Obama to Defy Judge and Grant Amnesty By Executive Order

th (8)It appears that Obama is about to create some new Democrat Voters.

Thehill.com reports that

A newly leaked internal DHS memorandum produced for an off-the-record agency conclave reveals that the Obama administration is actively planning to circumvent a federal court injunction that suspended part of last November’s deferral-based amnesty initiative. The document, apparently prepared as follow-up from a DHS “Regulations Retreat” last summer, appears sure to re-ignite concerns in Congress as well as federal judges in the Fifth Circuit. The Administration has already been criticized from the bench for handing out work permits to hundreds of thousands of deferred action beneficiaries, in direct violation of a district court’s order. With the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals deciding any day now whether to deny the Administration’s request to reverse that injunction, this public leak has come at a critical juncture for U.S. enforcement policy. 

Last June, four months after Texas federal judge Andrew Hanen’s order to freeze President’s DAPA and Expanded DACA programs—disclosure: the Immigration Reform Law Institute has filed briefs in these cases—DHS’s immigration policy makers apparently held a “Regulations Retreat” to discuss “different options” for “open market Employment Authorization Document (EAD) regulatory changes.” EAD is the statutory term for work permits. From a memo recording these discussions, we now know that the Obama DHS has, rather than pausing to allow the courts to assess the constitutionality of its enforcement nullification initiatives, been gearing up to roll out one or more of four plans drawn up at the meeting, each one designed to provide EADs to millions of nonimmigrants, including those lawfully present and visa overstayers, crippling the actual employment-based visa system on the federal statute-book.

The internal memo reveals four options of varying expansiveness, with option 1 providing EADs to “all individuals living in the United States”, including illegal aliens, visa-overstayers, and H-1B guest-workers, while option 4 provides EADs only to those on certain unexpired non-immigrant visas. Giving EADs to any of the covered individuals, however, is in direct violation of Congress’s Immigration & Nationality Act and works to dramatically subvert our carefully wrought visa system. 

As mentioned, the first plan the memo discusses basically entails giving EADs to anyone physically present in the country who until now has been prohibited from getting one. A major positive to this option, the memo reads, is that it would “address the needs of some of the intended deferred action population.” Although DHS doesn’t say it expressly, included here would be those 4.3 million people covered by the president’s DAPA and Expanded DACA programs whose benefits were supposed to have been halted in the Hanen decision. On top of working around the Hanen injunction, this DHS plan would also dole out unrestricted EADs to those on temporary non-immigrant visas, such as H-1B-holders (their work authorizations being tied to their employers) and another 5 to 6 million illegal aliens thus far not covered by any of the President’s deferred action amnesty programs. By claiming absolute authority to grant work authorization to any alien, regardless of status, DHS is in effect claiming it can unilaterally de-couple the 1986 IRCA work authorization statutes from the main body of U.S. visa law. While DHS must still observe the statutory requirements for issuing visas, the emerging doctrine concedes, the administration now claims unprecedented discretionary power to permit anyone inside our borders to work. 

The anonymous DHS policymakers state that a positive for this option is that it “could cover a greater number of individuals.” In a strikingly conclusory bit of bureaucratese, they state that because illegal aliens working in the country “have already had the US labor market tested” it has been “demonstrat[ed] that their future employment won’t adversely affect US workers.” The labor market, in other words, has already been stress-tested through decades of foreign-labor dumping and the American working-class, which disproportionately includes minorities, working mothers, the elderly, and students, is doing just fine. Apparently, the fact that 66 million Americans and legal aliens are currently unemployed or out of the job-market was not a discussion point at the DHS “Retreat.” 

Bottom line: The memo foreshadows more tactical offensives in a giant administrative amnesty for all 12 million illegal aliens who’ve broken our immigration laws (and many other laws) that will emerge before the next inaugural in January 2016. According to the authors, one negative factor for granting EADs to illegal aliens, visa-overstayers, etc., is that they’ll still “face difficulties in pursuing permanent residence due to ineligibility or being subject to unlawful presence inadmissibility for which a waiver is required.” This is in reference to the reality that an EAD isn’t a green card and that eventually the EAD-beneficiaries are supposed to apply to ‘adjust their status,’ which cannot be done without showing evidence of lawful status. But this might change, they write. The DHS “macro-level policy goal”, we’re told, is to assist individuals to stay “until they are ready and able to become immigrants.” This would seem to say that DHS, the largest federal law enforcement agency in the nation, is banking on awarding those who’ve broken our laws and violated our national sovereignty.

Will the 26 plaintiff states that have challenged the President’s DAPA program bring this memo to the Fifth Circuit’s attention, before they issue their closely-awaited decision?  If this document is indeed the cutting edge of Obama’s strategy for DHS to circumvent Judge Hanen’s injunction order, it would confirm the Administration’s bad faith and contempt both for the court and the law.

So, with 40% of America’s Workforce giving up on the American Dream and dropping out of our workforce, King Barack the First has once again decided that he will increase the competition for America’s jobs, by issuing a Royal Decree (Executive Order) granting amnesty to those who have illegally entered our Sovereign Nation, to the detriment of legal American citizens.

