Obama’s Tax Policy A Disaster For The Middle Class

The Obama budget is a tax policy nightmare. He has minor corporate tax decreases which are more than offset by eliminating loopholes. In short, he wishes to increase corporate taxes. He wants to triple the tax on dividends from 15% to nearly 45%. In short, if a corporation pays out a dividend each dollar distributed could be taxed at nearly two thirds. This is supposed to be a grand budget that will get the economy rolling. One wonders how that is possible with taxes so high.

Obama will shoot back that the dividend tax would only increase for those wicked rich people earning over $250,000 a year. But in reality this tax will hurt all of us. Why? Because corporations aren’t going to pay dividends when the people who sit on the board of directors will be taxed at such a high rate, in addition to the corporate tax already paid. The company will instead reinvest the profits. Who does this hurt? It hurts the poor and middle class because we’re the ones who either benefit from a dividend check the most or we reinvest our dividends via our mutual funds. In short, we’ll be making less because of this tax.

All of this in the name of fairness, not economic sense. In Britain they increased the top income tax to 50%. It’s really 65% for those who own their business as they’re stuck paying a 15% socialist healthcare tax in addition to income taxes. Now that the tax is law, tax receipts have dropped dramatically. The socialist Liberal Democrats want to keep the rate high “to demonstrate the rich are paying their fair share.” Sound familiar? It matters not to these people whether these taxes are actually increasing government revenue. It’s all a demonstration.

During the depression Hoover and FDR increased income taxes. Each time they did revenue from income taxes dropped. This was so even when during the 30′s FDR increased the top rate to over 75%. The only taxes which increased government revenue were excise taxes, which are hidden taxes added to the cost of goods. FDR massively increased excise taxes on everything from gas to clothes. During the Depression those taxes adversely affected the poor and middle class while the upper class was largely unharmed by FDR’s massive income tax increases. The rich simply stopped working and earning money, which of course did nothing more than extend the Depression.

We’re not in a depression, certainly not like the one in the 30′s. But the proposals coming from Obama are much the same. Tax increases for the wealthy, which won’t produce any more income for the Federal government. There has been talk of increasing excise taxes on gas, cigarettes and other items. Michelle Obama wants an excise tax on sugar and junk food. All of this would hurt the poor and middle class, who would pay the overwhelming majority of such taxes.  

Nearly half of Americans pay no income tax at all. Under Obama, we are fast becoming a split nation of taxpayers and recipients of taxpayer dollars. The top 50% are paying nearly all of the income tax revenue. The top 1% pay over 1/3 of all income tax revenue. The top 10% pay over 70% of all income tax revenue. There comes a point where increasing taxes produces diminishing marginal returns. Britain is already experiencing this. With diminishing marginal returns you can bet that the economy is going to start slowing down as the rich stop producing because they don’t see the point in working for the government.

Obama wants to take us to this point. All for show, so he can run around declaring the rich are “paying their fair share.” Of course fair share is never defined. Obama’s budget is a disaster for taxpayers and the economy. It will lead to economic ruin and a prolonged downturn. Worst of all, it will hurt the poor and middle class as we won’t be able to reap the benefits of the rich investing or the benefits of dividends.

February 22nd Republican Debate Review

John King moderated what is likely the last Republican debate last night. In typical CNN fashion, it was largely a hit j0b. This time Rick Santorum was the recipient of absurd, irrelevant topics. The debate spent 15 minutes on women on the front lines, earmarks and contraception. All of these issues were highlighted to make Santorum look bad. It was as though Mitt Romney was the one asking the questions. The most important issue in the fall is going to be the economy and the debate spent less than 5 minutes on the subject.

Rick Santorum is a good example of why Senators and Congressmen shouldn’t run for President. They often have convoluted reasons for voting for or supporting various bills or proposals that make sense at the time but cannot be easily explained later. Santorum has very good reasons why he endorsed Arlen Spector but it took him over a minute to explain that Spector was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and had promised to support Bush’s appointments. Even then, the Romney audience hemmed and hawed over it.

