This Is A Great Dynamic Presidential Poll Graph

realclearpolitics.com

Once People Realize They Can Vote Themselves Money...

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic". Although found nowhere in the national archives or known writings of Benjamin Franklin, it is widely accepted that he once said "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

egocentral.invisionzone.com

Green Jobs Sink Down Under

In Australia, a hastily assembled $2.7 billion(AUS) plan to insulate over two million homes started in July has led to thousands of lay-offs, the electrocution deaths of four insulation installers, almost 100 house fires, and the demotion of Australia’s Environment Minister – former “Midnight Oil” frontman Peter Garrett. It stretches the imagination to think of a national public policy going any more wrong.

newgeography.com

The Debt Crisis by Neal Boortz

CNBC and the Congressional Budget Office have found that the 10-year outlook for the nations deficit has deteriorated by almost $8 trillion. There was a time .. all the way back when George Bush was president in 2008 .. when the CBO outlook projected a $247 billion SURPLUS for 2009 through 2018. Now we are looking at a $7.4 trillion deficit.

http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2010/03/the-debt-crisis.html

Top 10 Disasters of Obamacare

President Obama recently signed gargantuan health care legislation into law that will have major ramifications for every man, woman, and child in the United States.

This newly enacted law originates from the Senate health care bill (the "Patients Protection and Affordability Act") and a sidecar reconciliation bill that originated in the House. Between these two bills are countless provisions that grow federal spending, increase burdensome taxes, and put federal rules and regulations between Americans and control over their health care.

Outlined here are the 10 major ways in which the Left’s so-called health care reform will hurt Americans.

The Heritage Foundation

Boeing, Lockheed Expect Health-Care Charges

The cost to companies of the landmark U.S. health-care overhaul continued to mount Wednesday as Boeing Co. said it will take a $150 million charge against first-quarter earnings because of tax changes in the legislation.

Also Wednesday, fellow aerospace company Lockheed Martin Corp. estimated that it will take a $96 million charge because of the health-care legislation and expects the charge to reduce per-share earnings by 25 cents in the ...

The Wall Street Journal

Money Talks as Anger Grows

If you live in Salem, follow it to one of the 45 city employees earning $100,000 a year or more - up from 34 just two years ago. The median household income in Salem is less than $60,000.

And it’s driving the rest of us crazy. Listen to the tea partiers or talk radio callers and you’ll hear that their enemy isn’t a single politician like President Barack Obama or Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Their real enemy is government. And at the risk of being declared a terrorist threat - or worse, a Sarah Palin fan - I’d say the tea partiers have that target in their sights.

Nobody’s protesting the idea of everyone having health insurance. What they’re protesting is government-run health insurance, which by the way is already turning into a mess less than a week in. Companies like John Deere and AT&T are projecting huge increases in health care costs.

The government response? Haul the heads of these companies before Congress to beat them up for the sin of committing accurate Obamacare math in public. “Why can’t you just do the right thing and lie,” congressional liberals gripe.

At every turn, Obama has stepped forward on behalf of government and the people who get rich from it. With public union members earning record amounts of your money, Obama used a recess appointment this weekend to stick a radical union activist on the National Labor Relations Board.

Who were the top beneficiaries of the $860 billion (and climbing) “stimulus package”? Government workers, of course. And while the impact of Obamacare on the private sector is still being debated, everyone agrees that the more than 100 new boards, panels and commissions it creates are going to need new boarders, panelers and commissioners.

BostonHerald.com

Younger Americans will see big jump in health premium increases

Younger Americans will see big jump in health premium increases
March 30, 2010 — 1:39pm ET | By Dan Bowman

Americans under the age of 35 can expect their individual health insurance premiums to rise by about 17 percent, or roughly $42 per month, by 2014, according to a RAND Health analysis for the Associated Press.

Under the new health reform law, insurers can charge older customers no more than three times more than they charge younger customers, leaving the younger folks to make up the difference. Prior to health reform, it wasn't uncommon for insurers to charge older customers--who cost more to cover--up to seven times as much as younger customers. Younger males in particular will be affected because they currently pay less than younger females and older people on healthcare, according to Jim O'Connor of consulting firm Milliman Inc.

Landon Gibbs, whose nonprofit ShoutAmerica educates young people about healthcare issues, predicts that some younger people could get socked with up to 50 percent increases.

"We don't want to make this a generational war, but we want to make sure young adults are informed," Gibbs told the AP.

Despite RAND Health's figures, tax credits to offset such costs were not taken into account. Individuals making up to four times the federal poverty level, or $43,322, will be eligible for such credits. Furthermore, individuals ages 26 and younger still will be able to obtain coverage on their parents' plans, and lower-income individuals will be eligible for coverage under Medicaid.

For more information:
- read this Associated Press article
- read this Indiana Daily Student article

Just A Reminder of The Promised $2,500 Savings Per Year By President Obama

Obama Statement Against Offshore Drilling in 2008

Isn't it interesting that in 2008, President Barack Obama was adamantly apposed to offshore drilling, but now it's o.k.? Get ready for Cap & Trade folks! These are the steps to getting your opposition to make concessions.

Obama to allow oil drilling off Virginia coast

Nobel Economist Gary Becker in the WSJ: Drafting A Good Health Care Bill Would Have Been Easy

"The health care legislation is a bad bill. Health care in the United States is pretty good, but it does have a number of weaknesses and this bill doesn't address them. It adds taxation and regulation. It's going to increase health costs—not contain them.

