Tuesday, April 9, 2013

What Students DON'T Learn at Bowdoin College

RushLimbaugh.com ^ | 4-8-2013 | Rush Limbaugh

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: From the Wall Street Journal last Friday, April 5th. I missed it Friday. I was informed about this on Saturday afternoon. It's a piece by David Feith. David Feith is assistant editorial features editor at the Wall Street Journal. "It sounds like the setup for a bad joke: What did the Wall Street type say to the college president on the golf course? Well, we don't know exactly -- but it has launched a saga with weighty implications for American intellectual and civic life. Here's what we do know:


"One day in the summer of 2010, Barry Mills, the president of Bowdoin College, a respected liberal-arts school in Brunswick, Maine, met investor and philanthropist Thomas Klingenstein for a round of golf about an hour north of campus. College presidents spend many of their waking hours talking to potential donors. In this case, the two men spoke about college life -- especially 'diversity' -- and the conversation made such an impression on President Mills that he cited it weeks later in his convocation address to Bowdoin's freshman class.


"That's where the dispute begins. In his address, President Mills described the golf outing and said he had been interrupted in the middle of a swing by a fellow golfer's announcement: 'I would never support Bowdoin -- you are a ridiculous liberal school that brings all the wrong students to campus for all the wrong reasons,' said the other golfer, in Mr. Mills's telling. During Mr. Mills's next swing, he recalled, the man blasted Bowdoin's 'misplaced and misguided diversity efforts.'

"At the end of the round, the college president told the students, 'I walked off the course in despair.'" So the college president tells the guy this. He's out playing golf and in the middle of his backswing -- which is the biggest no-no in golf, is to chat during somebody's swing. In the middle of the backswing, he says something, and this guy's college was insulted twice by this Klingenstein guy, who was the potential donor. "Word of the speech," this interpretation, "soon got back to Mr. Klingenstein.

"Even though he hadn't been named in the Mills account, Mr. Klingenstein took to the pages of the Claremont Review of Books to call it nonsense: '[The president of this college] didn't like my views, so he turned me into a backswing interrupting, Bowdoin-hating boor who wants to return to the segregated days of Jim Crow.' The real story, wrote Mr. Klingenstein, was that 'I explained my disapproval of 'diversity' as it generally has been implemented on college campuses: too much celebration of racial and ethnic difference,' coupled with 'not enough celebration of our common American identity.'"

You guys are destroying the country. We all have a "common American identity" and you're focusing on our differences and then demanding all this "diversity" be tolerated, accepted, and treated the same. Well, after Klingenstein's "essay appeared, President Mills stood by his version of events. A few months later, Mr. Klingenstein decided to do something surprising: He commissioned researchers to examine Bowdoin's commitment to intellectual diversity, rigorous academics and civic identity."

So he paid for researchers for the National Association of Scholars to study this university and its curriculum and what's been going on there, and the upshot of it is: Bowdoin College "has 'no curricular requirements that center on the American founding or the history of the nation.' Even history majors aren't required to take a single course in American history. In the History Department, no course is devoted to American political, military, diplomatic or intellectual history -- the only ones available are organized around some aspect of race, class, gender or sexuality."

So a history major at Bowdoin College is taught about the intrinsic discrimination against blacks, women, gays, lesbians, transgender, bisexuals. That's all they are taught. A history major coming out of Bowdoin College is not taught for one minute about the American founding. There is not one moment of traditional American history taught, and this is just the history department. What's taught is how immoral and unjust America has been since its founding and how its founding featured institutional racism, segregation, sexism, homophobia, and all that.

Klingenstein found this kind of thing in pretty much all the other departments he looked at, and he studied it for years and years and years.

