Detroit: The petri dish of Leftist politics, education and unions. And bankruptcies.

Just updating this in honor recognition of Detroit’s bankruptcy.

Best line I’ve seen on Facebook lately: If Obama had a city, it would look like Detroit.

I saw an item where a 50 yr. old lamented that he might not be able to retire this year as planned.  He filled potholes in Detroit for a living.  That is important and honorable work, but the idea that it would prosper one to be able to retire at that age is symptomatic of a much larger problem.

Leftist polices are poison.

As you probably read recently, Detroit has a 47% illiteracy rate.  Forty-seven percent!  Less than 2% of their students could do college work.

Ideas have consequences.  Please watch Steven Crowder’s analysis of Detroit and how the policies that ruined it are spreading to the rest of the country.  Democrats have had a virtual monopoly on inner city politics, education and unions for over 50 years and today’s Detroit is the result.  I think that all Liberal members of Congress should have to live there for a year — with the same un-Constitutional gun control laws they want to force on others.

More details here: Why did Detroit go bankrupt? Who is to blame? Whose fault was it?

False teachers want to reduce abortions by increasing abortions. Or something like that.

False teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie took a break from taking little girls to gay pride parades to spread disinformation about how Contraception Reduces Abortion Rate.

It is a classically disingenuous move on his part.  Pro-aborts like him pretend to want to reduce abortions, but everyone who supports the Democrats is explicitly in favor of taxpayer-funded abortions that will obviously increase the number of abortions (duh).  So if they really wanted to reduce them then why take the money of pro-lifers by force to increase them?

And he ignores that half of abortions occur while women are on birth control.  The rate of failure is highest for teens.

Reducing the number of abortions is a cause most people of faith share but not all people of faith believe women should have access to contraception – some believe such access should be difficult or even illegal.

That is a straw-man argument.  Just because we didn’t buy Sandra Fluke’s nonsense doesn’t mean we want birth control to be illegal.  She’s a 31 yr. old law student managing to finance a $50,000 /yr. education and she can’t get her boyfriends to pool $10/month for birth control?  It was one of the most Prozac-inducing parts of the campaign watching so many people side with her.  Is it so hard to see the difference between access and forcing others to pay?

And isn’t it just possible that all the great pro-life laws (ultrasounds, informed consent, parental notification, etc.) put into place have helped reduce abortions?  Remember that pro-aborts strenuously oppose all of those.

Such thinking increases the need for abortion.  Groups like the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice work to promote contraception.  We need more voices joining with RCRC.

The RCRC is all about abortion.  “Reproductive Choice” is a fallacious term, as all abortions kill humans who have already been reproduced.

At the same time, faith communities need to be fighting hard for quality sex education in our public schools and to be providing such education in our churches.  A great resource for churches is the Our Whole Lives curriculum developed by the United Church of Christ and Unitarian Universialist Association.

I can only imagine what perversities that Chuck and the Unitarians have cooked up for these poor young people.  Remember, Chuck is so eager to show how “progressive” he is that he uses his 6 yr. old daughters as props to take to gay pride parades.  That’s sick, but he is a perfect picture of the “Christian” Left (Read: Wolves in sheep’s clothing).

Run, don’t walk, from false teachers like this and the denominations that support them.

Whoa! Even the Associated Press recognizes Obama’s hypocrisy on the jobs bill

His public speeches are pure politics.  If you can’t see that, your media of choice has left you hopelessly misinformed.  He’s only trying to save one job, and that is his.

Via SPIN METER: Obama disconnects rhetoric, reality.

In President Barack Obama’s sales pitch for his jobs bill, there are two versions of reality: The one in his speeches and the one actually unfolding in Washington.

When Obama accuses Republicans of standing in the way of his nearly $450 billion plan, he ignores the fact that his own party has struggled to unite behind the proposal.

When the president says Republicans haven’t explained what they oppose in the plan, he skips over the fact that Republicans who control the House actually have done that in detail.

And when he calls on Congress to “pass this bill now,” he slides past the point that Democrats control the Senate and were never prepared to move immediately, given other priorities. Senators are expected to vote Tuesday on opening debate on the bill, a month after the president unveiled it with a call for its immediate passage.

To be sure, Obama is not the only one engaging in rhetorical excesses. But he is the president, and as such, his constant remarks on the bill draw the most attention and scrutiny.

The disconnect between what Obama says about his jobs bill and what stands as the political reality flow from his broader aim: to rally the public behind his cause and get Congress to act, or, if not, to pin blame on Republicans.

