roolin' Joe's totally open "totally closed" U.S. southern border, along with his KoncentrationKamps4Kids™, make Baracomrade Øfascist's treasonously lax immigration policies look like a post-riot lockdown at Sing Sing Prison. Add to that Fraudulent Biden's predictably new wars in the Middle East, and it's clear our country — and the entire free world — would be much safer under the misleadership of even a Jimmah Carter-B. Hussein O. love child.
The Great Depression has nothing on Joe Stalin-lite's economic plans, either. Inflation from passing out dollars like crack, after flushing pipeline union workers down the toilet, wouldn't have happened during Ol' Jimmah's Era of Misery®. Nor was that peanut brain insane enough to "think" feel things like Greener School Lunches, Racial/Gender Inequity Reduction, Civilian Climate Corpse and other Loony Lefty Ludicrousness fall within a billion parsecs of the accepted meaning of "infrastructure."
“Many of the [Socialist/Marxist] ideas we fought for — that just a few years ago were considered radical — are now mainstream [Democrat Party policies].” –Comarade Bernie
I
t was nice of the Demofascist Party's top two candidates to openly confess their "unity" with totalitarianism's perennially failed ideas. Even nicer that one of them proclaimed those ideas "now mainstream" within their party. Liberofascists like them usually don't telegraph their zealous adherence to such merciless killers of personal freedom.
Criminals ready to snap are all in favor of "a civilian corps of unarmed first responders such as social workers" to handle their "nonviolent" crimes, but not freedom-loving Americans who demand and support effectual protection of their safety and security.
Democrooks bent on dividing America into more easily conquerable tribes are all committed to shifting the blame and bruden for their party's "legacy of slavery and Jim Crow segregation" onto everybody else, but not justice-minded Americans who judge the Jimocrow Party solely guilty and responsible, and that the descendants of its many, many victims have exceptionally strong cause as well as the right to sue it into total bankruptcy and ultimate extirpation.
Well-heeled Demotyrants, their donors and their armies of loophole-making accountants and lawyers all promote "shared prosperity" and "investing" other people's money in their countless vote-buying schemes, but not hard-working Americans who actually earn a living and must pay the multitude of hiked taxes those exorbitantly costly schemes require.
Desperate Demofascists and their cheap labor-supporting pals all clamor for the immediate elimination of America's borders and sovereignty, but not We the People who ordained and established her Constitution and value law and order.
Power-hungry globalists and other Democronies all believe they must "embed environmental justice and climate justice at the heart of our policy and governing agenda" and must prepare us to be "citizens of our planet," but not God-fearing Americans who put their eternal trust in Him rather than in some elitist clique of hate-filled, politically-driven control freaks.
Thankfully, we Americans have a president who already stopped these liberofascists from inflicting their freedom-crushing ideas on our country once. When we reelect him, he will do so again.
Namely, New York, California and other miserably failed states.
I
t's the Democrat Way. Throw good money after bad. Except, in this case, there's no "good" money left to throw anywhere. Dollar bills are so overly plentiful now, a sheet of toilet paper would be more valuable than any as currency. Cf. Weimar Republic and its wheelbarrows full of cash.
Not that any of this matters to Demofascists, of course, whose holders of economics degrees include the masterminds Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Paul Krugman and Governor GauleiterJayInslee. They have, after all, a serious crisis they don't want to go to waste. So it's exploit the China Virus to extort from out-of-work American taxpayers multi-trillion-dollar bailouts of states they ran into the ground long before this crisis. Is it any wonder they're doing everything yes they can to prolong their lockdowns that keep Americans out of work? Make no mistake, they always place far greater value on their power to take and spend our money than on their duty to guarantee and protect our liberties.
Effectually, Demotyrants are saying, "Give in to our demands and we'll release the hostages." In the meantime, our lives and livelihoods languish in their ludicrousprisons.
It's time we rise up against our totalitariankidnappers and order them to stay at home instead — forever — away from any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States or any state.
hanks to the U.S. Supreme Court, yes Congress can order the Internal Revenue Service to fine tax you if you refuse to purchase any good or service it thinks feels you must have. (Ain't dictatorial powers grand?)
Thus, under FSA2AA — nicknamed "UninfringedArms" — you either go to Firearms.gov or call 1-800-E1ATMOI and buy a government-approved bronze, silver, gold, or platinum plated gun through your state's firearms exchange. The bronze plated one is the cheapest. But it has a high, 5,500 rounds deductible. The platinum plated gun has a smaller ammunition deductible. But it's the most expensive.
If you cannot prove to the IRS that you had a firearm for at least 10 months in any given calendar year, yes you can and will be taxed. However, if your income is below four times the federal poverty level, you'll receive a means-tested subsidy when you buy a firearm.
