Barack Obama and business
THE ECONOMIST, LONDON
Sep 23rd 2010
WINSTON CHURCHILL once moaned about the long, dishonourable tradition in politics that sees commerce as a cow to be milked or a dangerous tiger to be shot. Businesses are the generators of the wealth on which incomes, taxation and all else depends; “the strong horse that pulls the whole cart”, as Churchill put it. No sane leader of a country would want businesspeople to think that he was against them, especially at a time when confidence is essential for the recovery.
From this perspective, Barack Obama already has a lot to answer for. A president who does so little to counter the idea that he dislikes business is, self-evidently, a worryingly negligent chief executive.
No matter that other Western politicians have publicly played with populism more dangerously, from France’s “laissez-faire is dead” president, Nicolas Sarkozy, to Britain’s “capitalism kills competition” business secretary, Vince Cable (see article); no matter that talk on the American right about Mr Obama being a socialist is rot; no matter that Wall Street’s woes are largely of its own making. The evidence that American business thinks the president does not understand Main Street is mounting (see article).
A Bloomberg survey this week found that three-quarters of American investors believe he is against business. The bedrock of the tea-party movement is angry small-business owners. The Economist has lost count of the number of prominent chief executives, many of them Democrats, who complain privately that the president does not understand their trade—that he treats them merely as adornments at photocalls and uses teleprompters to talk to them; that he shows scant interest in their views on which tax cuts would persuade them to hire people; that his team is woefully short of anyone who has had to meet a payroll (there are fewer businesspeople in this White House than in any recent administration); and that regulatory uncertainty is hampering their willingness to invest.
That Mr Obama has let it reach this stage is a worry. But negligence is not the same as opposition. True, he has some rhetorical form as an anti-business figure—unlike the previous Democrat in the White House, Bill Clinton, who could comfortably talk the talk of business. Mr Obama’s life story, as depicted in his autobiography and on the campaign, was one of a man once mired in the sinful private sector (at a company subsequently bought by The Economist), who redeemed himself only by becoming a community organiser; his wife had a similar trajectory.
There are the endless digs at Wall Street and Big Pharma, not to mention the beating up of BP. He remains a supporter of “card check”, which would dispense with the need for secret ballots in establishing a trade union. His legislative agenda has centred on helping poorer individuals (the health-care bill, part of the stimulus bill) or reining in banks (the financial-reform bill). The only businesses he has rescued are the huge union-dominated General Motors and Chrysler.
Against this, it could have been much worse, especially given the opprobrium that now dogs Wall Street.
So what should he do? The same leftist advisers who have led Mr Obama into his “anti-business” hole are doubtless telling him that it is just a matter of public relations: have a few tycoons to stay in the Lincoln bedroom; celebrate Main Street’s successes, rather than just whining about bonuses; perhaps invite a chief executive to replace Larry Summers, the academic who announced this week that he was standing down as the president’s main economic adviser. Well, maybe. But once again this is advice from people who have never run a business. The main thing that is hurting business is uncertainty.
Mr Obama was right to tackle big subjects like health care and Wall Street, but too often the details were left to others. Why, for instance, should a small American firm hire more people when it still does not know the regulations on health care, especially when going above 50 workers will make it liable to insurance premiums or fines? Fiscal policy is even more uncertain, thanks to Mr Obama’s refusal to produce a credible plan to rein in the deficit. Why should any entrepreneur plough money into a new factory when he has no idea what taxes he will eventually be asked to pay? These are questions that business needs answering in a businesslike way—and so does America. Otherwise the horse will not pull the cart.
Publicado: 09-25-2010 05:44 PM
Taxing Rich Could Hurt You
True North ^ | September 24, 2010 | Katie Kieffer
Wealth is a good thing. Even if you are homeless and reading this from a public library, wealth works in your favor. Yesterday, the Senate decided not to vote on extending the Bush-era tax cuts until after the Nov. 2 elections. A recent Gallup poll shows that 44 percent of Americans think that the tax cuts should only be extended for the “middle class” (those making under $250,000).
It might seem counter-intuitive, but it will ultimately hurt the middle class more to over-tax the wealthy. Here are two reasons why it would be a good idea to implement overall tax reform that benefits the rich, middle class and poor alike:
Luxury spending drives the economy
The wealthy are not financially invincible. In fact, the top 20 percent of income earners are feeling the recession and pulling out of the economy in a significant way. In June, MasterCard Advisors’ Spending Pulse released data showing that luxury spending declined 3.9 percent compared to a year earlier. Allowing the Bush tax cuts to selectively expire on the wealthy would make it even more difficult for the luxury spender to contribute to the economy.
Why should you care if hipsters can jet-set, splurge on nonessential items and pamper their Chihuahuas? You may never be able to afford a butler, but you also won’t be able to afford your own luxuries (i.e. a flat screen TV) if the rich are crumpled.
