Is America Too Stupid To Survive?

In the end, free societies get the governments they deserve. So, if the American people wish to choose their chief executive on the basis of the “war on women,” the Republican theocrats’ confiscation of your contraceptives, or whatever other mangy and emaciated rabbit the Great Magician produces from his threadbare topper, they are free to do so, and they will live with the consequences. This week’s bit of ham-handed misdirection was “the Buffett Rule,” a not-so-disguised capital-gains-tax hike designed to ensure that Warren Buffett pays as much tax as his secretary. If the alleged Sage of Omaha is as exercised about this as his public effusions would suggest, I’d be in favor of repealing the prohibition on Bills of Attainder, and the old boy could sleep easy at night. But instead every other American “millionaire” will be subject to the new rule — because, as President Obama said this week, it “will help us close our deficit.”

Wow! Who knew it was that easy?

A-hem. According to the Congressional Budget Office (the same nonpartisan bean-counters who project that on Obama’s current spending proposals the entire U.S. economy will cease to exist in 2027) Obama’s Buffett Rule will raise — stand well back — $3.2 billion per year. Or what the United States government currently borrows every 17 hours. So in 514 years it will have raised enough additional revenue to pay off the 2011 federal budget deficit. If you want to mark it on your calendar, 514 years is the year 2526. There’s a sporting chance Joe Biden will have retired from public life by then, but other than that I’m not making any bets.

Let’s go back to that presidential sound bite:

“It will help us close our deficit.”

I’m beginning to suspect that the Oval Office teleprompter may be malfunctioning, or that perhaps that NBC News producer who “accidentally” edited George Zimmerman into sounding like a racist has now edited the smartest president of all time into sounding like an idiot. Either way, it appears the last seven words fell off the end of the sentence. What the president meant to say was:

“It will help us close our deficit . . . for 2011 . . . within a mere half millennium!” [Pause for deafening cheers and standing ovation.]

Sometimes societies become too stupid to survive. A nation that takes Barack Obama’s current rhetorical flourishes seriously is certainly well advanced along that dismal path. The current federal debt burden works out at about $140,000 per federal taxpayer, and President Obama is proposing to increase both debt and taxes. Are you one of those taxpayers? How much more do you want added to your $140,000 debt burden? As the Great Magician would say, pick a number, any number. Sorry, you’re wrong. Whatever you’re willing to bear, he’s got more lined up for you.

Even if you’re absolved from federal income tax, you too require enough people willing to keep the racket going, and America is already pushing forward into territory the rest of the developed world is steering well clear of. On April Fools’ Day, Japan and the United Kingdom both cut their corporate-tax rates, leaving the United States even more of an outlier, with the highest corporate-tax rate in the developed world: The top rate of federal corporate tax in the U.S. is 35 percent. It’s 15 percent in Canada. Which is next door.

Well, who cares about corporations? Only out of touch dilettante playboys like Mitt Romney who — hmm, let’s see what I can produce from the bottom of the top hat — put his dog on the roof of his car as recently as 1984! That’s where your gran’ma will be under the Republicans’ plan, while your contraceptiveless teenage daughter is giving birth on the hood. “Corporations are people, my friend,” said Mitt, in what’s generally regarded as a damaging sound bite by all the smart people who think Obama’s plan to use the Buffett Rule to “close the deficit” this side of the fourth millennium is a stroke of genius.

But Mitt’s not wrong. In the end, a corporation doesn’t pay tax. The marble atrium of Global MegaCorp’s corporate HQ is indifferent to the tax rate; the Articles of Incorporation in the bottom drawer of the chairman’s desk couldn’t care less. Every dollar of “corporate” tax has to be fished out the pocket of a real flesh-and-blood human being, whether shareholder, employee, or customer.

And that’s the problem. For what Obama’s spending, there aren’t enough of them, or us, or “the rich” — and there never will be. There is only one Warren Buffett. He is the third-wealthiest person on the planet. The first is a Mexican, and beyond the reach of the U.S. Treasury. Mr. Buffett is worth $44 billion. If he donated the entire lot to the government of the United States, they would blow through it within four and a half days. Okay, so who’s the fourth-richest guy? He’s French. And the fifth guy’s a Spaniard. Number six is Larry Ellison. He’s American, but that loser is only worth $36 billion. So he and Buffett between them could keep the United States government going for a week. The next-richest American is Christy Walton of Walmart, and she’s barely a semi-Buffett. So her $25 billion will see you through a couple of days of the second week. There aren’t a lot of other semi-Buffetts, but, if you scrounge around, you can rustle up some hemi-demi-semi-Buffetts: If you confiscate the total wealth of the Forbes 400 richest Americans it comes to $1.5 trillion, which is just a little less than the Obama budget deficit for a year.

Read more here.

The Tea Party: The Nation’s Antidote for “Hope and Change”

Excitable New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd has a confused, and confusing, op-ed today. The item, titled “Tempest in a Tea Party,” lashes out blindly at the twin phantoms roiling Dowd’s ultraliberal fantasy world.

