Freedom of BLEEP

Yesterday, President Obama announced that he would like to exempt small businesses from capital gains taxes for the next year to help them through the tough economic times.

How does this help small businesses? It doesn’t really. This is clearly a strategic maneuver to deceive feeble-minded Americans into believing that our Government is providing tax relief. And the Democrats know that they’ll get away with it since many Americans couldn’t define capital gains tax to save their own life!

Why encourage small businesses to invest in stocks and bonds if we want them to start hiring more workers? It’s not just a logical fallacy; it’s duplicitous trickery intended to avert our eyes from the many ways that Democrats are actually raising taxes on small businesses. Even the New York Times admits that Obama hasn’t brought much to the table for the small businesses of America.

How exactly are the democrats raising taxes on small business?

1.) Under the proposed health care legislation, employers with payrolls exceeding $250,000 will have to provide health care to employees or pay up to an 8% penalty tax. It’s important to emphasize this is based on payroll exceeding $250,000, not based on net profits exceeding $250,000. This is going to have a huge impact on many, many small businesses in America.

2.) In addition to the cost of providing insurance, a surtax of 5.4% will also be levied on some small businesses to pay for the new government-run health care system. Democrats argue that this will only effect 1.9% of small businesses, but these figures are misleading. They include sole proprietors (that don’t have any employees) as small businesses. It’s the successful businesses in the top 1.9% which produce the most jobs.

3.) Democrats have proposed a new tax to help pay for the war in Afghanistan. Again, this will be aimed at those “earning more than $200,000 or $250,000.”

4.) Democrats also plan to repeal of a form of inventory accounting that tends to reduce business taxes. This is a particularly sneaky way to raise taxes on small businesses without the general public noticing.

5.) Democrats have been pushing for mandates that will require investment partnerships to pay the regular income tax rate instead of the lower capital gains rate. Small business owners have spoken out against such reforms, yet Democrats passed this as part of a “Tax Relief” bill.

6.) Oh, and by the way, capital gains taxes are actually increasing by at least 33% for everyone in America, and up to 69% for small businesses. Sure, small businesses will be off the hook for one year, but in 2011 Obama will be increasing the base capital gains tax rate to 20% — and the 5.4% health care surtax will also apply to capital gains on top of that. So that’s a 69% capital gains tax increase for America’s job-producing small businesses.

Why are small businesses so important?

Here are just a few statistics taken from the US-SBA:

• Small businesses represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms.
• Small businesses employ over half of all private sector employees.
• Small businesses pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll.
• Small businesses have generated 64 percent of net new jobs.

With a smug grin on his face, President Obama walked up to the podium at the Tribal Nations Conference to address the nation about the massacre at Fort Hood. He opened with a lighthearted “shout out” to Joe Medicine Crow. After using almost three minutes to talk about how he is working to improve conditions for Native Americans, he finally mentions Fort Hood.

Obama giving a shout-out before Fort Hood speech

Talk about a real class act. He spent so much time paying lip service to a slice of his electorate that many viewers thought the wrong clip was playing. Where’s Michael Moore and his stopwatch now?

Even NBC described Obama’s behavior as a display of “frightening insensitivity.” When the President finally did begin to address the Fort Hood tragedy, he still had to read his comments. Seemingly no heartfelt emotions; only the disingenuous teleprompter.

If you have been reading this blog, then you know that President Obama will directly oversee the 2010 census. Why does he want this power?

The Wall Street Journal reports that the 2010 census will count all persons physically present in the country - including all of the illegal immigrants. That’s right… Illegals will now affect the apportionment of House members and Electoral College votes for each state.*

Here’s why that’s a big deal:

According to the latest American Community Survey, California has 5,622,422 noncitizens in its population of 36,264,467. Based on our round-number projection of a decade-end population in that state of 37,000,000 (including 5,750,000 noncitizens), California would have 57 members in the newly reapportioned U.S. House of Representatives.

However, with noncitizens not included for purposes of reapportionment, California would have 48 House seats (based on an estimated 308 million total population in 2010 with 283 million citizens, or 650,000 citizens per House seat).

So basically, the most liberal state in the Union will get nine free House seats.

That is just one example of how Obama’s census corruption will work against a fair election. South Florida will be a similar scenario. In addition to that, most illegal immigrants tend to live in or near large cities, particularly in slums. Areas of the country that are typically more liberal stand to gain a larger apportionment of Congress with the 2010 enumeration. Our founding fathers provided a clear set of rules to protect the integrity of our elections, and Democrats are doing everything they can to work around these rules.

Disregarding the Constitution has become commonplace in the liberal camp. They don’t care about your rights and they certainly don’t care about representing you. All they care about is power. If you oppose them they’ll call you un-American, and then they’ll make up lies about how they saw you wearing Swastikas. President Obama and the Democrats are trying to hijack this country from the American people.

Please tell your friends about this. Democracy is at stake.

* Yes, illegal immigrants have been counted with the short form since 1980. But it’s the long form that inquires about citizenship and is used for congressional redistricting. Now the long form will not be used in 2010.

