As Barack Obama continues his Worldwide United States Apology Tour, he's spending this week in the Middle East (probably claiming that terrorism is all our fault or something like that). Anyway, during an interview, he made the following idiotic statement: "One of the points I want to make is if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world."
Okay, we all know that this is blatant pandering. He's just trying to pacify all the Islamofascist terrorist dictators that lead most of these countries, so I'm not really surprised at all. However, this statement is a complete and obvious lie.
During the campaign, Obama said, "We are no longer a Christian nation." First of all, somewhere between 75-80% of Americans identify themselves as Christian, so that statement is a load of crap. Second of all, there are about 2.3 million Muslims in the United States, which is less than 1% of the population. And finally, Indonesia has 200 million Muslims, India has 156 million Muslims, Pakistan has 150 million Muslims, and so forth. He actually thinks that our comparatively tiny population of 2.3 million would make us "one of the largest Muslim countries in the world"? That's just retarded. How could anyone not know that his statement was a complete lie? Why isn't the mainstream media jumping on this? Oh wait, I know why. Because they're too busy getting tingles up their legs to be real reporters.
So let's recap. Our president, whose parents were either Muslim or atheist, who went to an Islamic school in Indonesia, whose Kenyan grandmother will soon be going on a Hajj pilgrimage, and whose only real exposure to "Christianity" is the racist hatemonger Jeremiah Wright, has said not only that the United States is no longer a Christian nation, but that we could be considered one of the largest Muslim countries in the world. Yeah, that makes me pretty uncomfortable.
Oh, and by the way, Sarah Obama, the same grandmother who is going on the Hajj, is also the person who testified to being present at Barack Obama's birth in Mombasa, Kenya. Just sayin'.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Hey, Another Activist Judge!
Well, it has now become official. The nominee for the new Supreme Court Justice is Sonia Sotomayor. Let's try to check off the "qualifications" she needed to get the nomination, none of which have anything to do with being a good judge. Woman? Check. Minority? Check. Thinks personal experience and "empathy" have a place in a court of law? Check.
Look, I don't care that she's a Hispanic woman. I do care that she was chosen BECAUSE she is a Hispanic woman (oh, and because she has "empathy"). Race and gender should be completely irrelevant. Why are we still obsessed with affirmative action? Now that we have a black president, isn't it clear that institutionalized racism no longer exists in the Unites States? I mean, a black man with Muslim/atheist parents just became the most powerful man in the world! We know that Sotomayor supports affirmative action, because she has voted to uphold blatant racial discrimination. Remember this story? A city in Connecticut denied promotions to the firefighters who did best on a test of job-related skills because none of them were black. She upheld the decision.
Is she even qualified? Well, she's been in the courts for a long time, but almost all of her rulings that went to the Supreme Court (80%) were overturned, a couple of them unanimously.
She has already admitted that she is incapable of being impartial: "Our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that -- it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others."
People are going to read this and say, "Oh, come on, she's just being realistic." Um, no she's not. The Law doesn't change based on how she feels about it. In fact, The Law is the only thing for which a judge should have any partiality. I don't care what your life experiences are. As a Supreme Court Justice, your job is to uphold the Constitution. Period. But no, she is an activist. We already know that she said the courts are "where policy is made," and then laughed and admitted she shouldn't have said that on tape.
I think Mike Huckabee said it best on his blog: "The notion that appellate court decisions are to be interpreted by the 'feelings' of the judge is a direct affront of the basic premise of our judicial system that is supposed to apply the law without personal emotion. If she is confirmed, then we need to take the blindfold off Lady Justice."
Here is a link to a great article about this pick, which features a few more frightening quotes from Sotomayor about why a Hispanic woman is inherently a better judge than a white man.
Friday, May 8, 2009
The Political Insanity of Harry Reid
Here is a doozy of a quote from Harry Reid on the Today Show:
"Well, I personally would like to see us get away from the idea that you have to be a judge to be a Supreme Court justice. I think we could get a governor or a senator or a former senator - people with some real life experiences for a while, rather than these people who walk around in black robes all the time."