Drafting a good health care bill would have been easy. Health savings accounts could have been expanded. Consumers could have been permitted to purchase insurance across state lines, which would have increased competition among insurers. The tax deductibility of health-care spending could have been extended from employers to individuals, giving the same tax treatment to all consumers. And incentives could have been put in place to prompt consumers to pay a larger portion of their health-care costs out of their own pockets.

Here in the United States we spend about 17% of our GDP on health care, but out-of-pocket expenses make up only about 12% of total health-care spending (see chart above). In Switzerland, where they spend only 11% of GDP on health care, their out-of-pocket expenses equal about 31% of total spending. The difference between 12% and 31% is huge. Once people begin spending substantial sums from their own pockets, they become willing to shop around. Ordinary market incentives begin to operate. A good bill would have encouraged that."

~Nobel economist Gary Becker in the WSJ

Definitions

Socialism

1. political system of communal ownership: a political theory or system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles.

2. movement based on socialism: a political movement based on principles of socialism, typically advocating an end to private property and to the exploitation of workers.

3. stage between capitalism and communism: in Marxist theory, the stage after the proletarian revolution when a society is changing from capitalism to communism, marked by pay distributed according to work done rather than need.

Communism

classless political system: the political theory or system in which all property and wealth is owned in a classless society by all the members of that society.

---

The Differences Between the Two: The Six Shared Truths: It is hard to fully explain the idea of communism compared to socialism (due much to the fact that communists and socialists have never been able to agree upon and solidly establish exactly what distinguishes one from the other) but a few truths are undeniable:

(1) Both communism and socialism have an end utopian goal of complete equality in their ideal state.

(2) Both communism and socialism employ the practice of centralized economic managing and income redistribution as their primary means of working toward this so called "equality."

(3) Both communism and socialism experience the same types of problems in accomplishing this economic managing - the unintended side effect.

(4) Both socialism and communism are structured in such a way that an inherent inequality develops from the administrative top of the power structure for such is necessary to enforce compliance. Such compliance must be mandated in a socialist system due to the fact that human nature creates skepticism, opposition to the control of others, and a desire for free will.

(5) In both systems when this unequal elite inevitably emerges, the concentration of widespread power in a single space must intensify. This naturally attracts individuals seeking widespread power, or it corrupts individuals already in power with the lure of the same widespread power.

(6) As a result of the government structures found in both systems, the intensification of power and control on the upper level necessarily translates into the usurpation of remaining personal freedoms during its expansion.

---

From The 5000 Year Leap

7th PRINCIPLE

The Proper Role of Government is to Protect Equal Rights, Not Provide Equal Things.

"In Europe, during the days of the Founders, it was very popular to proclaim that the role of government was to take from the 'haves' and give to the 'have nots' so that all might be truly 'equal.' However, the American Founders perceived that this proposition contained a huge fallacy.

What Powers Can Be Assigned to Government

The Founders recognized that the people cannot delegate to their government the power to do anything except that which they have the lawful right to do themselves.
For example, every person is entitled to protection of his life and property. Therefore it is perfectly legitimate to delegate to the government the task of setting up a police force to protect the lives and property of all people.
But suppose a kind-hearted man saw that one of his neighbors had two cars while another neighbor had none. What would happen if, in a spirit of benevolence, the kind man went over and took one of the cars from his prosperous neighbor and generously gave it to the neighbor in need? Obviously, he would be arrested for car theft. No matter how kind his intentions, he is guilty of flagrantly violating the natural rights of his prosperous neighbor, who is entitled to be protected in his property.
Of course, the two-car neighbor could donate a car to his poor neighbor, if he liked, but that is his decision and not the prerogative of the kind-hearted neighbor who wants to play Robin Hood.

How Governments Sometimes Commit 'Legal' Crimes

But suppose the kind-hearted man decided to ask the mayor and city council to force the man with two cars to give one to his pedestrian neighbor? Does that make it any more legitimate? Obviously, this makes it even worse because if the mayor and city council do it in the name of the law, the man who has lost his car has not only lost the rights to his property, but (since it is the 'law') he has lost all right to appeal for help in protecting his property.
The American Founders recognized that the moment the government is authorized to start leveling the material possessions of the rich in order to have an 'equal distribution of goods,' the government thereafter has the power to deprive ANY of the people of their 'equal' rights to enjoy their lives, liberties, and property.

A Lesson from Communism

When the Communists seized power in Hungary, the peasants were delighted with the 'justice' of having the large farms confiscated from their owners and given to the peasants. Later the Communist leaders seized three-fourths of the peasant land and took it back to set up government communal farms. Immediately the peasants howled in protest about their property 'rights.'
Those who protested too loudly or too long soon found that they not only lost their land, but also their liberty. If they continued to protest, they lost their lives."

The Government Pay Boom

America's most privileged class are public union workers.

"It turns out there really is growing inequality in America. It’s the 45% premium in pay and benefits that government workers receive over the poor saps who create wealth in the private economy. And the gap is growing. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), from 1998 to 2008 public employee compensation grew by 28.6%, compared with 19.3% for private workers. In the recession year of 2009, with almost no inflation and record budget deficits, more than half the states awarded pay raises to their employees. Even as deficits in state capitals widen and are forcing cuts in services, few politicians are willing to eliminate these pay inequities."