I’ll let you be the judge…

Update:
She’s 17!

Obama has announced his pick for the Supreme Court after “deep reflection and careful deliberation.” Sonia Sotomayer is set to become the first Hispanic to sit on the bench and only the third female justice, after O’Connor and Ginsburg. While diversity on the bench is a noble objective, Obama is taking a huge risk in nominating one of the most liberal activist judges on his short list.

During his announcement, Obama stated his requirements for a nominee, including a “rigorous intellect and mastery of the law” and more importantly “a recognition of the limits of the judicial role,” pointing out that judges must interpret, not create, law. Considering the latter, it is surprising that he would even consider Sotomayer in light of many damning statements she has made in connection with this principle.

Sotomayor made a huge flub by admitting that “the court of appeals is where policy is made.” After realizing that this statement could come back to bite her in her derriere, she inarticulately tried to backtrack. By now, most of you have already seen this, but just in case:

For those of you who don’t understand why this statement is such a huge deal, see the United States Constitution. There are specific powers delegated to each branch of our federal government. Article I governs the Legislative Branch, and gives Congress the power to “make all Laws.” There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Court the power to make law or social policy when they disagree with Congress.  Similarly, the Court cannot interpret the Constitution in a way that advances their own political ideology. That is why the Founding Fathers included an amendment process in the Constitution to account for any imperfections or holes in the document. However, some justices feel that it is their job to rewrite the Constitution to their liking – and this is exactly what Sotomayor’s record indicates that she will attempt to do.

Obama continued to outline his requirements in his address, commenting that mastery of the laws and respect for judicial limits are alone insufficient – we need something more in a nominee –“experience.”  But the “experience” that he is talking about is not appellate court experience, but experience that allows a justice to “empathize” with others. Remember the comment he made during his campaign:

[W]e need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.

According to Obama, justice is apparently NOT blind. This comment is in perfect alignment with the views of Sotomayor, who has previously said “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” This statement is a slap in the face to our Founding Fathers. They envisioned the Court as a neutral arbitrator, similar to a referee in a sports game. Would you want a referee to administer the rules of the game based on which team they like more? Maybe a team hasn’t had a chance to win the Super Bowl, while their opponent has won it 7 times - so they bend the rules a little to stick it to the successful team.  Is this a fair application of the rules?  Even more important, the Court is bound by precedent, which creates a stable and predictable judicial system. However, when we allow judges to take into consideration their own prejudices and political ideology, the outcome does not reflect an even-handed application of the law and instead reflects the bias of whichever judge you happen to appear before.

Obama concluded that “I hope the Senate acts in a bipartisan manner, confirming her as swiftly as possible.” In the wake of even more swift and reckless action by Congress in passing sweeping and destructive legislation without contemplation (i.e. without even reading bills before voting), it would be a disservice to the American people to confirm a justice having life tenure on our highest court without a rigorous and searching inquiry into their judicial philosophy and fitness to be a impartial arbiter.

More on Sotomayer’s judicial record and other disconcerting information later…

Nancy Pelosi announced today that she will bring a sweeping health care reform bill to the House floor by the end of July. And if Americans want to continue to enjoy the highest quality health care in the world, they need to speak up and tell the government to stay out of it! While a great number of Americans complain about the cost of health insurance today, they will soon be complaining about the lack of access and declining quality of health care if the Democrats are able to push their legislation through.

In the absence of checks and balances, Democrats will misbehave.

Obama said “Our health care system is broken. We are not going to rest until we’ve delivered the kind of health care reform that’s going to bring down costs for families, improve quality, affordability, accessibility for all Americans.” He is clearly out of his mind if he honestly believes that a universal, government-controlled health care system is the solution. The heavy hand of the government may artificially bring costs down, but it will destroy the quality, limit accessibility, and control the treatment options of all Americans. And Obama will rob us blind to cover the cost, asking Americans to sacrifice their paychecks for a “greater good.” Considering the United States is one of the unhealthiest countries in the world, it’s going to take a lot of sacrifices to get those who’ve made chronically unhealthy lifestyles choices nursed back to health. When someone else is picking up their doctor’s bill, where’s the incentive to make the right choices?

One can look to any country with socialized medicine and find a host of serious problems, but let’s examine our majority parties’ favorites: Canada and England! In Canada, terminally ill patients are waitlisted for weeks to get into a specialist, and even longer afterward to get treatment. Contributing to this massive problem is the mass exodus of doctors from the country. To deal with this flight, Canada is replacing doctors with nurses, who obviously haven’t been through the rigors of medical school. Talk about some quality health care!

In England, the picture is even bleaker. Even former Prime Minister Tony Blair voiced his concern that the government just cannot provide adequate health care to all citizens, especially with the poor lifestyle choices of many citizens. He put it correctly when saying “individual actions impose collective costs.” This is precisely the problem of socialized medicine, and socialism in general. Even more problematic is the rationing of treatments, where patients with less favorable prognoses are kept on waiting lists until they die from their ailments.