Quite naturally, he decided not to donate to the school.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now, the students at Bowdoin College are required to take a year-long seminar as freshmen. They get to choose from 37 different offerings, such as "Affirmative Action in US Society," or "the Fictions of Freedom," or "Racism," or "Queer Gardens," or "the Sexual Life of Colonialism," or "the Modern Western Prostitutes." They have to take one of those courses, as a seminar, but they're not taught anything about the American founding other than it was racist and immoral.
END TRANSCRIPT

The Economic Ignorance of Barack Obama

Defining Ideas ^ | April 8, 2013 | Richard Epstein

One story has dominated the economic news this past weekend. The story is that job creation has slowed to a “trickle,” in the words of a Wall Street Journal headline. Only 88,000 new jobs were created in the month of March. That feeble rate was accompanied by the “good” news that the jobless rate, which only counts those actively seeking work as unemployed, had dropped from 7.7 to 7.6 percent.
The real news was that the decline in the unemployment rate was explained by the separation of nearly half a million people from the workforce, so that labor-force participation shrunk from about 67.3 percent in early 2000 to about 63.3 percent today. A crude first approximation of the real unemployment rate would add back at least 4 lost percentage points. A more accurate estimation of the actual unemployment rate would account for those individuals who were out of the market by 2000 in part because of the impediments to market performance that were already in place.
With these weak numbers, the political discussion has continued to focus on job creation and economic growth: How should these goals be accomplished? On “All Things Considered,” I heard E.J. Dionne advise that the Federal Reserve should keep its foot on the accelerator, by opening the cash spigot and keeping interest rates at their historic lows. At the same time, the rest of the government should put worries about the deficit aside—or so the argument goes—by increasing public expenditures funded in part through higher taxes on the top one percent. David Brooks rightly disparaged that prescription, but still was unable to identify that “big structural change” he hoped would turn the economy around.
Obama’s Misshapen Tax Policy
President Obama had, of course, no doubts on what should be done. In his view, we should double down on the same policies that he has championed since coming into office. His new proposed budget modestly chips away at the cost-of-living increases in Social Security spending, which has drawn fierce resistance from his party’s incorrigible left wing.
But his preferred long-term changes all cut in the opposite direction. The President has renewed his call for capping the charitable deduction at 28 percent—a dreadful idea—even as he tries to steepen the level of progressivity of the income tax. In addition, the President unveiled a proposal to slash the amount of money that individuals can keep in their tax-deferred retirement accounts to $3 million per person. Putting aside the transitional problems that dog this proposal, the simple point is that additional taxation is likely to further retard the creation of jobs and wealth, by shrinking the size of the largest pool of private investment funds in the United States.
Handing Out Political Favors
That isn’t all. The tax system’s high progressivity drives endless political efforts by well-heeled interest groups to exempt themselves from this bold new order. Businesses that are chafing under their heavy tax burden are directing their attention to the people in Congress who pull the levers of power. High on that list is Montana’s Max Baucus (D), the longtime head of the Senate Finance Committee, which has a lot to say on both the revenue and spending side of the budget. The New York Times reports that some 28 of his former Congressional aides are now registered tax lobbyists, as are many former staffers of such influential operatives as Senators Charles Grassley (R-IA) and Charles Schumer (D-NY).
But have no fear, says Sean Neary, a spokesman for Senator Baucus. Neary assures a wary public that Mr. Baucus often “rejects” proposals from his well-connected supplicants, and that all of his decisions “are based on the merits.”
Just what merits decide which set of special benefits should be granted and which denied? Neary is never at a loss for words. “Every vote has to answer one question for him and that is: How is it impacting Montanans?” It is harder to know where the greater corruption lies: Is it in Baucus’ explicit decision to put the welfare of the tiny number of Montanans ahead of that of the other 99 percent of this nation’s citizens? Or does it lie in the delusive confidence that so benighted a senator can figure out just which of the endless special deals is worthy of his support?
Baucus has it all backwards. The essence of a sound tax policy is to make it unremunerative for tax lobbyists to skulk around Washington to obtain preserve special tax benefits for hiring veterans. But as the tax policy becomes more progressive, the more it starts to resemble Swiss cheese, which incentivizes lobbying for still other loopholes.
The next generation of special carve-outs and exceptions will be of short duration, just like the rate structure itself. The tax cliff of January 2013 was no cliff at all. It was just one of the large array of tax hills, valleys, and detours, all of which reduce or postpone investments from businesses that don’t have the foggiest idea of what the tax picture will look like once a deal surfaces. The concealed costs of the current tax uncertainty are very large. The only antidote is to flatten the rates and broaden the base, which is antithetical to the Obama mantra of “redistribution first.”