There’s more: "What if government workers earned the average of what private workers earn? States and localities would save $339 billion a year from their more than $2.1 trillion budgets. These savings are larger than the combined estimated deficits for 2010 and 2011 of every state in America. In a separate survey, the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis compares the compensation of public versus private workers in each of the 50 states. Perhaps not coincidentally, the pay gap is widest in states that have the biggest budget deficits, such as New Jersey, Nevada and Hawaii. Of the 40 states that have a budget deficit so far this year, 28 would have a balanced budget were it not for the windfall to government workers."

The Wall Street Journal

Interesting Interview on Fox News In 2008 Between Newt Gingrich and Bill O'rielly about Barack Obama and Redistribution of Wealth

youtube video

Interesting

Here's A Report From Fox News From 2008 On Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.




As A Comparison, Listen To Barney Frank Talking To Bloomberg News Around The Same Time And See If You Can Catch Any Of The Contradictions.

The VAT Cometh (Value Added Tax)

"It's the ultimate cash cow. Obama will need it. By introducing universal health care, he has pulled off the largest expansion of the welfare state in four decades. And the most expensive. Which is why all of the European Union has the VAT. Huge VATs. Germany: 19 percent. France and Italy: 20 percent. Most of Scandinavia: 25 percent." - Charles Krauthammer

See the rest of the article at realclearpolitics.com by Charles Krauthammer

PBS Now Offering Teachers Indoctrination Materials on Nationalized Healthcare

PBS Now Offering Teachers Indoctrination Materials on Nationalized Healthcare

Friday, March 26, 2010, 5:57 AM

Jim Hoft

Yes We Can…
The Obama Administration wants to make sure that tomorrow’s leaders are fully indoctrinated into the leftist philosophy of living. Part of that indoctrination now includes lesson plans offered to teachers by the Public Broadcasting Service on how to fully persuade students of their “fundamental right to health care.”

Health Care Overview:

Did you catch that?
Here’s the transcript:

A variety of lessons and activities are provided to help students gain the knowledge and background necessary to engage in a meaningful debate about the following resolution: Health care is a fundamental right; the government has an obligation to secure this right for all Americans. Teachers may opt to complete all the assignments in preparation for the debate, or select those most necessary or interesting to the class. Classes may prepare their debate for submission to the Miller Center Debate Series on health care.

Here’s a look at the health care lesson plan page:

Now PBS makes the indoctrination easy.
Thid post from http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/

Companies Say Health Care Costs Hard to Swallow

"As many as 1.5 million to 2 million retirees could lose the drug benefits provided by their former employer because of the tax changes, according to a study by the Moran Company, a health care consulting firm."

From Associated Press

"E Pluribus Unum", "Liberty" and "In God We Trust"

Well presented short video on why our country is unique.

2,000 House Staffers Make Six Figures

politico.com

CBO report: Debt will rise to 90% of GDP

Washington Times

An English Perspective on Health Care

American Thinker

The Truth About Social Justice - A MUST SEE!

Glenn Beck Explains The Truth About "Social Justice".

UPDATE
What Glenn Beck meant about social justice

By Stu Burguiere
executive producer, The Glenn Beck Program>

Like everyone else in America, Glenn Beck thinks "social justice" ---if its defined as charitable outreach to the poor----is a good idea. He supports it, he believes in it, he does it.

So, what's the problem? I mean, "social justice" seems like such an innocuous phrase, right? It paints a picture of fairness. I guess that's why Father Charles Coughlin used it when naming his National Union for Social Justice and his publication Social Justice Weekly. Coughlin was an anti-Semitic religious broadcaster in the 1930s, and he used the banner of social justice to attack capitalism, warn of Jewish plots against "Christian civilization", and to promote his adoration for Italian Fascist Benito Mussolini.

This is part of the information Glenn revealed in a special TV show about American extremism of the 20th century. In the context of promoting that special, he began talking about how the far left was once again using this terminology to politicize churches. The specific example he named was Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

He told his listeners that if they were in a church that preaches Jeremiah Wright-style social justice, they should leave--or at least get educated on what exactly that means. It took him all of eight seconds to clarify the type of church he was speaking of, but that was long enough for most in the media to end the transcript.

Suddenly, Glenn was accused of attacking the central tenets of the bible, because he supposedly believed that any church that wants to help the poor should be immediately evacuated. This absurd narrative is mainly the product of Rev. Jim Wallis.

To restate the obvious, some simply use the term "social justice" as a substitute for "outreach to the poor." This is not the kind of "social justice" Glenn was talking about. The fact that this term has been utilized for purposes other than good Christian charity is well documented. One scholar explained it quite clearly: "it is true that term [has] been used by the right and the left for all kinds of ideological purposes that aren't necessarily the purposes of Christ." That scholar was Jim Wallis.

But for Wallis to continue getting attention, he must act as if he believes Glenn is against churches helping the poor. Any honest observer would realize that isn't the case. Is anyone on earth against charitable outreach to the poor?

Certainly not Glenn.

In his book Arguing With Idiots, Glenn describes helping those less fortunate as an "obligation." He wrote that capitalism "will inevitably fail if individuals stop caring about the welfare of others." He just believes the bulk of the help should come from people like you and me, not government bureaucracy. When is the last time you felt charitable on April 15?

