Saturday, March 28, 2009

Democrats: Party of Evil

Democrats: The Party of Evil
You know, during an important time of my life I was a left-wing Democrat: I believed in everything they did, from a pro-abortion stance to redistribution of wealth from the wealthy to the poor. However, reality finally overcame all my idealism and I began to see the world for what it really is, not what it could or should be. That was the major reason I left the Democrat party in the early 1990s. Now, the US liberals have become utterly evil. The reason I say this is because of the following:

Democrats are anti-military: they have insisted on taking pictures of US soldiers returning from Iraq in coffins, have always sought to gut the US military capability because they believed (wrongly) that if the US had power-projection abilities within the US military, it would be used, and have vilified Marines and other valiant soldiers by attacking recruiting offices in major cities around the country as well as trying their best to kick off ROTC from universities and even from high schools.

Democrats are anti-religious: unless you are a pagan, atheist, or muslim, you are an enemy of the liberals in America. They hate and despise religious Americans, especially Christians and Catholics. Look at the "bad guys" in movies and TV shows from Hollywood; almost always they are shown to be "evil Christians" intent on killing you or oppressing you; as if leftist don't oppress anyone or coerce people to their viewpoint! In fact, liberals and leftists are waging an all-out war against their fellow Americans because they are utterly intolerant of their Christian neighbors. Its pure and total hatred, and such thoughts and actions are evil, wrong, and just plain un-American. The godless flock to the Democratic party in the USA; they are a party that enjoys evil, and the pain and suffering of people that its okay to hate. In the 2008 election, over 90% of atheists voted for the Democrats, thus proving my point using simple statistics.

Democrats are anti-life: only the leftists in the USA have pursued a pro-death agenda, seeking to destroy as many humans as possible through abortion, infanticide, and the killing of the elderly, the handicapped, and the terminally ill. They even approve of "Tiller the Baby Killer", who aborted over eleven thousand 7, 8, and 9 month old babies in the womb (for $5,000 each). He was even supported by the governor of Kansas, Kathleen Sabelius, who received money from Tiller's baby killing mill. Democrats seek to kill babies while freeing criminals from death row, a shocking thought if you just let it sink in. They wish to free to guilty and punish or kill the innocent, an evil act by any measure. Even now Democratic groups support pro-death laws like assisted suicide; the problem is when the state has to pay too much for a persons' health care, they make them take the suicide pill instead (this happened in Oregon last year). In fact, abortionists have killed over 45 million people in America alone, mass genocide in my mind and the mind of God.

Democrats are anti-technology: from wanting to blow up the vital dams in Washington state so that the fish can be happy (dams that stop terrific flooding in the area, provide year-long water to create huge food resources, and generate 4,000 megawatts of power) to trying to keep anyone from creating power from other than "renewable" sources. These renewable sources are ineffective and their single-minded promotion is the beginning of a neo-Luddite movement (anti-technology) in this country. In fact, "green" Democrats seem to think that anything humans do is evil, that we are evil. That sort of thinking IS evil. Human beings are great, are creative, and can be wonderful not just all bad. The hatred of humanity and its works sounds exactly like the way Satan thinks: he hates humans, children, and anything we accomplish. He is the most perfect, most vicious hater and apparently he has many disciples in the Democratic party. Here is another example of anti-technological thinking: there is a huge move away from bottled water, which is stupid. Not only does jointly sharing water sources spread all sorts of diseases like typhus and cholera but its important for Americans to drink more water, and less soda. These Luddite Cassandras whine about the impact of plastic on the environment, but since they are such backward-looking people they cannot see simple facts like within a few months or years, scientists will create a plastic eating bug that will easily burrow into waste landfills and eat the plastic that these anti-tech fanatics say will be around for thousands of years afterward. They don't want anyone to use anything that advances human life on this planet because they hate human progress if it disturbs a single butterfly: message is "bugs are more important than people".

Democrats are anti-science: from their foolish anti-tech fanaticism to declaring that the "debate on global warming is over", Democrats refuse to see the truth, or hearing about it from someone else. Their bizarre anti-science viewpoint will not believe that the Sun is actually heating both the Earth and Mars up, nothing Man is doing. The blind faith they put into the science that proves their beliefs, and their refusal to even consider any other information is anti-scientific in of itself. In fact, Michael Crichton said that the propaganda and lies pouring out of the Left is destroying scientific truth across the globe, that a new persecution of anyone who believes different is coming, and that is a new mindless ideological (and godless) Spanish Inquisition. Democrats refuse to see even simple answers to basic problems facing our nation and the world because it doesn't fit into their worldview. They are statist, pure evil because they fly in the face of whatever is true and good and right.

