The Obama Whitehouse

Like many other definitions that have been rewritten by left-wingnuts over time, the term “general welfare” no longer means what it did when it was written in our Constitution and ratified by the colonies in 1789.

As Thomas Jefferson once explained, “To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, “to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”

The preamble to the Constitution establishes the goal of the effort as to; “establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”

Today’s limousine liberals insist that the term “general welfare” implies a Marxist view that the federal government has the duty and the power to “take from each according to his ability, and give to each according to his need,” – to define and measure out individual well-being against the will of some on behalf of others. This is not only very dangerous to the basic concepts of liberty and freedom; it is diametrically at odds with everything the founders formed.

Target Taxing “the Rich”

Aside from the fact that punitive taxation penalizes the most productive members of society and rewards the least productive, it won’t work. This is not a subject up for debate. This is very old news which has been beyond dispute for centuries.

As a result, Jefferson, America’s best known liberal, stated it very clearly for future generations, – “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”

Jefferson’s point is this, – such an effort is not only punitive towards productivity; it is a “waste.” It won’t work. It is a “waste” of hard earned resources… in terms of simple economics. But that does not mean that the effort is without purpose. It has a political purpose.

Obama’s Target

The Obama campaign has been very clear about their intention to raise taxes on two specific target groups, “the rich” and “corporations.”

According to their campaign, Obama defines “rich” as those households making above $250,000 in annual income, approximately the top 2% of income earners. They claim that this target group of U.S. citizens is “not paying their fair share” and that they must pay more in order to provide for the “general welfare” of others.

Obama refers to this as “charity” – though charity is usually a private individual act which requires the consent of the giver.

This is exactly what Jefferson said we should not and could not do. But Karl Marx is very much in favor of such a notion, and so is the Obama campaign and all of their voters who never fail to cast their votes on the basis of what their government can do for them in their personal lives.

Who Pays Taxes Now?

Is it true that the Bush administration has lowered the tax burden for “the rich” and placed it upon the average Joe?

No, it isn’t… According to IRS reports for 2001 through 2006 (last report available) this statement is not at all true. It is patently false!

The Top 5% of income earners pay an increasing lion’s share of all taxes in America.

2001 – 53.25% (of all federal taxes collected)
2002 – 53.8%
2003 – 54.36%
2004 – 57.13%
2005 – 59.67%
2006 – 60.14%

In each year since Bush took office, the top 5% of income earners, those making more than $150,000 per year, have paid an increasing share of the federal tax burden.

It is not at all true that “the rich” do not pay their “fair share.” “The rich” have been targeted for a very long time already. I’d sure like to know what definition of “fair share” we are working with here.

Meanwhile, the bottom 50% of income earners ($32,000) have enjoyed a decreasing share of federal tax obligation under Bush.

2001 – 3.97% (of all federal taxes collected)
2002 – 3.5%
2003 – 3.46%
2004 – 3.3%
2005 – 3.07%
2006 – 2.99%

To put this in terms that even the average modern liberal can comprehend, according to the Census Bureau, the median annual household income rose 1.3% to $50,233.00 in 2007. American households making below this figure will pay less than 3% of all federal taxes collected, while those making above this figure will pay 97%, with the top 5% paying over 60%.

We have been “wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them” for decades now and the fundamental basis for Obamanomics is to do even more of the same!

Class Warfare and Mob Mentality

There’s a good reason why today’s Marxists have adopted the democratic process as its means to advance its socialist agenda… Unlike communism at gun point, it works!

If you place a gun to the head of most Americans, there’s a reasonable chance it is you who won’t live to tell about it. But Americans can be talked into a kinder-gentler form socialism and few will look far enough down the road to see where they are headed.

Democratic Socialists like Obama have been counting on this trend for years now and their mission is all but complete. Jefferson was right about a lot of things… “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”

Defining “Fair Share”

When those who pay little or no taxes at all (most Americans) get to define “fair share” in the tax code, they will seek out a small target (the rich – top 2%) with deep pockets.

James Madison wrote – “Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man whatever is his own.”

Property rights are at the foundation of individual liberty and personal freedom and our government was formed for the primary purpose of protecting and preserving individual freedom via protecting the right of every individual to earn and own property.

Yet it is the principles of Marxism that drive Obamanomics and rule economic policy via democratic mob mentality today.

Choosing the Right Opponent

Winning any battle begins with choosing the right opponent. Left-leaning politicians understand the principle of choosing sides wisely. No matter how deep their pockets, the top 2% of income earners are completely defenseless against the mob mentality of the other 98% of voters who have defined “fair share” as “from each according to his ability; to each according to his need.”

Karl Marx wrote that “democracy is the road to socialism.” Marx was right, at least as relates to any democratic society in which the majority of voters mark their ballot on the basis of gifts from the public trough.

The Fundamental Lie called Corporate Taxation

Corporations are made up of individuals. You can’t tax a corporation. Every penny in corporate tax is passed on to employees, shareholders and consumers, aka – individuals.

The minute someone says they are only going to tax “corporations,” they are attempting to conceal the very real fact that they are in the end, raising taxes on employees, shareholders and consumers.

Back to the Drawing Board

Once again we return to the topic of targeting America’s “rich.” They are an easy target. The “rich” have been a defenseless target of the left ever since FDR’s Raw Deal re-wrote the Constitutional definition of “general welfare.”

If 2% of the nation’s population paying more than 60% of the nation’s federal taxes is not enough, what is enough?