Jobs: A Fourth Straight Spring and Summer Bummer

Pajamas Media ^ | 04/09/2013 | Tom Blumer


NSAandSAjobsForPJM040713
For most Americans, the arrival of spring means rising temperatures, the reemergence of green grass (and weeds), and a return to outdoor activities. It also appears, for the fourth year in a row, that spring’s arrival will be accompanied by yet another swoon in the nation’s job market.
Wrapping up a week during which several “unexpectedly” weak economic reports previewed trouble ahead, the government’s March Employment Situation Summary released on Friday was the strongest indication yet that — as was the case in 2010, 2011, and 2012 — somewhat tolerable seasonally adjusted job growth during the winter will be followed by tepid spring and summer hiring.

This time, as a well-known Democrat amazingly noted on Sunday, President Barack Obama, his administration, fear-mongering leftists, and their sky-is-falling media apparatchiks shouldn’t be able to hide from the direct results of their handiwork — though of course they’ll try mightily.
To see how bad things are, as is my custom — and as should be the custom of anyone who’s really trying to get a handle on what’s happening in the economy — let’s look at both the raw (i.e., not seasonally adjusted) and seasonally adjusted figures for overall job growth since 2001:
As I noted in a column last year, the five months from February through June are crucial for employment growth in the U.S. economy, because that’s typically when millions more people are hired than are let go. The more economically robust years during the middle of the past decade saw the economy add an annual average of 4.099 million jobs during those five months, despite the fact that the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate was barely above what is, for the U.S., considered full employment.
As seen above, despite horrid unemployment, vastly underreported under-employment, and assurances that the Obama administration’s “stimulus”-driven policies would lead to a strong recovery, the average of the February-June time periods from 2010-2012 was more than 200,000 jobs lower than was seen during the previous decade’s three strong years.
As I wrote last year: “An authentically recovering economy making a real dent in a horribly underutilized workforce should generate six million jobs on the ground” during these five months. Obviously, it has never come even close.
After February’s strong raw result, the best performance in the 13 years shown above, it appeared that 2013 might finally see something resembling a breakthrough. Friday’s report more than likely blew those hopes to pieces. March’s raw figure of 759,000 jobs added was worse than each of the three previous years, none of which was considered impressive. Take a look at the seasonal conversions in the right half of the graphic above: if actual jobs added in April, May, and June trail last year’s figures by March’s shortfall of 142,000 (901,000 minus 759,000), we’ll probably see negative seasonally adjusted job growth in one or more of the next three months.
The stay-the-course excuse-making from the White House and the press will reach a roar.
There are at least six good reasons why flatlining seasonally adjusted job growth may be in store for us during the next several months. I was ready with the first five after Friday’s news:
  1. Gas prices: Though they haven’t headed towards the $4 per gallon level feared several weeks ago, they’re still unacceptably high — and there’s plenty of time for Obama’s decisions and his regulators to make things nasty.
  2. The Social Security tax hike: True, this is a restoration of a tax which had been reduced by two percentage points for two years, but most consumers probably got used to living on the extra take-home pay. Now they don’t have it. This is not as serious a factor as many observers make it out to be — if it was, the temporary cut should have stimulated a lot of economic growth in 2011 and 2012, which didn’t happen — but it’s still relevant.
  3. The fiscal cliff’s tax hikes: The press and the Obama administration act as if they never happened, but the fact is they have already begun the process of siphoning $600 billion over the next ten years away from “evil rich” businesspersons, investors, and entrepreneurs, who in many cases would have used the money to invest in capital equipment and business ideas leading to immediate and long-term job growth.
  4. Obamacare’s regulations: To name just one, many employers are already scrambling to minimize their number of full-time workers as a result of the legislation’s “full-time employment” definition of 30 hours per week. Though the hiring of additional part-timers may artificially increase reported employment in the short run, the negative impact on economic growth, and therefore overall future job growth, will be significant.
  5. Obamacare’s taxes: Almost forgot about those, didn’t you? Statist health care’s 2013 hits to investment income and on medical devices, both of which took effect on January 1, have to be considered in the mix. They weren’t there in previous years.
One item not on the list is the Obama administration’s favorite: namely, the supposedly awful impact of the federal spending “cuts” associated with sequestration. In most cases, these aren’t “cuts” at all, but are instead reductions in the trajectory of future spending growth.
But one aspect of sequestration does belong at Number 6 on the list above. It may be far more important, and damning, than we now appreciate. It took a longtime Democrat, namely CNBC’s Jim Cramer of all people, to bring it up on Sunday’s Meet the Press with NBC’s David Gregory:
(The employment report was) stunning. Stunning. And I think a lot of it had to do with fear-mongering. … The president did make people feel everything is going to shut down in this country because of the sequester. A lot of the CEOs were very scared. A lot of the small business people held back, the bankers would tell you that.