Yeah, that would be ridiculous. Why would you want a person with actual judicial experience to get a job as one of the most important and powerful judges in the country? Seriously, Harry. You're a retard. Here's why...
1) Judges tend to know the law better than anyone else. A Supreme Court justice is a judge in the highest court in the country. Personally, I think someone with experience as a judge (who, ya know, knows the law) would kind of be an ideal choice. Call me crazy.
2) He said he wants us to "get away from the idea that you have to be a judge to be a Supreme Court justice." In my opinion, that's like saying the Attorney General should not have a law degree. Or that the Surgeon General should have no medical experience. Or that the president should not have any experience in executive leadership. Oh, wait...
3) He thinks that senators have more "life experience" than judges? Really? Does he think that sitting around in Congress for 25 years gives someone a diverse set of life experiences? (Hint: it doesn't) Also, it's not like judges walk around all day long in their robes and sleep in the courthouse. I'm pretty sure they have lives too.
Oh, and good ol' Harry ended his interview with this little gem about choosing the justice:
"I feel comfortable that [Obama's] choice will be as good as his cabinet selection."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
"Well, I personally would like to see us get away from the idea that you have to be a judge to be a Supreme Court justice. I think we could get a governor or a senator or a former senator - people with some real life experiences for a while, rather than these people who walk around in black robes all the time."
Yeah, that would be ridiculous. Why would you want a person with actual judicial experience to get a job as one of the most important and powerful judges in the country? Seriously, Harry. You're a retard. Here's why...
1) Judges tend to know the law better than anyone else. A Supreme Court justice is a judge in the highest court in the country. Personally, I think someone with experience as a judge (who, ya know, knows the law) would kind of be an ideal choice. Call me crazy.
2) He said he wants us to "get away from the idea that you have to be a judge to be a Supreme Court justice." In my opinion, that's like saying the Attorney General should not have a law degree. Or that the Surgeon General should have no medical experience. Or that the president should not have any experience in executive leadership. Oh, wait...
3) He thinks that senators have more "life experience" than judges? Really? Does he think that sitting around in Congress for 25 years gives someone a diverse set of life experiences? (Hint: it doesn't) Also, it's not like judges walk around all day long in their robes and sleep in the courthouse. I'm pretty sure they have lives too.
Oh, and good ol' Harry ended his interview with this little gem about choosing the justice:
"I feel comfortable that [Obama's] choice will be as good as his cabinet selection."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Yes, maybe the new justice will also be a tax cheat.
Friday, May 1, 2009
The Supreme Court (of Social Justice)
Supreme Court justice David Souter is retiring. He was never really much of a conservative anyway, so I don't really care that he's leaving. However, his exit gives Obama the opportunity to make a nomination, and that is troublesome. Most of the media has been hoping for him to nominate Sonia Sotomayor, a Hispanic appellate court judge. Why do they want her, you ask? Well, they want her because she's a woman. And because she's Hispanic, and she would be the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court. See for yourself...
"President Obama has said that he wants to add another woman to the court. I would say the leading candidate is Judge Sonia Sotomayor. She would be not only a woman but the first Hispanic." - George Stephanopoulos (ABC)
"...the pressure to appoint a woman. But the Hispanic community really would like to see the first ever Hispanic Supreme Court justice." - Chuck Todd (NBC)
"A lot of pressure to appoint a woman, lot of pressure to appoint a Hispanic, the first Hispanic. How about a twofer: Sonia Sotomayor, you know, an appeals court judge and Hispanic woman. You heard it here first." - Chris Wallace (Fox)
Clearly I'm not just making this up. They want her because she is a Hispanic woman. Of course, my question is this: Who freaking cares if she is a Hispanic woman? Does that make her a better judge? Does her race or gender have anything to do whatsoever with her knowledge of law or the Constitution? No! Just like Obama being black has absolutely nothing to do with his ability (or inability) to govern! It's all meaningless. Liberals always pretend to be so big on racial and gender equality. Well, how does picking someone based on race and gender promote equality? Attitudes like this are what prevent our society from finally becoming colorblind.