Simple economic principles show that when prices of goods are artificially pushed down, the demand skyrockets, and shortages result. Remember what happened when Oprah gave away coupons for free chicken last week?? Now imagine every person in America had free coupons for medical care.

Moreover, medical innovation declines because companies can’t recoup their research and development costs. This is when the government steps in, further increases taxes, and creates their own research agency to develop limited “cost effective” treatments that may not benefit all patients. With never-ending lines and poor/limited options, these liberal policies beg the question: what good is free health insurance when there’s no health care? Government intervention is a slippery slope, and our country is sliding into a gigantic disaster.

Obama’s agenda is clearly to thrust the government further into every facet of our lives, so that we become more and more dependent upon it. It’s amazing that Democrats don’t feel insulted, since the party they advocate is convinced that Americans are mentally-challenged lemmings who can’t take care of themselves. After this last election, I’m beginning to believe that a majority of them are.

During his last prime time press conference, President Obama said, “We inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit… That wasn’t me.”

Actually, he did play a part in it. While President Obama opposed the Iraq War, he sure didn’t have a problem funding it. In fact, he only voted against one bill that included money for the war. Democrats have controlled Congress since 2006 and during this time war spending continued to go up. President Obama also voted for the Wall Street bailout. Ultimately, it’s Congress that holds the purse strings of our country but he has refused to accept some responsibility. So next time he tries to blame his administration’s problems on someone else, just remember he might not be telling you the whole truth.

Obama’s Voting History:

May 2005: Congress approved an $82 billion bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and international anti-terrorism efforts. Obama voted yes.

June 2006: Congress cleared a $94.5 billion bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as provide aid to hurricane victims. Obama voted yes.

September 2006: Congress cleared a $448 billion Pentagon funding bill that included $70 billion for U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama voted yes.

April 2007: Congress cleared a $124 billion spending bill that provided $90 billion for war costs. Obama voted yes.

June 2008: Congress approved a measure to spend $162 billion for war costs as well as other domestic projects. Obama voted yes.

Source

Since the New Deal, the 100 day mark has been an arbitrary point evaluation for new presidents. But most people say this isn’t enough time to judge, so I waited 2 extra days.

Obama by the numbers:

6

Number of campaign promises President Obama has broken.

 

7

Number of tax frauds Obama nominated for public office.

 

13

Number of Obama appearances on the cover of Time Magazine.

 

47

Number of teleprompter speeches Obama has made.

 

1

Number of cabinet positions unfilled (unfortunately it’s the Health and Human Services Secretary).

 

2

Number of inaugural oaths taken by Obama.

 

3

The number of days Obama’s bipartisanship lasted.

 

25

Number of DVDs Prime Minister Brown has that won’t play on his DVD player.

 

1.75 Trillion

Budgeted deficit for this year.

 

9.3 Trillion

Budgeted deficit for the next ten years.

 

2.5 Million

The number of jobs that Obama didn’t save or create. (Actual jobs lost were about 2 million.)

 

485

The number of earmarks in the stimulus legislation. The exact number is debatable, but promises made by Obama that the stimulus legislation would contain “no earmarks” certainly proved untrue.

 

A tiny phrase in the Bill of Rights promises us “Assistance of Counsel” for legal defense if we are accused of a crime. The US Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean we have the right to an attorney (Michigan v Jackson). President Obama says that this right “serves no real purpose.”

He has asked the Supreme Court to overrule this holding so that US citizens that have requested an attorney will no longer be guaranteed one during questioning. Apparently, Obama would like our police force to operate more like the KGB.

This right does serve a purpose - just not a purpose that serves our Freedom-hating President. Attorneys can inform defendants of their rights and help them understand the legal ramifications of pleas or other statements they submit. Interrogators will be able intimidate and deceive defendants if this decision is overturned. This will especially effect the mentally challenged or even those slightly less intelligent than the interrogator.

Honestly, I find this hard to believe and I wonder if the Telegraph has misunderstood him. If not, we are in trouble. How long before Obama says other parts of the Constitution serve no real purpose?

The answer is yes. If you are a taxpaying American, you’re seeing a little over $9 extra show up on your paycheck each week. This is your stimulus check. And your promised tax deduction!

Let’s be honest. Will a minor decrease in withholdings really stimulate the economy when most Americans don’t even notice it? Even if you did realize you were getting the stimulus, does the extra nine bucks really make you want to go out and spend? Wouldn’t it make more sense to give us a fat check all at once like Bush did last year?

Which leads to another question. The withholdings deduction does add up to the $500 tax cut that Obama promised. But under Bush, taxpaying Americans received a tax rebate of $600 to $1200. By neglecting to renew these rebates, didn’t Obama actually raise our taxes?

The math really isn’t that complicated. However, it does take some calculus to see the big picture: the limit of taxes as Obama’s government expansion approaches infinity is equal to your paycheck.

Stay tuned for other ways that Obama will be raising your taxes.