Democrats are anti-energy: from opposing fuels that are readily available (oil and natural gas) to opposing nuclear power, the Democratic party is wedded to an anti-energy ideology. The Big Lie in the 1970s and 1980s was "acid rain", but that was disproven so they had to move to something else: CFCs and carbon pollution. The real truth was CFCs never destroyed the ozone layer, the hole over the South Pole is a naturally occurring event that comes and goes, regardless of CFC levels. So too is the carbon ponzi scheme, a enormous evil lie that is only a meant to shift wealth from rich nations to poor nations; a radical scam. Energy policy in the USA is being run by a bunch of fanatics who hate human progress, so they will stop it by using these retro tactics.

Democrats are anti-family: from promoting radical homosexual agendas that leave little room for traditional families to zero efforts in promoting pro-family values or policies, the Democratic party has decided to wage war on the traditional family. The hatred spewed at this group of people by so many radicals on the Left is so sickening that decent minded people cannot watch these attacks for long. They will take up arms and fight to defend themselves and their families. In these efforts, the Democrats have shown to everyone whose side they are actually on; by promoting abortions for under-aged teens to encouraging books like "My Two Dads", it is clear they have an agenda, and God help you if you get in their way.

These issue listed above is why I have come to believe that the Democratic party is evil; it embraces evil and calls those things that are good "evil". They are twisted in their thinking and they pursue darkness, drinking it down like water. In the end, the Book of Revelation tells what happens to all these people that hate God, that hate what is good: they spend forever in eternal torment, in darkness because they love the darkness, being consumed by evil because they wanted evil. It's a sad testimony about a once-great party.


Obama "soaks the rich": churches, day cares, and homeless shelters
March 28, 2009

President Obama's glib assertion that his reduction in tax deductions will not reduce donations is absurd. His pathetic defense at his press conference - that he would still give a $100 dollar check to charity even if he only got $11 less of tax deduction from it was both disingenuous and beside the point. And his comment that his reduced deduction would only impact one or two percent of the nation misses the point that it is these folks who are doing almost half of the donating.

In 2006, the most recent year for which data is available, four million taxpayers had adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 or more. They comprised 3% of the tax returns, made 31% of the income, but donated 44% of all charitable contributions. Together, they provided charity with $81 billion in that year. Obama's plan will cost them $10 billion in extra taxes on the income they allocated to charitable donations. How can the president be so glibly certain that they will not curtail their charitable contributions by a like amount or even more?

Imagine all the harm Obama's program will cause. Churches will be hit most hard. They account for the largest share of charitable donations, but universities, disease research, hospitals, soup kitchens, and cultural institutions will also be hard hit. So will international relief efforts that funnel aid abroad through churches or directly.

It is totally dishonest for Obama to pretend that his curtailment of these deductions won't hurt the poor. It will most directly impact them since most of the charities Obama is hurting focus on helping the impoverished. This proposal is not about saving money. It is about controlling it. By, in effect, transferring at least $11 billion a year from private philanthropy to government spending, Obama empowers the public sector at the expense of the voluntary one.

President Obama's recommended reduction in the tax deduction for charitable giving reflects his fundamental belief that only the government can or should help the poor. He wants to keep the impoverished directly dependent on the government - and the Democratic Party - for their daily bread.

The voluntary sector has always been the backbone of compassion in the United States. Our charitable donations dwarf those of any other country. And our system of tax deductions for giving permits us to decide what charities are worthy of our generosity - a decision Obama will transfer to the politicians under his program.

Welfare For Jihadists?
The Obama Administration is the “gift that just keeps on giving.” National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, speaking about those prisoners at Guantanamo Bay (GITMO) who are likely to be released in the United States under new policies adopted by Obama, pointed out that the prisoners would have to get some sort of welfare to help them start their new lives in the good old US of A. Director Blair apparently thought about this quite a lot and concluded, “We can’t put them out on the street.”

It must be very hard for our enemies to fully understand American liberals. Try to put yourself in their shoes for a moment: First, you are captured on the battlefield where you are trying to kill U.S. soldiers. Then you are imprisoned at GITMO and immediately provided expert medical attention and better nutrition than ever before. Soon lawyers from some of Washington’s most prestigious law firms offer to represent you free of charge.