On the off chance you still have a job in this alleged recovery, your employer must supply you with an adequate gun or else pay a hefty fine/tax/whatever. When you visit a gun shop (or gun show) for your firearms needs, the law requires the owner (or organizer) to follow certain guidelines, such as not providing you a scope if the government thinks feels you're not worthy enough to receive it. (Gotta bend that cost curve down, you know.)
Heady from the resounding success of these laws — collectivistly know as the Submit Else Relinquish Fearsome Doses Of Money (SERFDOM) Acts — Congress, in its infinite and infallible wisdom, thinks feels it has to pass even more of them... so that you can find out what is in them, or something. For examples,
Patriotism Protection and Affordable Flag Act
Buy an American-made American flag or pay a tax
Postal Protection and Affordable Mailbox Act
Buy a government-approved one or pay a tax
Disaster Preparedness and Affordable Stockpile Act
Overwhelming the system doesn't work when you're forced to listen to what the people want.
Champion of fiscal sanity Senator Ted Cruz
H
ank the Ripper and his merry band of Demøcutthroats are hard of hearing. We keep telling them we don't want their disastrous, corruptØfascist"Care" 4Ø4"Care." But these walking death panels only pay attention to the big corporations who contribute big money to their reelection campaigns and who want total exemptions from that total train wreck of theirs in return — we and our interests be damned.
We also want them to follow the orderly and fair procedure for creating timely and sound federal budgets, as prescribed by existing law. Not resort to cheap political and "optical" stunts designed to—
create crises and chaos,
make as many non-entitled people suffer as possible, and
cast blame on the other party for all of the above.
But Hank the Ripper's whole murderous gang know they can't do that without giving up on their hopes of ramming their extremist, exclusively partisan monstrosities completely down all our throats so yes they can achive their one and only goal of fundamentally transforming the United States of America into little more than a permanent, single-party dictatorship at home and a beaten, ineffectual player on the world stage — we and our interests be damned.
Since replies to the Tenth Amendment Center post by Randy Barnett are moderated, I'll include mine here.
I
n explaining the supreme court's opinion in Windsor, Barnett says, "By adopting this federalism approach to identifying protected liberty, however, states remain free to continue deciding the marriage question. Of course, this assumes that what the Court today says about the irrationality of DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) at the federal level is not used to undermine the constitutionality of refusals to recognize same-sex marriage by states — as Justice Scalia predicts will flow from the majority's reasoning." In my reply, I question that assumption:
Given the supreme court says it's unconstitutional at the federal level to define marriage in a manner that violates equal protection vis-à-vis a state's looser definition, how long before the court invokes the supremacy, full faith and credit, and perhaps privileges and immunities clauses to say it's unconstitutional at the state level to define marriage in a likewise manner? What difference, at that point, does any legal definition of marriage make when, under this lowest common denominator doctrine, the court may adjudge it "improperly motivated by animus" in light of an anything-goes one?
Had Congress, in DOMA or another law, applied the appellate jurisdiction clause so that such cases would never reach the supreme court and that the court would never be at liberty to inquire into Congress's motives, any damaging affects could be confined to no more than a few judicial circuits.
As it stands, the 39 traditional marriage states's legislatures must act themselves if they wish to preserve and protect their laws; viz., 34+ make application to Congress to call a convention for the specific and exclusive purpose of proposing a defense of marriage amendment, then 38+ ratify the proposed amendment. The amendment may be as simple as:
The power to give in one State full faith and credit to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of another with respect to marriages and other domestic relations contrary therein to the laws of such State, is reserved to the States respectively.
Or it may go further to include the federal government's treatment of such relations.
Whichever they decide to settle on, the time for those states to develop their response is now.
Need to see a doctor? Better be a Demøcrook voter.
W
hen Baracrook Øfascist and his comrade Tyrannicrats start "taxing" penalizing you financially next year for not being able to prove to their partisan Internal Revenue Service'sInvestigate Republicans Solely's satisfaction that you have "acceptable" health insurance coverage, the first thing they'll want to see is not your photo ID, but your voter registration card. If it shows the "correct" party affiliation, you'll get a vastly reduced or even suspended fine. Same goes for your access to affordable care. Indeed, they should've called their law the Vote Right Left or Die Quickly Act.
Remember in 2014: Only Tyrannicrats voted yes to pass Øfascist"Care."
They totally own it. But you're the one who has to pay for it all.
In March 2010 Mr. Grassley [Senator Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa)] tried again to apply the law to all Congressional personnel and to White House officials. His amendment received every Republican vote but it was defeated with 55 Democrats (plus Socialist Bernie Sanders) voting no. However, thanks to Mr. Grassley's earlier success, the law still covered Members of Congress and some of their aides — hence their latest effort to wiggle out of the ObamaCare mandates.