In 2013, brilliant American Economist and Political Pundit, Dr. Thomas Sowell, was interviewed by Laura Ingraham, on her syndicated radio program. Here is what he had to say about Amnesty and the Economy:

That’s incredible. I mean —first of all to an economist, it is incredible to speak about shortages without talking about prices, in this case wages…You know there, there have been so many predictions of shortages of so many occupations and the shortages don’t materialize. And why not? Because if there is a shortage, the wage rate goes up. That attracts in more people and lo and behold, the jobs are filled.

In agriculture, the farmers would obviously prefer to get workers who get low pay rather than workers they have to pay a higher wage. And as long as there are an unlimited supply of farm workers coming in from Mexico, they will never have to raise the wages very much. They say Americans won’t do these jobs. These are jobs Americans have done for generations, if not centuries. And it’s a time when millions of Americans are out of work, and are looking for any kind of work. And so this is utter nonsense.

…They constantly talk about immigrants in the abstract. You know, there are no such thing as abstract immigrants. There are immigrants from country a, b, c, d. They are radically different. People coming in from some countries almost never go on welfare. Immigrants coming in from other countries go on welfare to a great extent. If we’re going to have a rational immigration policy, then we have to be able to decide what people, what countries, what occupations — things like that, instead of rushing everything through.

The other main thing though is that if we don’t control the borders, we don’t have an immigration policy because regardless of what policy you put on paper, if people can just walk across the border when they darn well please, then your policy means nothing. The other thing that bothers me is the Republicans seem to think we will give — illegal immigrants citizenship if they do a, b or c. Democrats say x, y and z. I don’t know why we need promise anybody citizenship before we get control of the borders and have time to sit down and think and look at the facts, and then try to draw up some rational policy.

What makes the current influx of illegal immigrants exempt from the rules and regulations that every other generation of immigrants to this country had to abide by in order to become legal citizens of the greatest nation in the world? By being here illegally, they are not entitled to the same rights as natural-born or naturalized American citizens.

And, yet, even as I write this, they are in our hospitals, taking advantage of our charity and the finest health care system in the world, and driving our streets, with either forged drivers licenses or those obtained from states who have acquiesced and given them to these “undocumented workers”.

This is in no way a human rights issue. Freedom is God-given, and with freedom comes responsibility. With citizenship comes responsibility, like paying taxes and making your own way.

My concerns about this whole “Path to Citizenship” business, can be divided into three bullet points. (Hey, I used to be a VP of Marketing. What do you expect?)

1. Patriotism – Will these new “citizens” be willing to fly our flag above theirs? Will they be willing, if called upon, to serve in our Armed Forces, at home or abroad? Will they love this country, more than the one they left?

2. Loyalty – When these “new Americans” achieve the right to vote, are they all going to vote Democrat, so that they can receive more FREE STUFF? Is the Republican Party shooting themselves in both feet by pushing an outcome which will simply add new Democratic Voters? As I asked in the first point, will they honestly embrace our sovereign nation as their new home? Or, will they remain loyal to Mexico?

3.  Immigration – Are we rewarding illegal behavior, while at the same time, insulting all of the brave souls who have come here legally, seeking a better life for themselves and their families?

I understand that people want a better life for themselves and their children.  We are all immigrants in this land, except for American Indians, and they got here by crossing the Bering Straight.  But there is a huge difference between immigrating here legally and sneaking in illegally, between assimilating into an existing culture, and insisting on replacing a country’s existing culture with that of the country you left.

I’m all for assisting anyone in becoming a legal citizen of the United States, if that is their wish.  But, it must be done the right way, and they must accept responsibility for their illegal entry, show a willingness to learn our language, and embrace our American way of life, including respecting the American Flag.

So, let’s take this one step at a time.  As Dr. Sowell said: Secure our borders.  Enforce the anti-illegal immigration laws.  And if the Federal Government won’t, the states, like Arizona, will have to pass their own laws.  America became a great nation because it is a melting pot of American-born and legally-immigrated citizens with a shared allegiance, not a multi-cultural United Nations with everyone loyal to their home country.

As the diseases which the Mexican Munchkin Migration brought in with them have warned us, a wide-open Southern Border is as big a threat to the sovereignty of the United States as anything that our enemies can throw at us right now.  All of OUR SERVANTS, up on Capitol HIll, need to quit playing political games.  The safety of America is at stake .  SECURE THE BORDER NOW.

Until He Comes,

KJ

The Baltimore Riot and the Dissolution of the Black Family Unit

Riot-Space-600-LIYesterday, Black Economist and Conservative Pundit, Dr. Thomas Sowell, wrote the following perceptive (as usual) column about the Racial Division which America is currently facing.

Among the many painful ironies in the current racial turmoil is that communities scattered across the country were disrupted by riots and looting because of the demonstrable lie that Michael Brown was shot in the back by a white policeman in Missouri — but there was not nearly as much turmoil created by the demonstrable fact that a fleeing black man was shot dead by a white policeman in South Carolina.

Totally ignored was the fact that a black policeman in Alabama fatally shot an unarmed white teenager, and was cleared of any charges, at about the same time that a white policeman was cleared of charges in the fatal shooting of Michael Brown.

In a world where the truth means so little, and headstrong preconceptions seem to be all that matter, what hope is there for rational words or rational behavior, much less mutual understanding across racial lines?