Then a president is elected who went to a “church” for 20 years whose pastor loved to shout “God D - - - America” from the pulpit. Finally, you are told that the president intends to release you inside the country you dream will be destroyed some day, and the Director of National Intelligence wants you to be paid a stipend by those dreadful infidel taxpayers so that you can adjust to your new life. And just last week, that same president was floating the idea of taking away some health benefits from the soldiers who captured you!

While I ponder the meaning of all this tonight, I intend to stop by Arlington National Cemetery for a reality check.

Terror On The Border
In recent months many news sources have documented the terror on the U.S./Mexican border – 8,000 deaths in the past two years and hundreds of beheadings in a vicious war being waged by brutal drug lords. It is spilling over into American communities, and the Obama Administration is dragging its feet in responding. Today’s Washington Times should prod them considerably.

The Times interviewed Michael Braun, a former assistant administrator and chief of operations at the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), in its shocking front-page report today. According to Braun, the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah is working hand-in-hand with Mexican drug smugglers. For now, Hezbollah is using drug money to help finance terror operations in the Middle East.

But, Braun warns, “They [Hezbollah and the drug lords] work together. They rely on the same facilitators. One way or another, they are all connected. They’ll leverage those relationships to their benefit, to smuggle contraband and humans into the U.S.; in fact, they already are.” Today, it’s drugs and money. Tomorrow, terrorists and bombs.

As I have often stated in the past, border security is homeland security. Neither should be a partisan issue, left/right issue, Republican/Democrat issue. Terrorists don’t ask to check voter ID cards before committing their atrocities.


Another Withdrawal
Another week has gone by and another Obama nominee has withdrawn his name from consideration for public service. Jonathan Cannon, nominated to be deputy director of the EPA, bowed out of the process this week after questions arose about America’s Clean Water Foundation. Cannon had served on the foundation’s board, but the foundation shut down after a 2007 EPA audit charged it with gross mismanagement of taxpayer funds.

The foundation received a $25 million grant from the EPA to study environmental risks at meat processing plants. But, according to the Los Angeles Times, “EPA auditors questioned the foundation’s accounting for almost all that money and alluded to allegations of embezzlement.”

Whoever is responsible for vetting President Obama’s nominees needs to withdraw!

Monday, March 23, 2009

Obama, Israel, and "the Joke"

Terrorists Coming To Your Neighborhood
When President Obama followed through on his promise to order the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay shut down, many wondered exactly what the president intended to do with the thugs still there. Now we are getting some clues. Attorney General Eric Holder admitted to reporters yesterday that the Obama Administration may release inside the United States some terror suspects currently being held at GITMO.

Holder said they would look at the prisoners on a case-by-case basis and determine which ones should be put on trial and which ones should be released. Among the possible outcomes, he added, “is the possibility that we could release them into this country.” Will everyone who wants a former GITMO prisoner as a neighbor raise their hand? What -- no takers? This president and his appointees have been sold to the American people as the brightest crew ever to run the country. In addition to their IQ, could we have a little more common sense?

Terror Attack On Israel Fails
A terrorist effort to kill hundreds of Israelis in Haifa Saturday was narrowly avoided. A 200-pound car bomb, packed with ball bearings intended to rip through flesh, malfunctioned near a crowded shopping mall. The bomb was intended to go off following the end of the Jewish Sabbath, when the mall would have been filled with families. Thank God for this miracle.

But I can’t help but think how the reality of what was planned completely contradicts President Obama’s na├»ve and dangerous foreign policy. Since taking office, President Obama has bowed to Iran, did his first major TV interview with an Arab network, pledged a billion dollars in aid to the Palestinians in Gaza and has been hypercritical of Israel. Yet, in spite of the president’s “engagement and diplomacy,” the enemies of the United States and Israel did everything they could this weekend to kill countless civilians. The chances are very good that this bomb was constructed with some form of help from Iran. This is how the Islamic Republic responded to Obama’s video “olive branch” of “mutual respect.”

If the attack had been successful, I have no doubt that Secretary of State Clinton would have expressed her sorrow and President Obama would have said that terrorism was unacceptable. But in short order, the dead Israelis would have been forgotten and the world, including our White House, would have continued its constant demands that Israel make more concessions and give up more land for peace. Fortunately, this bomb failed. Unfortunately, the next one and the one after that probably won’t. No amount of appeasement will stop these thugs.