Consumer spending drives a whopping 70 percent of the U.S. economy. As Mike Niemira, chief economist at the International Council of Shopping Centers told the Associated Press, “It isn’t a good omen for the consumer recovery, which can not exist without the luxury spender.”
Large businesses will not be able to hire
The Heritage Foundation reports, “According to the Treasury Department, 8 percent of small businesses earn enough income to pay the top two rates. That is still a relatively small amount, but it does not tell the whole story.
…According to the same data from the Treasury Department, those 8 percent of small businesses that earn enough to pay at the top two income tax rates earn 72 percent of all small business income. They also pay 82 percent of all small-business income taxes. This means that the small businesses that will pay higher taxes under the Obama plan are the largest small businesses, which employ the most workers. Targeting them for higher taxes will have the largest possible negative impact on job creation.”
We would all be better off if we were grateful for our blessings in this beautiful country of freedom and opportunity instead of making decisions based on envy.
Publicado: 09-25-2010 08:42 PM
COSTO DE LA SERVIDUMBRE DE MARIE ANTOINETTE OBAMA $6,3674,000
AMERICANOS, abran bien sus ojos!!!
Lista de Sirvientes y Escala de Pagos de la Primera Dama Michelle Obama.
La Primera Dama Requiere Mas de Veint Sirvientes... (22 para ser exactos):
1. $172,200 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)
2. $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)
3. $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary)
4. $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady)
5. $100,000 - Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
6. $90,000 - Medina , David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
7. $84,000 - Lelyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady)
8. $75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady)
9. $70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady)
10. $65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
11. $64,000 - Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
12. $62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady)
13. $60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady)
14. $57,500 - Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)
15. $52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary to The First Lady)
16. $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special=2 0Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide to The First Lady)
17. $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)
18. $43,000 - Tubman, Samantha (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)
19. $40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
20. $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)
21. $35,000 - Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)
22. $35,000 - Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)
Jamás ha existido nadie NUNCA en la Casa Blanca en ninguna época que haya creado tal ejército de personal cuyos únicos deberes son el facilitar la vida social de la Primera Dama. Nos hemos de preguntar por qué ella necesita tanta ayuda,a expensas de quienes pagamos impuestos taxpayer expense, cuando Hillary sólo tenía tres; Jackie Kennedy uno; Laura Bush uno; y antes de Mamie Eisenhower, la ayuda social provenía del bolsillo del Presidente.
Nota: TEsto no incluye "la artista del maquillaje" Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49 y "el Primer Estilista de Pelo" Johnny Wright, 31, que ambos viajaron a bordo del Air Force One a
AMIGOS.... Estos SALARIOS suman SEIS MILLONES, TRESCIENTOS SESENTA Y CUATRO MIL DOLARES ($6,364,000) POR LOS 4 AÑOS QUE ESTARA OBAMA EN EL PODER??
Y ESTAMOS EN UNA RECESION??????. Al menos MUCHOS LO ESTAN!!!
PARECE QUE ES O.K. EL DERROCHAR EL DINERO SALVAJEMENTE CUANDO NO ES SU PROPIO DINERO!!!!!!
Copyright 2009 CanadaFreePress.Com <http://freepress.com/>
Sí! Tuvo que ser la Prensa Libre Canadiense la que publicara esto, porque la prensa norteamericana está demasiado miedosa de que la puedan considerar racista.!
Pobrecitos los Estados Unidos!
Les cayó CARCOMA!
Publicado: 09-27-2010 09:35 PM
CONTINÚA EN CAÍDA LIBRE EN LAS ENCUESTAS
El presidente de EEUU continúa batiendo récords en popularidad negativa. Después de que las encuestas hayan certificado que la mayoría desaprueba su gestión, un repaso a los sondeos de los últimos años revela hasta qué punto ha caído la confianza en él.
El Instituto Gallup, la empresa demoscópica más importante de Estados Unidos, viene haciendo sondeos desde hace más de treinta años sobre el nivel de confianza que los ciudadanos tienen en su presidente para manejar los problemas internos y las relaciones exteriores.
En el último sondeo, elaborado este mes, sólo un 46% de los encuestados declaraba que confiaba en la gestión interna de Obama. Una cifra que entronca con los resultados de los últimos sondeos que apuntan a una caída de la popularidad del presidente desde su llegada a la Casa Blanca.
Pero la cifra se hace más significativa si se compara con los resultados de esa misma pregunta, la confianza en el presidente para solucionar los problemas internos, a lo largo de los últimos treinta años. Según indican los propios archivos de Gallup, la confianza de los estadounidenses en su presidente siempre fue mayor, incluso durante el mayor escándalo que ha salpicado a un presidente estadounidense: el Watergate, que llevó a Richard Nixon a dimitir. En 1973, el presidente republicano alcanzaba un 51 por ciento de confianza en su gestión en el interior del país, cinco puntos superior a la que tiene Obama actualmente.