When the recorded fatal shooting of a fleeing man in South Carolina brought instant condemnation by whites and blacks alike, and by the most conservative as well as the most liberal commentators, that moment of mutual understanding was very fleeting, as if mutual understanding were something to be avoided, as a threat to a vision of “us against them” that was more popular.

That vision is nowhere more clearly expressed than in attempts to automatically depict whatever social problems exist in ghetto communities as being caused by the sins or negligence of whites, whether racism in general or a “legacy of slavery” in particular. Like most emotionally powerful visions, it is seldom, if ever, subjected to the test of evidence.

The “legacy of slavery” argument is not just an excuse for inexcusable behavior in the ghettos. In a larger sense, it is an evasion of responsibility for the disastrous consequences of the prevailing social vision of our times, and the political policies based on that vision, over the past half century.

Anyone who is serious about evidence need only compare black communities as they evolved in the first 100 years after slavery with black communities as they evolved in the first 50 years after the explosive growth of the welfare state, beginning in the 1960s.

You would be hard-pressed to find as many ghetto riots prior to the 1960s as we have seen just in the past year, much less in the 50 years since a wave of such riots swept across the country in 1965.

We are told that such riots are a result of black poverty and white racism. But in fact — for those who still have some respect for facts — black poverty was far worse, and white racism was far worse, prior to 1960. But violent crime within black ghettos was far less.

Murder rates among black males were going down — repeat, DOWN — during the much lamented 1950s, while it went up after the much celebrated 1960s, reaching levels more than double what they had been before. Most black children were raised in two-parent families prior to the 1960s. But today the great majority of black children are raised in one-parent families.

Such trends are not unique to blacks, nor even to the United States. The welfare state has led to remarkably similar trends among the white underclass in England over the same period. Just read “Life at the Bottom,” by Theodore Dalrymple, a British physician who worked in a hospital in a white slum neighborhood.

You cannot take any people, of any color, and exempt them from the requirements of civilization — including work, behavioral standards, personal responsibility and all the other basic things that the clever intelligentsia disdain — without ruinous consequences to them and to society at large.

Non-judgmental subsidies of counterproductive lifestyles are treating people as if they were livestock, to be fed and tended by others in a welfare state — and yet expecting them to develop as human beings have developed when facing the challenges of life themselves.

One key fact that keeps getting ignored is that the poverty rate among black married couples has been in single digits every year since 1994. Behavior matters and facts matter, more than the prevailing social visions or political empires built on those visions. [Emphasis mine.]

Amen, Dr. Sowell.

When that single black mother beat the snot out of her teenage son on national televison, grabbing him by his hoodie and pulling him away from the rioters in Baltimore, a week ago last Monday, she had the overwhelming majority of Americans backing her actions.

Lyndon Baines Johnson told Americans, as he campaigned in 1964, that the establishment of his proposed “Great Society” was going to eliminate the problems of America’s poor.

It had the opposite effect.

Johnson’s Great Society created a dependent class, which, instead of diminishing as it’s members joined the workforce, increased from generation to generation, relying on the federal government to provide their every need.

“Uncle Sugar” became Mother, Father, Preacher, and Doctor to generations of Americans. This “plantation mentality” continues to this day, thanks to Liberal Politicians on both sides of the political aisle.

However, there are other factors among the Black American Community that reinforces this vicious cycle of Generational Poverty and Crime, which has become seemingly inescapable for some.

Back in July of 2013, CNN Reporter Don Lemon (who happens to be black) caught a bunch of grief for saying,

Just because you can have a baby, it doesn’t mean you should. Especially without planning for one or getting married first. More than 72 percent of children in the African-American community are born out of wedlock. That means absent fathers. And the studies show that lack of a male role model is an express train right to prison and the cycle continues.

Politifact.com researched the statement and found out that Lemon was correct. As of the 2010 Census, Black American Babies were experiencing a 73% illegitimacy rate.

If Modern American Liberals, both black and white, Democrat and Republican, in Municipal, State, and National Leadership Positions, would focus their angst and “concern” on the society-altering, continuing dissolution of the Black Family Unit, which their policies have most definitely exacerbated, and work instead toward the restoration of the Black Family Unit, instead of facilitating rioting over the deaths of criminals, perhaps the stifling defeatism of the cycle of Generational Poverty and Crime, and the violence it brings, would eventually be a thing of the past, or greatly diminished, anyway.

Then, I wouldn’t be awakened every morning, by the Local News in Memphis, to stories about Black Americans killing each other, or mobs of Black Teenagers beating up innocent people.

But, then again…that would make too much sense.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Liberal Democrats Still Using the Race Card…and Black Americans

The Race CardLiberalism has a kind of Tourette’s syndrome these days. It’s just constantly saying the word racism and racist….There’s a kind of intellectual poverty now. Liberalism hasn’t had a new idea since the 1960s, except ObamaCare, and the country doesn’t like it… So what do you do? You say anyone criticizes us is a racist. – George Will

Why have Liberals resumed their egregious use of the “Race Card”?

There are several reasons.

1. Power – President Lyndon Baines Johnson predicted when he launched his “Great Society” in 1964,

I’ll have those n!@#$rs voting Democratic for the next 200 years. 