Would 2% of Americans paying 70% of the federal tab be enough? Would 80% be enough? Or are we simply working our way towards the top 2-5% paying 100% of the federal tab?

This is Obamanomics 101 in a nutshell. It isn’t new, so it isn’t a change. It is more of the same.

More of the same mob mentality, class warfare and punitive measures against our nation’s most productive and most defenseless citizens.

2% of American citizens have no means of defending themselves against the will of the vast majority of modern voters who have been trained to believe that they have a right to the earnings of others. Democrats know this and it is their power.

It is not enough to protect only yourself from continued affronts on individual freedom and liberty. You must be willing to protect and defend the freedoms and liberties of others in order to protect and preserve your own.

What the mob can do to only 2% of your fellow citizens, they can also do to you. What Obamanomics can do to 2% of Americans, it can do to you, and eventually it will.

Charity requires the consent of the giver. Give as much as you like. But taking from a few against their will in the name of the mob, is called tyranny.

Do you really have any doubt about what Obamanomics represents?

NASHVILLE, Tenn. – Sarah Palin had some pointed advice to President Barack Obama on Saturday night: “Stop lecturing and start listening.”

In her keynote address to the inaugural national “tea party” convention, Palin opened by pointing to Sen. Scott Brown’s victory in a special election in Massachusetts for the seat that had been held by the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. She predicted a good year for conservative candidates, saying the policies of Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress will be short-lived.

She said that the Democratic loss showed that the nation was ready for another revolution and that “tea partiers” were part of it. The former Alaska governor criticized the Obama administration’s handling of the attempted bombing of a U.S.-bound airliner on Christmas Day, saying the suspect should have been interrogated more intensely. She said he doesn’t deserve the constitutional rights that U.S. soldiers are willing to die for.

The former Republican vice presidential candidate told people attending the convention that it’s time America had a commander in chief, not a professor at a lectern.

In a reference to the state of the economy, she derided a central part of the campaign message that Obama had used to gain election in 2008.

“How’s that hopey changey thing working out for you?” Palin said.

She called Obama’s proposed 2011 budget “immoral” because it increases the national debt, which she called “generational theft.” She argued that the debt, which is held largely by other nations, “makes us less free” and “should tick us off.”

The Obama administration has repeatedly argued that the nation’s financial system was on the verge of collapse when Obama took office last year, and is now in the early stages of recovery.

After her 45-minute speech, Palin spent about 15 minutes answering questions that had been sent in by tea party activists. Read the rest of this entry »

The U.S. Defense Department starts the clock next week on what is expected to be a several-year process in lifting its ban on gays from serving openly in the military.

A special investigation into how the ban can be repealed without hurting the morale or readiness of the troops was expected to be announced Tuesday by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

While the review is likely to take the better part of this year to complete, and even more time to implement, its initiation will advance President Barack Obama’s goal of repealing the ban and bring a divisive issue for the military back to the fore.

At the White House, officials continued reviewing options for the Clinton-era policy. The administration still believes that any repeal should start in Congress and have the backing of top military leaders.

To that end, Obama and Gates planned a meeting next week to discuss, among other topics, ending “don’t ask, don’t tell” policies. The president was also likely to speak with Mullen, who has signaled he would carry out a repeal if ordered by Obama and Congress.

Lifting the ban poses some emotional questions that go to the heart of the military’s command structure and the trust relationships within military units. Among them: Will U.S. troops and leaders tolerate openly gay members in their midst? And if they don’t, what should the Pentagon do about it? Read the rest of this entry »

 “So let me get this straight. Millionaire Obama doesn’t use his wealth to help his poor illegal alien Aunt get out of public housing, but if I complain about Obama wanting to raise my taxes to ’spread the wealth around’ I’m the selfish one?”

Zeituni Onyango told The Associated Press in an exclusive interview that she is troubled that her immigration woes have made her a political liability to her nephew.

…Onyango helped care for the president’s half brothers and sister while living with Barack Obama Sr. in Kenya. She moved to the United States in 2000 and applied for asylum in 2002, but her request was rejected and she was ordered deported in 2004.

However, she did not leave the country and continued to live in public housing in Boston. She had been a health care volunteer but not since her status became public. She refused to discuss how she affords to live now or who is paying for her attorney.

Onyango said she previously had no trouble visiting Obama when he was a state senator in Illinois or after he became a U.S. senator, though she declined to discuss details of how often she had contact with Obama and his family. Her tiny apartment in a modest subsidized public housing complex for seniors and the disabled is adorned with photographs of her with Obama at the Illinois Statehouse, the president’s official portrait, his family, the inauguration, her children and African wildlife.

She is disabled and learning to walk again after being paralyzed for more than three months because of an autoimmune disorder called Guillain-Barre syndrome.

The Law States…. 

It shall be unlawful for a foreign national directly or through any other person to make any contribution of money or other thing of value, or to promise expressly or impliedly to make any such contribution, in connection with an election to any political office; or in connection with any primary election, convention, or caucus held to select candidates for any political office; or for any person to solicit, accept, or receive any such contribution from a foreign national.

2 U.S.C. § 441e.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Obama’s aunt fights deportation (telegraph.co.uk)
• Obama Aunt Zeituni Onyango Tries Second Asylum Bid (huffingtonpost.com)
• Obama aunt to see Mass. judge; 2nd bid for US stay (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Obama’s aunt fights to stay in U.S. (cbc.ca)
• Obama aunt girds for new bid to avoid deportation (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Judge to decide whether Obama’s aunt can stay in U.S. (cnn.com)