Go back in time. A month ago, what was the rhetoric of the White House? It was, look, this is a really big deal. Everyone has to just stop and consider how bad this is going to be for the economy. Well, the CEOs stopped. They considered and they decided, you know what, we got to hold back.
In other words, sequestration itself is not at fault. Instead, the sequestration-related blame falls squarely on the shoulders of Obama, his staff, his partisans, and his media lapdogs for their non-stop scare campaign about what would happen when it took effect.
In late 2000 and early 2001, as the markets were plunging and the Clinton-era dot-com bubble was bursting, hysterical leftist losers accused the just-elected George W. Bush and Dick Cheney of “talking down the economy.” History shows that the economy was already tanking on the day Bush 43 was sworn in.
Now it appears that Obama and his partisans have begun to succeed in talking down their own economy with their reckless, substance-free threats of Armageddon. It’s tempting to delight in the payback, but the fact is that this sad behavior is hurting millions of Americans — and Team Obama doesn’t seem to care.
Because of that, all I can say is: shame on you. Please stop before you make the situation — which is already on its way to becoming pretty bad — even worse.

UNFIT FOR WORK: The startling rise of disability in America

NPR ^ | 04/09/2013 | Chana Joffe-Walt

In the past three decades, the number of Americans who are on disability has skyrocketed. The rise has come even as medical advances have allowed many more people to remain on the job, and new laws have banned workplace discrimination against the disabled. Every month, 14 million people now get a disability check from the government.
The federal government spends more money each year on cash payments for disabled former workers than it spends on food stamps and welfare combined. Yet people relying on disability payments are often overlooked in discussions of the social safety net. The vast majority of people on federal disability do not work.[1] Yet because they are not technically part of the labor force, they are not counted among the unemployed.
In other words, people on disability don't show up in any of the places we usually look to see how the economy is doing. But the story of these programs -- who goes on them, and why, and what happens after that -- is, to a large extent, the story of the U.S. economy. It's the story not only of an aging workforce, but also of a hidden, increasingly expensive safety net.
For the past six months, I've been reporting on the growth of federal disability programs. I've been trying to understand what disability means for American workers, and, more broadly, what it means for poor people in America nearly 20 years after we ended welfare as we knew it. Here's what I found.
(Excerpt) Read more at apps.npr.org ...