What’s So Funny?
I don’t know how many of you happened to tune in to Obama’s 60 Minutes interview, but it was a surreal event. President Obama was talking about the precarious position of the United States and the rest of the world as a result of the global economic crisis. He was warning that we still faced the possibility of “an even more destructive recession or potentially a depression.” And through it all, the president just kept on laughing – as though he had forgotten that this was 60 Minutes and not Jay Leno. The president’s odd demeanor got the attention of CBS’s veteran journalist Steve Kroft. At one point during the interview, Kroft asked the president of the United States: “You’re sitting here. And you’re – you are laughing. You are laughing about some of these problems. Are people going to look at this and say, ‘I mean, he’s sitting there just making jokes about money.’ …Are you punch-drunk?”

That question may well be another “first” for President Obama. It’s certainly the first time I recall a president being asked if he was “punch-drunk.” But President Obama brushed it off with a laugh, saying, “No. No. There’s gotta be a little gallows humor to get you through the day.” Maybe so. But I suspect, rather than “gallows humor,” most Americans would appreciate steady leadership that is focused on the crisis at hand. Instead, Obama is jumping from one massive Big Government initiative to the next, while admitting that the economy stands on the brink of “an even more destructive recession or potentially a depression.”

No Joke
The Congressional Budget Office issued its analysis of President Obama’s budget this week, and it blew away the White House’s estimates concerning the full impact of the president’s budget on the national debt. “Red Ink Red Alert” was the headline to a weekend editorial in the Washington Post. “Obama Sticker Shock” is how the Wall Street Journal described the CBO report today. If you thought spending was out of control during the last eight years, consider this from the Associated Press, “President Barack Obama’s budget would produce $9.3 trillion in deficits over the next decade, more than four times the deficits of Republican George W. Bush’s presidency.”

Senator Judd Gregg, the ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, responded to the CBO report, saying, “The practical implications of [Obama’s budget] is bankruptcy for the United States. There’s no other way around it. If we maintain the proposals which are in this budget…this country will go bankrupt.” So far the administration has been cavalier in its reaction, dismissing the CBO report and indicating that it has no plans whatsoever to cutback on spending. That leaves only one option: massive tax hikes on everyone – and that’s nothing to laugh about!

Thursday, March 05, 2009

US Disaster Coming

Clueless and Classless
The election of Barack Obama was hailed as a great opportunity to restore America’s respect in the world. Yet, his diplomatic efforts so far have been clueless and classless. One of the first things Obama did when he took office was return a bust of Winston Churchill that had been given to President Bush by British Prime Minister Tony Blair after 9/11. As Britain stood by our side during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Churchill bust stood in the Oval Office throughout George W. Bush’s presidency. Needless to say, many Britons were shocked when Barack booted Winston from the White House.

This week, Obama had an opportunity for a “redo” when Prime Minister Gordon Brown visited Washington. Unfortunately, President Obama again snubbed our ally with behavior that one British columnist described as “very odd and, frankly, exceptionally rude.” First, the White House denied the prime minister a formal press conference. Only once in more than a dozen meetings with Tony Blair did George W. Bush not grant the British prime minister such an honor, and that exception occurred during a hastily arranged visit after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Instead, Obama and Brown sat briefly together in the Oval Office in what the Washington Post described as “a chilly reception.” But the worst was yet to come.

It is customary for heads of state to exchange gifts when they meet, and Prime Minister Brown presented President Obama with a pen holder carved from the wood of the HMS Gannet. The Gannet was engaged in anti-slavery and piracy missions for a time off the coast of Sudan. She was the sister ship of the HMS Resolute. The wood of that ship was used to make the Resolute Desk, which was a gift from Queen Victoria to President Hayes in 1880. It is instantly recognizable as the magnificent desk that currently sits in the Oval Office.

Clearly, considerable care and thought were given to the gift Prime Minister Brown would present to President Obama. What did our president give the prime minister in return? Here’s how the U.K.’s Daily Mail put it: “For despite being leader of the world’s most bountiful nation, President Obama handed over nothing more thought-provoking than 25 classic American films on DVD. It was the equivalent of receiving a pair of socks from an unfamiliar aunt at Christmas -- and a less-than-glowing affirmation of the UK-US bond.”