Their perceived empathy for the plight of Black Americans is but a false front, designed to garner votes, just as their all-consuming push for amnesty for illegal aliens, is. The Liberal Democrats determined long ago, that the way to buy voters’ allegiance, is by “spreading the wealth around” and, as they continue expanding entitlements, i.e., free stuff, their efforts, they hope, will continue to pay off at the polls.

2. Divide and Conquer – By Democrats telling Black Americans that “The Man” is still keeping them down in 2014, and, in millionaire Barack Hussein Obama and the First Wookie…err…Lady Michelle Obama’s case, by telling Black Audiences that they’re “down with the struggle”, they are assuring Black Americans that “they’re on “their side”, while preying upon the apprehensions and avarice of their audience. By purposely causing not only a Racial Divide, but fermenting Class Warfare, as well, the are purposefully dividing Americans by Race and Economic Status, even though the reality is, that yesterday, on Tax Day, “the 1%  paid 30% of America’s Tax Burden, while providing Americans actual jobs.

This strategy of “divide and conquer” has been used by Marxists for years, and the “Progressives” are no exception.

Birds of a feather…

3. Failure of Obama’s Policies – As we approach the Mid-Term Elections in November, Democrats have realized that they HAVE to begin to distance themselves from their fallen messiah, President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm). Even the Progressives have begun to admit that ol’ ‘Scooter’s Domestic and Foreign Policy have been national embarrassments. Our enemies are all re-arming themselves under Obama’s Foreign Policy, and domestically, Obamacare is circling down the ol’ porcelain receptacle at breakneck speed, while unemployment is high and shows no signs of abating.

Therefore, the Dems are forced to circle the wagons around Obama, while retaining as much distance from his failures as they can, in order to hold on to their phony-baloney jobs. Hrumph!.

Dr. Thomas Sowell, brilliant Economist and Conservative Political Pundit (who just happens to be Black) once wrote,

Some Obama supporters have long regarded any criticism of him as racism. 

…Among people who voted for Barack Obama in 2008, those who are likely to be most disappointed are those who thought that they were voting for a new post-racial era. There was absolutely nothing in Obama’s past to lead to any such expectation, and much to suggest the exact opposite. But the man’s rhetoric and demeanor during the election campaign enabled this and many other illusions to flourish.

Still, it was an honest mistake of the kind that decent people have often made when dealing with people whose agendas are not constrained by decency, but only by what they think they can get away with.

On race, as on other issues, different people have radically different views of Barack Obama, depending on whether they judge him by what he says or by what he does.

As Obama’s own books point out, he has for years cultivated a talent for saying things that people will find congenial.

You want bipartisanship and an end to bickering in Washington? He will say that he wants bipartisanship and an end to bickering in Washington. Then he will shut Republicans out of the decision-making process and respond to their suggestions by reminding them that he won the election. A famous writer– Ring Lardner, I believe– once wrote: “‘Shut up,’ he explained.”

You want a government that is open instead of secretive? He will say that. He will promise to post proposed legislation on the Internet long enough for everyone to read it and know what is in it before there is a vote. In practice, however, he has rushed massive bills through Congress too fast for anybody– even the members of Congress– to know what was in those bills.

Racial issues are more of the same. You want a government where all citizens are treated alike, regardless of race or ethnicity? Obama will say that. Then he will advocate appointing judges with “empathy” for particular segments of the population, such as racial minorities. “Empathy” is just a pretty word for the ugly reality of bias.

Obama’s first nomination of a Supreme Court justice was a classic example of someone with “empathy” for some racial groups, but not others. As a Circuit Court judge, Sonia Sotomayor voted to dismiss a case involving white firefighters who had been denied the promotions for which they qualified, because not enough blacks or Hispanics passed the same test that they did.

A fellow Hispanic judge protested the way the white firefighters’ case was dismissed, rather than adjudicated. Moreover, the Supreme Court not only took the case, it ruled in favor of the firefighters.

Obama’s injecting himself into a local police matter in Massachusetts, despite admitting that he didn’t know the facts, to say that a white policeman was in the wrong in arresting a black professor who was a friend of Obama, was more of the same. So is Obama’s Justice Department overlooking blatant voter intimidation by thugs who happen to be black.

There is not now, nor has there ever been, anything post-racial about Barack Obama, except for the people who voted for him in the mistaken belief that he shared their desire to be post-racial. When he leaves office, especially if it is after one term, he will leave this country more racially polarized than before.

Hopefully, he may also leave the voters wiser, though sadder, after they learn from painful experience that you can’t judge politicians by their rhetoric, or ignore their past because of your hopes for the future. Voters may even wise up to race card fraud.

Dr. Sowell wrote that article in 2010. Since then, and especially after the disastrous start of Obama’s second term as President, we have seen a good portion of America’s population “wise up”.

However, the “47%” and the messiah’s ardent disciples remain as clueless as ever.

If ignorance is bliss, they are some very happy folks.