USAF Photo of the Day: One Big Bomber Over Kansas

ChamorroBible.org ^ | September 9, 2011 | U.S. Air Force Senior Airman Courtney Witt



The Photographer
Senior Airman Courtney Witt, United States Air Force

Via
http://ChamorroBible.org/gpw/gpw-200905.htm (medium, large, huge

ABC,CBS, NBC Turn A Blind Eye to ObamaCare Setbacks

Newsbusters ^ | April 9, 2013 | Geoffrey Dickens

For the past couple of weeks there has been a steady drip of bad news for ObamaCare, but you wouldn't know it if you only get your news from the Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) networks. From a Society of Actuaries report that determined premium costs will shoot up thanks to a thirty-three percent average increase in claims; to thirty-three Senate Democrats joining Republicans in voting to repeal an ObamaCare tax on medical devices; to a Quinnipiac University poll showing even two-thirds of self-identified Democrats saying the law will either hurt them or have no effect, the recent news has been bad for the President's chief legislative victory. However, not one of these trouble spots for ObamaCare has been mentioned on ABC, CBS or NBC's evening or morning show broadcasts.
The following setbacks for ObamaCare haven't received a single second of air time on the Big Three networks:
■ On March 22, ObamaCare hit a major snag when even 33 Senate Democrats openly defied the President as they joined 45 Republicans in voting to repeal a 2.3 percent sales tax, crucial to paying for ObamaCare, on medical devices such as pacemakers and MRI machines. The measure was co-sponsored by liberal Minnesota Democrat Amy Klobuchar, who said in a statement that she would "continue to work to get rid of this harmful tax."
Big Three coverage 0 stories.
■ On March 26, the Society of Actuaries, released a study that determined health claims will increase by an average of 32 percent with some states seeing claims rise as much as 80 percent. The study estimated that states will now have to double their health spending to cover the millions of the previously uninsured. The study went on to report that claims will be driven higher because many employers will stop covering their employees once Obamacare is instituted and those workers will be more expensive to insure than those already in the individual market.
Big Three coverage: 0 stories.
■ On March 26, Obama's own Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius admitted that premiums will rise for some people buying new insurance policies in the coming fall, because of ObamaCare requirements. As the March 26 Wall Street Journal reported: "The secretary's remarks are among the first direct statements from federal officials that people who have skimpy health plans right now could face higher premiums for plans that are more generous."
Big Three coverage: 0 stories
■ On April 3 Fox News reported that the Obama administration admitted a system of exchanges designed to make it simpler for small businesses to provide health insurance, the very core of ObamaCare's promise, will be delayed an entire year. According to Jim Capretta of the Ethics and Public Policy Center this is a huge setback because: "Lots of small businesses struggle with providing insurance for their workers so this was supposed to facilitate it and make it easier for small business to do this," and added: "It was a huge portion of the sale job. When they passed the law in 2010 there were many senators and members of Congress who were saying 'I am doing this because it's going to help small businesses.'"
Big Three coverage: 0 stories.

U.S. Government Files Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit that Claims it Helps Fund Palestinian Terror

Algemeiner ^ | April 9, 2013 | Zach Pontz

The U.S. State Department has filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by a group of Americans who claim U.S. aid money helps fund Palestinian terrorism.
The 24 Americans now living in Israel who are the plaintiffs in the case filed the lawsuit in the United States District Court for Washington, DC in November claiming that the State Department had ignored congressional safeguards and transparency requirements which govern financial assistance to the PA.
In a statement, Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs and director of the Tel Aviv-based Shurat HaDin (Israel Law Center ) explained: “Rather than defend the government’s foreign aid policy on its merits and provide proof that it truly knows where taxpayer money to the PA is going, the government’s lawyers are trying to dismiss the lawsuit on legal technicalities. They are saying that it is pure speculation that Americans can be injured by terrorism in Israel and that the issue of funding is a foreign policy power reserved to the US President and cannot be reviewed by the courts.”
The plaintiffs, some of whom are victims of terror themselves, claim that as a result of White House non-compliance with federal regulations, funds have been flowing to terror groups like Hamas.
“This lawsuit does not challenge the President and the State Dept’s right to conduct foreign policy nor fund the Palestinians. These plaintiffs simply object to the executive branch’s funding of the PA without oversight. It is a legitimate objection by two dozen Americans, who are the class of individuals Congress sought to protect through their safeguards. US funds are being utilized by the Palestinians for terrorism which threatens Americans and the plaintiffs will be responding to this motion and asking that the case be allowed to go forward,” Darshan-Leitner stressed.
According to the Shurat HaDin, during the last four fiscal years, average aid has been roughly $600 million per year. Additionally, the United States gives approximately $200 million to the United Nations body UNRWA an agency which provides aid to Palestinian Arab refugees.

