JR Dieckmann
Obama's "stimulus package" is a huge slab of pork
By JR Dieckmann
Obama's public works "stimulus package" is a huge slab of pork. It assures that plenty of federal funds will be available to state union workers for funding projects that are outside the federal government's sphere of responsibility. "We need to create jobs to help the middle class," he says. "We will create millions of jobs by making the single largest new investment in our national infrastructure since the creation of the federal highway system in the 1950s," Already, governors and special interest greenfreaks are lining up with their hands out.
The economy will not be strengthened by more government jobs. Unfortunately, Obama knows nothing about private enterprise and entrepreneurship, which is the sector that needs to create the jobs. He has offered nothing to encourage job growth in the private sector to assure that more employment will be affordable to small businesses. In fact, he has said that just the opposite will happen. Any job growth under an Obama administration will be a growth of government and government jobs.
Government can create the conditions favorable to job growth in the private sector, but either Obama doesn't know how to do that or he doesn't want to. The middle class doesn't need your help, Mr. Obama — we can take care of ourselves. We don't want your welfare package — we want you out of our lives and out of our wallets. We don't want more government jobs paid for by the taxpayers. We want fewer government jobs, lower taxes, and policies favorable to private business. You can't have it both ways.
I don't really know how Obama will govern as president, I expect that it will be no different than his entire history of association with Marxists has bred into him. But what I have noticed is how the media are all suggesting that he will govern as a centrist. I'm not sure if this is simply naivety, stupidity, or dishonesty. Why would he govern as a centrist when he has always been a radical liberal socialist, and now has both houses of Congress to back him up?
From all of his campaign rhetoric and promises, it would seem as though Obama's concept of change is eventually putting the entire country on the government payroll and the entire economy in the hands of the government. We used to call that Communism; now we just call it Liberal or Progressive.
Obama said he would appoint judges who would decide cases based on compassion and sympathy rather than law and the Constitution. "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old — and that's the criterion by which I'll be selecting my judges." Supreme court judges should no longer decide cases based on constitutionality, but instead on who they personally sympathize with.
Barack Obama has boldly gone where no candidate has gone before.
Is Bush jumping the gun on Obama's security briefings? What if the Supreme Court finally decides to hear one of the many cases challenging Obama's citizenship and rules that Obama is not eligible to become president? Isn't President Bush just a little bit nervous about handing over top secret, classified information to a radical, anti-American socialist with so many ties to radicals and undesirable enemies of America? What will they do then, kill him? Isn't that what people in the intelligence business always say: "I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you."
Sooner or later, due to public pressure, Obama is going to have to show that he is a natural born American citizen and constitutionally qualified for the presidency. If he cannot, he cannot become president but will be able to hand over all that he has learned from Bush, to his communist associates who created and trained him. That will be the end of "secret" national security information when it's all made public in the New York Times.
Applicants under serious consideration for an administration appointment are subject to thorough, rigorous and more personally intrusive scrutiny than most people realize. The FBI background check — which includes analysis of a wide range of federal and intelligence databases — looks at employment, professional, personal, travel, medical, financial, legal, military and educational histories, which are carefully reviewed and scrutinized. In addition, the applicant must undergo a polygraph and psychological evaluation.
Obama, to be in the top security and defense position in the country, will be exempt from all of these security procedures while everyone in his administration will have to comply, if the law is followed. This is absurd. The President of the United States of America should be the first one to comply with a security check before his name is ever placed on the ballot. Will these security procedures be ignored for people in the Obama administration — especially the Clintons? If they are going to ignore the "natural born citizen" clause in the Constitution, what will they do about those he appoints who can't pass a security check? Will they pass them anyway like a failing kid in our liberal run schools?
There should also be no doubt in the minds of the American people that the candidate is a natural born citizen of the United States as required in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. Unfortunately, Jefferson, Franklin, and the boys never suspected that some foreign born citizen would try to skirt this requirement, so they never included any enforcement law to assure this requirement is followed.
The New Sons of Liberty Society, a program of Basic Projects, believes that this deficiency in our Constitution can be resolved with a constitutional amendment which if passed, will require candidates for the office of President of the United States to present an original, first-source, vaulted birth certificate establishing their naturally born citizenship and age to the President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate no later than forty-eight (48) hours after receiving his political party's nomination.