Until He Comes, 

KJ

The Push For “Income Equality”: “From Each According to His Abilities, to Each According to His Needs”

Obama-Shrinks-2The capitalist maintains his rights as a purchaser when he tries to make the working-day as long as possible, and to make, whenever possible, two working-days out of one. On the other hand, the peculiar nature of the commodity sold implies a limit to its consumption by the purchaser, and the laborer maintains his right as seller when he wishes to reduce the working-day to one of definite normal duration. There is here, therefore, an antinomy, right against right, both equally bearing the seal of the law of exchanges. Between equal rights force decides. Hence is it that in the history of capitalist production, the determination of what is a working-day, presents itself as the result of a struggle, a struggle between collective capital, i.e., the class of capitalists, and collective labour, i.e., the working-class. – Marx, Das Kapital, an excerpt from the personal blog of Rick Bookstaber, Research Principal, Office of Financial Research, (an office created by the Dodd-Frank Law) May 7, 2012

For we, the people, understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it. We believe that America’s prosperity must rest upon the broad shoulders of a rising middle class. We know that America thrives when every person can find independence and pride in their work; when the wages of honest labor liberate families from the brink of hardship. We are true to our creed when a little girl born into the bleakest poverty knows that she has the same chance to succeed as anybody else, because she is an American; she is free, and she is equal, not just in the eyes of God but also in our own. – Second Inaugural Address of Barack Hussein Obama, January 21, 2013

On December 4. 2013, before he and his family left for a $4 million dollar Holiday Vacation, paid for by the citizens of the United States of America, which First Lady Michelle Obama has yet to return from, President Barack Hussein Obama delivered a speech on “Income Inequality”  to a handpicked group from the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress. Here is an excerpt,

As values of community broke down, and competitive pressure increased, businesses lobbied Washington to weaken unions and the value of the minimum wage. As a trickle-down ideology became more prominent, taxes were slashed for the wealthiest, while investments in things that make us all richer, like schools and infrastructure, were allowed to wither. And for a certain period of time, we could ignore this weakening economic foundation, in part because more families were relying on two earners as women entered the workforce. We took on more debt financed by a juiced-up housing market. But when the music stopped, and the crisis hit, millions of families were stripped of whatever cushion they had left.

And the result is an economy that’s become profoundly unequal, and families that are more insecure. I’ll just give you a few statistics. Since 1979, when I graduated from high school, our productivity is up by more than 90 percent, but the income of the typical family has increased by less than eight percent. Since 1979, our economy has more than doubled in size, but most of that growth has flowed to a fortunate few.

The top 10 percent no longer takes in one-third of our income — it now takes half. Whereas in the past, the average CEO made about 20 to 30 times the income of the average worker, today’s CEO now makes 273 times more. And meanwhile, a family in the top 1 percent has a net worth 288 times higher than the typical family, which is a record for this country.

So the basic bargain at the heart of our economy has frayed. In fact, this trend towards growing inequality is not unique to America’s market economy. Across the developed world, inequality has increased. Some of you may have seen just last week, the Pope himself spoke about this at eloquent length. “How can it be,” he wrote, “that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points?”

But this increasing inequality is most pronounced in our country, and it challenges the very essence of who we are as a people. Understand we’ve never begrudged success in America. We aspire to it. We admire folks who start new businesses, create jobs, and invent the products that enrich our lives. And we expect them to be rewarded handsomely for it. In fact, we’ve often accepted more income inequality than many other nations for one big reason — because we were convinced that America is a place where even if you’re born with nothing, with a little hard work you can improve your own situation over time and build something better to leave your kids. As Lincoln once said, “While we do not propose any war upon capital, we do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else.”

The problem is that alongside increased inequality, we’ve seen diminished levels of upward mobility in recent years. A child born in the top 20 percent has about a 2-in-3 chance of staying at or near the top. A child born into the bottom 20 percent has a less than 1-in-20 shot at making it to the top. He’s 10 times likelier to stay where he is. In fact, statistics show not only that our levels of income inequality rank near countries like Jamaica and Argentina, but that it is harder today for a child born here in America to improve her station in life than it is for children in most of our wealthy allies — countries like Canada or Germany or France. They have greater mobility than we do, not less.

The idea that so many children are born into poverty in the wealthiest nation on Earth is heartbreaking enough. But the idea that a child may never be able to escape that poverty because she lacks a decent education or health care, or a community that views her future as their own, that should offend all of us and it should compel us to action. We are a better country than this.

Dr. Thomas Sowell, the brilliant American Economist (who just happens to be black) wrote the following profound statement in an article titled ” “Who Are the ‘1 Percent’?”, posted on nationalreview,com, on August 1, 2012

All sorts of statements are made in politics and in the media as if that top 1 percent is an enduring class of people, rather than an ever-changing collection of individuals who have a spike in their income in a particular year for one reason or another. Turnover in other income brackets is also substantial.

There is nothing mysterious about this. Most people start out at the bottom, in entry-level jobs, and their incomes rise over time as they acquire more skills and experience.

Politicians and media talking heads love to refer to people who are in the bottom 20 percent in income in a given year as “the poor.” But, following the same individuals for 10 or 15 years usually shows the great majority of those individuals moving into higher income brackets.

The number who reach the top 20 percent greatly exceeds the number still stuck in the bottom 20 percent over the years. But such mundane facts cannot compete for attention with the moral melodramas conjured up by politicians and the media when they discuss “the rich” and “the poor.”

There are people who are genuinely rich and genuinely poor, in the sense of having very high or very low incomes for most, if not all, of their lives. But “the rich” and “the poor” in this sense are unlikely to add up to even 10 percent of the population.

Ironically, those who make the most noise about income disparities or poverty contribute greatly to policies that promote both. The welfare state enables millions of people to meet their needs with little or no income-earning work on their part.