Santorum’s defense of earmarks was admirable. This issue has become a major boogyman, as though earmarks at 1% of the Federal budget are responsible for our debt problem. But his defense was convoluted and it seemed smarmy. Bills in Congress and sausage go hand in hand, you might like the finished product but you don’t want to see how it got there. A Senator is always going to have trouble explaining a handful of votes (unless you’re Obama and don’t have any) and Santorum just didn’t have it in him to provide concise explanations.

Romney was on the offensive all night. But he had two problems last night. First and foremost anyone who has paid attention to this race in Arizona and Michigan over the last week will realize that Romney did little more than verbatim repeat his television and radio ads when he attacked Santorum. In short, he played right into the plastic  and robot accusations.

But his second problem is perhaps worse, he came off as a hypocrite. In the never ending and largely meaningless discussion of earmarks it was pointed out that when Romney ran the Winter Olympics he had asked Congress for an earmark. In short, an earmark was ok when he wanted one but they’re evil and wasteful otherwise. That’s as hypocritical as Ron Paul putting earmarks into bills that he then makes a show of voting against.

Newt did a masterful job last night. He is by far the best debater. His problem though is that the party is tired of him. Conservatives have gravitated towards Santorum because Newt has to much baggage. In fact, at this point Newt is the difference between a Santorum victory and a Romney victory. Newt has stayed in the race, likely ensuring a Romney win after Santorum’s mediocre performance last night.

Ron Paul is so trusting of personal liberty, as he defines it, that he really believes that Iran wouldn’t use a nuclear weapon and would behave largely as the Soviet’s did. In his Iran comments he displays a complete lack of fundamental knowledge of the Muslim faith the Iranians have. The Soviets were atheists, this life is all they thought they had so it makes sense that they really didn’t want to kill themselves via a nuclear war. Iran not only believes they’ll get themselves 72 virgins for dying for Allah, they believe they can bring about a return of the 12th imam by creating chaos in the world. It doesn’t matter that they’re crazy, they really believe this stuff. Paul doesn’t get it and is unfit for the Presidency.

Romney won last night because he played a solid debate and Santorum missed opportunities to attack him. Santorum’s performance is a little concerning should he win the nomination. He lit up when he got to talk about the family but otherwise he seemed disconnected from the questions and the audience. Romney gave a typical steady eddie, plastic, robotic performance. That might not beat Obama either, he doesn’t exactly connect with people. But he makes the right moves at the right time, so he wins.

Win: Romney delivered a typical Mitt performance.

Place: Santorum did good enough for second but missed opportunities to knock out Romney.

Show: Newt is solid as ever but it really matters not.

Big loser: The conservative movement lost big last night. Santorum was our last hope to defeat the progressive Romney and he didn’t take advantage of his chance. With the political death of Santorum, so dies Reagan’s movement.

Does Santorum Have The Guts To Win Debate Tonight?

Tonight is a huge night Republican Presidential race. Arizona will be hosting what will likely be the last debate. Santorum and Romney are more or less tied in both Michigan and Arizona. Santorum has lost a couple of points here in Michigan, largely thanks to Romney’s misleading statements about Santorum’s Senate record. In Arizona Romney’s double digit lead has all but evaporated as conservatives look for someone other than Romney. Newt and Ron Paul are more or less irrelevant to the debate, which of course means they’ll be focused on the most by CNN. The real battle though is between Santorum and Romney.

Santorum has to do two things very well tonight. First, he has to put the media in its place concerning his Satan comment in 2008 and his recent use of the term theology. These are nonsense issues and Santorum needs to state that clearly and emphatically. Second, he needs to lay out a positive vision for  the future. In doing this it’s acceptable to hit Romney over Romneycare but he really needs to focus on his positive agenda should he win the White House. He needs to adopt the ‘there you go again’ mentality of Ronald Reagan in response to every attack Romney makes. The key here for Santorum is not to whine.