The fact is, this opportunity has nothing to do with supporting the law or the Constitution. It has to do with Obama pushing his leftist ideology. He's even admitted that much. Check out these quotes...
"Sometimes we're only looking at academics or people who have been in the courts. If we can find people who have life experience and they understand what it means to be on the outside, what it means to have the system not work for them, that's the kind of person I want on the Supreme Court." - Obama in 2007
"We need somebody who's got the empathy to recognize what it's like to be a young teenaged mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled." - Obama in 2008
"The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in the society." - Obama in 2001, listing the "failures" of the civil rights movement
I don't mean to sound callous, but the law should be blind, cold, and emotionless. The law isn't about feelings and empathy. I can empathize with a guy whose wife left him. But if that same guy bought a gun and murdered his wife in retaliation, he'd still be guilty. Obama doesn't care about the law. He wants the courts to redistribute wealth and delve into the liberal views of economic and social justice. And as I said before, that is troublesome.
"President Obama has said that he wants to add another woman to the court. I would say the leading candidate is Judge Sonia Sotomayor. She would be not only a woman but the first Hispanic." - George Stephanopoulos (ABC)
"...the pressure to appoint a woman. But the Hispanic community really would like to see the first ever Hispanic Supreme Court justice." - Chuck Todd (NBC)
"A lot of pressure to appoint a woman, lot of pressure to appoint a Hispanic, the first Hispanic. How about a twofer: Sonia Sotomayor, you know, an appeals court judge and Hispanic woman. You heard it here first." - Chris Wallace (Fox)
Clearly I'm not just making this up. They want her because she is a Hispanic woman. Of course, my question is this: Who freaking cares if she is a Hispanic woman? Does that make her a better judge? Does her race or gender have anything to do whatsoever with her knowledge of law or the Constitution? No! Just like Obama being black has absolutely nothing to do with his ability (or inability) to govern! It's all meaningless. Liberals always pretend to be so big on racial and gender equality. Well, how does picking someone based on race and gender promote equality? Attitudes like this are what prevent our society from finally becoming colorblind.
The fact is, this opportunity has nothing to do with supporting the law or the Constitution. It has to do with Obama pushing his leftist ideology. He's even admitted that much. Check out these quotes...
"Sometimes we're only looking at academics or people who have been in the courts. If we can find people who have life experience and they understand what it means to be on the outside, what it means to have the system not work for them, that's the kind of person I want on the Supreme Court." - Obama in 2007
"We need somebody who's got the empathy to recognize what it's like to be a young teenaged mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled." - Obama in 2008
"The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in the society." - Obama in 2001, listing the "failures" of the civil rights movement
I don't mean to sound callous, but the law should be blind, cold, and emotionless. The law isn't about feelings and empathy. I can empathize with a guy whose wife left him. But if that same guy bought a gun and murdered his wife in retaliation, he'd still be guilty. Obama doesn't care about the law. He wants the courts to redistribute wealth and delve into the liberal views of economic and social justice. And as I said before, that is troublesome.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
A Lesson From King Arthur
I recently finished writing a paper about heroism in Arthurian literature. The last portion of my paper was about The Once and Future King by T.H. White, and if you haven't read it, I recommend it. Anyway, as we hear about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the terrorists at Guantanamo, and the controversy over waterboarding, I started thinking about this book.
You see, throughout the entire novel, King Arthur tries to put an end to war and the barbaric idea that "only Might makes Right." He struggles with this his entire life, then ultimately fails as his kingdom collapses around him.
In the last chapter, as Arthur is about to enter the final battle with the traitor Mordred, he looks back and ponders his kingdom. He wonders why his dream failed and why war was inevitable:
"He had been taught by Merlyn to believe that man was perfectible: that he was on the whole more decent than beastly: that good was worth trying: that there was no such thing as original sin. He had been forged as a weapon for the aid of man, on the assumption that men were good...His Table, his idea of Chivalry, his Holy Grail, his devotion to Justice: these had been progressive steps in the effort for which he had been bred...but the whole structure depended on the first premise: that man was decent."
