socialist

What’s Islam? Don’t Ask Google Censors – FOXNews.com

Type a few words into the search field on Google’s home page and the engine automatically returns a helpful list of popular, similar searches for the words you’ve typed in so far — a convenient way to find the right information.Enter “Christianity is” and you’ll find results that, while offensive, at least indicate common discussions on the Internet. Likewise, type “Judaism is” and Google suggests other, potentially offensive searches such as “Judaism is false” and “Judaism is not a race.”But type “Islam is” into the search engine and Google’s auto-results pane mysteriously vanishes, leading some to conclude that Google, whose mantra is “don’t be evil,” is censoring its search results.

read the rest here… FOXNews.com – What’s Islam? Don’t Ask Google.

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor’s Business Daily — It’s Not An Option

The healthcare (or lack thereof) must be defeated! Call your senators.

It didn’t take long to run into an “uh-oh” moment when reading the House’s “health care for all Americans” bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.

via IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor’s Business Daily — It’s Not An Option.

American Thinker: Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis

American Thinker: Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis.

Cloward-Piven Strategy to force national income by redistribution of wealth. Obama is an aherent and student of it.

George F. Will – The Toxic Assets We Elected

George F. Will – The Toxic Assets We Elected.

“The Obama administration yesterday invited private-sector investors to become business partners with the capricious and increasingly anti-constitutional government.”

Crooked Obama Makes New Move to Nationalize Healthcare

Obama, not just the latest liberal president who truly doesn’t care for the American soldier, this one’s more dangerous than those who came before. Quite an accomplishment.

My wife just brought this article to my attention. Obama’s trying to be sneaky yet again with back-door manipulation toward socialized healthcare. If private insurance pays for veterans, as opposed to the government, all premiums will rise and all policies will feel the impact. Obama wants you to hate private medicine without knowing he’s to blame for it, so you’ll swallow the cyanide on demand. Don’t be fooled by his dirty Chicago parlor tricks.

The leader of the nation’s largest veterans organization says he is “deeply disappointed and concerned” after a meeting with President Obama today to discuss a proposal to force private insurance companies to pay for the treatment of military veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities and injuries. The Obama administration recently revealed a plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in such cases.

“It became apparent during our discussion today that the President intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan,” said Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion. “He says he is looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it.”

The Commander, clearly angered as he emerged from the session said, “This reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate ‘ to care for him who shall have borne the battle’ given that the United States government sent members of the armed forces into harm’s way, and not private insurance companies. I say again that The American Legion does not and will not support any plan that seeks to bill a veteran for treatment of a service connected disability at the very agency that was created to treat the unique need of America’s veterans!”

Read the full article here.

Obama’s Sense of Humor: “I’m Like Abraham Lincoln”. You’d Better Be Joking.

Just for the record and because I’m frankly so far beyond tired of Obama’s naive amateur dense dangerous foolhardy undeserved race-baiting foolishness that I can’t even sufficiently describe it anymore without extremely foul language — anyway, again just for the record…

The very last thing in the entire world — including rare species of insect and mongrel in the Amazon Basin and flecks of rock and snow in Antarctica, as well as every speck of space dust in the solar system… — again I say, the very last thing Obama could ever be compared to in this life, the life before, or the life to come, is our revered President Abraham Lincoln. The… very… last… thing.

Was I clear about how unlike the Crooked Community Rabble-Rouser Obama is to the revered name of an actual President, like Abraham Lincoln? Hopefully you can tell that I would like to be clear, and speak in certain terms. He needs to shut up and sit down because no one — no, not even the most inebriated liberal messia-O worshiper in the whole of the world — could honestly believe the two are from the same planet.

Obama is the weakest bureaucrat cog to ever swindle his way into power (even more than FDR, whose worst facets Obama actually resembles), and as such should never dare even invoke the comparison to Lincoln, even as the most inappropriate and irreverent attempt at humor. I think I can speak for all thinking people, particularly conservatives (who actually are like Lincoln and still live by his principles) when I say you, Mr. two-months-and-already-a-total-failure, …you are certainly no Abe Lincoln.

And I end this rant.

WSJ: The Charity Revolt. Liberals oppose a tax hike on rich donors.

You knew it would happen. While I certainly don’t give just to get tax breaks, I certainly don’t want to double it by giving through taxes and then again outside of them. Obama has no clue about charity, after all, he’s never been to Sunday School, or perhaps if he did he was too busy scheming how to game the teacher into giving him special treatment for all of his “struggles”.

Among those shocked by President Obama’s 2010 budget, the most surprising are the true-blue liberals who run most of America’s nonprofits, universities and charities. How dare he limit tax deductions for charitable giving! They’re afraid they’ll get fewer donations, but they should be more concerned that Mr. Obama’s policies will shove them aside in favor of the New Charity State.

And to keep the record straight. All evidence has made clear that, though the liberals run most of the non-religious charities, and seem to do a lot of very visible charity work (to get praise and honor), the conservatives are by far the biggest charity donors in all aspects, and most of it is done anonymously. Who really cares about people, a visible credit seeker or a private citizen donating quietly and anonymously? But anyway, back to the story.