Romney can go one of two routes. He can go with his typical debate performance which is short on details and tall on smiles. In doing this he comes off as a “nice” guy while his surrogates massacre his opponents. It’s worked well for him. However, we’re hitting a point where a good deal of Republicans want to see more out of Romney. We want to see whether he can passionately defend conservative causes. So far, we’ve seen very little of this which is why Romney has had such a hard time breaking away from the pack.

If Santorum has a big night, he can win both states next week and he’ll be the frontrunner. As such, he’ll be injected with even more money. If he flounders tonight either Romney will end up running away with the election or conservatives will take a second look at Newt. Odds are conservatives have had enough of Newt, despite his generally terrific debate performances. The fact that he remains in the race, despite it being clear that he’s the difference between a Romney nomination and a Santorum nomination all but makes conservatives dislike him more.

The nomination rests in the hands of Rick Santorum. No matter which strategy Romney employs, he will deliver a generally good, plastic performance. He might not win a ton of voters based on his own performance but he likely won’t lose any either. It all rests on how Santorum does. If he hits a home run, he can run away with this thing. If he fouls out, it’s over. The scary thing is that Santorum’s performance may very well depend on what questions the liberals at CNN ask. It begs the question why Republicans continue to allow liberal media members to moderate our debates.

We here at Steven Birn Speaks question whether or not Santorum is ready to make the next step. We question whether he can adequately respond to absurd media attacks and Romney misleads without sounding whiney. In short, don’t get your hopes up that Santorum will rise to the occasion. For the sake of the conservative cause I hope he does, but don’t count on it.

For those interested I will be live tweeting during the debate tonight. Follow me on the twitter @stevebirnspeaks

Morality Under Fire From Indulgent Mothers Who Dress Boys As Girls

Traditional Christian morality has been under assault in the west for the better part of a century. In the US, it more or less begins with the progressive movement in the late 19th and early 20th century. In Europe each country has its own cut off date wherein traditional Christianity began to be replaced with secular humanism. It all gets accelerated after World War One. The latest assault comes in the form of so-called gender identity. The media has spent the past couple of years widely reporting stories of parents who refuse to identify what sex their child is or parents who allow their child to dress and act as the opposite sex. The media reporting of these isolated cases of bad parenting suggest a coordinated assault.

I first became aware of this issue last year when a couple declared they weren’t going to share their baby’s sex with the world. They said:

We’ve decided not to share Storm’s sex for now–a tribute to freedom and choice in place of limitation, a stand up to what the world could become in Storm’s lifetime (a more progressive place? …),

Translated, they’re using their child to make cheap, meaningless political points. Their kid is nothing but a prop to confront “society” with their nonsense. We should all feel sorry for this kid, not only does he suffer being a political prop but the pressure of being told he has to decide for himself what sex he is must be awful. These are the sort of decisions children shouldn’t have to make. In fact, none of us should have to make them because we’re either born male or female. From there we have to roll with what God decided we would be.

Another couple waited until their child was 5 before telling the world he’s a boy. Their story is telling, they wouldn’t allow their son to wear any masculine clothes or play with masculine toys. But of course pink, sparkle outfits were acceptable, as were dolls. Their son wears a girl’s blouse to school everyday. The message for this boy was clear, what you are is bad, girls are good. His “decision” to be abnormal was no decision at all. He’s a political prop and his parents are using him to attack Christian morality. That he appears unhappy with it all matters not.

The latest is a little 5 year old boy whose parents indulged his interest in dresses when he was 3. Rather than directing him to not put on girls clothes his mother bought him girls clothing and girls toys and allowed him to grow his hair like a girl. Doctors declared this child has “Gender Identity Disorder” and we’re supposed to melt at the medical diagnosis. It’s reported as a positive. In reality, it isn’t positive at all. This child has one of two problems. Either his parents are forcing this on him and he’s trying to please them by being a girl or he has a serious mental illness. Unfortunately he won’t be diagnosed as having a negative mental illness as these days it’s “normal” for people to want to be the opposite sex.