Most of the economic resources used by people in the bottom 20 percent come from sources other than their own incomes. There are veritable armies of middle-class people who make their livings transferring resources, in a variety of ways, from those who created those resources to those who live off them.

These transferrers exist in both government and private social-welfare institutions. They have every incentive to promote dependency, from which they benefit both professionally and psychically, and to imagine that they are creating social benefits.

For different reasons, both politicians and the media have incentives to spread misconceptions with statistics. So long as we keep buying it, they will keep selling it.

With his “empire” and popularity rapidly tanking, Obama and his enablers have decided to ramp up the politic rhetoric used so well and so often by followers of Karl Marx and Saul Alinsky…and, not-so-coincidentally,  Community Organizers, as will:  the incendiary rhetoric of Class Warfare.

The harsh truth of the matter is the fact that America remains the Land of Opportunity…if you are willing, Pookie, to get your Cheetos-eating rear end up of the couch and work for it.

The Founding Fathers established a nation found on the principle that

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

“Income Equality” (i.e., Marxism) was never mentioned.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Obama Certain Boehner Will Cave

titanicIs the good ship, U.S.S. America, about to take an economic plunge into the Obama Abysss, which we may never recover from?

ABCnews.go.com has the story:

As the clock ticks toward a tax hike on all Americans in 20 days, President Obama predicted Republicans would join Democrats to extend current rates for 98 percent of earners before the end of the year.

“I’m pretty confident that Republicans would not hold middle class taxes hostage to trying to protect tax cuts for high-income individuals,” Obama said today in an exclusive interview with ABC News’ Barbara Walters.

“I don’t think they’ll do that,” he said of Republicans forcing tax-rate increases for families earning $250,000 a year or less.

The sign of optimism follows weeks of tense negotiations and public posturing to avert the so-called “fiscal cliff,” an economically toxic package of $6 trillion in across-the-board tax hikes and $1.2 trillion in deep spending cuts that could begin in early 2013.

The White House and House Speaker John Boehner have exchanged new, competing deficit-reduction plans over the last 24 hours, sources say, but there is little indication of real progress toward a deal.

Obama has taken a hard line against extending current, lower tax rates on income over $250,000, which would affect the top 2 percent of income-earners. Republicans have said those rates should be extended.

The standoff threatens higher rates for everyone unless a broad “cliff” deal is reached, or the middle-income rates are extended on their own.

“I remain optimistic,” Obama told Walters. “I’d like to see a big package. But the most important thing we can do is make sure that middle class taxes do not go up on Jan. 1.”

Obama met privately with Boehner at the White House on Sunday for their second face-to-face session on the fiscal negotiations, signaling potential progress toward an agreement. But neither side presented specific details about the outcome of the meeting.

“I think the tone was good,” Obama told Walters. “I believe that both Speaker Boehner and myself and the other leaders want to see a deal happen. And the question now is can we get it done. The outlines, the framework of what a deal should look like are pretty straightforward.”

Basically, Scooter believes that he’s got Boehner and his Merry Band of Moderate Republicans right where he wants them. In the non-political world, this is called extortion. Obama simply calls it “political manuvering”.

Brilliant Economist Dr. Thomas Sowell wrote the following for Townhall.com:

Amid all the political and media hoopla about the “fiscal cliff” crisis, there are a few facts that are worth noting.

First of all, despite all the melodrama about raising taxes on “the rich,” even if that is done it will scarcely make a dent in the government’s financial problems. Raising the tax rates on everybody in the top two percent will not get enough additional tax revenue to run the government for ten days.

And what will the government do to pay for the other 355 days in the year?

All the political angst and moral melodrama about getting “the rich” to pay “their fair share” is part of a big charade. This is not about economics, it is about politics. Taxing “the rich” will produce a drop in the bucket when compared to the staggering and unprecedented deficits of the Obama administration.

No previous administration in the entire history of the nation ever finished the year with a trillion dollar deficit. The Obama administration has done so every single year. Yet political and media discussions of the financial crisis have been focused overwhelmingly on how to get more tax revenue to pay for past and future spending.

The very catchwords and phrases used by the Obama administration betray how phony this all is. For example, “We are just asking the rich to pay a little more.”

This is an insult to our intelligence. The government doesn’t “ask” anybody to pay anything. It orders you to pay the taxes they impose and you can go to prison if you don’t.

…What about “investing in the industries of the future”? Does the White House come equipped with a crystal ball? Calling government spending “investment” does not make it investment any more than calling spending “stimulus” makes it stimulate anything.

What in the world would lead anyone to think that politicians have some magic way of knowing what the industries of the future are? Thus far the Obama administration has repeatedly “invested” in the bankruptcies of the present, such as Solyndra.

Using lofty words to obscure tawdry realities extends beyond the White House. Referring to the Federal Reserve System’s creation of hundreds of billions of new dollars out of thin air as “quantitative easing” makes it seem as if this is some soothing and esoteric process, rather than amounting essentially to nothing more than printing more money.

Debasing the value of money by creating more of it is nothing new or esoteric. Irresponsible governments have done this, not just for centuries, but for thousands of years.

It is a way to take people’s wealth from them without having to openly raise taxes. Inflation is the most universal tax of all.