Of course, these attacks are just opportunistic politics. Jim Wallis - and his politically motivated faux anger - are now doing interviews about Glenn at the pace of a fame seeking Tiger Woods mistress. The left is taking a break from calling Glenn too religious, to call him not religious enough.

But Wallis' repeated attempts at becoming the victim are laughable. He wrote to Glenn: "I have no reason to attack you." Some would find that sentence questionable, considering he's a spiritual advisor to President Obama. The New York Times reported Wallis was one of five pastors meeting with the Obamas for private prayer sessions and "discussions on the role of religion in politics." The Times noted "In contrast to the other four, his contact with the president has been focused more on policy than prayer." Time magazine notes "he has the ear of the man in the Oval Office." (During their reporting of Wallis' attacks on Glenn, both Time and the New York Times mysteriously forgot their own reporting on this topic.) A report by Religious News Service says Wallis is one of a small group helping to "shape decisions about the Iraq war, health care reform and the economy."

It's up to Americans to decide whether this--or any--level of presidential access is appropriate for someone like Wallis. Just 13 days after 9-11 he was already blaming the attacks on the "sins" of U.S. foreign policy including "global domination" and "militarism." He hoped 9-11 would become a "teachable moment" in which we could all learn our role in creating "desperation" among the terrorists. "Desperate people do desperate things," he explained. He later described our foreign policy as "dangerously messianic" "arrogant" and "bordering on the idolatrous and blasphemous."

Wallis is just as revealing when speaking of his current economic views: "I'm not a liberal, I'm a radical." Asked if he was calling for the redistribution of wealth across society, he responded: "Absolutely. Without any hesitation. That's what the gospel is all about." This is a man that believes an affluent church is no less than "an affront to the gospel" and he's talking about Glenn being divisive?

But, on the bright side, he has illuminated some common ground between Glenn and the President. While Wallis describes Rev. Wright as "mainstream", both the President and Glenn believe that leaving churches like Rev. Wright's is a good idea. The difference is that Glenn just advised it. The president actually did it.

Stu Burguiere is executive producer of The Glenn Beck Program.

---

UPDATE ON SOCIAL JUSTICE: A COUPLE MORE ARTICLES

May 16, 2010
The Ugly Side of Social Justice By Sean Parr

Behind the social justice banner lurks an ugly choice. Nineteenth century French thinker Frederic Bastiat's summation of free will is quite succinct: "Society has for its element man, who is a free agent; and since man is free, he may choose -- since he may choose, he may be mistaken -- since he may be mistaken, he may suffer."

A basic understanding of free will elicits a particular truth about God's ordained relationship with man: that He wishes for us to obey Him, but for us to obey Him freely.

Can a comprehension of free will -- of our relationship with God -- give us clues as to how He would have us relate to each other? Can it give us clues as to how He would have our institutions relate to each of us individually?

If it is agreed, for instance, that charity is a desirable human action, should charity therefore be a forced action? And if charity becomes a forced action -- if governments, rather than citizens, mandate its application -- does it cease to be charity? Is it reduced to mere obedience?

This is the essence of the debate over social justice.

The faith-inspired proponents of social justice seek not only to assist the poverty stricken, but to altogether dissolve the conditions that allow for poverty. These noble ends, though they may appear universally appreciated, have drawn vehement opposition due to the coercive means through which they are to be obtained.

On his website, Reverend Jim Wallis -- ringleader of the leftist anti-poverty group Sojourners -- has outlined the mission of his organization: "... to articulate the biblical call to social justice." Further perusal of the site elicits how this "biblical call" is to be answered:

By means of a government-directed redistributive effort.

By spreading the wealth through taxation.

By force.

To this end, the Sojourners site stipulates that, "There is a biblical role for the state," and "social justice requires economic support from government."

It is this governmental role that has the critics of social justice reeling. One such critic is conservative Fox News host, and liberal media lightning rod, Glenn Beck. Beck has been attacked for his opposition to social justice, most vocally, by Reverend Jim Wallis and the clash between the two has been much publicized.

Although Beck has been adamant in expressing that his objections are solely concerned with how -- not whether -- the needy should be assisted, Wallis nonetheless seems content in portraying him as antagonistic to the plight of the poor. And because of this unfair portrayal, Beck has been painted in the media as a monster for simply emphasizing his belief that it is better for individuals to donate their assistance to the downtrodden by choice rather than by dictate.

During a March 12^th interview on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, after repeatedly mischaracterizing the subject at the core of Glenn Beck's criticism, the Reverend offered Beck a challenge: "Let's go back through the bible, verse-by-verse, and look at what in fact God says about justice."

Here, Wallis uses the term justice as if it were synonymous with coercion. This is no mistake. However, if such a verse-by-verse challenge were ever to take place, the results would likely have the Reverend quite dismayed because such a detailed biblical review -- once the subject of the debate had been adequately defined -- would place the onus on Wallis to demonstrate where the Good Book calls for a governmental role in charity.

Its often the case that liberal Christians, like the Sojourners and others, will operate under the misconception that government is the subject of the Gospel's appeal to charitable action. Christian apologist Greg Koukl, in articulating this error, aptly describes the fallacy upon which it is based:

A significant mistake... is to take the commands that Jesus has given... applying to the church; the followers of Christ; the believers... and then apply that principle to government. Government cannot be loving because an organization -- a government -- cannot love.