In 2010 Mr. Grassley created enough of a political headache that Mr. Obama was compelled to say that he would personally join a new insurance exchange. This was an empty gesture since the President has no need for health insurance. He has a team of people devoted to his health and surely no one asks him to present a [voter-registration] card to receive treatment.
Congress will eventually find some way to protect itself, but its subterranean scrambling to do so exposes one of ObamaCare's greatest deceits: That if you like the insurance you have, you'll be able to keep it. Even the people who wrote the law don't believe it.
So Øfascist & Commiepany's partisan IRS, which can't wait to harass conservatives while giving fascist totalitarian liberals(birm) a pass, has practicably absolute power and discretion to enforce this totally Tyrannicrat law. What could possibly go wrong? If they think feel you lean to the right the answer is, as we've clearly seen already, everything.
Redefining "marriage" within the borders of a State is no one's business except that State's.
N
o United States district, circuit, or even supreme court has any jurisdiction under what's left of our national Constitution to decide what marriage means in any or every state. Absent a constitutional amendment to the contrary, only the people of each state or their duly chosen representatives may make that decision for themselves. They, of course, may not impose their decision on the people of any other state in a manner that voids or makes meaningless the latter's own decision; and the U.S. Congress has the power to ensure that they don't.
In both cases now before it, the orders of the Supreme Court of the United States ought to be unanimous: We must let each state decide. No state may be forced to accept another state's decision.
Consent of the governed is the only principle a government can follow to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers. No just or legitimate power can ever be derived from any attempt to transcend that principle, no matter what the cause. At every level it is so fundamental to our form of government, there would be no ground of public confidence in the government once its violation is allowed. Indeed, it is the beginning and the end of the American story:
When it became necessary, the laws of nature and of nature's God entitled us to assume among the powers of the earth a separate and equal station, one within which we alone have authority to institute, together for our nation and respectively for our states, new governments. In each case, we were determined to lay its foundation on such principles and organize its powers in such form as to us seemed most likely to effect our safety and happiness. The general result was a "system approaching so near to perfection as it does" that it "can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other."
Eighty years later our consent was required to abolish slavery and to make it unconstitutional for any government to deny or abridge a citizen's rights on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. In light of that consent, the U.S. Supreme Court belatedly but unanimously overturned all laws prohibiting miscegenation, which by 1967 were on the books in only a third of the states. A man and a women, regardless either's skin color, now could marry each other anywhere in the United States. That decision, however, prohibited discrimination based on physical attributes, not behavioral choices.
So what if two sisters want to "marry" each other? If a state's law or highest court says they have the "right" to, what effect should that have on the laws against incest in other states? Can there be any constitutional grounds for prohibiting those states the power to enforce such laws if "Mrs. and Mrs. Doe-Doe" choose to reside in any of them?
So what if more than two persons want to "marry" each other? Are all laws against polygyny, polyandry, or group marriage rendered unenforceable in every state when one state decides they should be? (And if a state decides that all animals and/or plants have the same rights as human beings, what then?)
Must we seek to impose these views by force of law on our fellow citizens? If so, what is the point of enacting any marriage "law"?
If a mere five judges of the Supreme Court either fail to realize that the real goal of these views' proponents is not to redefine "marriage" but to render that term substantively meaningless, or otherwise decide to activistly promote that goal, how much more corrupted must the American people become before they themselves decide that the term "despotism" can never again retain with them any meaning at all?
hat other "last resort" options would Demøbrats leave women? "Pretend you enjoy it"?
Obviously, they would rather help violent criminals create more government-dependent victims than allow any citizen the opportunity to fully exercise her God-given right to choose whichever means of self-defense she believes is best for her.
It's more proof of the Demøcreeps's War on Potential Rape Victims.
When it comes to Colorado Democrats and rape, though, the Democrats lately seem to have placed themselves on the side of the rapists. Democrat Rep. Joe Salazar, when discussing women and rape on college campuses was more concerned about the rapists being hurt by ditzy women than he was about women getting raped. And the University of Colorado offered self-defense advice that never even contemplated the possibility that a woman could defend herself with arms. This [so-called] advice ranged from run to vomit.
There was a lot of talk last Fall about a supposed "war on women." If anyone is interested in a real war on women, they should keep an eye on Colorado, which is doing its best to keep ditzy women entirely at the mercy of their attackers.
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.
A
ny claim that "we can't just cut our way to prosperity," that it's instead going to require "everybody doing their fair share," presupposes the national government's control over, well, everybody. It is, in fact, "a bigger government we need" to make such broad-based control possible. So the use of "investment" spending cuts to deny or limit that control is really anathema to the Øfascists presently in power who want much, much more.