All the pretty talk about how tax rates will be raised only on “the rich” hides the ugly fact that the poorest people in the country will see the value of their money decline, just like everybody else, and at the same rate as everybody else, when the government creates more money and spends it.

If you have $100 and, after inflation follows from “quantitative easing,” that $100 dollars will only buy what $80 bought before, then that is the same economically as if the government had taxed away one-fifth of your money and spent it.

But it is not the same politically, so long as gullible people don’t look beyond words to the reality that inflation taxes everybody, the poorest as well as the richest.

So, the old political chestnut, 

We’re all in this together.

is very appropriate.

Just as it was on the Titanic.

Is that “Nearer My God to Thee” I hear in the background?

Until He comes,

KJ

Golden Calf 2012: “Our Lord and Savior Barack Obama”

On “The Soul Train Awards Program” last Sunday night on Black Entertainment Television, Academy Award Winning Actor (Ray), Jamie Foxx, said,

First of all, give an honor to God and our lord and savior Barack Obama. Barack Obama.

Well, after you pick your jaw up off the floor, let us dissect this statement in 3 ways:

1. It was an attention-seeking statement, designed to elicit endearment from the Black Americans in attendance and watching on television. The statement infers that President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) is the lord and savior of all Black Americans.

Brilliant Economist Dr. Thomas Sowell, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford University, who happens to be a Black American, has a less lofty opinion of the President:

Barack Obama is one of those people who are often wrong but never in doubt. When he burst upon the national political scene as a presidential candidate in 2008, even some conservatives were impressed by his confidence.

But confident ignorance is one of the most dangerous qualities in a leader of a nation. If he has the rhetorical skills to inspire others to have the same confidence in him, then you have the ingredients for national disaster.

…How has Obama gotten away with so many things that are foreign to American beliefs and traditions? Partly it is because of a quiescent media, sharing many of his ideological views and/or focused on the symbolism of his being “the first black President.” But part of his success must be credited — if that is the word — to his own rhetorical talents and his ability to project an image that many people accept and welcome.

The role of a confidence man is not to convince skeptics, but to help the gullible believe what they want to believe. Most of what Barack Obama says sounds very persuasive if you don’t know the facts — and often sounds like sheer nonsense if you do. But he is not trying to convince skeptics, nor worried about looking ridiculous to informed people who won’t vote for him anyway.

2. Foxx was reinforcing the image of  Obama as the guy who gives away all of the “free stuff”, an image that helped to solidify his voting base, the 47%, if you will.

Rush Limbaugh put it best, the day after the election, when, on his radio program, he said:

Conservatism, in my humble opinion, did not lose last night. It’s just very difficult to beat Santa Claus. It is practically impossible to beat Santa Claus. People are not going to vote against Santa Claus, especially if the alternative is being your own Santa Claus.

…All of these things that define the traditional institutions that made this country great, that’s what the Romney campaign was about. It was rejected. That way, or that route to prosperity was sneered at. That route to prosperity was rejected. The people who voted for Obama don’t believe in it. They don’t think it’s possible. They think the game’s rigged. They think the deck is stacked against them.

They think that the only way they’re gonna have a chance for anything is if somebody comes along and takes from somebody else and gives it to them. Santa Claus! And it’s hard to beat Santa Claus. Especially it’s hard to beat Santa Claus when the alternative is, “You be your own Santa Claus.” “Oh, no! I’m not doing that. What do you mean, I have to be my own Santa Claus? No, no. No, no, no. I want to get up every day and go to the tree. You’re the elves,” meaning us.

3. Finally, Foxx’s statement was blasphemous and idolatrous…on purpose. And, the pitiful thing is, this wasn’t the first time an idiot like Foxx has done something like this.

Per Todd Starnes, writing for foxnews.com:

Earlier this month Florida A&M professor Barbara Thompson published a book titled “The Gospel According to Apostle Barack.” The book likens Obama to Jesus Christ and Martin Luther King, Jr.

“I learned that Jesus walked the earth to create a more civilized society, Martin (Luther King) walked the earth to create a more justified society, but, Apostle Barack, the name he was called in my dreams, would walk the earth to create a more equalized society, for the middle class and working poor,” she wrote in an excerpt published by The Daily Caller. “Apostle Barack, the next young leader with a new cause, had been taken to the mountaintop and allowed to see over the other side.”

A controversial painting of President Obama, posed as Jesus Christ on the cross, is part of an art exhibit at Bunker Hill Community College in Boston.

The Michael D’Antuono painting is called “The Truth” — and features the president with his arms stretched out — wearing a crown of thorns.

The original debut of the painting four years ago was cancelled due to public outrage, Design & Trend reported.

At the time D’Antuono told Air America that he didn’t mean to “disrespect people’s religion. It’s meant as a political piece.”

Last month, Italian artists came under fire for creating figurine replicas of the president and first lady that appeared in Nativity scenes.

One nun told Reuters it was a “cartoon version of a Nativity scene.”

“Something as beautiful as the traditional nativity scene shouldn’t be spoiled by these figurines of personalities and I don’t think children like them,” another critic told Reuters.

And during the Democratic National Convention a number of street vendors sold products depicting President Obama as God — including one poster that declared, “Prophecy Fulfilled.”

The products were not sanctioned by the DNC.

