Liberal Baucus Proposes Fine for No Health Insurance

One definition of totalitarianism is a society where everything not forbidden is mandatory. Despite their penchant for using government to threaten the use of force (and sometimes actually use force) to achieve their social goals, liberals, however, tended to prefer a society where everything not forbidden is simply subsidized. As the following article demonstrates, however, liberals have been moving increasingly toward imposing a society where everything not forbidden is not merely subsidized but mandatory.

When I couldn't afford to pay my own rent even one month out of the year, I tended not to be able to afford health insurance either. The liberal "solution" that liberal leader Max Baucus proposes would have fined me about three months' rent when I couldn't even pay one month rent. Making someone who cannot even pay his own rent pay months' worth of rent for not buying health insurance would be funny, if it weren't an actual proposal from liberal Democrats. Welcome to liberal Democrat "compassion," better known as totalitarianism.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090908/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_overhaul

Rambo Rabbi Arms to Defend Congregation Against Terrorists

It's about time that American Jews started arming themselves against mass-murdering Muslim terrorists (and the occasional homegrown antisemitic terrorist). I wish more of us would arm instead of believing the fairy story that government can protect us at all times everywhere by banning guns. If someone will break a law prohibiting MURDER, he's not going to think twice about breaking a law prohibiting gun possession.

http://www.breitbart.tv/chosen-guns-rambo-rabbis-grab-revolvers-for-synagogue-defense

But Liberals HATED The Taliban!!

Some liberals, apparently, don't feel too happy with Obama right now, even though he had the lowest (most liberal) rating from the National Taxpayer's Union of any member of the US Senate. Liberal Democrats, it turns out, now want ONLY the "public option" or communist health care, and don't want something with even a little less government, like the fascist health care plan proposed by Hillary a scant 16 years ago that they all supported.

If that's not bad enough, some liberal Democrats don't feel too happy about Obama actually trying to destroy the Taliban in Afghanistan. You might recall that it was Hollywood liberals who, in the 1990s, make such a big fuss over the Taliban and how they treat women as property. Well liberals, what did you THINK was going to get rid of the Taliban--singing "Kumbaya" and holding candlelight vigils? What do a bunch of mass-murdering Muslim monsters care about your songs and candles? They're MURDERERS. Really liberals, if you'd try to think rationally a little more and emote a little less we'd all be better off. So Obama is doing what you WANTED him to do--getting rid of the Taliban--and you want to dump him for someone even further left. Good luck with that.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/afghanistan/20_say_pull_all_troops_out_of_afghanistan_immediately


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/september_2009/does_obama_face_a_2012_challenge_in_his_own_party

Obama Reaches New Low in Daily Tracking Poll (-13)

Apparently accusing all the elderly, Medicare-receiving protesters of ObamaCare as unpatriotic, anti-religious right-wing radicals did not actually work for Obama and his liberal media proxies, and so his poll numbers continue to worsen, as Republicans widen their lead in the Generic Congressional Ballot. Members of the liberal media, who loved Scott Rasmussen when his polls showed Obama leading before the election and popular after it, have begun attacking Rasmussen for continuing to publish his polls now that they show Obama's growing unpopularity. I can't say I feel surprise, since liberalism, which simultaneously holds that all moral systems are equally valid and that a moral system that rejects homosexual marriage and abortion isn't valid, doesn't bother much with consistency anyway.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot

Official Unemployment Rate Always Understates Real Unemployment

Some of my friends on the right have made a great deal of hay over the fact that real unemployment exceeds the official unemployment rate calculated by the Commerce Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). I can't say I blame them, as people on the left made hay about the same thing during, for instance, the Reagan recession in the early 1980s. I want to stress, however, that because the official unemployment rate always includes only those actively seeking jobs, it always understates the real rate of unemployment (as students in my macro class will learn later this semester). So what's true now was true last year under Bush, during the early 1980s under Reagan, and for that matter during the Great Depression under FDR. Whatever its other faults, there's no plot by the Obama administration to use the BLS to hide the real rate of unemployment.