The tragedy of "The Once and Future King" is Arthur's final realization: that man is NOT decent. On the whole, man is selfish, greedy, and violent. It's been this way since the Fall, and it won't change until the Second Coming. It's easy to be idealistic when it comes to war and violence. It's easy to say things like, "Give peace a chance!" and "Make love, not war!" But the sad reality is that, like Arthur realized, sometimes war is necessary. There is Evil in this world, and it must be opposed. Don't get me wrong, I think war is a terrible thing. I don't like seeing innocent people die, and I think we should avoid war whenever we can. However, we have to look through the lens of reality.
Is it wrong to make an imprisoned terrorist think he's drowning in order to extract information? Or is it more wrong to treat the same terrorist respectfully, thereby allowing thousands of innocents to die in an attack that would have otherwise been prevented? Is it wrong to invade a nation run by a tyrannical dictator? Or is it more wrong to allow the dictator to continue murdering and oppressing his own people? Is it wrong for soldiers to shoot and kill a bunch of pirates who have kidnapped an innocent ship captain? Maybe there is no right answer to any of this. We live in a world beset by Evil - a world of men who rape, steal, and kill for stupid reasons (or sometimes no reason at all). Most of them can't be bought or reasoned with. These monsters don't capture combatants; they kidnap innocent people and cut off their heads on video for the world to see.
Would you allow waterboarding to save your child's life? I imagine most people would do so in a heartbeat. How about the life of another child? How about the lives of thousands? There is a reason why the show 24 is so popular. Despite what some may say, despite the "holier than thou" idealism some adhere to, deep down everyone knows that we need men like Jack Bauer to protect us. Just as Arthur realized, man is not decent, and until this world is changed and perfected, we have to be able to survive it.
You see, throughout the entire novel, King Arthur tries to put an end to war and the barbaric idea that "only Might makes Right." He struggles with this his entire life, then ultimately fails as his kingdom collapses around him.
In the last chapter, as Arthur is about to enter the final battle with the traitor Mordred, he looks back and ponders his kingdom. He wonders why his dream failed and why war was inevitable:
"He had been taught by Merlyn to believe that man was perfectible: that he was on the whole more decent than beastly: that good was worth trying: that there was no such thing as original sin. He had been forged as a weapon for the aid of man, on the assumption that men were good...His Table, his idea of Chivalry, his Holy Grail, his devotion to Justice: these had been progressive steps in the effort for which he had been bred...but the whole structure depended on the first premise: that man was decent."
The tragedy of "The Once and Future King" is Arthur's final realization: that man is NOT decent. On the whole, man is selfish, greedy, and violent. It's been this way since the Fall, and it won't change until the Second Coming. It's easy to be idealistic when it comes to war and violence. It's easy to say things like, "Give peace a chance!" and "Make love, not war!" But the sad reality is that, like Arthur realized, sometimes war is necessary. There is Evil in this world, and it must be opposed. Don't get me wrong, I think war is a terrible thing. I don't like seeing innocent people die, and I think we should avoid war whenever we can. However, we have to look through the lens of reality.
Is it wrong to make an imprisoned terrorist think he's drowning in order to extract information? Or is it more wrong to treat the same terrorist respectfully, thereby allowing thousands of innocents to die in an attack that would have otherwise been prevented? Is it wrong to invade a nation run by a tyrannical dictator? Or is it more wrong to allow the dictator to continue murdering and oppressing his own people? Is it wrong for soldiers to shoot and kill a bunch of pirates who have kidnapped an innocent ship captain? Maybe there is no right answer to any of this. We live in a world beset by Evil - a world of men who rape, steal, and kill for stupid reasons (or sometimes no reason at all). Most of them can't be bought or reasoned with. These monsters don't capture combatants; they kidnap innocent people and cut off their heads on video for the world to see.