It also requires each candidate within 30 days of winning their party's nomination, to place on public file with the Library of Congress, his original birth certificate; scholastic records; military records; relevant medical records; financial records; and criminal records which should present no particular problem for any honest and qualified candidate. Why would anyone vote for a candidate who refuses to provide these basic documents? Visit New Sons of Liberty Society website for full details and pass it on.
These are all of the same documents, by the way, that Barack Obama has had sealed and refuses to release to the public — spending a half million dollars in legal fees to fight their release — and creating a cloud of mistrust and questions of honesty and loyalty that will hang like a noose over his administration should he become the next president. Why would anyone vote for a candidate who refuses to comply with these fundamental requirements? More and more of us may be asking that question for the next four years. Perhaps the founders omitted enforcement of Article II, Section 1 in the Constitution because they never thought the American voting public would be so stupid, careless, and lacking in civic responsibility as to vote for such a candidate.
Some will insist that this is an invasion of privacy and in violation of the 4th Amendment which states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
A presidential or vice presidential candidate forfeits his privacy of records when he chooses to run for the office. We usually learn more about a candidate's life from the media than we want to know, except in the case of Barack Obama. But in any case, this is not an "unreasonable search and seizure" of the candidate's person, house, papers, or effects. It is a perfectly reasonable examination by the people to know that they are electing a constitutionally qualified candidate.
Obama's tax plan is an illusion.
Obama says he intends to reduce taxes on the middle class while raising taxes on business and corporations to pay for it. But businesses and corporations don't pay taxes — they can't. Any taxes levied on them are automatically reflected in the cost of their goods and services.
So what Obama is really saying is that he is going to give everyone with an income of under $250,000, $200,000, $150,000, $120,000 (they can't decide) — a one time welfare check and call it a "tax credit," then he's going to take that money back in the cost of everything you buy and every service you use which will amount to a tax gain for the government and higher taxes for you, hidden in your purchases. I call this "backdoor taxation." It's just another way the federal government taxes you without your knowing about it, and that is exactly how Obama plans to pay for his socialist programs. I won't even go into his faulty math that concludes that 2 + 2 - 1 = 10.
If the government wants to tax us through our purchases, I really don't have a problem with that — providing they do away with personal income tax, the IRS, and the tax code. In addition, the tax rate we pay on purchases and services must be available to the public at all times. Until these changes are made, the government policy of "backdoor taxation" will continue without our knowledge.
Obama and Biden are the only people on the political stage who think they can get away with a tax hike by calling it a "tax break." Obama has been pretty bold about telling us that he is going to repeal the Bush tax cuts, yet he also claims that somehow this is going to lower your taxes. I haven't heard so much doubletalk since John Kerry ran for president in 2004. At least Joe Biden is honest enough to admit they plan to raise taxes. "You got it," Biden said to ABC's Kate Snow, "time to be patriotic. Time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help America out of the rut..."
Democrats don't cut taxes or spending; they raise both. The truth is that none of Obama's economic plans make much sense unless you consider the goal is to control everyone's income by either putting them on the government payroll, controlling their businesses, or otherwise making them all dependent on government handouts either directly or indirectly.
Government bailouts amount to socialism.
Are the Bush bailouts simply intended to prepare the country for an Obama administration? The economic crisis we are seeing now is only a sample of what an Obama administration will do to this country if allowed to take office in the White House. Businesses must be able to grow and profit on their own or fail. It is not the job of the U.S. government to keep them going on taxpayers' money. That smells too much like socialism. The only logical reason for President Bush's forceful pushing of these bailouts must be to protect his legacy from a Big 3 automakers' bankruptcy and the collapse of financial institutions.
This was the going-away gift from the Democrats to President Bush which began nearly a year ago with the failing of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the leadership and oversight of congressional Democrats. The issue became a major factor in the election and succeeded — by deception — in Democrats winning the popular vote. Bush is now going to extreme measures to prevent it from becoming a blight upon his legacy.
Not only does Obama support this kind of government interference in private sector business, but he plans to double it once in office with another trillion dollar slab of pork to provide 2.5 million more government funded jobs in infrastructure rebuilding. The engine of our economy is in the private sector, not the government. We will never be able to recover from this recession as long as the government continues to inflate the bubble artificially with more devalued American dollars fresh off the printing presses with nothing to back them up.
Why aren't more Americans outraged at the unconstitutional use of taxpayers' money that this government has been engaging in? Our children and grandchildren are all going to hate us when they get the tax bill, and we will go down in history as the most fiscally and morally irresponsible generation in history. That is the legacy with which the Bush/Obama administrations will have "blessed" us.