These people want to turn traditional Christian morality on its head. They want to turn boys into girls and girls into boys, thus destroying the traditional, Biblical positions on what men are and what women are. The media is all to eager to report these stories. Does it strike anyone as odd that the media is treating as news the stories of three sets of bad indulgent parents? The world is full of bad, indulgent parents, why these three? Because they have an agenda which they’re pushing.

This sort of behavior is not acceptable and we should not tolerate it.  It simply isn’t acceptable to have 5 year old boys deciding that they’re girls. We shouldn’t be rejoicing when some nut mother decides to let their son “decide” what sex he is by letting him wear pink sparkles but not male focused clothing. These parents, themselves mentally ill if they aren’t outright evil, are foisting mental illness upon their children. We shouldn’t be rejoicing, we should be outraged.

This is fast becoming a major problem because these stories aren’t isolated cases. The far left is pushing the homosexual agenda in schools very hard. Most of these parents are lesbians. What they’re doing is forcing schools to confront sex identity, in short they’re forcing kindergarteners and first graders to deal with this nonsense. The schools are all to willing to accommodate and turn it all into a propaganda session because the schools have always pushed a left-wing, progressive agenda. Don’t be shocked when your little kids come home talking about the little boy with lesbian mothers who dresses like a girl. It’s coming.

Traditional Christians must not accept this attempt to destroy morality. We must stand to what scripture teaches on the subject, men are men, women are women and we are to dress in the manner that God made us. Any man who says he’s really a woman is first a liar. If we don’t acknowledge this fact first, all is lost. Any adult making such claims should be taught the truth and lovingly encouraged to repent and put this sin behind him. Any child stuck with parents who are using them as political props should be pitied.

Romney Can’t Decide If Santorum Is Too Conservative or Too Liberal

The Romney camp is heading into desperation mode against Rick Santorum. These guys are afraid of losing Michigan, so they’re pulling out all the stops. Even if it means offering contradictory declarations about Sen. Santorum. In the last week we’ve heard that Santorum is of the liberal wing of the GOP when it comes to spending. Then we’re told that Santorum is too conservative to win in November. By raising doubt about Santorum, Romney hopes to win by default. One wonders how a default candidate would fair in November.

Santorum’s spending has been a much covered topic over the past week. Mostly from the Romney view. Santorum is not perfect, there are a number of spending programs he voted for that most conservatives would rather he had not. He supports earmarks, which is a boogyman in the Tea Party. But let’s look at the overall record rather than a handful of Romney selected votes. Santorum served in the Senate for a dozen years, his overall record will surely reveal more about his voting than a few hand selected votes.

When we look at Santorum’s overall record, it’s clear he’s not the wild spending liberal Romney is trying to make him out to be. In his 12 years in the Senate, Santorum received an average score of A- (3.66) from the National Taxpayers Union.  Fifty Senators served during all of Santorum’s dozen years. Their average score was a C-. Santorum ranks 5th on the list. Is it perfect? Obviously not, he didn’t get a 4.0. But he’s hardly the wild eyed liberal spender that the Romney camp is making him out to be. At Wednesday’s debate, Santorum must hammer this point home in the most non-whiney way possible.

Meanwhile over the weekend several op-ed’s and attacks were levied against Santorum declaring him too conservative to win in November. This is clearly a coordinated attack by the Romney camp, something they’ve done successfully several times against their GOP rivals. We’re apparently supposed to be very worried about Santorum’s ability to win. Why? Because he’s pro-life and talks about the subject and even though he’s voted for contraception in the past, he believes it’s been harmful to women overall.

The contraception issue is a non-starter and always has been. It’s a non-sense issue created by the Obama administration to try and win back the abortion argument that they have lost. It hasn’t worked. Speaking of abortion, half the country, including half of women, oppose abortion on demand. The notion that Santorum is too conservative on this issue is patently absurd. Especially so in light of the fact that the country recently elected George W. Bush twice and he never backed down on the abortion issue.