D’Souza on Glenn Beck: Obama ideology based on father’s anti-colonial socialism
September 30th, 2010
By Marc Schenker, Vancouver Liberal Examiner
..Dinesh D’Souza appeared on Glenn Beck yesterday, and he made the point that Barack Obama’s ideology is based on the anti-colonial socialism of his late father. Dinesh D’Souza was a special guest in the second half of the Glenn Beck Show on Fox News Channel, on a show that centered around discovering just who in the heck Number 44 really is. And I fully mean who he really is, not the fake caricature the liberal media fabricated to make him appear more relatable to average Americans. I mean the real Barack Hussein Obama, the man who thinks that raising taxes will spur economic growth, that states should be sued for enforcing federal laws against illegal aliens, and that enemies can be appeased by just bowing to them constantly. The divulgence from Dinesh D’Souza was not pretty to say the least.
D’Souza’s appearance boiled down to an almost professor-like instruction—which makes sense since D’Souza is the president of King’s College in New York—where he established just a few basics of Obama’s family structure, so that the audience could intelligibly follow along.
President Obama’s father is Barack Obama Sr., a Kenyan who came to the US in the late 1950s to study. He was a womanizer who ended up fathering eight kids by four different women; he was also a chronic drunk driver who got into many an accident. He also came of age when Kenya was still colonized by the British, and his ideas promoting a socialism that was deeply conjoined with anti-colonialism came from trying to expel the British from his Kenyan homeland.
As D’Souza went on to explain, Obama Sr.’s philosophy was based upon two tenets, both having to do with an aggressive socialism seeking to expel the British from Kenya. First, Obama Sr. advocated that you expel them by toppling the people at the top and, two, by taxing them so that the state can confiscate their wealth. Whoa! Hold your horses!
Right there, in that explanation of Obama Sr.’s belief system, we can undoubtedly see complete parallels to what President Obama is promoting and practicing as the so-called commander-in-chief! Clearly, President Obama is hellbent on bringing a Kenyan-sstyle anti-colonial socialism to the US, only instead of expelling the British, he wants to expel capitalism, the private system, and the wealthy who are the job creators. The achievement of those three things will result in the economic collapse of the US.
If the preceding was not enough to send a shiver down your spine, there’s more. D’Souza, careful details-giver that he is, highlights two quotes from Obama Sr. that, again, bear a dead-on similarity to the kind of ideology and philosophy that President Obama exhibits in the policies he’s pushed through during his ruinous two years as POTUS. The more damning of the two quotes was where Obama Sr. asserted that, theoretically, the government has the right to tax 100% of all income without an upper limit!
Besides scaring you, the espousal of that kind of ideology deserves 100% condemnation because it is pure evil. It is pure evil to promote an ideology which says that everything you ever work for in your whole life and have a right to retain can be taken away by your own government at any second!! That kind of system would create no more motivation for innovation, work or ambition. In short, it would be total catastrophe.
It doesn’t take a genius to put two and two together: Everything that Obama Sr. has believed and espoused is being completely seen in what little Barack is now perpetrating as POTUS. Whether it’s the wealth redistribution from bailouts to the government imposition and takeover of Obamacare, it’s all toxic because it’s based on an evil model of socialism, which is based on stealing from those who work hard to earn their own money…and then redistributing it to people who are too lazy or dumb to help themselves.
Because of the powerful exposes in D’Souza’s work and Beck’s featuring him, his new book, on which this lecture was based, has already shot up to number one on Amazon.
Publicado: 09-30-2010 11:09 PM
OBAMA'S ROAD TO SERFDOM -THE EUROPEAN SSTYLE
The new Road to Serfdom
By: Iain Murray
Special to the Examiner
A British Member of the European Parliament, Daniel Hannan, rose to fame around the world last year when he addressed the then British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, in terms that many of us wish that we could use to address our political leaders. Calling him “the devalued Prime Minister of a devalued government,” Mr. Hannan struck a nerve with literally millions who watched his short but devastating speech on YouTube, particularly in America, where the tea party movement was beginning to swell on the back of national frustration with a spendthrift government.
What most of Mr. Hannan’s new admirers over here probably did not know was that Daniel has always been a profound Americophile. Indeed, as he has watched British democracy and ancestral liberties being eviscerated by membership of the European Union, he has always looked fondly at America and the way her liberties are guaranteed by constitution and by custom. Moreover, as those liberties are in most part the liberties of the old English constitution, he views America as a persistent reminder to Britain of what it has lost by being part of the “great European experiment.”