© JR Dieckmann
December 15, 2008
Obama's public works "stimulus package" is a huge slab of pork. It assures that plenty of federal funds will be available to state union workers for funding projects that are outside the federal government's sphere of responsibility. "We need to create jobs to help the middle class," he says. "We will create millions of jobs by making the single largest new investment in our national infrastructure since the creation of the federal highway system in the 1950s," Already, governors and special interest greenfreaks are lining up with their hands out.
The economy will not be strengthened by more government jobs. Unfortunately, Obama knows nothing about private enterprise and entrepreneurship, which is the sector that needs to create the jobs. He has offered nothing to encourage job growth in the private sector to assure that more employment will be affordable to small businesses. In fact, he has said that just the opposite will happen. Any job growth under an Obama administration will be a growth of government and government jobs.
Government can create the conditions favorable to job growth in the private sector, but either Obama doesn't know how to do that or he doesn't want to. The middle class doesn't need your help, Mr. Obama — we can take care of ourselves. We don't want your welfare package — we want you out of our lives and out of our wallets. We don't want more government jobs paid for by the taxpayers. We want fewer government jobs, lower taxes, and policies favorable to private business. You can't have it both ways.
I don't really know how Obama will govern as president, I expect that it will be no different than his entire history of association with Marxists has bred into him. But what I have noticed is how the media are all suggesting that he will govern as a centrist. I'm not sure if this is simply naivety, stupidity, or dishonesty. Why would he govern as a centrist when he has always been a radical liberal socialist, and now has both houses of Congress to back him up?
From all of his campaign rhetoric and promises, it would seem as though Obama's concept of change is eventually putting the entire country on the government payroll and the entire economy in the hands of the government. We used to call that Communism; now we just call it Liberal or Progressive.
Obama said he would appoint judges who would decide cases based on compassion and sympathy rather than law and the Constitution. "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old — and that's the criterion by which I'll be selecting my judges." Supreme court judges should no longer decide cases based on constitutionality, but instead on who they personally sympathize with.
Barack Obama has boldly gone where no candidate has gone before.
Is Bush jumping the gun on Obama's security briefings? What if the Supreme Court finally decides to hear one of the many cases challenging Obama's citizenship and rules that Obama is not eligible to become president? Isn't President Bush just a little bit nervous about handing over top secret, classified information to a radical, anti-American socialist with so many ties to radicals and undesirable enemies of America? What will they do then, kill him? Isn't that what people in the intelligence business always say: "I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you."
Sooner or later, due to public pressure, Obama is going to have to show that he is a natural born American citizen and constitutionally qualified for the presidency. If he cannot, he cannot become president but will be able to hand over all that he has learned from Bush, to his communist associates who created and trained him. That will be the end of "secret" national security information when it's all made public in the New York Times.
Applicants under serious consideration for an administration appointment are subject to thorough, rigorous and more personally intrusive scrutiny than most people realize. The FBI background check — which includes analysis of a wide range of federal and intelligence databases — looks at employment, professional, personal, travel, medical, financial, legal, military and educational histories, which are carefully reviewed and scrutinized. In addition, the applicant must undergo a polygraph and psychological evaluation.
Obama, to be in the top security and defense position in the country, will be exempt from all of these security procedures while everyone in his administration will have to comply, if the law is followed. This is absurd. The President of the United States of America should be the first one to comply with a security check before his name is ever placed on the ballot. Will these security procedures be ignored for people in the Obama administration — especially the Clintons? If they are going to ignore the "natural born citizen" clause in the Constitution, what will they do about those he appoints who can't pass a security check? Will they pass them anyway like a failing kid in our liberal run schools?
There should also be no doubt in the minds of the American people that the candidate is a natural born citizen of the United States as required in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. Unfortunately, Jefferson, Franklin, and the boys never suspected that some foreign born citizen would try to skirt this requirement, so they never included any enforcement law to assure this requirement is followed.
The New Sons of Liberty Society, a program of Basic Projects, believes that this deficiency in our Constitution can be resolved with a constitutional amendment which if passed, will require candidates for the office of President of the United States to present an original, first-source, vaulted birth certificate establishing their naturally born citizenship and age to the President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate no later than forty-eight (48) hours after receiving his political party's nomination.
It also requires each candidate within 30 days of winning their party's nomination, to place on public file with the Library of Congress, his original birth certificate; scholastic records; military records; relevant medical records; financial records; and criminal records which should present no particular problem for any honest and qualified candidate. Why would anyone vote for a candidate who refuses to provide these basic documents? Visit New Sons of Liberty Society website for full details and pass it on.