For some reason the GOP establishment wants conservatives to be afraid of voicing our opinions in public. We’re supposed to be afraid that independents won’t like us if they find out we’re pro-life. Half the country supports our position but for some reason our guys are unelectable as “too conservative.” The alternative? We should just settle on Mitt Romney. Which has been the theme of his campaign, everyone else isn’t good enough so just settle on me.

Settling on Mitt Romney will not win the election. Romney will lose to Obama because given the choice between an authentic liberal and liberal light, the country will always pick the the authentic liberal. Romney isn’t going to be able to attack Obama on his record alone. He has to offer a real alternative. It’s how Reagan won in 1980 and how Clinton won in 1992. The incumbent’s record is relevant but you have to get independent voters to buy into your plan. Romney doesn’t have a striking alternative to Obama, his alternative is largely more of the same.

That doesn’t mean Santorum will win in November. But he will be able to offer an alternative to Obama. He can follow the Reagan model and he may very well be successful at it. We don’t need to settle on a candidate whose surrogates can’t decide if his biggest opponent is too conservative or too liberal. We shouldn’t settle because Romney selected votes show Santorum just isn’t good enough. Most of all, we shouldn’t settle because Romney’s opponent isn’t afraid to talk about life.

Increased Education Spending Hasn’t Yielded Positive Results

Forbes has an interesting article this week detailing the increase in government education spending, which pols call investment. Forbes contrasts the increase in spending with the return on the investment. In the last 60 years government has increased education spending, in 2010 dollars, by almost 13 times. The amount of cash we spend on education is utterly incredible. You would think the return on this investment would be incredible as well. But we all know it isn’t. Forbes focuses on GDP, which has decreased despite the increase in education spending. We could just as easily focus on test scores, which have decreased while the test has been dumbed down despite the massive increase in spending on education.

Education has become nothing more than a massive government bureaucracy that has little to do with education. Pols and government bureaucrats tug on the heart strings of Americans, with visions of children, in order to maintain their cash cow and increase it. Anyone who is against increased spending on education hates children or doesn’t want them to be educated. Or so we’re told.

No one stops to ask why we’re paying over $12,000 per student without seeing any appreciable results. If you do ask such a question, then you might just be one of those dangerous people who hates children and wants to cut back on education funding. But we really must ask if that would be the end of civilization as we know it. Would it matter much if we cut education funding in half? In terms of actual education, it probably wouldn’t matter much at all. The government schools aren’t exactly doing a good job educating children in the first place.

Who would be hurt if we cut tax funding of education? Teachers unions of course would be hurt, which of course means leftists like Obama would be hurt. Did you see the other day that the National Education Association would be joining in on Obama’s truth teams? Soon Johnny will come home to tell you Obama is a saint. School construction companies would be hurt if education funds were cut. They’ve spent the last 50 years living off of government by selling taxpayers the lie that students learn better in new schools. In fact, there’s no difference in results between new schools and dilapidated shacks.

One of the things this country refuses to do is have an honest discussion about government funded education. No one wants to look at the numbers, no one wants to look at the costs. Everyone is convinced that their school is ok, it’s the rest of them that are dreadful. Even numbers don’t convince such people, they know one good teacher and so it must be ok. Parents lie to themselves so they can avoid taking responsibility for their kids education. Unwilling to have an honest discussion, it should surprise no one that the piranhas in the teachers unions and government bureaucracies take advantage and demand more money.

Taxpayers are being taken for a ride when it comes to education. The results just aren’t there. Back in the 50′s parents wondered why Suzie couldn’t read. We’re still asking the same question 60 years later. Only now we wonder why they can’t read, perform basic math or know the first thing about history. Our society is full of people with diploma’s and degrees, but it hasn’t resulted in any substantial economic gain. It certainly hasn’t resulted in an increase in knowledge. So why exactly are we spending so much? That is the question that is heresy to even ask.