Yet Daniel also realizes that the European experiment is viewed with fondness by many currently in power over here. That is why he has written a short, extremely readable book, published today, called “The New Road to Serfdom: A Letter of Warning to America,” which, at time of writing, was #17 on the Amazon charts. In the book, he defends America from common attacks by the European left, celebrates America’s tradition of liberty, and issues a stern warning: Don’t Europeanize America!
Some will argue that it is odd for a traditionalist British conservative to be defending a revolution against the British crown, but Daniel has an answer for that, culminating in the respective statements made by John Adams and King George III on the presentation of the former as first minister from the United States to the court of the latter. At that moment, one could argue, the Anglosphere was born. Daniel Hannan’s work continues that tradition, and the Anglosphere is better for it. All Anglospherists should buy his book.
Iain Murray is a Vice-President at the Competitive Enterprise Institute
Americans! Don’t copy Europe!
By Daniel Hannan Politics
September 27th, 2010
Barack Obama born in Kenya? Pah! If anything, he was born in Brussels. The policies his administration is pursuing amount to comprehensive Europeanisation: European carbon taxes, European foreign policy, European healthcare, European daycare, European disarmament, European industrial intervention and, inevitably, European unemployment rates.
If there are any Americans reading, I’ve got some bad news for you. I inhabit your future. As a Member of the European Parliament, I have spent eleven years working in precisely the kind of system that you seem intent on creating. Believe me, my friends, you won’t like it. As the greatest of all Englishmen puts it:
Prevent it, resist it, let it not be so,
Lest child, child’s children, cry against you woe!
I’m not saying that everything in the US is good and everything in the EU is bad, far from it. It’s just that the aspects of Euro-politics which your rulers seem most intent on copying are those which have demonstrably failed: the centralisation of power, higher state spending, welfare dependency, excessive regulation.
Why does this model fail? Why does the current administration seem so drawn to it? Is there still time to turn aside? Can US conservatives get their act together? Will the Tea Party succeed? Is there such a thing as American exceptionalism? Why does the success of the US matter to Britain? I address these and other questions in The New Road to Serfdom: A Letter of Warning to America, out tomorrow.
Publicado: 10-01-2010 03:05 PM
Mr. President, learn from Ceausescu!
Exclusive: Barry Farber says Romanian dictator, Obama 'share a lamentable trait'
October 05, 2010
By Barry Farber
This is not to suggest that American presidents should allot a lot of time studying the downfall of Communist dictators. But some ugly headlines lately do suggest that a timely lesson from the final hours of Romania's Nicolae Ceausescu might serve the president and the nation well.
The Romanian strongman and President Barack Obama seem to share a lamentable trait. Public unpopularity in the case of both leaders serves, not to inspire changing direction, but rather as proof that the "agenda" is working and should be intensified. You've heard the theory that President Obama is not "making mistakes"; instead, he's on a course deliberately calculated to bring America down so as to allow for a Marxist makeover.
Just before Christmas of 1989 Ceausescu felt no reason for unease. His "Securitate," Communist secret police, kept the nation in fear as effectively as Hitler's Gestapo. His order of "lights out" at 7 p.m. to save resources drew Romanian profanity, colorful but not deadly. His "pet project," a palace that would rival Versailles in senseless grandeur, was progressing on schedule, and Ceausescu used to visit the site often to rub his bare hands over this monument to his greatness. His desperate subjects trying to escape by swimming the Danube across to Yugoslavia were shot in the water or, if the Securitate's "navy" men felt sporty, chopped to pieces by the propellers. It was a dictatorship with hundreds of love-poems to the dictator and zero back-talk from the masses.
Political flattery is like perfume: to be inhaled, but not swallowed. By late 1989, the Romanian people wanted to rip Nicolae Ceausescu and his evil wife to pieces. A provocation against Romania's Hungarian minority led to a violent confrontation, with about a thousand demonstrators slaughtered by the Securitate.
The ultimate expose on the radical nature of our 44th president: "The Manchurian President: Barack O... The best-seller as an audio book is also available.
You think Nancy Pelosi is in denial when she tells the press, "I'd rather be where we (Democrats) are today than where they (Republicans) are!" While his entire nation was seething with hatred against him and his wife, Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu left on a state visit to Iran!
He returned to a nation that wanted him dead. Insanely, he called a rally in Bucharest's Central Square which he thought would bring the people over to his side against the traditionally hated Hungarians. Not a single one of Ceausescu's advisers had the guts to step up and say, "Hey, Boss, maybe we'd better try to cool this thing."
Hear and heed the lesson of this murderous, sadistic Communist tyrant, Mr. President? When Ceausescu got back from Iran (where he should have stayed!) and faced the crowd, he heard, for the first time in his life, boos, hisses and overt cries of "Down with Ceausescu!" It was too late, but at least and at last he got it. He interrupted his own speech, darted back into the palace and made hasty plans to flee from the rooftop by helicopter. Dante described many kinds of hell. David Kupelian (author of "How Evil Works") identifies many kinds of evil. Ceausescu fits at the top. But at least he was smart enough to realize that when he heard the very first peep of opposition out loud, the whole game was over. Ceausescu and his wife were executed by military firing squad during their escape attempt.