On the one side, you have the Tea Party, whom Dowd joins other left-leaning commentators and politicians of recent days in defaming. She writes (borrowing one of the president’s favorite metaphors):

The world is watching in fearful—and sometimes gleeful—fascination as the Tea Party drives a Thunderbird off the cliff with the president and speaker of the House strapped in the back.

On the other, you have the inscrutable president, whose unrealized promise of hope Dowd equates to the tulip mania—an historical reference to the cost of tulip bulbs soaring to unprecedented highs during the Dutch Golden Age, then suddenly plunging back toward earthbound reality.

If one is to distill a message from Dowd’s fevered prose, it is that Barack Obama would have been a great leader if only that sizable segment of the population who never drank the hopey-changey Koolaid and grew impatient with his ineptness (aka, the Tea Party) had just held back a while and given the man a chance. It is a fiction that many liberals are clinging to to explain to their own satisfaction how the ship of state today is floundering on choppy seas when it should be sailing smoothly with Barack Obama at the helm.

OK, that’s not entirely fair. Dowd does take shots at the president in her column. She quotes one Democratic senator who complained that “the president veers between talking like a peevish professor and a scolding parent,” to which Dowd peevishly adds, “Not to mention a jilted lover.” And she quotes another as moaning, “We are watching him turn into Jimmy Carter right before our eyes.”

Read more here.

College board asks for ‘alternative’ to national anthem

These people are so besotted with notions of “diversity” that they forget where they live and who they are.

The Goshen College Board of Directors is asking the president to seek an alternative to playing the national anthem before sporting events:

The Board took the action during its regular meeting, June 3-4, and today released a Decision Statement, which is available at http://www.goshen.edu/anthem.

The Board expressed a strong commitment to advancing with President Brenneman the vision for Goshen College to be an influential leader in liberal arts education with a growing capacity to serve a theologically, politically, racially and ethnically diverse constituency both within and beyond the Mennonite church. The Board concluded that continuing to play the national anthem compromised the ability of college constituents to advance the vision together.

“The Board has a diversity of views on this issue as reflected throughout the process of considering the anthem,” said Rick Stiffney of Goshen, the chair of the Board. “The Board itself struggled with significant differences and conflicting perspectives, so this decision was not easy and took many hours of discernment and prayer. Our resolution represents our best effort to find a path of wisdom that we could endorse together.

“We recognize that some people may not be satisfied with this decision, but we believe it is the right one for Goshen College. We also believe this decision will enable the college and the board to move forward and prepare with joy for the 2011-2012 academic year.”

Responding to the decision, President Brenneman said, “I am convinced that Goshen College is on a challenging and rewarding journey toward becoming a more diverse institution that serves an increasingly diverse community. I am hopeful that this resolution will help Goshen College move forward together, and focus on finding new ways to welcome students from our local and regional community.”

Carlos Romero, executive director of the Mennonite Education Agency and an ex-officio member of the Board, affirmed the decision and the message he said it will communicate to the college’s constituents, Mennonite Church USA members and other people of faith.

“Goshen College has been and remains a ministry of Mennonite Church USA with an enduring peace tradition,” Romero said. “The Board’s decision reflects a belief that faith and honoring country can co-exist without disturbing higher allegiances to God and that Goshen College will become increasingly diverse and will welcome diverse viewpoints.”

Can you love American and not play the national anthem before sporting events? Of course you can. If they have a religious objection to playing the anthem, that’s fine too.

But the reason they want an “alternative” is because they obviously think playing the anthem offends some of the “diverse” elements in their community. Must be because they used the word “diverse” and “diversity” so often in explaining their curious decision.

The statement also implies that the anthem conflicts with the Mennonite Church’s “enduring peace tradition.” Someone should remind them that the reason they have the freedom to worship the way they do is because occassionally, some of their fellow citizens died to protect that freedom. If that conflicts with their “enduring peace tradition” then perhaps they should consider singing a rousing chorus of The Internationale.

Liberals seek a “Brave New World”

A long-simmering movement by liberal stalwarts in southern Arizona to break away from the rest of the largely conservative state is at a boiling point as secession backers press to bring their longshot ambition to the forefront of Arizona politics.

A group of lawyers from the Democratic stronghold of Tucson and surrounding Pima County have launched a petition drive seeking support for a November 2012 ballot question on whether the 48th state should be divided in two.

The ultimate goal of the newly formed political action committee Start our State is to split Pima County off into what would become the nation’s 51st state, tentatively dubbed Baja Arizona.

Backers have until July 5 next year to collect the 48,000 signatures required to qualify for a spot on the ballot. If they succeed, it would mark only the first hurdle in a long, circuitous process that even the most determined of supporters readily acknowledge has little chance of bearing fruit.

“We at least need to get it on the ballot, as a nonbinding resolution, to ask the people of Pima County if they want to be a part of Arizona,” Tucson attorney Paul Eckerstrom, a former Pima County Democratic chairman who launched the campaign, told Reuters. “All the stars would have to align for this to happen, but it could conceivably happen by the fall of 2013.”