The 25 Margaret Thatcher Quotes that Crush Obama and the Left


by Matthew Burke, TPNN Contributor

No one in the world, with the exception of Ronald Reagan, spoke with as much elegance, eloquence, power, and persuasiveness like the late Margaret Thatcher. Today, Obama, in his statement about her passing, referred to Lady Thatcher as “one of the great champions of freedom and liberty”. This is one of the rare occasions in which he has spoken the truth. But how can Obama say Baroness Thatcher was a “great champion of freedom and liberty” when everything she stood for is in 100% opposition to his tyrannical, Marxist regime? So, if she stood for “freedom and liberty,” then why doesn’t he agree with her politically?
Below are 25 of the best quotes from Margaret Thatcher that capture her belief in free markets, limited government, personal responsibility and individual liberty, all American principles which Obama has completely rejected. She effectively destroys liberalism, progressivism, socialism, communism and Barack Obama with the quotes below, and what you’ll see after reading them is this: Either Obama’s lying about Thatcher being a “great champion of freedom and liberty,” or he is the greatest champion against freedom and liberty :
“To cure the British disease with socialism was like trying to cure leukemia with leeches.” ~ Margaret Thatcher
“I came to office with one deliberate intent: to change Britain from a dependent to a self-reliant society — from a give-it-to-me, to a do-it-yourself nation. A get-up-and-go, instead of a sit-back-and-wait-for-it Britain.” ~ Margaret Thatcher
“We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.” ~ Margaret Thatcher
Obama has/is doing exactly the opposite in America. He is destroying the country by making as many people as possible dependent on government. His socialist policies reward failure and punish success. The result has been millions more people on welfare or disability, while he and his sycophants in the media repeat Obama’s lie that the economy is improving.
“My job is to stop Britain from going red.” ~ Margaret Thatcher
From the looks of it, one would think that Obama’s job is just the opposite. In looking at what he has done, he sees his job, and what an amazing job he’s doing, of turning the USA into the USSR. There is no area of your life that Obama doesn’t want to tax, regulate and/or control.
“There can be no liberty unless there is economic liberty.” ~ Margaret Thatcher
Obama does not believe in free markets or economic liberty, and therefore doesn’t believe in individual liberty. He believes that businesses can effectively make no decisions without the permission his bureaucratic goons.
“They’re casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It’s our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour.” ~ Margaret Thatcher
“Socialists cry “Power to the people”, and raise the clenched fist as they say it. We all know what they really mean—power over people, power to the State.” ~ Margaret Thatcher
“Communist regimes were not some unfortunate aberration, some historical deviation from a socialist ideal. They were the ultimate expression, unconstrained by democratic and electoral pressures, of what socialism is all about. … In short, the state [is] everything and the individual nothing.” ~ Margaret Thatcher
Here you have the problem with the Left, whether it be fascists, liberals, progressives, democrats or communists. With these tyrants, there are not individual rights, only group ones. In fact, in Obama’s twisted, perversion of Christianity, there is no individual salvation, but only “collective” salvation: ”Our individual salvation depends on collective salvation.” To the Commie Left, as with Obama, the “collective” is everything, and the individual is nothing.
“Of course it’s the same old story. Truth usually is the same old story.” ~ Margaret Thatcher
This destroys Obama’s and the Left’s narrative that “all truth is relative,” and that truth “evolves,” that ethics are situational, there are no absolutes, and the Constitution is a “living, breathing” document, written by old, white guys.
“I owe nothing to Women’s Lib.” ~ Margaret Thatcher
Oops! You mean Margaret Thatcher made it to the top without radical feminists? She did it without government mandates and quotas? Can’t you just see Gloria Steinem’s head explode?
“Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money. It’s quite a characteristic of them.” ~ Margaret Thatcher
“Pennies don’t fall from heaven, they have to be earned here on earth.” ~ Margaret Thatcher
“Good Conservatives always pay their bills. And on time. Not like the Socialists who run up other people’s bills.” ~ Margaret Thatcher
“Let us never forget this fundamental truth: The State has no source of money other than the money people themselves earn.” ~ Margaret Thatcher
“Let me give you my vision: A man’s right to work as he will, to spend what he earns, to own property, to have the state as servant and not as master.” ~ Margaret Thatcher
These five quotes fly in the face of the Obama Left’s view that all money is government’s first, then politicians and bureaucrats, from the goodness of their own hearts, are generous enough to allow you to keep a small portion of what you’ve worked for (i.e., slavery). The Obama regime made this clear in two ways. Firstly, inventing and repeating ad nauseum the mantra that “tax cuts are spending,” and secondly with Obama’s Orwellian, “You didn’t build that” comment. Like America’s Founding Fathers, Thatcher understood and believed in property rights and that there is no liberty without them.