Such mischaracterizations of biblical verse are representative of the way in which the advocates of social justice would prefer the debate be carried out: based on subjective interpretation. Passages like Luke 4:18 are perverted and said to express God's desire for man to strong-arm his brothers into donation. And for every 2Corinthians 9:7 that the conservative claims for his side, the liberal will find countless other verses to misconstrue.

The subscribers of social justice -- socialists using the guise of Christianity to promote their unpopular view -- offer their deliberately twisted interpretation of the gospel as a means of having the public at large conform to their notions of proactive and coercive government redistribution.

These constant manipulations should prompt conservative Christians, and indeed all opponents of redistribution, into redirecting the debate away from the analysis of biblical verse and toward that which is objectively evident in the truth of our existence -- the nature of free will.

Our experience shows us that we are not forced to love God, or to obey Him, or even to acknowledge His existence. He has left those decisions to us.

But which philosophy should we adopt based on this reality: Conservatism or Progressivism?

Freedom or obedience?

Bastiat acknowledged that he found this choice to be quite simple when he declared, "I have faith in the wisdom of the laws of Providence, and for the same reason I have faith in liberty."

The author can be contacted at: Parrfection.blogspot.com.

---

What Exactly is 'Social Justice?' By Jayme Sellards

The term "social justice" is now commonly used by leftist activists, clergy, educators, judges, and politicians to describe the goal they seek to achieve with many of their policies. No precise definition of "social justice" is ever offered by the left. Instead, the term is always used in a vague way -- as if everyone already knows, or should know, what the seemingly well-intentioned phrase "social justice" means.

So, what exactly is "social justice?"

Social justice is the complete economic equality of all members of society. While this may sound like a lofty objective, what it really means is that wealth should be collected by the government and evenly distributed to everyone. In short, social justice is communism. It is rooted in the Marxist idea that the money people make, and the property they own, do not rightfully belong to the people who make the money and own the property.

Karl Marx's ultimate criticism of capitalism is its recognition of private property. The reason private property is so evil, Marx contended, is that it is a function of economic class warfare. In other words, "the rich" use the concept of private property to oppress "the poor." In order to understand this convoluted thought-process, Marx's view of money must be examined, since money is the means by which private property is acquired.

According to Marx, money is really a "collective product" that belongs to everyone. His reasoning, as described in The Communist Manifesto, is that money can only be made "by the united action of all members of society." Factory owners, for example, cannot manufacture goods by themselves. Rather, the factory owners need workers to run the machines that produce goods. Consequently, in Marx's mind, when the manufactured good is sold, the worker has as much right to the proceeds of that sale as the factory owner.

Marx transposed that idea to the societal level, professing that the aggregate wealth of the rich was actually created by the aggregate work of the poor.

As a result, capitalism is seen by Marxists as a system invented by the rich to ensure that the poor do not get their fair share of money. Instead, the rich keep most of the money for themselves. In turn, the rich use this "stolen" money to selfishly purchase private property in the form of factories, land, houses, and anything else they choose. As such, Marxists see all privately owned property as the fruit of a massive capitalist fraud against the poor.

What about wages? Aren't worker's compensated for the work that they do under a capitalist system? Not according to Marx, who saw wages as merely part of the capitalist scheme.

First of all, Marx believed that capitalists pay workers only the bare minimum to survive -- an amount that "merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence."

Secondly, Marx stated that every cent a worker makes is paid back to the rich in the form of rent, groceries, car payments, and the like. As Marx said, "no sooner is the exploitation of the laborer by the manufacturer ... at an end ... than he is set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc."

Consequently, Marx held that workers, by design, can never make enough money to acquire private property of their own under the capitalist system.

"Social justice" is intended to remedy this exploitation of workers by capitalists. Marx saw man only in a social context -- meaning not as an individual, but as a part of a class. Thus, the word "social" (in "social justice") refers to classes in a society.

"Justice," in the Marxist context, means economic equality. This is Marxist utopian ideal that all members in a society should receive the same amount of compensation, regardless of occupation, skill, or work ethic. The oft-quoted socialist mantra, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," comes from this concept.

Social justice can only be accomplished in one way in a capitalist society -- by wealth redistribution. This is done by seizing the wealth of the greedy rich and giving it to the poor, using the government as the agent of redistribution. This is the true aim of the left's social justice agenda.

Marx's dim view of capitalism must be put in context, taking into consideration the time and place in which he lived. In 1848, the year of The Communist Manifesto's publication, the Industrial Revolution was at its height in Europe. In many European towns, the skies were filled with black smoke spewing from massive factories that employed scores of workers in horrible conditions.

However, just as Marx's understanding of capitalism was limited to factories existing in 1840s Europe, his criticisms of capitalism must be likewise limited. Marx's philosophy is demonstrably false in the modern day United States.

To begin with, Marx contemplated only two classes. One was a very small and privileged class of property and business owners; the remainder of the population was grouped into a massive class of impoverished workers. Therefore, Marxism cannot account for the millions of American middle class property owners, nor can it explain the existence of any small businesses, which are the backbone of the American economy.

People who enjoy their job or make more than a subsistence wage are also inexplicable under Marxism, as are "rags to riches" stories and anyone advancing in salary or position. Those people simply don't exist in the Marxist world.