[T]hey use terms like the "Great Society," or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a "greater government activity in the affairs of the people." But they have been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves — and all of the things that I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say "the cold war will end through acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism." Another voice says that the profit motive has become outmoded, it must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state; or our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century. Senator Fullbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the president as our moral teacher and our leader, and he said he is hobbled in his task by the restrictions in power imposed on him by this antiquated document. He must be freed so that he can do for us what he knows is best. And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as "meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government." Well, I for one resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me — the free man and woman of this country — as "the masses." This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, "the full power of centralized government" — this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.
Look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business — you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.
Ø
didn'tbuildthat™ doesn't value small businesses. Else he wouldn't be demanding that Congress raise their taxes at the end of the year.
Øbodysomeelse™ doesn't believe that the free market is the greatest source of prosperity in our history. Else he wouldn't have wholly taken over General Motors and our health care and heavily subsidized Solyndra and other failed "investments." Plus he wouldn't be allowing a record number of Americans to exit the labor force and become dependent on government "benefits."
Roads and bridges and ports and wireless networks wouldn't exist but for a business helping to create both the demand for them and the tax base essential for paying their cost.
Øbackwards is just an idiot.
And, yes, he did build that idiocy of his himself.
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
It doesn't say "private businesses are built and made to happen among some somebody elses [megalomaniacal] government officials and bureaucrats, deriving their just successes from the help [sic] of the government."
But what did our Founding Fathers know?
Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Conservative version: 1. God created the people. 2. The people built government.
Socialist fascist liberal(birm) version: 1. Government built the people. 2. The people created this "god" thingy and bitterly cling to it.
In other words, conservatives believe governments exist only to serve each of us. Liberals feel each of us exists only to serve government.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;
There could not be a lighter and more transient cause for "Change®" than "we all ought to be socialists now."
and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
Got that? The reality is we're better off suffering the seemingly countless annoyances, inconveniences, and downright slip-ups of this necessary evil that we have that we call government, because it's the devil we know — as opposed to some national socialist liberal(birm)'s Brave New World of same old fascism which was utterly unknown to us before the unbelievable, sytematic Error of Øbungler™. Change for the worse, obviously, is never what we need.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Just two score and two months into the phAge of Øbam-ache®, yes we can once more know most good and well what they mean by that declaration.
It is the people's business to build a government and "make it happen." We loaned it no power in this country, however, to turn around and build our businesses and make them happen, illegitimate claims to the contrary notwithstanding. Indeed, there can be no longer train of abuses and usurpations than its pursuits in recent generations of that very despotic thing.
Make no mistake: Our successes made and make our unprecedented form of government possible. Not the other way around.
As long as patriotic lovers of American freedom have breath in their bodies, no fascist lying Øbamarxist(birm) can change that.
"...so that we make sure that the top one percent keeps paying, paying the current share they're paying or more."
B
aromney Øbamitt confesses he wants to make the wealthy job creators in this country Pay! Pay! Pay! the spending addicts in D.C. more, so Yes The GumMitt Can go right on Spending! Spending! Spending!
ComMittsar Øbamney. He'll cut back on how much money yes we can keep!
But I wasn't a tax cheat, so I said — what the ^%$*!
D
emøcrook Charlie Rangel is a Demøcrook.
If you or I cheated on our taxes the way Demøcrook Charlie Rangle the Demøcrook did, you wouldn't be reading or I wouldn't be writing this post. That's because, unlike Demøcrook Charlie Rangel the Demøcrook, you or I would be in jail.
“But I thought Speaker Blinkey was gonna drain the swamp. I guess Rangel and Murtha clogged up the drain.”
irst, a complete and thorough essay on all that motivates Demofibberat Pelooni, Demofascist B.Hustlin' Øfascist, Dirtbag-o-rat Harry "Lost" Reid, and the rest of the Democrook Party fascist anti-America liberal misleaders(birm):
Power.The End.
Dictators throughout the ages have only dreamed of amassing the amount of it our country's Demoscam-a-lot Party now possesses; and all of those previous dictators put together never abused the ones they did have as much. That's because, in this country, our government is supposed to be based solely on the strong but very limited powers we choose to loan it. Such arrangement, we decided, is supremely equitable and just for a free people.
When in the possession, however, of the most untrustworthy collection of power-crazed liars, traitors, and crooks our country has ever seen, each bereft of every honor or any sense of it, we have the right as well as the duty — not only to ourselves but to future generations of Americans — to call in that loan of powers. Their abuses have put them in full default. Our choice then becomes either replace by election the immediate receivers of our loan or alter by constitutional amendment its terms.
Yes, we can decide that we need no change at all. That a fascist totalitarian government is exactly what our country and all her people deserve and should welcome.
By doing nothing you help maintain that new status quo.
Only do not be surprised when those whose hearts are still animated by the spirit of Liberty tell you, "Crouch down and lick the hands of Nanny-statist Psychosí, 'Present' Øfascist, and all the other Demoliarats which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!"