Please, Mr. President, learn from Nicolae Ceausescu! The American mood is very ugly and getting worse. In 1940, Republican candidate Wendell Wilkie took an egg in the face from a Roosevelt supporter. I remember nothing of the kind, or any kind, aimed at Barry Goldwater, who won only five states; George McGovern, who won only one; or big losers Mike Dukakis and John Kerry. The national negativity is much worse at this moment than when the aabsolute worst befell President John F. Kennedy.
Overt hatred of you, your team and what you represent, Mr. President, has soared to a new level. Former Vice President Al Gore's speech was shattered the other day when someone yelled, "You're a fraud!" Those who agreed obliterated the rest of Gore's remarks. You, yourself, recently had to stand there lamely and gamely and suffer face-to-face excoriation from a woman your protectors and image-buffers had every reason to believe was on your side.
You know what you're doing that generates this negativity. Stop it! Cut it out! Reverse it, please, while we're still far from any "Romanian" moment! You and Ceausescu both decided to "stick it to them"; in his case, until it was too late. You still have time to use the glow of our anger as your guiding light.
We will oppose you in the American, not the Romanian, way. The letter "D" beside a candidate's name may as well mean "delete." You and your Democrats are not our only betrayers. You are, however, our most recent betrayers, and we want you out – safely, cleanly and, above all, non-violently.
We want to see the smashing of your diseased agenda, the retirement of your tax-evading cadres and the abrupt annulment of your incontinent lunge to the left.
But we want you to be OK.
You can help!
Publicado: 10-06-2010 09:22 PM
Do Blacks know many Democrats are Racists who want to exterminate Blacks?
OBAMA CRIMES, US GOVERNMENT FRAUD
Mother of Planned Parenthood, pro-abortionist and American Eugenics
Margaret Sanger is founder of Planned Parenthood,
and the one who inspired Adolf Hitler in his views of eugenics and “murdering socially undesirable people.”
Margaret Sanger, through Planned Parenthood, advocated abortions on Afro-Americans in order to eliminate what she called “socially undesirable people”.
This site is an excellent Afro-American response against Sanger’s racist eugenics:
Genocide against Afro-Americans
Exposing the fascist thinking of Margaret Sanger.
Her left-wing sisters, such as Gloria Steinem, had to selectively overlook this part of Margaret Sanger when they praise her feminist achievements.Ms. Sanger began her career as a nurse and political rebel, acting in association with the International Workers of the World (IWW) and with Emma Goldman, foundress of the American Communist Party. (Ms. Goldman also mentored Roger Baldwin, founder of the American Civil Liberties Union – ACLU)
Margaret Louise Sanger
1879 – 1966
“We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population”
Who spoke these words? The Klu Klux Klan? Aryan Nations? The National Socialist (Nazi) Party? These are the words of Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, the largest provider and promoter of legal abortion in the United States.
Abortion clinics were originally set up with the intention of slowing the population growth of Afro-Americans and others racial groups considered mentally or otherwise inferior.
Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood is the major force behind the abortion and pro-choice/abortion movement in America. If you are proud of being pro-choice, you should know more about the most responsible person for the pro-abortion-rights movement and abortion industry in the 20th century.
“Lothrop Stoddard was on the board of directors (of Margaret Sanger’s Population Association of America) for years…. He had an interview with Adolf Hitler and was very impressed. His book, The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy, was written while he served on Sanger’s board. Havelock Ellis, one of Sanger’s extra-marital lovers, reviewed this..book favorably in The Birth Control Review”.
At a March,1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the “black” and “yellow” peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger’s American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood.
Margaret Sanger’s beliefs about social works of charity are revealing:
She criticized the success– not failure– of charity… She called for the halt to the medical care being given to slum mothers, and decried the expense to the taxpayers of monies being spent on the deaf, blind and dependent. She condemned foreign missionaries for reducing the infant mortality rates in developing countries, and declared charity to be more evil than for the assistance it provided to the poor and needy. Sanger’s thinking moved to fascism in an elitist attitude that presumes to judge who is worthy to live and to die.
“Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America. 78% of their clinics are in minority communities. Blacks make up 12% of the population, but 35% of the abortions in America. Are they being targeted? Isn’t that genocide? We are the only minority in America that is on the decline in population. If the current trend continues, by 2038 the black vote will be insignificant. Did you know that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a devout racist who created the Negro Project designed to sterilize unknowing black women and others she deemed as undesirables of society? The founder of Planned Parenthood said, “Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated.” Is her vision being fulfilled today?” quoted from blackgenocide.org
Adolf Hitler – Fuehrer of Nazi Germany “The demand that defective people be prevented from propagating equally defective offspring. . . represents the most humane act of mankind.” Mein Kampf, vol. 1, ch. 10 from Hitler and Eugenics and The Fuehrer Myth
Margaret Sanger – Founder of Planned Parenthood “. . .we prefer the policy of immediate sterilization, of making sure that parenthood is ‘ absolutely prohibited ‘ to the feeble-minded.” The Pivot of Civilization, p102
Margaret Sanger’s eugenics beliefs intertwined her with Nazis who were influenced by her. She is truly Hitler’s Valkyrie
“Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” Amos 3:3
The Nazi T-4 program was a forced euthanasia program that targeted the mentally handicapped and the physically disabled and deformed. The gas chambers here became the model for the death camps. The euthanasia program was part of the larger NAZI eugenics program which evolved into ‘The Final Solution’ campaign we now call the NAZI Holocaust.
Now: The preborn child is often targeted for death if tests show that it may have a physical or mental handicap. The American eugenics program has no central sponsor but does have several large advocacy groups, including Planned Parenthood, NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) and the National Abortion Federation.
“In the past few years there has been a frantic effort on the part of Planned Parenthood ideologues to revise their own
history. Much of the effort has been waged in an attempt to distance the organization and it’s founder, Margaret Sanger, from charges of radical racial bigotry. Mike Richmond draws from a selection of authors to demonstrate that Sanger and Planned Parenthood are rooted in eugenics, and have earned a despised place in history along with Adolf Hitler and the German Third Reich were.” from “Life Advocate, Jan.-Feb., 1998, Vol. XII, Number 10,
Another link between Margaret Sanger, American Eugenicist and Adolf Hitler, Eugenics practitioner:
“The leaders in the German sterilization movement state repeatedly that their legislation was formulated after careful study of the California experiment as reported by Mr. Gosney and Dr. [Paul] Popenoe. It would have been impossible, they say, to undertake such a venture involving some 1 million people without drawing heavily upon previous experience elsewhere.” Who is Dr. Paul Popenoe? He was a leader in the U.S. eugenics movement and wrote (1933) the article ‘Eugenic Sterilization’ in the journal (BCR) that Margaret Sanger started. How many Americans did Dr. Popenoe estimate should be subjected to sterilization? Between five million and ten million Americans. “The situation [in the U.S.A] will grow worse instead of better if steps are not taken to control the reproduction of mentally handicapped. Eugenic sterilization represents one such step that is practicable, humanitarian, and certain in its results.” “from
The following “A Plan for Peace”, Margaret Sanger was published in Birth Control Review (April 1932, pp. 107-108):First, put into action President Wilson’s fourteen points, upon which terms Germany and Austria surrendered to the Allies in 1918.
Second, have Congress set up a special department for the study of population problems and appoint a Parliament of Population, the directors representing the various branches of science: this body to direct and control the population through birth rates and immigration, and to direct its distribution over the country according to national needs consistent with taste, fitness and interest of individuals.
The main objects of the Population Congress would be:
a. to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population.
b. to increase the population slowly by keeping the birth rate at its present level of fifteen per thousand, decreasing the death rate below its present mark of 11 per thousand.
c. to keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.
d. to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.
e. to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born of feebleminded parents, by pensioning all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.
f. to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their ( another Pro-Choice) choice of segregation or sterilization.
g. to apportion farm lands and homesteads for these segregated persons (sounds like a return to the plantation for a life of slavery) where they would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives.
The first step would thus be to control the intake and output of morons, mental defectives, epileptics.
The second step would be to take an inventory of the secondary group such as illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, dope-fiends; classify them in special departments under government medical protection, and segregate them on farms and open spaces as long as necessary for the strengthening and development of moral conduct.
Having corralled this enormous part of our population and placed it on a basis of health instead of punishment, it is safe to say that fifteen or twenty millions of our population would then be organized into soldiers of defense—defending the unborn against their own disabilities.
The third step would be to give special attention to the mothers’ health, to see that women who are suffering from tuberculosis, heart or kidney disease, toxic goitre, gonorrhea, or any disease where the condition of pregnancy disturbs their health are placed under public health nurses to instruct them in practical, scientific methods of contraception in order to safeguard their lives—thus reducing maternal mortality.
The above steps may seem to place emphasis on a health program instead of on tariffs, moratoriums and debts, but I believe that national health is the first essential factor in any program for universal peace.
With the future citizen safeguarded from hereditary taints, with five million mental and moral degenerates (Sanger was known for her attitudes on free sx adultery and abortion. Under this provision, Ms. Sanger’s sexual profligacy and pro-abortion – murder of the unborn- would have placed Sanger, herself, into this category) segregated, with ten million women and ten million children receiving adequate care, we could then turn our attention to the basic needs for international peace.