I really do not know if I will be able to take four more years of this idolatry.

A word of warning to Jamie Foxx, and the rest of the Obama Worshipers out there: Do you remember what happened when the Jews, whom Moses was leading out of bondage from Egypt, built and started worshiping a Golden Calf?

Read Exodus 32. It was not pretty.

Obama may be your lord and savior, kiddo, but he sure ain’t mine, or any other Christian American’s.

Allow me to introduce to you the late, Dr. S.M. Lockridge, Pastor of Calvary Baptist Church, a great man, who just happened to have been a Black American, explaining exactly whom our Savior is.

Until He comes,

KJ

Andrew Sullivan: Being Gay is like Being Black…or Something

This week’s edition of Newsweek Magazine will feature a very “special” article in it by self-proclaimed Gay Conservative Andrew Sullivan (and if this guy is a “Conservative”, I’m a blonde 22-year-old Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader named Buffy).  In the article, Sullivan equates Obama’s Black Experience to being Gay:

Last week he did it—in a move whose consequences are simply impossible to judge. White House sources told me that after the interview with ABC News, the president felt as if a weight had been lifted off him. Yes, he was bounced into it by Joe Biden, the lovable Irish-Catholic rogue who couldn’t help but tell the truth about his own views on TV (only to be immediately knocked down by David Axelrod on Twitter). But Obama had been planning to endorse gay marriage before his reelection for a while. White House sources say that if Obama had been a state senator in New York last year when the Albany legislature legalized gay marriage, he’d have voted in favor. But no one asked. The “make news” reveal was scheduled for The View. In the end, scrambling to catch up with his veep, he turned to his fellow ESPN fan, Robin Roberts, a Christian African-American from Mississippi, to quell the sudden kerfuffle. Even this was calculated: to have this moment occur between two African-Americans would help Obama calm opposition within parts of the black community.

The interview, by coincidence, came the day after North Carolina voted emphatically to ban all rights for gay couples in the state constitution. For gay Americans and their families, the emotional darkness of Tuesday night became a canvas on which Obama could paint a widening dawn. But I didn’t expect it. Like many others, I braced myself for disappointment. And yet when I watched the interview, the tears came flooding down. The moment reminded me of my own wedding day. I had figured it out in my head, but not my heart. And I was utterly unprepared for how psychologically transformative the moment would be. To have the president of the United States affirm my humanity—and the humanity of all gay Americans—was, unexpectedly, a watershed. He shifted the mainstream in one interview. And last week, a range of Democratic leaders—from Harry Reid to Steny Hoyer—backed the president, who moved an entire party behind a position that only a few years ago was regarded as simply preposterous. And in response, Mitt Romney could only stutter.

…This is the gay experience: the discovery in adulthood of a community not like your own home and the struggle to belong in both places, without displacement, without alienation. It is easier today than ever. But it is never truly without emotional scar tissue. Obama learned to be black the way gays learn to be gay. And in Obama’s marriage to a professional, determined, charismatic black woman, he created a kind of family he never had before, without ever leaving his real family behind. He did the hard work of integration and managed to create a space in America for people who did not have the space to be themselves before. And then as president, he constitutionally represented us all.

I have always sensed that he intuitively understands gays and our predicament—because it so mirrors his own. And he knows how the love and sacrifice of marriage can heal, integrate, and rebuild a soul. The point of the gay-rights movement, after all, is not about helping people be gay. It is about creating the space for people to be themselves. This has been Obama’s life’s work. And he just enlarged the space in this world for so many others, trapped in different cages of identity, yearning to be released and returned to the families they love and the dignity they deserve.

Back on December 31, 2004, Dr. Thomas Sowell, the respected Black Economist, wrote the following in an article titled, “Gay marriage ‘rights'”, published at townhall.com:

Of all the phony arguments for gay marriage, the phoniest is the argument that it is a matter of equal rights.Marriage is not a right extended to individuals by the government. It is a restriction on the rights they already have.

People who are simply living together can make whatever arrangements they want, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. They can divide up their worldly belongings 50-50 or 90-10 or whatever other way they want. They can make their union temporary or permanent or subject to cancellation at any time.

…The time is long overdue to stop word games about equal rights from leading to special privileges — for anybody — and gay marriage is as good an issue on which to do so as anything else.

Incidentally, it is not even clear how many homosexuals actually want marriage, even though gay activists are pushing it.

What the activists really want is the stamp of acceptance on homosexuality, as a means of spreading that lifestyle, which has become a death style in the era of AIDS.

…There is no limit to what people will do if you let them get away with it. That our schools, which are painfully failing to educate our children to the standards in other countries, have time for promoting homosexuality is truly staggering.

Every special interest group has an incentive to take something away from society as a whole. Some will be content just to siphon off a share of the taxpayers’ money for themselves. Others, however, want to dismantle a part of the structure of values that make a society viable.

They may not want to bring down the whole structure, just get rid of the part that cramps their style. But when innumerable groups start dismantling pieces of the structure that they don’t like, we can be headed for the kinds of social collapses seen both in history and in other parts of the world in our own times.

I have no desire to destroy somebody’s happiness.  

That being said, I don’t want 5% of America to have the “right” to re-define a word that has meant one thing since time immemorial, simply because they believe that it brings to their lifestyle the label of “normalcy”.