that every other social spending program requires annual funding increases well beyond cost-of-living increases?
Depriving any individual of his hard-earned wage simply to redistribute it to anyone else who hasn’t earned it is immoral, evil, and un-American. I’m not talking about helping the indigent, but if we cut spending to only cover them we’d have huge budget surpluses every year. As predicted many decades ago, the development of the welfare state would soon lead to the creation of a dependent class of citizen, and isn’t that precisely who tax payers are forced to fork over their monies to?
This country existed – no, it prospered - for roughly 160 years before the advent of our first welfare programs, which were foisted upon the American people to help them through the Great Depression. But did they go away once said Depression was over? Nope – we’ve allowed the Marxists to expand programs and to develop even more sinister methods of depriving the worker under the guise of assisting the needy. From FDR to Johnson, Carter, Clinton, and Obama: they were all cut from the same Marxist red cloth.
Touting the recent scoring of the Senate version of the Healthcare “reform” Act, the Democrats remained emboldened, at their own peril, and passed this sorry legislation. Nevermind the fact that the 2,400 page bill was kept from the American people until shortly before a weekend vote. The CBO was rushed to score it, and the Dems utilized a bit of sleight of hand to make the bill look as though it would cost less than it actually will. For example, there are three provisions that are vital to the scoring of the bill – provisions which are based entirely upon unrealistic assumptions:
(1) an excise tax on so-called “Cadillac” health care plans that would begin in 2013; (2) a reduction in physician payment rates for Medicare and other rate cuts for Medicare providers; (3) the implementation of an advisory board that would implement cost-saving measures to reduce Medicare spending, unless rejected by subsequent legislation.
These assumptions are particularly important. First, consider the effects of the excise tax as a potential revenue source. The tax is not implemented until 2013. This suggests that, in the near-term, firms that offer top-of-the-line insurance have an incentive to reduce the coverage extended to their employees to avoid the tax. This shift could potentially reduce health care spending as these individuals would then have to spend more in out-of-pocket costs – effectively raising the price and reducing the quantity demanded. Such a shift, however, would also imply lower tax revenue as these plans are eliminated.
Of course, even the analysis of the excise tax above makes important assumptions. For example, it was assumed that the tax was actually implemented and not repealed by subsequent legislation. In addition, the most vehement detractors of this provision have been labor unions as they tend to offer their members better benefits that could potentially be subject to the new tax. As a result, there has been discussion about creating an exemption to the excise tax for members of labor unions. Such an exemption, however, would result in lower tax revenue and a lesser reduction in health care spending.
The second assumption baked into the analysis is a reduction in physician payment rates for Medicare. This reduction was actually passed during the 1990s, but each year has been postponed by subsequent legislation. There is no reason to believe that, after the passage of the health care legislation, this reduction will not be postponed once again. Such a postponement would be enough to cause the health care bill to result in a $59 billion addition to the budget deficit over ten years. And of course one must consider why the government wants to lower Medicare reimbursement payments to doctors – becasue the government doesn’t have the money! As a result, more and more doctors are refusing to accept Medicare in the first place, because by accepting Medicare they are losing money. This is resulting in poorer medical care, not better. Many people seem to think that doctors shouldn’t make a profit – but when medical professionals are expected to work for declining profits, there soon won’t be any medical professionals. If doctors and nurses can be expected to work for the convenience of the state instead of for profit, why can’t everyone in every industry?
The final major funding source comes from the creation of an advisory panel that would recommend cost-savings measures for Medicare that would be enacted unless revoked by subsequent legislation. The bill assumes that this panel would be able to identify significant areas for cost reduction. This cost reduction could be in the form of greater efficiency or by reducing the quantity or quality of service. One is left to ponder how this will benefit the citizens, especially those who age and begin to require more healthcare services.
Overall, the bill assumes that reductions in payment rates to Medicare providers and those identified by the advisory panel would ensure that Medicare spending per beneficiary would grow at a rate of 2 percent per year (adjusted for inflation). As a method of comparison, this growth rate has been roughly 4 percent per year over the last 20 years.
The cuts to Medicare are an extremely important source of “revenue” for the health care bill. In fact, in the latest CBO projections (March 11, 2010), cuts to Medicare make up $430 billion of the funding over the next decade. This figure represents roughly 50 percent of the estimated total cost of $875 billion.
The facts are that the health care bill makes a great deal of assumptions about revenue sources that potentially obfuscate the true costs of the bill. When factored beyond the CBO timeline of 10 years (10 years taxation and only six years of benefit payments – another Democrat accounting trick) this healthcare bill is projected to create deficits of nearly 2.5 trillion dollars!

But wait, there’s more! To acquire Bart Stupak’s support the President had to promise that he would issue an Executive Order preventing the use of tax dollars to fund abortions. Understand that Stupak is a Democrat first, and a pro-lifer second – or maybe last. An Executive Order is not law. It is only binding until the President, current or future, repeals it. Upon becoming President in 2009, Obama’s first act was to issue an Executive Order repealing George W. Bush’s order banning embryonic stem cell research. Let’s wait and see how long it takes Obama to rescind his own order concerning abortion. All it will take is some half true story of a teenage girl getting pregnant who can’t afford to pay for her abortion out of pocket, and then the order will disappear faster than John Edwards’ political aspirations.
And let’s not forget Obama’s (and the Democrat Party’s) actual goal of Socialized Medicine. Don’t take my word for it either – take his own:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk
This “Healthcare Reform Bill” is nothing of the kind. It is a major step toward Obama’s Socialist vision for America. That’s how the liberals work! One step at a time, but they will never give up.
We can’t either! Remember these shenanigans in November! Vote the bums out! And while we’re at it, let’s make sure that nothing of the kind can ever happen again in this country.
Now, who is it that's really uninformed?

The War on Error

The Scott heard ‘round the world galvanized the citizens of Massachusetts. Whereas the liberals have fled the field of battle in what could only be described as a rout, the conservatives have marched from the voting places victorious, heads held high. Rejoice, and enjoy the moment! Rest assured that the message has been received despite all the finger pointing and empty blathering coming from the vitriolic mouths of the vanquished. The Senate has heard from the Tea-Partiers! The House understands the message! The White House can no longer deny that the citizens of Massachusetts and those of the rest of the nation have spoken vociferously, although not yet unanimously! Keith Olbermann and his arrogant sect of lunatics have been served!
But now is the time to remain ever vigilant. Let not the conservative-minded rest on his laurels: this was just the first of many battles to be waged in this year’s War on Error. While we may be happy that Scott Brown defeated Martha Coakley, we must reflect on what remains at stake. Brown, who supports a “woman’s right to choose (to murder her unborn children)” was not the best candidate; he was merely the better of the two. Already there are those pushing for a Brown Presidential candidacy. We can’t make the same mistake we made in ’08; Brown is not the conservative we need, he is yet another John McCain.
We have the momentum. We must strike while the iron is hot! The disease affecting our nation is Liberalism; the cure simply can’t be more Liberalism, and it certainly is not more compromise! Our nation’s current defects are the result of incrementalized Liberalism - slow and subtle change – brought about in part by those who were willing to compromise fundamental rights and basic moral principles. We must find and promote candidates who are willing to undo the damage that has been caused by Liberalism by stamping it out of our government. It is clear that part of our effort must be to re-establish standards in the press, in our universities, and in our society at large. November is just around the corner. No matter what happens between now and then we mustn’t let people forget that the liberals (from both parties) almost succeeded in defeating our nation from within. Brown’s victory was just the opening volley in this conflict. This is a War on Error; a long war, necessary for the survival of Western Culture and, indeed, our very civilization.