Green Energy’s Inside Government Lobbyists

The Washington Post did a story recently detailing nearly $4 billion in green energy Stimulus money that went to companies associated with people in the Obama administration. This goes along with the several billion handed out to companies associated with major Obama campaign bundlers. If any other President pulled a stunt like this, the media would be all over it. Yet the Washington Post story is one of the few out there about this major scandal.

Sanjay Wangle was a venture capitalist before joining the Energy Department. Wangle was also a 2008 Obama campaign supporter. Once in the Energy Department, around $2.4 billion in green energy Stimulus cash (read: taxpayer money) went to companies that Wangle’s venture capital firm invested in. David Sandalow more or less did the same thing, to the tune of $737 million. Steve Westley pulled around $600 million while David Prend pulled $558 million. All of this to go along with several billion handed out to green energy firms whose investors had bundled cash for Obama such as was the case with Solyndra.

The administration will swear up and down that their green energy handouts (read: venture socialism) were done based on merit rather than associations. This simply isn’t believable. Dozens of companies associated with people in the Energy Department received at least $4 billion in Stimulus money. Those are just the companies and associations we know about. The Energy Department hired lobbyists who no doubt lobbied for various companies that they were associated with. It would be one thing if there was one rogue Energy Department employee, but there are half a dozen.

This is one of the problems with having the government play the venture socialism game. It becomes not only advantageous to join the administration for a time but it becomes quite necessary for companies to send one of their employees to join the government in order to be the recipient of taxpayer money. The venture capital firms these Energy Department employees once worked for stand to gain quite a bit when the government “invests” in the companies they’re associated with. When government is handing out billions, you can see why they would want to have a guy in government to lobby on their behalf.

Mind you this is all at a cost to taxpayers. Not only are we spending money on companies that have been lobbied for on the inside but we’re also spending money on risky ventures. Every other week there’s another green energy company that goes bankrupt, losing millions of taxpayer dollars in the process. The most recent is Evergreen Energy which lost nearly $6 million. Taxpayers have lost billions on failed energy companies to go with the billion’s we’ve lost on companies associated with Energy Department employees and Obama campaign donors.

Government has no business investing in businesses. It doesn’t matter what sector of business we’re talking about, be it green energy, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, you name it. When government starts making investments in businesses, two things happen. First corruption such as this in the Obama administration occurs. Second, ever more tax money is demanded for investment. In other words, it creates a government dependant business environment. Let venture capital firms risk their own money on green energy rather than having government risk everyone’s money on green energy companies that have lobbyists in the Energy Department.

This is a major scandal, but is anyone paying attention? The mainstream media has largely ignored the Solyndra scandal. While the Washington Post has connected the dots between Energy Department employees and government green energy handouts, most of the press is ignoring this story. Corruption such as this must be acceptable to the media in the administration of a Democrat. One wonders if a Republican would fair so well.

Liberal Romney Camp Claims Santorum Not Conservative Enough

Mitt Romney’s team has long used the Saul Alinsky playbook for attacking political opponents. They polarize, isolate and demonize their opponents. In doing so they cut off their opponents support system and destroy them. They did it to Newt Gingrich, now they’re trying to do it to Rick Santorum. All of their attacks deflect from Romney’s biggest problem in a GOP Primary: He isn’t a conservative. So how does Romney get around that? He accuses his opponents of not being conservative enough. He polarizes them, isolates them and demonize them and once they’re gone all that will be left is liberal ole Mitt.

There seems to be a two prong attack on Santorum right now. The first relates to Santorum’s endorsement of Arlen Spector in 1998 for re-election. Spector was Pennsylvania’s senor Senator, Santorum the junior Senator. Liberal Spector faced a primary challenge from a conservative, Santorum sided with Spector. This is hardly the big deal the Romney camp has made it out to be. It should surprise no one that Santorum stuck with his state’s senior Senator, especially when one considers that two years later Santorum would be up for re-election himself. Santorum acting pragmatically, he didn’t want to face Spector in a primary himself.