The truth is that the only "class" in the United States excluded from reaping the benefits of capitalism is the class that chooses not to participate in American society. Fueled by the rhetoric of leftists, this class sits idle, dreaming of perceived wrongs that justify its inactivity. The only exploitation in America is committed by politicians, who use stolen money to subsidize this class in exchange for votes. That is not justice, it is criminal.

Radicals Have Reversed The Roles - A MUST SEE!

Things Are About To Get Much Worse. The Progressive Plan.

In Health Bill, Obama Attacks Wealth Inequality

From The New York Times

"For all the political and economic uncertainties about health reform, at least one thing seems clear: The bill that President Obama signed on Tuesday is the federal government’s biggest attack on economic inequality since inequality began rising more than three decades ago."

Can you say social justice?

Obama Gives The GOP Argument Against The Mandate To Buy Health Insurance... In 2008

Max Baucus on Obamacare's Hidden Agenda - Redistribution Of Wealth

First of all, it wasn't really a hidden agenda now was it? This has been the plan of the Obama administration all along!



Second, I cannot believe a member of our government is actually supporting redistribution of wealth, leveling the playing field, etc. That's Socialism folks!

And another thing! Where do these arrogant, pompous control freeks get off confiscating the earnings of one group of people and giving it to someone else!

Baucus was born Dec. 11, 1941, in Helena, Mont., the fifth-generation heir to a Montana ranching fortune. His great-grandfather, Henry Sieben, started the 125,000-acre Sieben ranch, featured in the film A River Runs Through It, and Sieben is in the Cowboy Hall of Fame.

Here's what the Republicans need to do. Since the Democrats just love putting their little provisions in the health care bill to carve out their buddies they need to payoff, lets have the Republicans file bill. Here's what it will say. All ranches in the state of Montana that are greater than 124,999 and less than 125,001 acres and are in the Cowboy Hall of Fame and are owned by anyone who's last name ends in Baucus shall be equally divided among the people of the county in which said ranch is geographically located! Then let's see Max Baucus squirm when his wealth is distributed!

And here's what Howard Dean said today on CNBC, I'll post the video later.

“Governor Dean, you want a more robust Public Option?”

“I think the bill still has some fairly significant flaws but you know we can work with this. This is what Mitt Romney did essentially in Massachusetts, but it’s going to take a long time but it’s going to lead to reforms ultimately. I wouldn’t call this bill reform but I do think it can lead to reform…it’s going to take a lot more work”

“Governor Dean, Philosophically… do you think your party knows…we’ve chosen a different type of society, more akin to Europe?”

“…when it gets [social inequality] out of whack…you need to do some redistribution. This is a form of redistribution.”

This CNBC Squawk Box interview occurred on March 25th; two days after President Obama signed into law the most significant major legislation since Medicare, in 1965. Go to 5:32 of the video for Howard Dean talking about redistribution.
Link To The Video

As Governor Dean stated, “This is a form of redistribution,” and “I wouldn’t call this bill [health care] reform but I do think it can lead to reform.” If this major legislation doesn’t – yet – provide the kind of health care change sold to the American public, what “change” actually was sold?

The U.S. Senate’s health-care legislation recently passed by the House does not “reform” America’s health-care system. Rather, it provides for transformative “change.” Change to America’s social contract; change to America’s civil society; and predominately, change to America’s individual freedoms and its relationship with its government.

18th century philosopher Edmund Burke writes of this difference between “change” and “reform”:

“There is…a marked distinction between change and [reform]. [Change] alters the substance of the objects themselves, and gets rid of all their essential good as well as of all accidental evil annexed to them…. Reform is not change in the substance or in the primary modification of the object, but a direct application of a remedy to the grievance complained of. So far as that is removed, all is sure. It stops there; and if it fails, the substance which underwent the operation, at the very worst, is but where it was.”

This health-care legislation “changes” the substance of the object; that object being America’s relationship between its citizenry and its government; a relationship emanated from our Founder’s Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. This, I believe, is what Governor Dean was speaking to; like the proverbial adage of boiling the frog in the pot of water by – ever so slowly – increasing its temperature, he knows goals are attained by – ever so slowly – redefining relationships.

It is here – the substantive change between the relationship of an individual’s rights with that of government’s control over both these rights and property – that our nation’s battle lines are drawn. vtdigger.org

55% Favor Repeal of Health Care Bill

Rasmussen Report

Other Tax Shoes Begin To Drop

Investor's Business Daily

Senator Coburn has filed the following amendments to the reconciliation bill

http://coburn.senate.gov/

Health Care Law Signals US Empire Decline?

From CNBC

Rep. Dingell Says ObamaCare Will Eventually "Control the People"

Obama and Saul Alinsky

Here’s a picture posted in February 2008 at PrestoPundit of Barack Obama in Chicago teaching the principles of Saul Alinsky. Notice the flow chart indicating the flow of money and power out of productive businesses ("CORP") and into the political class ("MAYOR"):
The heading at the top reads "POWER ANALYSIS". The sub-heading reads "RELATIONSHIPS BUILD ON SELF INTEREST". The symbol on the arrow between "CORP" and "MAYOR" is the "$" sign.

Saul Alinsky came up with the idea of power analysis, which looks at relationships built on self-interest between corporations, banks and utilities. Barack Obama was teaching students in Chicago the Alinsky Principles.

After watching the bribes, kickbacks, lies and threats this past year as Democrats fought to take over the health care industry, it’s obvious that the only Constitution Obama follows includes Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals… Not the Constitution of the United States.