Would you allow waterboarding to save your child's life? I imagine most people would do so in a heartbeat. How about the life of another child? How about the lives of thousands? There is a reason why the show 24 is so popular. Despite what some may say, despite the "holier than thou" idealism some adhere to, deep down everyone knows that we need men like Jack Bauer to protect us. Just as Arthur realized, man is not decent, and until this world is changed and perfected, we have to be able to survive it.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Why Obama Is Bad For America
This is a list that I could easily make much longer, but these are the basic points. This post doesn't include any speculation about what might happen in the future, no statistics on what has and hasn't worked economically, none of that. Just facts, quotes, and lies...
Obama supports affirmative action, despite the fact that it is clearly no longer necessary. I mean, the fact that we now have a black president (the most powerful man in the world) should prove that institutionalized racism no longer exists in America.
Obama wants to turn the 12 million illegal immigrants in America into citizens. He supports giving drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. He voted against making English our official language.
Obama campaigned strongly against lobbyists and said he wouldn't appoint them to his administration, and then he appointed lobbyists to his administration.
Obama ludicrously claimed to be ignorant of the hatred spewed by his own pastor of 20 years and said he "could no more abandon" that pastor than he could his "white grandmother," only to abandon him just a few months later. When confronted with Jeremiah Wright's anti-American, racist worldview, Obama just said he didn't know about it. This is after 20 years in that church, people.
Obama claimed to have little to do with ACORN but actually taught yearly seminars for them.
Obama's website says he will make sure no one pays higher income tax rates "than they paid in the 1990s." Well, just for reference purposes, taxes were higher in the 1990s than they are now.
Obama has specifically said that he wants to implement high carbon taxes that will bankrupt the coal industry. Isn't it nice to hear a president say he wants to make an American business go bankrupt?
Obama opposes private school vouchers, claiming that they would undermine American public schools. Wait, you mean the public schools that produce test scores far below those of most other developed nations? Yeah, we'd hate to undermine that. I guess that's why he sends his own kids to private school.
Obama doesn't think that homosexuality is immoral.
Obama said that Washington needs to start "taking responsibility for every dime that it spends" so as to avoid leaving our children with a mountain of debt. He also said he doesn't "believe in bigger government." Then he spent more money than any president in history on a "stimulus" program and a $3.66 trillion budget, which are both absolutely filled with pork spending.
Obama supported the Global Poverty Act, which is basically worldwide welfare. We don't even have enough money for our own people, but he wants us to send a bunch of it to other countries. Nice.
Obama said, "Because of the Bush-McCain policies, our debt has ballooned" and "having China as our banker isn’t good for our economy." Then he went out and essentially begged China to give us more money for his spending programs.
Obama is the most pro-abortion president in history. He voted against the Born Alive Infants Bill, which protects babies who survive botched late-term abortions. Several members of his administration were former board members of Emily's List, a pro-abortion group who supports taxpayer-funded abortions and partial-birth abortion. He has forced taxpayers to fund groups that either promote or perform abortions in other nations. He is also in the process of overturning pro-life conscience protections put in place to make sure medical staff are not forced to do abortions.
Since being elected, Obama has basically been running around the world and apologizing to everyone for everything. He seems to think that America is at fault for every world problem, so he just bows, apologizes, and gets friendly with fascist dictators like Hugo Chavez (who wants to "be his friend").
Lastly, the Obama administration recently released a report warning people of the dangers of domestic terrorism from "right-wing extremists." According to the report, these extremists include people who are pro-life, people who want low taxes and a small government, people who support the right to bear arms, and military veterans. That's right, if you are a conservative, you just may be a terrorist. This comes from the people who refuse to use the word "terrorist" in association with actual Islamic terrorists! This comes from the man who started his political career in the home of a left-wing radical who bombed government buildings! And now, WE are the ones being investigated by the FBI.
Obama supports affirmative action, despite the fact that it is clearly no longer necessary. I mean, the fact that we now have a black president (the most powerful man in the world) should prove that institutionalized racism no longer exists in America.