The official BLS figures understate the rate of unemployment not just during recession but even during economic expansion. Since people have a harder time finding a job during a recession, however, a recession produces more discouraged workers, and thus a larger share of unemployed who don't get counted in the official BLS unemployment rate. So the official unemployment rate clearly understates unemployment more during a recession, and the deeper the recession, the more the BLS rate understates the real rate of unemployment. Depending on which other measure you use, the real rate of unemployment now ranges anywhere from about 11% to about 16%. So there's not doubt that many Americans are feeling the pain of the recession. Just remember that you can't compare the 11% or 16% today to the official BLS unemployment rate in some previous recession; you need to compare the 11% or 16% to the real rate of unemployment in a previous recession. Even by comparison with the real unemployment rates of previous recessions, the current one looks bad--but again, not remotely as bad as during the Great Depression.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/07/us/07worker.html?th=&adxnnl=1&emc=th&adxnnlx=1252317646-vapUsPyebG26pCq7UAoEnw

Unemployment rate surged to 9.7 percent in August

Toward the end of the Bush administration, President Bush and Congress started spending billions to bail out financial institutions and auto companies in a vain Keynesian attempt to "stimulate" the economy by taxing away more of your income and then giving some of it back to you. President Obama and Congress have continued the vain Keynesian stimulus efforts. Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, has cooperated in the Bush-Obama Keynesian efforts by printing new money like it's going out of style (which it often does, in the form of inflation, when the Fed creates too much of it). Yet we see that despite all of these Keynesian efforts to trick the economy into real growth--or perhaps because of these Keynesian efforts--the economy remains mired in the worst recession since the early 1980s, and, by some measures, since the Great Depression. While the economy isn't suffering anywhere near the contraction in the number of jobs or real incomes per person as it did during the Great Depression--and people shouldn't get hysterical that it will, either--we do have plenty of economic pain to go around.

We could, as both President Kennedy and President Reagan did, get Congress to slash marginal federal income tax rates, increasing the incentive to work, save and invest, thereby stimulating real economic growth as we saw in both the 1960s and 1980s. Obama and Congress, however, seem determined to hold on to as much of your hard earned income as possible, so it seems unlikely we will see cuts in marginal tax rates, much less large cuts. So the near-term prospect for the economy remains bleak.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/05/business/economy/05jobs.html?th&emc=th

Bare Majority Says Congress Too Liberal

You really have to wonder who thinks that at filibuster-proof Democrat majority in the Senate and a similarly-large Democrat majority in the House is "too conservative?" Are these 22% radical leftists, or just largely ignorant? It would be interesting if we could visit a parallel world where the major news and entertainment media hadn't been dominated by liberals for more than a century and see what people there think--but then, holding all other variable constant, people there wouldn't have put the Democrat in the majority. :-D Even with the liberal domination of the news and entertainment media, and of government workers and the government-monopoly education establishment, a majority of Americans recognizes that the current Congress is too liberal, so we can feel thankful at least for that. Certainly the Democrats have no mandate from the people to socialize everything--or anything--in sight.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2009/51_say_congress_is_too_liberal_22_say_it_s_too_conservative

Dems Don't Realize How Leftist Their Leaders Are

This supports what said recently when I discovered that Democrats are evenly split over whether to cut taxes or increase spending to help the economy, even though Obama, Senate Majority Leader Reid and Speaker of the House Pelsoi have imposed literally trillions of dollars of additional spending but haven't passed a single tax cut. Democrats, although somewhat out of touch even on taxes and spending with the rest of America, are closer on spending and taxes to other Americans than they are to their own leadership. Democrats really need to start getting some information from other sources than the standard liberal media--it won't make them conservatives, but it might open their eyes to the extreme leftism of their party leaders.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2009/democrats_see_their_congressmen_holding_similar_views_to_democratic_voters

American Leftists Have Long History of Antisemitism

You might think that American leftist antisemitism began with the embrace by so many on the left of mass-murdering Muslim monsters after 9/11. Leftist antisemitism in America, however, has much longer roots. It turns out, for example, that the pro-Soviet Ivy Leaguers who dominated the US State Department at least through the 1960s, actively tried to prevent attempts by Americans to rescue Jews from the Nazi Holocaust. That's right--the very same smug, rich, elitist State Department leftists who admired Stalin's Soviet Union and fancied themselves the apparatchik rulers of a Soviet America aided and abetted Hitler's genocide of the Jews. You can read a bit about one non-Jewish American's efforts to rescue Jews and expose the antisemitic leftist State Department cover-up at the link below.