“All corporatism – even when practised in societies where hard work, enterprise and cooperation are as highly valued as in Korea – encourages inflexibility, discourages individual accountability, and risks magnifying errors by concealing them.” ~ Margaret Thatcher
Obama campaigned (originally) against corporatism, yet it’s unfortunately thrived under Obama. It’s highly unconstitutional for government (taxpayer) money to be used to pick winners and losers. Winners and losers should be determined by free markets, not government force or political favoritism, as they are now.
“Constitutions have to be written on hearts, not just paper.” ~ Margaret Thatcher
Our Constitution, the longest running in world history, is null and void if, a) No one reads it, b) No one understands its original intent and interpretation, and c) to the extent it is taught in the government monopolized schools, it’s taught as a “living, breathing document,” in other words, manipulated to mean anything the Left wants it to mean. Without strict adherence to our Constitution there is NO LIMIT on government, exactly what Obama desires. Remember when Communist Democrat John Conyers referred to the “Good and Welfare” clause and most Americans didn’t even bat an eye?
“It is not the creation of wealth that is wrong, but the love of money for its own sake.” ~ Margaret Thatcher
Many people are confused about Obama’s Marxist class-warfarism. He does believe in wealth, believe it or not, but only by leftist politicians, bureaucrats, and his corporate (usually green) and union cronies who keep him and his ilk in power and control. He’s okay with a certain amount of wealth creation, as long as his preferred groups benefit.
“No one would remember the Good Samaritan if he’d only had good intentions; he had money as well.” ~ Margaret Thatcher
Related to the previous quote, this one speaks volumes. Wrongly, for decades, the Left has been judged on their “intentions” rather than their disastrous results. Never in the history of civilation has one of their policies worked as promised, yet we always give them a pass because “at least they mean well.” NO THEY DON’T!
“Many of our troubles are due to the fact that our people turn to politicians for everything.” ~ Margaret Thatcher
People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation.” ~ Margaret Thatcher
These two go hand-in-hand. In Obama’s Welfare State, Obama plays on the fact that as human beings, we all love freebies. Getting something for free without having to work for it? You bet! Who wouldn’t, right? The problem with this trait is that when more people want handouts than those who are willing to work, the system implodes.
“When all the objectives of government include the achievement of equality – other than equality before the law – that government poses a threat to liberty.” ~ Margaret Thatcher
The Left’s perverted use of “equality,” as defined by them as equality of outcomes (rather than opportunity), an idea that can only be achieved through a tyrannical regime, versus equality under the law (something they don’t believe in) makes the Founding Fathers spin in their graves. Every time they say “social justice” or, as Obama robotically repeats, “fairness,” remember that these are both just code words for communism. Where is their “equality” as the Left defines it? Cuba and North Korea. Thatcher knew that you can’t have government assuring that we’re all robots and at the same time enjoy the freedom and liberty God has granted us.
“Socialists have always spent much of their time seeking new titles for their beliefs, because the old versions so quickly become outdated and discredited.” ~ Margaret Thatcher
This one is priceless. Lefties have to periodically redefine labels to keep from being outed as the communists they are. Communists came to this country under the mask of calling themselves “progressives.” Then, when they burned out that label and were exposed, they high-jacked the term, “liberal” (see Classic Liberalism). Now that they’ve destroyed that term, they’re recycling “progressive” again, knowing that they’ve lied in history books for decades and Americans memories are very short.
“Socialism’s results have ranged between the merely shabby and the truly catastrophic – poverty, strife, oppression and, on the killing fields of communism, the deaths this century of perhaps 100 million people. Against that doctrine was set a contrary, conservative belief in a law-governed liberty. It was this view which triumphed with the crumbling of the Berlin Wall. Since then, the Left has sought rehabilitation by distancing itself from its past.” ~ Margaret Thatcher
“Marxists get up early to further their cause. We must get up even earlier to defend our freedom.” ~ Margaret Thatcher
I’ve saved the best two for last. Why the best? Because this is the one piece of advice that Tea Party Conservatives, Libertarians and Constitutionalists must heed. The Left call their Communist Movement “Progressive” for a reason. Every day, they wake up seeking ways to destroy our country, advancing their Marxist ball down the field toward their utopian hell, and they’re diligent and relentless at it. Let us honor the great Margaret Thatcher by taking her advice!