Obama wants to turn the 12 million illegal immigrants in America into citizens. He supports giving drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. He voted against making English our official language.
Obama campaigned strongly against lobbyists and said he wouldn't appoint them to his administration, and then he appointed lobbyists to his administration.
Obama ludicrously claimed to be ignorant of the hatred spewed by his own pastor of 20 years and said he "could no more abandon" that pastor than he could his "white grandmother," only to abandon him just a few months later. When confronted with Jeremiah Wright's anti-American, racist worldview, Obama just said he didn't know about it. This is after 20 years in that church, people.
Obama claimed to have little to do with ACORN but actually taught yearly seminars for them.
Obama's website says he will make sure no one pays higher income tax rates "than they paid in the 1990s." Well, just for reference purposes, taxes were higher in the 1990s than they are now.
Obama has specifically said that he wants to implement high carbon taxes that will bankrupt the coal industry. Isn't it nice to hear a president say he wants to make an American business go bankrupt?
Obama opposes private school vouchers, claiming that they would undermine American public schools. Wait, you mean the public schools that produce test scores far below those of most other developed nations? Yeah, we'd hate to undermine that. I guess that's why he sends his own kids to private school.
Obama doesn't think that homosexuality is immoral.
Obama said that Washington needs to start "taking responsibility for every dime that it spends" so as to avoid leaving our children with a mountain of debt. He also said he doesn't "believe in bigger government." Then he spent more money than any president in history on a "stimulus" program and a $3.66 trillion budget, which are both absolutely filled with pork spending.
Obama supported the Global Poverty Act, which is basically worldwide welfare. We don't even have enough money for our own people, but he wants us to send a bunch of it to other countries. Nice.
Obama said, "Because of the Bush-McCain policies, our debt has ballooned" and "having China as our banker isn’t good for our economy." Then he went out and essentially begged China to give us more money for his spending programs.
Obama is the most pro-abortion president in history. He voted against the Born Alive Infants Bill, which protects babies who survive botched late-term abortions. Several members of his administration were former board members of Emily's List, a pro-abortion group who supports taxpayer-funded abortions and partial-birth abortion. He has forced taxpayers to fund groups that either promote or perform abortions in other nations. He is also in the process of overturning pro-life conscience protections put in place to make sure medical staff are not forced to do abortions.
Since being elected, Obama has basically been running around the world and apologizing to everyone for everything. He seems to think that America is at fault for every world problem, so he just bows, apologizes, and gets friendly with fascist dictators like Hugo Chavez (who wants to "be his friend").
Lastly, the Obama administration recently released a report warning people of the dangers of domestic terrorism from "right-wing extremists." According to the report, these extremists include people who are pro-life, people who want low taxes and a small government, people who support the right to bear arms, and military veterans. That's right, if you are a conservative, you just may be a terrorist. This comes from the people who refuse to use the word "terrorist" in association with actual Islamic terrorists! This comes from the man who started his political career in the home of a left-wing radical who bombed government buildings! And now, WE are the ones being investigated by the FBI.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Someone PLEASE explain this to me...
Okay, so the Tea Party Protests went pretty well on April 15th. I didn't hear any reports of ACORN or their lackeys trying to start fights or whatever, and the rallies all seemed to be good, peaceful displays of patriotism. The news coverage was just as I expected. Fox News went out and covered the protests, and big conservative guys like Glenn Beck joined in and enjoyed themselves. No big surprise there.
And then, of course, there were the OTHER news networks. Everyone always accuses Fox of being biased toward conservatism (aka "biased toward truth"), but do CNN and the others not see how ridiculously left-wing they are? I watched videos of anchors reporting on the protests. They didn't say, "Tell me sir, why are you here? What do you believe is the problem?" No. Instead, they ambushed people and said stuff like, "Sir, how on earth can you protest taxes when President Obama has given 95% of America a tax cut? You don't make any sense, you nut-job."