DHSS Therefore Dictates This Web Log and All Who May Read It — Yes, that Means You! — Be Secretly Monitored by Øur Regime and All State, Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement Agencies for Any of These or Similar Activities Not Approved by “Present” Øfascist, Which He Has Decreed Are Wanton Acts of
Rightwing Extremism
So Stop Reading This Web Log Now! (If You Know What’s Good For You)
Raising taxes on the very people he promised to help — making them even worse off — just so he give a vote-buying handout to those who need it less. Now that's "change" we can believe in!
When [B. Husstalin Øbamao] promised that he wouldn't raise taxes on "anybody" but then "looks forward" to signing this [SCHIP-expansion] bill, it seems to make it official that smokers aren't "anybody." Not citizens; not persons. Here's a guy who "cut myself a little slack" for smoking because running for president was stressful who then cuts other indulgers none during the worst, most stressful economic downturn in four generations.
The poor will bear the highest burden of Present Øbamao's higher Poor Tax™. Minorities will be even harder hit.
Three out of every ten poor people will be paying this over 250-percent increase in taxes he wants to unfairly impose on them. But they won't receive any additional benefits from his higher taxes on them since their children aren't included in his latest Middle-Class Welfare/Vote-Buying Handout scheme.
By contrast, only one in five people whose votes he's buying with his middle-class handout are going to see their taxes increase. So, in light of the fact that those with higher incomes smoke less and thus can avoid the brunt of the Øbamarx Poor Tax, they won't be paying anywhere near their fair share.
The unprecedentedly high tax burden that Present Ø'promise-breaker wants to impose on minorities is worse. Especially for blacks, since over two out of every five poor blacks, including over half of all poor black men, will be directly hit by Former Senator Øbamarx's tax increase.
It's enough to make someone say,
But the worst thing that has happened to us is that as a nation we have lost our way. We have lost faith that Americans can still be the good guys, that we can... help the poor....
We won't be getting that faith back, either, after Present Øbamao makes sure the poor and minorities see their taxes increase.
Democrats are rushing... to impose massive tax hikes of at least 61 cents on every cigarette pack sold in America, in addition to new increases on other tobacco products. The money will fund a long-plotted federal expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).
Yes, this is Dr. Big Nanny's prescription for recession: punitive tax increases on the poor to feed a universal health-care Trojan horse.
Obama and his liberal Democratic colleagues sure have a funny way of demonstrating "progressive" values, don't they? Health surveys show that smokers are more likely to be blue-collar workers, minorities and have less than a high-school education. The National Taxpayers Union noted that tobacco taxes take a 50 times larger share of income from those earning less than $20,000 than those earning more than $200,000. Put another way: Families making less than $30,000 per year pay more than half of all taxes paid on cigarettes, while families making more than $60,000 pay only 14 percent.
That's the dictionary definition of "regressive," not "progressive."
Before delving into what the Øbammunist middle-class vote-buying handout goodies are, let's find out how much they're going to cost the poor and minorities he's excluding from any receipt of those goodies.
The math's so easy, in fact, even a liberal could do it... on a good day... if they had a big-button calculator... and their remedial-math teacher refrained from refusing to have to continually correct their wrong answers for fear of destroying their self-esteem:
Given that Former Senator Øblowa's Middle-Class Welfare/Vote-Buying Handout will be at least $33 billion over the next 4½ years, and that his increased Poor Tax™ is $0.61 on each pack of cigarettes, the number of packs in need of smoking to fund his Middle-Class Bribes for Votes Program® is 54 billion.
Therefore, each of them would have to buy a total of 1,200 packs. That's 270 packs a year, or a carton (10 packs) every two weeks!
And since the poor are the only ones who come anywhere close to smoking that much — indeed, 47 percent of all tobacco purchasers have an annual household income of less than $30,000 (it rises to 77 percent when you include those having less than only $50,000) — they will bear an even more disproportionate burden of Øbonghit's unfair tax increase.
It also means the poor and minorities will have less money to spend as they're running their homes, working hard trying to support their children, and "needing to cut themselves some slack" against the added stress from Øbamarx's Recession® that's pounding them.
How much less? Since the Øbamao Poor Tax on poverty-stricken minorities and non-minorities' half-carton a week adds up to a total hit of $741 on them, they'll have $165 less to spend every year through at least 2013. That's in addition to the $105 a year they're already going to be forking over to the Government That's There To "Help" Them™ through the steeply regressive federal excise tax currently slapped on them as second-class taxpayers.
So, liberals, choose which one you want these poor and minority parents to cut out for their kids:
That $165 month's worth of food so their hunger-stricken kids can eat more than what your inadequate food-stamp programs provide?
— Headline: Demoqrats want to starve The Children!