What did these nonprofit liberals expect, anyway? Mr. Obama is proposing a vast expansion of the entitlement state, and he has to find some way to pay for it. So logically enough, one of his ideas for funding public welfare is to reduce the tax benefit for private charity. His budget proposes to raise the top personal income tax rate to 39.6% in 2011 from 35%, and the 33% rate to 36% while reducing the tax benefit from itemized deductions for the top two brackets to 28% from 35% and 33%, respectively. The White House estimates the deduction reduction will yield $318 billion in revenue over 10 years.

From the Ivy League to the United Jewish Appeal, petitions and manifestos are in the works. The Independent Sector, otherwise eager to praise the Obama budget, worries the tax change “could be a disincentive to some donors.” According to the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, total itemized contributions from the highest income households would have dropped 4.8% — or $3.87 billion — in 2006 if the Obama policy had been in place. That year, Americans gave $186.6 billion to charity, more than 40% from those in the highest tax bracket. A back of the envelope calculation by the Tax Policy Center, a left-of-center think tank, estimates the Obama plan will reduce annual giving by 2%, or some $9 billion.

…Mr. Orszag revealed the real agenda at work when he pointed out that the money taken from the “rich” would be used to fund such Obama state-run charities as universal health care. The argument is that any potential declines in private gifts, whether to universities or foundations, will be balanced by increases in government grants paid with higher taxes — redistribution by another means. This is how Europe’s welfare state works: Taxes are so high that private citizens have come to believe it is only the state’s duty to support cultural institutions and public welfare. The ambit for private giving shrinks.

Told you this would happen. My brother once said Obama wants to create a country of human cattle that need to be tended and manipulated without choice, only the state matters. He’s dead on. Obama’s a nightmare to free agency and freedom in general.

America has always operated on a different philosophy, going back to Tocqueville’s discovery of thousands of private associations that sustained communities without a commanding state. We doubt that a tax benefit is what drives most giving even today. The exception may be the confiscatory death tax that drives many of the superrich to form foundations to avoid the tax. But we suspect that without the death tax the wealthy would give even more of their income away.

Americans of all income levels have long given generously, notably in the 1980s as income tax rates fell and the economy boomed. Over the last five decades, American giving overall has hardly deviated from 2% of personal income, according to the Tax Foundation. In an ideal world, the U.S. would eliminate most tax deductions, including the one for charity, in return for a simpler, flatter tax that would help create more wealth to give away. With his many new income-limited tax credits and deduction phase-outs, however, Mr. Obama is sprinting in the opposite direction.

Meanwhile, the White House may have underestimated the power of the liberal nonprofit lobby. The charity deduction cut is the only one of the President’s many tax increases that Democrats on Capitol Hill have publicly criticized. Politics hath no fury like a rich liberal scorned.

Read the full article here.

Liberalism and Socialism

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of ‘liberalism,’ they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”

– Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate, 1940, 1944 and 1948

Shift from Capitalism to Socialism, European Style

From the WSJ…

The most basic explanation for why Barack Obama may win next Tuesday is that voters want economic deliverance. The standard fix for this in politics everywhere is to crowbar the old party out and patch in the other one. It is true as well that the historic nature of the nation’s first African-American candidacy would play a big role.

Push past the historic candidacy, however, and one sees something even larger at stake in this vote… The real “change” being put to a vote for the American people in 2008 is not simply a break from the economic policies of “the past eight years” but with the American economic philosophy of the past 200 years. This election is about a long-term change in America’s idea of itself.

I don’t agree with the argument that an Obama-Pelosi-Reid government is a one-off, that good old nonideological American pragmatism will temper their ambitions. Not true. With this election, the U.S. is at a philosophical tipping point.

The goal of Sen. Obama and the modern, “progressive” Democratic Party is to move the U.S. in the direction of Western Europe, the so-called German model and its “social market economy.” Under this notion, business is highly regulated, as it would be in the next Congress under Democratic House committee chairmen Markey, Frank and Waxman. Business is allowed to create “wealth” so long as its utility is not primarily to create new jobs or economic growth but to support a deep welfare system.

This would be a historic shift, one post-Vietnam Democrats have been trying to achieve since their failed fight with Ronald Reagan’s “Cowboy Capitalism.”

Of course Cowboy Capitalism built the country. More than any previous nation in history, the United States made its way forward on a 200-year wave of upwardly mobile, profit-seeking merchants, tradesmen, craftsmen and workers. They blew out of New England and New York, rolled across the wildernesses of the Central States, pushed across a tough Western frontier and banged into San Francisco and Los Angeles, leaving in their path city after city of vast wealth.

The U.S. emerged a superpower, and the tool of that ascent was simple — the pursuit of economic growth. Now China, India and Brazil, embracing high-growth Cowboy Capitalism, are doing what we did, only their cities are bigger.

Now comes Barack Obama, standing at the head of a progressive Democratic Party, his right hand rising to say, “Mothers, don’t let your babies grow up to be for-profit cowboys. It’s time to spread the wealth around.”

READ IT HERE, [an itemized list of European yoke-style government policies Obama-Reid-Pelosi will install.]