There would then be a definite effort to make population increase slowly and at a specified rate, in order to accommodate and adjust increasing numbers to the best social and economic system.
In the meantime we should organize and join an International League of Low Birth Rate Nations to ssecure and maintain World Peace.
“Summary of address before the New History Society”, January 17th, New York Cit Highlights in red inserted by website author.
Margaret Sanger, Sterilization, and the Swastika by Mike Richmond Good assessment of Sanger’s beliefs and the affect of her influence
Quotations of Sanger are from the book MARGARET SANGER by Elasah Drogin
Publicado: 10-08-2010 01:41 PM
Obama’s Anti-Prosperity Crusade
By Tait Trussell On October 8, 2010 In FrontPage
Massachusetts spending $4.6 Million for little used horse bridge; $92,000 per horse...
Athough President Obama’s persistent contention that extending the Bush cuts would be “irresponsible” and only help the rich, a new Tax Foundation analysis released Oct. 7 finds that low-income workers  would have a financial setback. Ironically, the meager-income folks he would hurt are a big part of Obama’s voter base. The Bush tax reductions will expire at the end of 2010, unless Congress extends them.
In a town-hall discussion  in Washington Sept. 20 on CNBC television, Obama claimed: “Our tax rates are lower now than they were under Ronald Reagan. The federal government is probably less intrusive now than it was 30 years ago,” he fantasized.
If the tax relief isn’t extended, most of the old higher taxes will kick in. Sunset provisions were included for both the 2001 and 2003 tax laws. While Obama has convinced much of the public that the Bush tax cuts were mainly for the wealthy, “taxpayers across the entire income spectrum received a significant tax cut,” the Tax Foundation analysis noted. Moreover, the earned income tax credit (EITC) for the working poor, originally enacted as an anti-poverty measure, will be affected, too, if the tax provisions in the stimulus package of 2009 are allowed to expire.
If one compares changes in after-tax income, it shows that the benefit of the tax cuts were distributed much more equally along the income scale, because the Bush tax cuts included many provisions targeted specifically at low-income people. Folks with low incomes benefited from some stimulus measures enacted in 2009.
They also are scheduled to expire at year’s end, namely, by the expansion of the earned income tax credit, as well as larger credits for college education. Various tax proposals made by members of both political parties extend most of these low-income tax provisions. But, as the Tax Foundation study points out, “the current Congress has shown itself to be unusually susceptible to gridlock. No vote will occur before the midterm elections. And although both parties have indicated the tax matter will be addressed in a lame-duck session after the Nov. 2 elections, there’s no certainty of legislative agreement then either.”
Because the threat of entire expiration of the tax cuts is quite possible, it is important to consider what effect it would have on low-income taxpayers.
Take the EITC. It’s a sizeable gift for the working poor. Workers with wages within a certain range and very limited investment income are eligible.
The credit is refundable, meaning that workers who have no income tax liability get the credit in the form of a check. When a worker reaches an income level at which the credit is considered unnecessary, the credit starts to decline. Before the Bush tax cuts, the credit amounts were the same for both single people and married couples. This was a component of the so-called marriage penalty. If two single EITC recipients –maybe living together—got married, their combined income often would make them ineligible for the EITC. The Bush tax cut changed this by increasing the income threshold at which the credit starts to phase out for married filers.
The 2009 stimulus law added a new more generous EITC category for tax filers claiming three or more dependent children.
The present Republican proposal is to extend all the Bush tax cuts without any stimulus law provisions. Democrats in Congress would extend both the Bush EITC and some stimulus provisions, too.
Before the Bush tax cuts, most taxpayers could get a $500 tax credit for each dependent child. The Bush cuts doubled the credit to $1,000 per child. This benefits low- and middle-income families because it phases out when income reaches certain levels ($110,000) for couples, for example. The broadest tax-cutting provision in the stimulus law was a new refundable tax credit called the making-work-pay credit, equal to 6.2 percent of a taxpayer’s wage income up to $800 for joint returns. It phases out as income climbs above $75,000, or $150,000 for joint returns. So, that’s another provision benefiting low- and middle-income people. This credit is due to die at the end of this year.
As for education credits, low-income taxpayers are better off claiming an education credit rather than deducting expenses. Education credits phase out with rising income. The Hope education credit was worth up to $1,800 per student, dependent on tuition expenses. The 2009 stimulus bill replaced the Hope credit with a new American Opportunity credit, with a higher phase-out threshold. Obama’s budget calls for extending that credit into 2011. (Tax calculations were based on the Tax Foundation’s projected 2011 tax bracket levels, which are figured by IRS.)