Obama’s War On Energy
On Monday, hundreds of global warming protestors came to Washington, D.C., to demonstrate against Capitol Hill’s coal-fired power plant. The same day, Speaker Nancy Pelosi was scheduled to address the environmental activists at a Capitol Hill rally. Evidently, Mother Nature didn’t get the memo. A major snow storm forced the cancellation of Pelosi’s flight back to Washington, and temperatures hovered around freezing throughout the day, well below the average for early March. On the same day, Discovery News reported that yet another study found that “global temperatures have flatlined since 2001.” The scientists are stumped. Kyle Swanson of the University of Wisconsin said, “This is nothing like anything we’ve seen since the 1950s. Cooling events since then had firm causes… This current cooling doesn’t have one.” The study’s author suggests that the cooling trend “could continue for up to 30 years.”

This is particularly noteworthy because Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was on Capitol Hill yesterday testifying in defense of the administration’s planned tax hikes, including its $650 billion carbon cap-and-trade tax scheme intended partly to combat global warming. During his testimony, Geithner attacked the energy industry for causing global warming and said that the Obama Administration wanted to “change incentives” (manipulate tax policy) for the good of the country.

Because it is a tax on energy production, Obama’s carbon cap-and-trade scheme will produce additional costs that will ripple throughout the economy. The Detroit News published an editorial yesterday warning, “President Barack Obama’s proposed cap-and-trade system on greenhouse gas emissions is a giant economic dagger aimed at the nation’s heartland … [This tax] will drive up the cost of nearly everything and will amount to a major tax increase for American consumers.”

Dr. Margo Thorning, chief economist of the American Council for Capital Formation, told Fox News this week that the Obama carbon tax will cost between “$700 to $1,400 per family, per year…” Where’s the logic in imposing a massive new tax on hard-working families and struggling businesses based on temperature variations that scientists can’t explain?

Coming Next Year: Inflation from Obama
By Dick Morris
Published on on March 3, 2009

In the last five months, according to the Federal Reserve Board, the money supply in the United States has increased by 271 percent. It has almost tripled.

Have car sales tripled? Home purchases? Consumer spending? Corporate investment? Not only have they not tripled, they have all declined more sharply than they have since at least the recession of 1981-82, and perhaps since the Great Depression.

So where is the money? If it isn't being spent, where is it?

It is being parked, squirreled away. Consumers are using it to pay down their credit card balances, pay off their mortgages, reduce their student loans, make the payments on the car sitting in their driveway -- not the one in the dealer's lot. Businesspeople are buying T-bills, investing the money and saving it. They aren't spending, either.

But one day this recession -- despite Obama's best efforts -- will end and things will begin to look up again. Then we can expect all of this money to come out of its parking space and get back on the highway of commerce. All at once. The inevitable result will be double-digit hyperinflation.

Since the spending and borrowing splurge is not confined to Washington, but is being mimicked all over the world, the inflation will not strike just one country but will be global in scope. The first global inflation in our history (except, perhaps, right after World Wars I and II), it will confront our policymakers with yet another unprecedented challenge and send them back, once more, to their economics texts. There, they will find that the only remedy for global inflation is global recession, a la Paul Volker. Having just emerged from a ruinous depression, nobody will be in the mood for more unemployment, but that is just what will have to happen to cool off the inflation and break the inflationary psychology that is likely to set in.

The point of this gloom and doom is that all this pain is entirely preventable. It will be caused by Obama's excessive spending and trillion-dollar-plus deficits. This spending, of questionable utility in overcoming the current recession/depression, is so far out of line with what the economy can handle that it will do more harm than good when the inflation hits.

Proof that his spending will have little impact on the depression is the vast increase in money supply with no commensurate improvement in the economy. Providing money, via spending hikes or tax cuts, does not guarantee that the money will be spent. Tax cuts can be saved and spending increases, while surely spent once (on the initial project), can rapidly lose their multiplier effect as wage-earners on the government payroll bank their money just like those who get tax cuts will do. Getting out of this economic mess depends on consumer and business confidence, a faith that Obama is eroding with his looming tax increases as rapidly as he tries to kindle it with his excessive spending.

None of this should come as any news to Obama. He likely knows all this. But he is determined to pass his agenda of bigger government, nationalized healthcare and vastly greater spending even at the price of inflation and subsequent recession. He puts ideology first and the economy a distant second.

The stock market has figured out his priorities and is responding accordingly. One can only hope that voters also eventually realize what is going on.