The second line of attack is that Santorum has supported a number of big government propositions such as the perscription drug bill and no child left behind. Over a dozen years in the Senate he got around $1 billion in earmarks for Pennsylvania. We’re to be shocked and awed at the number, but it comes out to less than $100 million a year. He also supported a minimum wage increase and Amtrak funding. For this we are to be outraged!

This is where the Romney camp stops. They’ve attacked Santorum’s conservative credentials, tried to polarize and isolate him then they demonize him for not being conservative enough. Magically there are articles and op-ed’s all over the country questioning Santorum’s conservative claims. Because of course those articles and op-ed’s couldn’t possibly be coordinated with the Romney camp.

But there’s another side to this story. While Santorum was protecting himself from a 2000 primary challenge from Arlen Spector, Mitt Romney was claiming to be a pro-abortion Republican. Romney ran for Massachusetts Governor in 2002 as a pro-abortion Republican and proudly proclaimed as such. While Santorum was voting for the prescription drug bill, Romney was preparing Romneycare. While Santorum was supporting miniscule earmarks, Mitt Romney called himself a progressive!

Rick Santorum isn’t perfect. No conservative ever claimed he was. But the idea that he isn’t conservative enough is absolutely ridiculous. Those people making such claims are doing so in order to help Mitt Romney, a man who has never been a conservative. What the Romney camp is doing is demonizing Santorum in the minds of conservatives, leaving them either disillusioned enough not to vote or leaving them with no choice but Mitt. It’s straight out of the Alinsky and Democrats playbook.

Is Rick Santorum the next Ronald Reagan? Of course not. But at this point he’s the only thing between Romney and the GOP nomination. If Romney wins, we’ll have a choice in November between two progressive liberals. It won’t matter which of them wins. If Santorum can knock Romney off, we’ll have a real choice in November. Don’t fall for the ‘he’s not conservative enough’ line with Santorum. When people make such a claim ask yourself who the alternative is. The alternative is someone who ran a decade ago for Governor as a pro-abortion, progressive Republican and governed that way until he left office until 2007. With that in mind, then ask yourself who isn’t conservative enough.

Obama Sends Out Propaganda “Truth” Teams

The Obama team’s never ending quest to combat and attack anyone who disagrees or objects continues in earnest. Last fall you’ll recall that the Obama campaign’s newest venture Attack Watch was universally mocked and ridiculed. It’s back, along with two other web sites called Keeping GOP Honest and Keeping His Word. Together the three web sites constitute the Obama campaign’s “truth team” which seeks to enlist two million grassroots supporters to combat those who disagree or question President Obama.

This sounds an awful lot like Woodrow Wilson’s Creel Committee (aka Committee on Public Information). The Creel Committee sent out thousands of Wilson supporters to give random stump speeches throughout the country. Anyone who challenged the Wilson supporters was threatened and in some cases arrested. While the Creel Committee was funded by taxpayers during World War One, which makes it that much more insidious, Obama’s truth team has essentially the same characteristics. They’re going to combat anyone who disagrees with Obama with the “facts.” Or in reality the facts as the Obama campaign spins them.

From the beginning of Obama’s 2008 campaign there has been a near obsession with combating those who disagree or challenge Obama. Whether it’s Joe the Plumber, who they ruthlessly attacked or whether it’s the 2008 “fight the smears” group, Obama has been obsessed with having his people combat the opposition.

It hasn’t just been his campaign, the administration has done this as well. You’ll recall in 2009 the administration asked supporters to report negative press or emails directly to the White House. There’s a real desire in Obama’s ranks to have near dictatorial power over the media and Americans conversation. Since they don’t have as such, they’re going to send out what amounts to a grassroots goon squad to “combat” everyone who disagrees. Note the military nature of what they plan to do. They aren’t interested in discussing matters, they’re interested in fighting a battle.

What’s particularly amazing is that while Obama sends out the goon squad to combat everyone who disagrees with something or other associated with Obama, the administration will then turn around and whine about the political discourse in the country. Of course that will be the fault of Republicans. It couldn’t possibly be the fault of the Obama campaign’s goon squads and their combative rhetoric. It seems that Obama is at war with the Republicans, he’s willing to use the rhetoric of war.