Probably the most important single tax provision in the Bush cuts–for low-income people–was a new low tax rate on the first $6,000 in income ($8,500 in 2011 dollars). Before the Bush tax cuts, taxable income up to $27,950 fell into the 15 percent tax bracket. The Bush cuts split this in two, setting a tax rate of 10 percent on the lowest bracket. That change had the largest impact on the low-income taxpayers from a percentage standpoint. Before the Bush tax cuts, the standard deduction (which many people take who don’t itemize deductions–for charitable gifts, state taxes, for instance) for married couples was less than twice the standard deduction for singles. This was another aspect of the “marriage penalty” So, the Bush tax laws made the standard deduction for married joint returns twice the deduction for single returns.
If the Bush tax cuts expire on December 31, for a family of four with $40,000 income, taxes would rise an average of $1,130. If the tax cuts are extended, taxes for that family would shrink by $1,513. A single parent with two children making $20,000 and getting EITC would have after-tax income of $24,415 if the Bush cuts died. But the $20,000-income family would have $25,495—more than $1,000 more in their pockets–if the Bush tax cuts stayed alive. Definite dollar pluses for low-income families
Publicado: 10-08-2010 01:48 PM
siboneyes ha escrito:
EL PROBLEMA DE ILEGALSOY ES UN MASOQUISMO CRONICO COMO YO QUE NO LA PARO O MEJOR DICHO SE LA PARO A OBAMA PARA QUE ME LA META YA QUE SI ME LEEN, ESTOY ENAMORADO DE OBAMA, ME LA PASO TODOS LOS DIAS MENCIONANDOLO, NO LES PARECE QUE ESE ES UN AMOR PLATONICO?....... AYYYY PAPAITO, COMO TE AMO !!!!!!!!!!!! YA QUE APARENTEMENTE LA SIFILIS QUE LLEVARON A SU PAIS LOS DEMOCRATAS HA DEJADO UNA SEQUELA DE DESQUICIADOS MENTALES EN GUATEMALA Y NO DIGAMOS EN CUBA YA QUE SI ME LEEN, SOY TAN INEPTO QUE NO PUEDO MANTENER UN TEMA SIN LA AYUDA DE COPY & PASTE Y CUANDO ME RETAN, AL NO PODER SUSTENTAR MIS IDEAS, ACUSO A MEDIO MUNDO DE COMUNISTA, SOCIALISTA, ETC, ETC, (HEY, ACASO NO SOY CUBANO PARA NO USAR ESA ARENGA USADA Y DESCABELLADA?), E ILEGALSOY NO CABE DUDA QUE ES UNO DE ESOS INFELICES QUE EN VEZ DE COJERLA CON LOS RESPONSABLES DE ESA VESANIA, ATACAN A QUIENES NADA TIENE QUE VER CON SU DESAJUSTE MENTAL. CLARO, YO ME CUENTO ENTRE ELLOS PORQUE EN LUGAR DE IRMELA A COBRAR CON MIS FAMILIARES DE CUBA, MI PRIMO RAUL Y FIDEL, ME LA PASO COMO GALLINA CACARAQUEANDO POR TODOS LOS FOROS HABIDOS Y POR HABER ESA ETERNA QUEJADUMBRE DE QUE LOS DEMOCRATAS, DEMOCRATAS, DEMOCRATAS, LOS MISMOS DEMOCRATAS QUE CREARON LA LEY DEL AJUSTE CUBANO, LOS QUE PERMITIERON EL MARIELITO COMO JIMMY CARTER (EL PEOR PRESIDENTE DEMOCRATA?).. JI JI JI, PERO QUE ESTUUUPIDO SOY NO LES PARECE? CRITICANDO A LOS DEMOCRATAS Y SON LOS QUE MAS HAN AYUDADO AL PUEBLO CUBANO COMO ES EL CASO DE OBAMA QUE ACABA DE PERMITIR QUE MIS HERMANOS CUBANOS VAYAN A LA ISLA CUANTAS VECES QUIERAN CUANDO LOS REPUBLICANOS NOS HAN METIDO UNA ESTACA EN EL CHULO Y NOS HAN USADO DE CHUPETES.....JI JI JI
Publicado: 10-08-2010 03:30 PM
Obama: Teleprompter Weening Problem?
DBKP ^ | Jamie
The One's latest gaffe
a problem while getting weened off the teleprompter.
After referring to shovel-ready projects past, present, and future, Barrack Hussein Obama has now said that there is no such thing as a shovel-ready project…. Really…? Too bad he didn’t figure that out 2 years ago when we all did… It could have saved us about a trillion dollars.
We are so screwed…
“The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.”
“The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.
The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their president.”
–This quote was translated into English from an article appearing in the Czech Republic and these folks know what it’s like to live under a Totalitarian Regime. The article was published in the Prager Zeitung on April 28, 2010.
Publicado: 10-16-2010 11:49 PM