That $165 Winter's coat and other clothes so their kids can have something warm to wear when they go to your government schools?
— Headline: Demoqrats want The Children to freeze and even go naked!
That $165 summer month's electric bill payment so their kids can stay cool during the hot afternoons caused by your global warming climate change as well as turn on their desk lamps at night?
— Headlines: Demoqrats want The Children to sit in the dark without electricity! Demoqrats want The Children to not be able to see to do their homework! Demoqrats want The Children to go to bed drenched in sweat!
Before you smug liberals (but I repeat myself) look down your upturned noses and arrogantly say, "Well, then those poor and minority parents shouldn't be smoking!" think about feel what you're saying. Because if they do stop per your customarily racist-sounding demand, where is the revenue going to come from to pay for your "president"'s glorious Middle-Class Welfare/Vote-Buying Handout? Then you'd have no choice but to raise taxes on those very same middle-class folks — and it's bye-bye all their votes.
Yes, we can see now that forcing the poor and minorities to pay more than their fair share is about as unfair as you can get. Even for a liberal.
But, hey, what do the poor and minorities matter? It's not like they're going to start voting Republican or any liberty-loving thing like that.
If you're a Dictatorat, you can afford to crap all over them. Same as your party did when it only somewhat more officially advocated making them perpetual slaves.
He also wants to destroy American jobs, especially those in the nation's cigar industry.
First, a 156 percent tax rate increase on cigarettes compounded by tax rate increases of up to 6,000 percent on large cigars, 2,197 percent on little cigars, 710 percent on roll-your-own tobacco, 156 percent on smokeless tobacco and 156 percent on pipe tobacco will lead to declines of 10 percent or more in retail sales of tobacco. This large reduction in sales will have a corresponding impact on industry jobs.
According to 2002 U. S. Census Bureau statistics, 1.17 million union and non-union employees are employed by tobacco manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers. With upward of a 10 percent decline in tobacco sales, industry estimates project up to 117,000 jobs will be lost.
Second, the SCHIP tax increases will significantly raise the value of tobacco products held in inventory. The unintended consequence will make warehouses, delivery trucks and retail stores more likely targets for crime.
Third, the escalation of taxes on tobacco products will lead to a corresponding rise in purchases of tobacco products by consumers over the Internet and on the black market, where vendors illegally sell tobacco products tax-free and do not verify a customer’s age to avoid selling to minors.
Finally, because most Americans who buy tobacco are in the low or middle- income range, raising tobacco taxes will affect the poor more disproportionately.
President-elect Barack Obama needs to keep his campaign promise and not raise taxes, including cigarette and tobacco taxes, on any American who earns less than $250,000....
Scott Ramminger is president of the American Wholesale Marketers Association. The piece also reflects the stand of the Southern Association of Wholesale Distributors, the National Association of Convenience Stores, Petroleum Marketers Association of America, the National Association of Tobacco Outlets and the National Association of Truck Stop Operators.
It's safe to assume negligible revenues raised from customers of our country's cigar industry, primarily due to the utter certainty there won't be much of one left after the Øbamao Tax Increase™ gets done ravaging it.
How ironic that the liberals' boogymen, Eeevil Corporations™, care demonstrably more about the jobs and living wages of struggling American workers. This includes even Big Tobacco:
We're not opposed to SCHIP, but we are opposed to the funding mechanism for it.
SCHIP, as a tax of convenience, will tax mostly those who are less able to pay the tax as they choose to use this legal product. Historically, tax increases at the federal level have been passed on to consumers — even as those proponents of increasing cigarette taxes tend to indicate that everybody but the consumer will pay the tax.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 80 percent of the people who smoke make less than $75,000, and 99 percent make less than $250,000. There are more people below the poverty line purchasing cigarettes than those above the poverty line.
So, the notion that no one under $250,000 will face a tax increase under the new administration will prove to be false within a couple of weeks of the new administration being sworn in.
Certainly even liberals know or should know that slapping any tax on those least able to afford it is never a good idea if your goal is to derive some steady source of revenue from it. Liberals' most beloved group of people of all time — lawyers — are capable of grasping this incongruity:
Therefore, some argue that this places two positive goals for society — reducing smoking and funding children's health care — at odds with each other. After a few years, it's also possible that even if the tobacco tax is implemented for funding of SCHIP, reductions in the number of smokers (and thus, revenue) would lead to the same problem of funding for this significant federally funded program.
That is, if your goal actually involves raising funds.
With the new bill, Schip will be open to everyone up to 300% of the federal poverty level, or $63,081 for a family of four. In other words, a program supposedly targeted at low-income families has an eligibility ceiling higher than the U.S. median household income, which according to the Census Bureau is $50,233. Even the 300% figure isn't really a ceiling, given that states can get a government waiver to go even higher. Tom Daschle's folks at Health and Human Services will barely read the state paperwork before rubberstamping these expansions.