Secret DPRK Surveillance Photo Reveals Conflict About To End



Why A Cyprus-Like Seizure Of Your Money Could Happen Here

Forbes ^ | March 25, 2013 | Steve Forbes

Don’t put it past our politicians to try it in a financial emergency. The breaking of contracts by the U.S. government, unfortunately, has happened before, and what’s under way in Cyprus shows that feckless politicos will continue to try such things.
In 1933–34, amid the depths of the Great Depression, the U.S. government seized the American people’s gold holdings. From that point, until 1975, it was illegal for Americans to own gold, other than in some forms of jewelry or collectors’ coins. In the panic of the Depression years the courts upheld this unconstitutional confiscation. Yes, people received dollars in return for their holdings of the yellow metal, but the dollar itself was formally devalued by 40%. Moreover, the U.S. government abrogated private commercial contracts containing the so-called gold clause, which allowed creditors to receive payments in either dollars or gold.
In the early 1970s President Richard Nixon annulled contracts selling soybeans to Japan. This was done for domestic political reasons: U.S. soybean buyers had been complaining about the high prices, and Nixon felt keeping the product here would mollify them. Of course, the real reason that the prices of soybeans and other agricultural commodities were rising was that Nixon and the Federal Reserve were deliberately undermining the value of the U.S. dollar. (Japan responded by investing in Brazil, which became one of our major soybean competitors.)
In 2009 the Obama Administration pushed through a brazenly political restructuring of bankrupt General Motors and Chrysler, and huge payoffs were made to the United Auto Workers, a pro-Obama union, at the expense of bondholders. Banks signed off on the deal because they had no choice—their survival depended on the whims of Washington. Once again the courts turned their backs on this patently unconstitutional exercise.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...

A religious cult

Posted Image

Logic 101

Posted Image

Illegal to sell to children

Posted Image

Obama Fear

Posted Image

Free Hate

Posted Image

Trigger Fingers

Posted Image

...a damn genius

Posted Image

Obamanol

Posted Image

NOT FAIR?

Posted Image