These are all of the same documents, by the way, that Barack Obama has had sealed and refuses to release to the public — spending a half million dollars in legal fees to fight their release — and creating a cloud of mistrust and questions of honesty and loyalty that will hang like a noose over his administration should he become the next president. Why would anyone vote for a candidate who refuses to comply with these fundamental requirements? More and more of us may be asking that question for the next four years. Perhaps the founders omitted enforcement of Article II, Section 1 in the Constitution because they never thought the American voting public would be so stupid, careless, and lacking in civic responsibility as to vote for such a candidate.
Some will insist that this is an invasion of privacy and in violation of the 4th Amendment which states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
A presidential or vice presidential candidate forfeits his privacy of records when he chooses to run for the office. We usually learn more about a candidate's life from the media than we want to know, except in the case of Barack Obama. But in any case, this is not an "unreasonable search and seizure" of the candidate's person, house, papers, or effects. It is a perfectly reasonable examination by the people to know that they are electing a constitutionally qualified candidate.
Obama's tax plan is an illusion.
Obama says he intends to reduce taxes on the middle class while raising taxes on business and corporations to pay for it. But businesses and corporations don't pay taxes — they can't. Any taxes levied on them are automatically reflected in the cost of their goods and services.
So what Obama is really saying is that he is going to give everyone with an income of under $250,000, $200,000, $150,000, $120,000 (they can't decide) — a one time welfare check and call it a "tax credit," then he's going to take that money back in the cost of everything you buy and every service you use which will amount to a tax gain for the government and higher taxes for you, hidden in your purchases. I call this "backdoor taxation." It's just another way the federal government taxes you without your knowing about it, and that is exactly how Obama plans to pay for his socialist programs. I won't even go into his faulty math that concludes that 2 + 2 - 1 = 10.
If the government wants to tax us through our purchases, I really don't have a problem with that — providing they do away with personal income tax, the IRS, and the tax code. In addition, the tax rate we pay on purchases and services must be available to the public at all times. Until these changes are made, the government policy of "backdoor taxation" will continue without our knowledge.
Obama and Biden are the only people on the political stage who think they can get away with a tax hike by calling it a "tax break." Obama has been pretty bold about telling us that he is going to repeal the Bush tax cuts, yet he also claims that somehow this is going to lower your taxes. I haven't heard so much doubletalk since John Kerry ran for president in 2004. At least Joe Biden is honest enough to admit they plan to raise taxes. "You got it," Biden said to ABC's Kate Snow, "time to be patriotic. Time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help America out of the rut..."
Democrats don't cut taxes or spending; they raise both. The truth is that none of Obama's economic plans make much sense unless you consider the goal is to control everyone's income by either putting them on the government payroll, controlling their businesses, or otherwise making them all dependent on government handouts either directly or indirectly.
Government bailouts amount to socialism.
Are the Bush bailouts simply intended to prepare the country for an Obama administration? The economic crisis we are seeing now is only a sample of what an Obama administration will do to this country if allowed to take office in the White House. Businesses must be able to grow and profit on their own or fail. It is not the job of the U.S. government to keep them going on taxpayers' money. That smells too much like socialism. The only logical reason for President Bush's forceful pushing of these bailouts must be to protect his legacy from a Big 3 automakers' bankruptcy and the collapse of financial institutions.
This was the going-away gift from the Democrats to President Bush which began nearly a year ago with the failing of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the leadership and oversight of congressional Democrats. The issue became a major factor in the election and succeeded — by deception — in Democrats winning the popular vote. Bush is now going to extreme measures to prevent it from becoming a blight upon his legacy.
Not only does Obama support this kind of government interference in private sector business, but he plans to double it once in office with another trillion dollar slab of pork to provide 2.5 million more government funded jobs in infrastructure rebuilding. The engine of our economy is in the private sector, not the government. We will never be able to recover from this recession as long as the government continues to inflate the bubble artificially with more devalued American dollars fresh off the printing presses with nothing to back them up.
Why aren't more Americans outraged at the unconstitutional use of taxpayers' money that this government has been engaging in? Our children and grandchildren are all going to hate us when they get the tax bill, and we will go down in history as the most fiscally and morally irresponsible generation in history. That is the legacy with which the Bush/Obama administrations will have "blessed" us.
© JR Dieckmann
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