The political purpose behind Schip has always been to capture the middle class [vote]. Every time the program grows, it displaces private insurance. Even before Democrats struck down rules limiting crowd out, research indicated that for every 100 children signed up — now more than 7.1 million — there is a reduction in private coverage for 25 to 50 kids. Exactly the same thing will happen if Messrs. Obama and Daschle[Next Tax Cheat He Nominates To Run Ruin Health And Human Services] end up introducing a "public option," a government insurance program modeled after Medicare but open to anyone of any income. As with Schip, any net increase in insurance coverage will come by having taxpayers gradually supplant the private system.
Schip money is delivered as a block grant, which states are supposed to match, though national taxpayers end up paying 65% to 83% of the total cost. When states make health-care promises they can't afford — such as New York, which expanded the program to 400% of poverty — the feds always step in with, yes, a bailout.....
All this is propped up by a permanent increase in the tobacco tax, which will rise to $1 a pack from the current 39 cents — thus financing a permanent and growing entitlement with a declining corps of smokers.
Since its inception, SCHIP has been a case study in everything that's wrong with government — another example of feel-good rhetoric and lofty promises paid for with your money, except the rhetoric never matches the reality and the promises are always too good to be true.
Although its proponents are quick to throw up pictures of starving inner city children, the fact is that SCHIP has insured millions of adults, and middle class families over the past decade.
In some cases, SCHIP recipients were earning 300% of the poverty level.
This was famously exposed in 2007, when Democrats selected a middle school student named Graeme Frost to deliver the rebuttal to President George W. Bush's veto of SCHIP reauthorization, only to discover later that the boy attended a $20,000 a year school and his family lived in a 3,000 square foot home valued at over $400,000.
And who pays the most for SCHIP? A disproportionately high number of poor smokers — the very people the program is supposed to be serving.
To sweeten his bribe of middle-class parents for their votes — all unfairly funded on the backs of low-income ones — Former Senator Øbamunist offers to define every 19-, 20-, and 21-year-old offspring of theirs as a "child."
[T]he term "child" means an individual under 19 years of age, or, at the option of a State, such higher age, not to exceed 21 years of age, as the State may elect.
So much for "change," too. This is just more of the same Poor Tax™, jobs-killing garbage zer-0bama and other Demoqrats in al-Qongress tried to stick the American People with back in 2007.
Whatever its other problems, the tobacco tax is a poor foundation for SCHIP. We are matching a declining source of revenue with a growing federal program. This does not make fiscal sense....
And we all say we oppose regressive taxes. But what are we considering today? A highly regressive tax. In fact, this tax is among the most regressive types of taxes we could consider....
Cash receipts for tobacco are projected to contribute between $300 -$350 million to Kentucky's economy this year.
An increase in the excise tax on tobacco will drive down the demand for consumption. This will result in less tobacco being purchased from Kentucky tobacco farmers by manufacturers — both cigarette and non-cigarette.
It will most likely force the specialty growers in my state — Kentucky burley leaf and Kentucky Wisconsin leaf — out of business. These are small family farms in rural Kentucky that rely on the revenue for their crops.
The money they get from tobacco pays their mortgage, puts their kids through school or allows them to keep farming.
The [Congressional Budget Office] has estimated that the SCHIP proposal will result in a 5-6% reduction in demand for tobacco during its first year.
This will most likely cause a $5.4 million reduction in payments to rural farmers in my state next year under the master settlement agreement.
Some people will say there's nothing wrong with all this, because it will force some people to quit smoking and we're using the money to help poor children.
But, who gets credit for this supposed act of charity? This plan would take money from one group of poor people and give it to another.
The Democrat bill allows states to expand the SCHIP program up to 300 percent of poverty — or $66,000 for family of four. Personally, I think 300 percent is too high for SCHIP. The focus of this program should be on reaching those kids who are currently eligible for the program, but not enrolled.
This bill also gives New York and New Jersey a special exemption to cover kids in families above 300 percent of poverty. New York could even cover families up to 400 percent of poverty — or $88,000 for a family of four. These are certainly not low-income families. I attempted to keep all states on a level playing field by offering an amendment to strike the special exemption, but it was voted down.
While I do believe the SCHIP program is important to providing quality health care to our nation's most needy kids, I cannot support such a flawed bill. It was crafted in a totally partisan manner. It is not fiscally responsible. And it certainly does not protect the needs of low-income folks in states like Kentucky.
Although the Peloseri-run House Plantation™ passed the Øbamarx Poor Tax bill, the Senate insisted on amending it. So a few selected Senators and Representative began meeting to come up with a version of the Øbamarx Poor Tax that both the Senate and Peloseri's House Plantation will have to vote on again.