From Gateway Pundit

Here's Whats Coming America!

Like I said, this health care legislation will bankrupt the nation. Prepare yourselves for the VAT (Value Added Tax)! Let me also say this. The country that you and I grew up in is over! For the first time in American history, we have a President who doesn't believe in American exceptionalism, who doesn't believe in our unique origins, who thinks we are not a beacon of freedom to the world. He believes we are no better than any other country and he is determined to bring us to the European, Socialist utopia! To do this, this country has to be brought down a few notches. Legalize all Illegal Aliens, Cap & Trade, Universal Health Care, VAT, control of industry, etc. This is just the beginning!
Let me list some of the top goals of Socialism:
1) Government ownership or control of all land.
2) Government ownership or control of major industries.
3) Government control over labor.
4) Government control or ownership of communications and transportation.
5) Government control of all credit.
6) Government control of all insurance.
7) Government control of the educational system.
8) Elimination of the significance of the family.
9) Elimination of the significance of religion.
10) Establishment of a minimum wage.
11) A universal system of pensions.
12) Justified use of force if necessary to attain Socialist goals.
13) Graduated income tax. (actually this one is from the Communist Manifesto)

Timing Right for Democrats' Midterm Election Hopes

From Politico.com

I was also just listening to an insurance company representative who said that at present, insurance companies are required to have a minimum of 65% of their premiums used for medical services and the remaining 35% used for administration and money placed into their savings in case of emergencies.
After the passage of this bill however, the minimum amount will be increased to 85% used for medical services and the remaining 15% will be available for administration and money placed into their savings in case of emergencies.
Do you understand what that means? It means private insurance companies will not have enough money for their administrative costs and they will be put out of business which is exactly what the Obama administration wants!

Finally got the video:


Remember, the President stated "not just politically but economically it is better for us to start getting a system in place, a universal health care system signed into law by the end of my first term as president and build off that system to further... to make it more rational... By the way Canada did not start immediately with a single payer system. They had a similar transition step..." - on August 4, 2007
Here is that Video!

"Americans Overwhelmingly Voted For Socialism When They Elected Obama"

Bad news for Obama in CNN weekend survey results

Bad news for Obama in CNN weekend survey results

Democrats' "Jonestown" Moment?

Paul Ryan Is The Pulse of The Tea Party and this Country

New Health Care "Benefits"

The Real Arithmetic of Health Care Reform
20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms

From Paul Ryan, Democrats' Fuzzy Math

We Probably Should Look at Massacusetts RomneyCare

Has anyone in Congress asked themselves, "Hey, haven't they already tried the same plan we are about to impose on the American people nationally, in Massachusetts? I wonder how that's working in Massachusetts?".

Well yes, they implemented the same thing in Massachusetts four years ago. The current Massachusetts Treasurer, Tim Cahill, was interviewed by Glenn Beck on Friday. I've known that RomneyCare wasn't doing what they promised for a long time, but here's more evidence. Cahill stated that if this same program passes and is implemented nationally, it will bankrupt the country in four years!

Here's the video:




And here's an article from The Wall Street Journal from Tuesday on what a dismal failure RomneyCare has been so far.

But of course, do you think the politicians in Washington will care if RomneyCare isn't working as expected? Of course not, because they know everything! Everything they touch works exactly as they said it would. The American people are just too stupid to realize it. And you're too stupid to see that this national plan will be sunshine and lollipops!


UPDATE: Here are a few articles on TennCare of Tennessee

"Lessons For Health Care Reform" from RealClearPolitics.com

"Listen to Gov. Bredesen on Health Care Reform" from ABC News

"Lessons From Tennessee's Failed Health Care Reform" from Heritage.org

Reconciliation of The Past

From The New York Times

Another Great Speech From Representative Paul Ryan

Democrats Plan Doc Fix After Reform Passes

Democrats removed the so-called doc fix from the reform legislation last year because its $371-billion price tag would have made it impossible for Democrats to claim that their bill reduces the deficit. Republicans have argued for months that by stripping the doc fix from the bill, Democrats were playing a shell game.

The Memo

From Politico.com

Great Explanation of Health Care Budget Scoring by Paul Ryan

David Brooks Explains Some of the Gimmicks Used in the Health Care Bill to make it Deficit Neutral

"There is the doc fix dodge. The legislation pretends that Congress is about to cut Medicare reimbursements by 21 percent. Everyone knows that will never happen, so over the next decade actual spending will be $300 billion higher than paper projections.

There is the Social Security dodge. The bill uses $52 billion in higher Social Security taxes to pay for health care expansion. But if Social Security taxes pay for health care, what pays for Social Security?"

From The New York Times

Social Security to start cashing Uncle Sam's IOUs

PARKERSBURG, W.Va. – The retirement nest egg of an entire generation is stashed away in this small town along the Ohio River: $2.5 trillion in IOUs from the federal government, payable to the Social Security Administration.

It's time to start cashing them in.

For more than two decades, Social Security collected more money in payroll taxes than it paid out in benefits — billions more each year.

Not anymore. This year, for the first time since the 1980s, when Congress last overhauled Social Security, the retirement program is projected to pay out more in benefits than it collects in taxes — nearly $29 billion more.