It’s one thing for the campaign to address issues where they feel the Republicans are misleading the public. It’s another thing to get two million people worked up so that they go “combat”  and “fight” people who either buy the Republican line or simply repeat the Republican line. By using the rhetoric of war, Obama is setting this up to be a very, very nasty campaign. They’re fighting and combating the enemy. Apparently the enemy is other Americans who disagree with Obama. What has this country come to?

The Obama truth teams are just another example of how this man has been the most divisive President in modern history. No one has done a better job dividing the nation than Obama. Rich vs poor, black vs white, rural vs city, Republican vs Democrat etc. Now he’s going to divide us further by sending out propaganda goon squads, in the image of the Creel Committee no less. It isn’t enough for his supporters to have a discussion with those who disagree with Obama. They have to fight and combat the opposition. It’s a recipe for a very divided nation.

Jack Lew Acknowledges Obamacare Is Health Fascism

New Obama Chief of Staff Jack Lew appeared on Fox News Sunday over the weekend. Lew declared that under Obamacare the President has the authority to order insurance companies to cover a service and cover that service for free. Lew went on to declare that forcing insurance companies to cover contraception wouldn’t actually cost the companies anything, pointing to alleged actuarial projections. Lew articulated for the first time that the Obama administration supports health fascism. He also articulated what many of us knew already, the Obama administration believes children are a financial burden.

How can there be freedom when the government can order health insurance companies to not only cover a certain product but cover that product for free? What Jack Lew defended yesterday is nothing short of health fascism. Fascism was a product of the left in the early 20th century. The difference between fascism and communism is that under fascism the government allowed the owners of businesses to keep their businesses. However those businesses had to do what the government told them to do, produce what they were told to produce in the quantity they were ordered at and by the employees the government told the business to employ. Essentially business owners became the government’s middle managers. Under communism, business owners were killed and the state took over both ownership and management.

When you look at what Lew said, how is the structure of Obamacare any different than the business structure in Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy or Spain? You can keep your insurance company, but you’re going to run it the way Obama tells you to and you’ll be offering the products he wants. For free even if he so declares! There’s no freedom for anyone under Obamacare. The government is going to tell companies what they have to offer and we consumers have no choice but to purchase that which the government has ordered. It’s health fascism. Is this what the American people thought Obamacare was going to be? It seems highly unlikely.

But Lew didn’t stop there. He alleges that health insurance companies will break even if they pay for contraception. This of course implies that children are a financial burden worth reducing. In other words, children don’t matter a whole lot to the Obama administration. They’re like old people, a financial burden. In short, the Obama administration has reduced the joy of parenthood down to a pure financial number, determining it just isn’t worth it. Never mind the non-financial and non-quantitative positives of having children. Children are just another wasteful cost.

If children are a wasteful financial burden, as Lew suggests, and if the President now has the power to order insurance companies to offer products whether they want to or not, one is left to wonder how much control does the President have over our health? How long will it be before the President, be it Obama or someone else, believes they have the power of life and death?

Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger famously suggested parents be required to have a license before having children. Under Obamacare, is it possible this could happen? What a wonderful cost saving requirement this could be! And who would be able to stop it? All health power is vested in the President according to Obamacare. Sarah Palin was maligned for her death panels comment. In light of Lew’s recent statements, it’s hardly unreasonable to wonder what sort of end of life power is now vested in the President. If he can order insurance companies to offer products and services, can’t he also order them to stop offering services and products?

Obamacare was forced though Congress without the American people having a chance to see what it actually was. Nancy Pelosi so much as acknowledged this when it was being passed. Now we’re finding out just how much power the President has over our lives. Is this the America that the founders created? A nation where the President has the power to control our health and our health insurance? This whole contraception episode ought to make all Americans, including those who support contraception, wonder just how much power the President has over our health.