He is waging a campaign, one in which nuance and context and competing responses don’t always fit in if they don’t help make the case.

Hey, I agree with the President!

It was bound to happen sometime.  I’m always looking for common ground.

This is going to leave a mark.  From July 3, 2008:

The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.  (Via Obama Admits He Is More Unpatriotic Than Bush!.)

So if adding $4 trillion in 8 years is really, really bad (and I think it was — Bush spent way too much!), and Obama has added $4 trillion in less than three years, then . . . ouch.

And it gets worse: Remember that Bush spent less than Democrats wanted and Obama would have run the debt even higher if not for those “evil” Tea Partiers stopping him.

I have a feeling you may be seeing this video in commercials.  Of course, the President will blame Bush, and bad luck, and ATMs, and Bush.

Update: Here’s a little collection of failed promises.  He must be very tired, because he insists he won’t rest until he solves the jobs problem.

Ponzi schemes: Illegal for Bernie Madoff but not the government

As I noted in Repeat after me: There is no Social Security “trust fund”:

There is no trust fund.  No. Trust. Fund. Anyone claiming there is such a thing is ignorant and/or trying to deceive you.

The government does not have the capability to set aside funds in a bank account like we do.  When the Social Security funds come in they are spent on Social Security, or, as they have done for decades, on other spending projects they didn’t want to raise taxes to fund.  Decades of dishonesty and financial mismanagement by both parties are becoming more visible.

If Social Security taxes stopped today there wouldn’t be a penny saved to meet the commitments the government made.  It is the world’s largest Ponzi scheme.

If some of these Social Security funds went to private investments that you could control then that would limit how much the politicians could abuse.  But they don’t want to lose control, so they play on your fears that something bad will happen.

Yes, the market could crash and you could lose your investments.  It is a risky world.  But think about this: Whether your private account crashed or not it isn’t like the government is saving our taxes today to pay out tomorrow.  Either way the payouts they will make 10 years from now will come from taxes paid 10 years from now.

Simply put, we can’t lose by having at least part of current contributions devoted to private accounts.  The politicians will lose because they’ll have to find a way to fund current spending, or not spend the money at all.

Don’t let fear-mongering by politicians fool you.  The system has been broken for a long time.  Democrats didn’t want you to be informed and Republicans didn’t try hard enough to inform you.  But it isn’t that complicated.

Here are some great ideas from Time to Opt Out of the Social Security Ponzi Scheme.  I urge you to the whole thing.  Now is the time to educate people on how Social works, why it is doomed to fail, and what we can do about it now.  Those young people who swallowed Obama’s lies and are now unemployed and saddled with massive college debts may be willing to listen to some truth now.  Same thing for middle-aged people who will realize that they will spend their careers paying into a system that will be beyond bankrupt when they retire.

The Social Security Ponzi scheme is perhaps the most consequential government infringement upon our lives.  Conservatives are justifiably outraged that Obama egregiously mandated that we purchase health insurance.  However, the individual mandate is not nearly as meddlesome and tyrannical as the government’s complete control over our retirement security.  The only reason why these two programs are regarded differently by the public, is because Social Security has been around for 75 years.  Consequently, most Americans are conditioned to believe that a person’s retirement is indissolubly tied to government-run Social Security.

Now that Social Security is running a perennial deficit and is facing insolvency, conservatives have an opportunity to reverse one of the most flagrant violations of our property rights, by offering workers the option to opt out of the Madoff-style program.

As the unfunded liability for Social Security balloons to $21.4 trillion over the next 20 years, it is painfully obvious to young workers that they will not enjoy much retirement security, if any, from the government program.  Democrats are totally apathetic to their grim future; they will be long retired by then, enjoying the full array of government benefits that they secured for themselves.  Meanwhile, they would rather demagogue the issue, using fallacious scare tactics to stir up current retirees.  Accordingly, we should harness the Democrats’ Mediscare demagoguery towards seniors, and direct it towards younger Americans.  If Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan will push granny over the hill, the status quo of the Democrats’ Ponzi scheme will prevent the grandchild from making it up the hill.

With high unemployment and polls showing a precipitous drop in support for Obama among young voters, now is the time to reach out to those voters.  Congressman Pete Sessions is proposing the SAFE ACT (HR 2109), which would allow younger workers to control all of their retirement savings.  Here are some of the key details of the proposal:

  • Every American would be able to opt out of the current system and direct the full 6.2% of payroll taxes to a personal retirement account beginning January 1, 2012.  Conversely, anyone who wishes to remain in the current system would not be affected.  An employee who chooses to opt for the SAFE account can switch back to the current system during the first five years after opting out.
  • After 15 years of the bill’s enactment, employers would be able to contribute “their share” of payroll taxes to the employee’s SAFE account.
  • Self-employed individuals would be able to divert the full amount of their payroll taxes to a SAFE account.
  • The SAFE accounts would be tax free and any cash contributions would be tax deductible.   Also, all post-retirement distributions from the account would be tax free.  Any pre-retirement distributions would be taxed as income.
  • Upon the death of the account beneficiary, irrespective of his/her age, the inheritors of the estate will be able to assume full ownership of the account.