That was basically the sentiment. I saw tons of news anchors calling the protesters "tea baggers" (and if you don't know what that means in slang, look it up on Urban Dictionary). I saw CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, RollingStone, ABC News, and everyone else just making fun of the protests and the people who attended. I saw the head of the DHS basically telling everyone that the people who attend these rallies (who support low taxes, pro-life, gun rights, veterans, etc.) could be domestic terrorists. Basically, it was sickening.
But here is the main question. All these anchors keep saying, "But Obama gave 95% of America a tax cut!" NO HE DIDN'T. Obama did NOT cut taxes. The tax rates have not changed one iota. In fact, once he lets the Bush tax cuts expire, everyone who makes at least $28,400 per year will see their taxes go UP! Oh, and by the way, the average income in the US is somewhere between $35K and $40K per year. So yeah, that's a tax increase on the majority.
Aside from the end of the Bush tax cuts, we'll also pay more because Obama plans to pass that retarded cap-and-trade program, which will raise energy prices for everyone. Plus, he'll have to further raise taxes at some point to pay for his insane, runaway spending programs. More spending than any president in history, and in less time! Hooray!
If you send me back $400 of the money I paid last year in taxes, than that's a tax REFUND. If you send a check for $400 to someone from the 40% of the population who pays no income taxes, then that's WELFARE. It's SOCIALISM. It's certainly not a tax cut.
So someone please explain this to me! How is it that our news media runs around saying that Obama cut taxes even though he has done nothing of the sort? I know he promised a tax cut for 95% of the population during the campaign, but he hasn't done it. Promise does not equal Reality. What is wrong with everyone? Doesn't anyone THINK anymore? Or has the cult of the glorious lord Obama made them too blind too see anything else? Ugh, I just don't get it.
And then, of course, there were the OTHER news networks. Everyone always accuses Fox of being biased toward conservatism (aka "biased toward truth"), but do CNN and the others not see how ridiculously left-wing they are? I watched videos of anchors reporting on the protests. They didn't say, "Tell me sir, why are you here? What do you believe is the problem?" No. Instead, they ambushed people and said stuff like, "Sir, how on earth can you protest taxes when President Obama has given 95% of America a tax cut? You don't make any sense, you nut-job."
That was basically the sentiment. I saw tons of news anchors calling the protesters "tea baggers" (and if you don't know what that means in slang, look it up on Urban Dictionary). I saw CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, RollingStone, ABC News, and everyone else just making fun of the protests and the people who attended. I saw the head of the DHS basically telling everyone that the people who attend these rallies (who support low taxes, pro-life, gun rights, veterans, etc.) could be domestic terrorists. Basically, it was sickening.
But here is the main question. All these anchors keep saying, "But Obama gave 95% of America a tax cut!" NO HE DIDN'T. Obama did NOT cut taxes. The tax rates have not changed one iota. In fact, once he lets the Bush tax cuts expire, everyone who makes at least $28,400 per year will see their taxes go UP! Oh, and by the way, the average income in the US is somewhere between $35K and $40K per year. So yeah, that's a tax increase on the majority.
Aside from the end of the Bush tax cuts, we'll also pay more because Obama plans to pass that retarded cap-and-trade program, which will raise energy prices for everyone. Plus, he'll have to further raise taxes at some point to pay for his insane, runaway spending programs. More spending than any president in history, and in less time! Hooray!
If you send me back $400 of the money I paid last year in taxes, than that's a tax REFUND. If you send a check for $400 to someone from the 40% of the population who pays no income taxes, then that's WELFARE. It's SOCIALISM. It's certainly not a tax cut.
So someone please explain this to me! How is it that our news media runs around saying that Obama cut taxes even though he has done nothing of the sort? I know he promised a tax cut for 95% of the population during the campaign, but he hasn't done it. Promise does not equal Reality. What is wrong with everyone? Doesn't anyone THINK anymore? Or has the cult of the glorious lord Obama made them too blind too see anything else? Ugh, I just don't get it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