U.S. history is replete with efforts to carve one state from another — from the creation of Kentucky and Tennessee in the 1790s to more modern misfires like proposals to partition Long Island from New York or to split California in half.

The last successful intrastate secession movement was the formation of West Virginia during the Civil War.

Read more here.

Will Washington’s Failures Lead To Second American Revolution?

The Internet is a large-scale version of the “Committees of Correspondence” that led to the first American Revolution — and with Washington’s failings now so obvious and awful, it may lead to another.

People are asking, “Is the government doing us more harm than good? Should we change what it does and the way it does it?”

Pruning the power of government begins with the imperial presidency.

Too many overreaching laws give the president too much discretion to make too many open-ended rules controlling too many aspects of our lives. There’s no end to the harm an out-of-control president can do.

Bill Clinton lowered the culture, moral tone and strength of the nation — and left America vulnerable to attack. When it came, George W. Bush stood up for America, albeit sometimes clumsily.

Barack Obama, however, has pulled off the ultimate switcheroo: He’s diminishing America from within — so far, successfully.

He may soon bankrupt us and replace our big merit-based capitalist economy with a small government-directed one of his own design.

He is undermining our constitutional traditions: The rule of law and our Anglo-Saxon concepts of private property hang in the balance. Obama may be the most “consequential” president ever.

The Wall Street Journal’s steadfast Dorothy Rabinowitz wrote that Barack Obama is “an alien in the White House.”

His bullying and offenses against the economy and job creation are so outrageous that CEOs in the Business Roundtable finally mustered the courage to call him “anti-business.” Veteran Democrat Sen. Max Baucus blurted out that Obama is engineering the biggest government-forced “redistribution of income” in history.

Read more here.

The NAACP’s Second-Class Citizens

By Kevin Jackson

Back in May, the NAACP finally spoke out about an incident where two SEIU members were accused of assaulting a black man, Kenneth Gladney, who was vending Gadsden flags at a conservative rally.

Gateway Pundit provides this transcript:

Back in the day, we used to call someone like that, and I want to remind you, uh, when this incident occurred, I was really struck by a front page picture of this guy, which we called, a Negro, I mean that we call him a Negro in the fact that he works for not for our people but against our people. In the old days, we call him an Uncle Tom. I just gotta say that. Here it is, the day after a young brother, a young man, I didn’t mean to call him a brother, but on the front page of the Post Dispatch, ironically, he’s sitting in a wheelchair, being kissed on the forehead, by a European. Now just imagine that as a poster child picture, not working for our people.

The group that is supposed to represent all “colored people” calls a black Conservative an “Uncle Tom.” And their representative apparently is not aware that the NAACP was originally called the National Negro Committee, before deciding to include all “colored” people.

In the Gladney attack, ironically one of Gladney’s attackers was white. One can only conjecture that the “new and improved” NAACP will protect Liberal “colored people,” and selected whites — those instrumental in giving beatdowns to “Negros.”

On the night of the incident, Gladney was working to provide for his family selling Gadsden flags at an event. Of all the people these two could have selected at what the Left would deem a racist event, the thugs avoided the hundreds (crowd estimates were 1000) of white folks and found the only black person.

Gladney was not adorned in red, white, and blue, nor was his appearance overtly patriotic. He looked and acted like a “vendor.” Nevertheless, the two SEIU hooligans, both at least fifty pounds heavier than Gladney, singled him out for their attack. His attackers made it perfectly clear that they represented the union, and apparently Gladney didn’t have his union card.

So a black man was attacked for no reason, and while on the job, yet there was no outcry in the black community, no Sharpton visit, no Jackson press conference, and we now know the NAACP’s stance on the issue.

Gone are the days when the National Negro Committee-turned-NAACP actually stood for Republican ideals and truly represented the interest of blacks and other “colored people.” As on June 18, 1935 in Murray v Pearson, Thurgood Marshall and Charles Hamilton Houston successfully argued the landmark case to open the University of Maryland School of Law. This was back when the NAACP truly cared about educating blacks.

This type of event is where the NAACP could regain credibility and show that it represents all people, however they showcase exactly who and what they are — an organization who condones thuggery.

The speaker mentioned that Gladney was being “kissed on the forehead, by a European.” I’d like to know who is kissing the NAACP on the forehead. What exactly have they accomplished for black people in the modern day?

The worst neighborhoods in America. The worst schools. The highest crime rates. The most people on welfare, per capita. Highest teenage pregnancy per capita. Highest high school dropout rates per capita. Lowest home ownership per capita. Lowest business ownership per capita.

The NAACP couldn’t do worse for blacks if it had been founded by Confederate Civil War veterans. And in the Gladney incident, the NAACP proved that they are no better than the KKK.

Like the NAACP has its second-class citizens-black Conservatives. Nevertheless, given the effectiveness of the NAACP in dealing effectively with black issues, I suggest that black Conservatives avoid the “help” that the NAACP provides, and enjoy being second-class citizens. Just try to avoid the occasional beatdowns.