It's not too late for normal, hard-working Americans to rescue their income and their jobs from this Øbamao Tax Increase.
Under the guise of helping children without health insurance, the House of Representatives voted 289 to 139 last week in favor of a massive expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) — paving the way for a government-run, universal healthcare system and dramatically increasing the cost of this program to you, me, and all taxpayers!
SCHIP was originally designed to help low-income families who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid gain access to health insurance for their children. The legislation approved by the House would increase the SCHIP income eligibility cap from the current 200 percent of the federal poverty line ($42,400 in annual income for a family of four) to 300 percent of the federal poverty line ($63,600 in annual income), making the eligibility ceiling for this "low-income" program higher than the median household income in this country. What's more, states can apply for a federal waiver to raise the ceiling even higher!
The House bill would more than double spending on SCHIP from $25 billion to $60 billion over four-and-a-half years. It would also permit states to cover legal aliens under SCHIP and Medicaid without the customary five-year waiting period established by the 1996 welfare reform law. [More information here.] In addition, the SCHIP legislation does nothing to prevent parents from transferring their children from private insurance plans to the taxpayer-funded program. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 2.4 million individuals could leave private insurance and join a government-run plan if this bill becomes law.
To pay for this big-government healthcare expansion, its advocates have proposed increasing the federal cigarette excise tax by 156 percent. Trust me, this will be just the first of many tax increases to come as SCHIP, like virtually every other entitlement program before it, ends up costing more than expected and sucking up increasing amounts of your tax dollars!
After the failure of HillaryCare in the 1990s, the universal healthcare proponents have wised up. They know they can't impose a government takeover of America's healthcare system — and the massive tax increases needed to pay for it all at once without provoking a resounding public outcry. Instead, they've adopted an incremental approach, where they will slowly expand existing government healthcare programs until they crowd out private insurance.
The backers of this plan think they can make all Americans dependent on the government for our healthcare before we know what hit us!
The sad part of all this isn't how Present Øpromise-breaker is manipulating the people who, even now, are still inclined to support him. It's that they not only want but need someone like him to keep on manipulating them.
acism and the Racist Racists Who Show It: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Left.
Liberals would want to cover up this one in book stores so much they'd put even Ann Coulter's Guilty in front of it.
What they can't hide is the fact their racist party is again standing in front of yet another public institution's door to prevent the admittance of a lawfully qualified African-American.
Until Democrats allow him to take the oath of office and his seat on the Senate floor, Governor Rod Blagojevich's (D-Ill. St. Pen.) constitutionally appointed successor to Former Senator B. Hatassein Øbama (D-Mombasa) continues to have his head in the not so proverbial noose.
So long as their hands still rest on the trap door's lever, the chances that Demoracists are ultimately going to pull it, making Senator Roland Burris (D-Lynching Victim) do more than just twist in the wind, remain more than good.
Swing high, sweet Roland Burris Comin' for to send you back home (In a [figurative?] pine box) Swing high, sweet Roland Burris Comin' for to send you back home
Senate Majority Lyncher Harry Reid (D-"Not In My Neighborhood") should take off that black hood and go back to wearing his normal white one.
This Strung Up Hoisted By Their Own Petard Moment™ brought to you by MassaCard®.
Price tag on Illinois' vacant U.S. Senate seat: $1,000,000.00. Cost of "no contact" phone calls about that seat between Former Senator Øbama (D-Kenya) and Governor Blagojevich (D-Pay to Play): $105.15. Demoqrats' racism once again on full display: Priceless.
There are some blacks Harry can't lynch. For everyone else, there's MassaCard®.
Demoqrat: The Party of Racists “Run Like a Plantation”™
and not to just Big Union special interests like the Bailouterats clearly still are.
L
ine in the sand which no Democommunist or their Big Union pals may cross, is what the Republicans Profiles in Courage™ in our Senate drew on deeply carved into that chamber's floor.
They earned their pay yesterday. Even merit our giving them a raise for actually doing their sole job of representing us and our interests for a change instead of representing the Democrooks' special Big Union votes-buying ones.
Speaking of standing up to Democriminal corruption (but I repeat myself):
What legal authority or standing does the puny attorney jerkenalSenate Candidate Number Two of Illinois have to "overturn the election" of a sitting governor duly elected twice by the people of her state?
In fact, she should recuse herself from any and all proceedings affecting the governor — especially those related to this senator-appointment matter — since she, as someone referred to at Count 97 of the very indictment regarding it, is personally involved in the scandal.
Does she even care about due process? (That was a rhetorical question, by the way.)
Then again, since when have respecting our constitutional procedures and following our laws ever mattered to Despotrats?
Packages and school supplies raised through these organizations are transported to Iraq, free of charge, by FedEx, then distributed to Iraqi children by our brave freedom fighters.