Sounds like a good time to start tapping the nest egg. Too bad the federal government already spent that money over the years on other programs, preferring to borrow from Social Security rather than foreign creditors. In return, the Treasury Department issued a stack of IOUs — in the form of Treasury bonds — which are kept in a nondescript office building just down the street from Parkersburg's municipal offices.

From Associated Press

Glenn Beck Talking Points from March 17, 2010

Pelosi: "Once we kick through this door," more reform will follow

http://www.prisonplanet.com/pelosi-once-we-kick-through-this-door-more-reform-will-follow.html

Bret Baier Interview With President Obama

Independent, formerly a Democrat, Massachusetts Governor Candidate Says Healthcare Bill Will Bankrupt Country!

"If President Obama and the Democrats repeat the mistakes of the health insurance mandate in Massachusetts on a national level, they will bankrupt this country within four years," Cahill said. "It is time for the President and the Democratic Leadership to go back to the drawing board and come up with a new plan that does not threaten to wipe out the American economy."

The Hill

A Must See! David Horowitz and Pat Caddell Discuss the Radicals in the Obama Administration and Their Agenda

Part 1




Part 2




Part 3

Democracy Denied Chart

Obama's Rules for Revolution by David Horowitz

Obama's Rules for Revolution by David Horowitz

America's First Founding by Stephen Pratt

See all of the videos from Stephen Pratt at:
http://www.idezignmedia.com/constitution/index.html

The Patriot Act-Judge Andrew Napolitano

H.R. 3162; Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001

"The patriot act lets federal agents write their own search warrants. We have come 360 degrees from fighting a revolution against a tyrannical government because it dispatched its agents to write their own search warrants, to establishing a constitution which assured us that would never happen and required that when the government wants anything from you it has to go to a judge, to popularly electing members of congress who would vote to gut the constitution and remove the second most important right in it and let federal agents write their own search warrants and that’s what this monstrosity of the so-called patriot act does.
When I was giving a speech similar to this in another state in the Midwest, there were a lot of members of congress there, about a half a dozen of whom came up to me afterwards and said:
‘We voted for the patriot act. We didn’t know that it allowed agents to write their own search warrants. We never heard that before.’
You then ask them a question, did you read it?
‘No we didn’t.’
Question, did you read anything before you voted on it?
‘Yes.’
Question, what did you read?
‘We read a summary of it.’
Question, prepared by whom?
‘By the Justice Department.’

Well of course the Justice Department is not going to tell you the powers that you’re giving to it. To make it the decider and it the person and entity that can violate privacy. So these sad, sorry people, who took an oath to uphold the constitution, in their blindness and in their fear, enacted legislation that would subvert the constitution. And some of them said ‘well you know, we did this because we trusted George W. Bush.’ Trusted him with what? We are a government of laws and not of men. We have a constitution that divides power, that keeps the states sovereign, that requires checks and balances. We don’t give this power to any single human being. It was the states who created the federal government and not the other way around. And power given to the federal government can be taken back.
Liberty lost, never comes back. So we have a government that claims that it will uphold the constitution of the United States. That nevertheless without even allowing members of congress to read the documents that assault our basic liberties, violates that very oath."
Judge Andrew Napolitano

Government Once Again Increasing The Entitlement Mentality

How President Obama's Budget Will Demolish Welfare Reform

Why make government the prime source for student loans?

By Senator Lamar Alexander

The Washington Post

After reading the article, here are my questions:

1) Does the government know that they are going to "borrow" the money at 2.8% from the treasury and charge students 6.8% and take the profits for other programs?
2) How much are the administration costs going to be for the program? After all, the infrastructure is already in place mostly run by private lenders.
3) If government loans are so much better, why did 15 million students select to have their loans by private companies and only 4 million through the government in 2008?
4) Has the government figured out how many students will choose to go into government for 10 years to eliminate the loan at a cost to the rest of us?
How many students will not be able to pay off their loans after 20 years at 10% of their earnings and have their loans payed off by the government at a cost to the rest of us?
5) How many non profit companies will go out of business and how many jobs will be lost by the non profit companies?
6) Where is "choice" in America any more?

Update March 30, 2010:

Obama Signs ‘Meaningful’ Student Loan Reform

Goals of Socialism by Stephen Pratt

You Tube

CBO expects unemployment rate will probably not dip below 9% until 2012

CBO website Look at the top right corner

The Reagan Obama Debate

Reconciliation of The Past

You know how the Democrats keep saying that reconciliation was used twice before by Republicans? It was used for Welfare reform and for the Bush tax cuts. They make it seem as though the Republicans rammed it through using the 50+1 vote like the President is trying to do now with health care.

So I went back and looked at the votes in these two cases. In 1996, the Welfare and Medicaid Reform Act of 1996 (HR 3734, Vote 232) was passed in the Senate using reconciliation by a 74 to 24 vote with 23 Democrats voting for the bill. This was a bi-partisan vote.

In 2001, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (HR 1836, Vote 156) was passed in the Senate using reconciliation by a 62 to 38 vote with 12 Democrats voting for the bill. This also was a bi-partisan vote. Included on the Democrat side were Dianne Feinstein, Max Baucus, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln and Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

So this reconciliation claim by the Obama Administration is nothing but a red herring. They are going to use reconciliation for a partisan vote, not a bi-partisan vote.

Welfare and Medicaid Reform Act of 1996 (HR 3734)
Passed Using Reconciliation - 74 to 24

Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (HR 1836)
Passed Using Reconciliation - 62 to 38