I should add that leftist antisemitism goes back even further in America than World War II. The leftist Populist movement of the late 19th century included a heavy dose of antisemitism. Many WASP farmers in the 19th century borrowed money to speculate in farm land much larger than they could farm, and when the Treasury's contractionary monetary policy caused deflation, the speculating farmer saw their real (deflation-adjusted) interest rates skyrocket. Borrowing cheap money and having to pay back in more expensive money made these speculators pretty cranky--and many of them blamed "Jewish bankers" or just "the Jews." The first generation of professional historians in America, the leftist Progressives, saw the Populists as representative of "the People" in their Marxist-inspired view of history as conflict between "the People" and "the Interests." So the leftist Progressives admired the leftist and antisemitic Populists, demonstrating a long history of antisemitism, both passive and active, on the American left.

http://www.wymaninstitute.org/duboiscont.php

Antisemitism, Not Israel, Motivates Muslim Murderers

It's become trendy for anti-American leftists to blame 9/11 and other atrocities committed by mass-murdering Muslim monsters on Israel. "Blame the Jews" is an old game for the liars and the lazy, but now as always it's false. Muslim Arabs were murdering innocent Jewish men, women and children in the name of Allah long before the State of Israel existed.

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/7979/wknd-read-80-years-ago-there-was-no-israel-but-muslims-massacred-jews-anyway/

Obama and Holder 'At War' with CIA

As I've been saying all along, members of the CIA are unsung heroes valiantly defending America from the mass-murdering Muslim monsters of radical Islam--the same monsters who, by the way, deliberately target the mosques of other Muslims--and we should be praising them (or at least letting them be) rather than attacking them, as Obama and Holder are doing. Now you can hear a little of the hidden story of how the CIA defends us silently from terrorists, like antibiotics fighting the latest lethal bacteria. Remember too that although the liberal media have been demonizing the CIA--excluding yesterday's remarkable article in the Post--the liberal career lawyers at the Justice Department signed off on the CIA's interrogation techniques, and Holder himself said he wouldn't do exactly what he's doing now. Do Obama and Holder really hate America SO much that they want to destroy our first line of defense again mass-murdering Muslim terrorists?

I fully expect Obama, Holder and their leftist pro-terrorist proxies to persecute Mr. Clizbe with all the powers at their disposal. To come forward like this Mr. Clizbe must have an extraordinary level of courage, but then we knew that from his CIA activities defending America.

I should add too that while the Obama-Holder prosecution represents in part an attack on the achievements of the Bush presidency, like no repeat of 9/11, it even more represents the culmination of decades of leftist hatred for the CIA, stemming from the CIA's dogged opposition to communism. The leftist hatred of the CIA goes back at least as far as 1953, when the CIA backed the Shah of Iran in a coup against a democratically-elected socialist prime minister, in order to prevent the possibility of the Soviets from having another puppet government in Iran, as they had when they'd left Iran after World War II. During the 1990s, with the Cold War over, the Clinton administration tied the CIA's hands by creating a "wall" between the CIA and the FBI, preventing the CIA from learning facts that might have allowed them to foil 9/11 as they have foiled ever terrorist attempt in America since. The Bush administration, whatever its other weaknesses (and it had many) made the wise move of dismantling the Clinton "wall" and untying the CIA's hands. For its success in stopping every single terrorist plot since 9/11, the CIA now faces the wrath of the left in the form of the Obama-Holder persecution.

It's ironic that the left so hates the CIA today. Harry Truman, who founded the CIA, actually leaned heavily to the left himself, as his unconstitutional efforts to seize control of the entire steel industry without even a law from Congress demonstrate. Back in Truman's day, however, it was possible to a leftist in America without hating America. Since Vietnam, however, the left in America has turned heavily anti-American. So as left as he was, I'd gladly take a Truman in exchange for an Obama and a Holder. Heck, I'd even give you an American-hating Michelle in the bargain!

I suspect that the CIA will survive the Obama-Holder war on it, but will it remain able to stave off constant terrorist threats with while defending itself from a pro-terrorist president and attorney general? Or will Obama and Holder, like Clinton and, well, Holder, so tie up the CIA that the terrorists succeed at another 9/11? We need a public outcry against the Obama war on the CIA to make sure it can continue to defend us from mass-murdering Muslim monsters who want to repeat 9/11.

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_holder_war_with_cia/2009/08/31/254698.html?s=al&promo_code=87B8-1