. . .

So, young Obama zombies with skulls full of mush; with whom do you trust your retirement security: your bank account or Obama’s defunct ATM?  How about Bernie Madoff?

Michele Bachmann continues to impress

While the Left is content to just call her names (“right-wing loon” seems to be a favorite, and they seem to think of it as a robust rebuttal of her positions), Michele Bachmann is making strides.  See Michele Bachmann Sets A Very High Bar at Right Online (emphasis added).

The whole speech felt like it was only a few minutes. It was funny, fascinating, informative, and powerful. She set the bar very, very high for other candidates.

Her tax lawyer background showed in her speech, as did her faith. She used a dollar bill, folding it to show how Barack Obama’s policies have devalued it 14% and how the federal government borrows 42% of every dollar spent. She had the audience join her so they too can show others.

She hit Obama on something few Republicans ever do — unemployment in the Hispanic and black communities, noting how his policies have hurt the very groups he pledged to help. She focused as well on youth unemployment. Black youth in this country face 40% unemployment this summer and Hispanic youth face over 20%. Astonishing.

Bachmann brought the crowd to its feet multiple times. She pledged that she would not fight until Obamacare is repealed. She tackled medicare reform too. She pointed out that while the Democrats are scaring old people about Republican reforms, the Democrats took $500 billion from Medicare to fund healthcare for the young. She says the GOP needs to start pointing out that Barack Obama intends to bankrupt medicare and force senior citizens into Obamacare.

The speech really was dazzling and not because of the zingers and one liners. It was an extremely substantive speech about how Obama’s policies are hurting the country.

Speaking of real loons, check out this lady.  She plays the ridiculous canard that Bible-believing Christians are opposed to gays loving each other.  Hey, go right ahead, lady.  Just don’t throw glitter on people who don’t support your right to a square circle (oops, I mean “same-sex marriage”).

Uh oh, a double dog dare!

I got this challenge on Facebook from a life-long friend.  He has a great sense of humor and thick skin, but sadly suffers from a debilitating case of Liberalism. Out of kindness, I gave him two chances to withdraw the dare, but he persisted (they are a stubborn lot!).

Neil, I dare you to post this on your blog. No, I double dog dare you. Zombies Walk The Halls Of Congress : NPR.

The article highlighted Democrats and Republicans who stayed in Congress after scandals.  I wonder why NPR didn’t go after examples like this more aggressively?  I mean, sweet Maxine is still there.  They could shine a bigger light on this one:

Other survivors? There’s Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA). During the fiscal meltdown, she arranged a meeting with the Treasury Department for a bank her husband owned stock in.

The article forgot to note that Republicans are more likely to resign and more likely to be pressured to resign from their party.  Then again, you can only be a hypocrite if you have standards to begin with.  Witness Chris Matthews’ claim that the real problem with Weiner is that “backwards” religious people disagree with his behavior — meaning that “progressive” people think there was nothing really wrong with a Congressman exposing himself to bribes and ridicule  in sending R- and X-rated pictures of himself to strangers and then lying to friends and enemies alike in a pathetic cover-up attempt.  His real crime was getting caught.  Hey, at least Matthews clearly reveals his “morality.”

Also note that the NPR article “forgot” to mention Bill Clinton staying in office after abusing his authority with an intern, exposing himself to the possibility of blackmail, trying to destroy her life (and he would have succeeded if not for the infamous dress) and lying under oath.  Yet while Nixon became synonymous with deception and scandal, Clinton’s punishment is making $100,000 per speech and having a wife who is Secretary of State.

Back to the dare: My friend’s premise was that I’d never post something from NPR that showed that they were balanced.  But the grand irony is if they were truly unbiased then he could send me their links all day, every day.  But as it is he found a token piece that was balanced and was so shocked and thrilled that he launched into his double dog dare without realizing that he was proving my point, not his.  

Whether NPR is biased or not (and of course they are wildly biased, or my extreme Liberal friend wouldn’t be such a loyal fan), they shouldn’t get government funding.

There you go, my friend.  Hope you’re happy!