TUCKER, Ga. â€“ Itâ€™s no secret government schools have put President Obama on a pedestal unlike any other national leader.
Schools have been named after him long before his retirement or death, which is rather unprecedented. Students have been led in organized chants of his honored name. There are lesson plans comparing him to Abraham Lincoln.
But sometimes school employees take the rhetoric a bit too far and wind up in propaganda territory. The latest example comes from DeKalb County, Georgia.
Rosa satâ€¦so Martin could walk.
Martin walkedâ€¦so Obama could run.
Obama ranâ€¦so our children could fly.
[…] Â Â This deifying of Obama is unhealthy for our students because weâ€™re teaching them to look to an individual â€“ or government in general – for life solutions. If anything, todayâ€™s kids need to be reprogrammed to remember that they are the masters of their own destinies, and they themselves make the decisions that will ultimately determine the course of their lives.
As President John Adams said, we have â€œa government of laws, and not of men.â€ The unhealthy tendency to worship the people that temporarily fill government positions is a distraction for young people who should be focused on their own efforts to find their way in life.
This is the kind of crap you find in banana republics and third-world dictatorships. Â In America, we we do NOT revere our elected officials. Â We view them with scrutiny as the temporary public servants that they are.
Now more than ever, children need to be taught to hold their elected officials accountable, not worship them!
Is your three-year-old preschooler chanting â€˜union powerâ€™ these days? She might, if author Innosanto Nagara has his way.
Nagara wrote â€œA is for Activist,â€ a book supposedly geared for the Â children of the â€œ99 percent.â€ In other words, a new vehicle has been developed for leftists to begin indoctrinating children.
â€œItâ€™s pretty awesome to hear a three-year-old saying â€˜union power,â€™â€ Nagara said in aÂ YES! magazineÂ interview.
But union power and student activism arenâ€™t the only goals. Consider these other letters and how they are applied in the book:
B is for banner, as in a protest banner hanging off a construction crane
L is for LGBTQ, as in Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, Transgendered and Queer
T is for Trans, as in transgendered
Z is for Zapatistas, as in Mexican revolutionary leftists
Heady stuff for preschoolers, but the indoctrinators believe the tykes are old enough to learn the basics of revolutionary thought.
Nagaraâ€™s â€œA is for Activistâ€ has been heralded by the likes of Code Pinkâ€™s Medea Benjamin, whoÂ said, â€œMay a thousand young activists bloom!â€
This really shouldn’t surprise anyone who’s been paying attention to the Socialist takeover of public education over the past century. Â But it will hopefully wake up those parents who insist, “Not at MY child’s school!” Â If it can happen in Texas, it can happen ANYWHERE. Â And most indoctrination will NOT be this blatant, so few parents will recognize it unless they’re looking for it.
Texas lawmakers are putting educators on the hot seat after public school curriculum surfaced that Â promoted Islam and socialism while deconstructing American values and patriotism.
School children were exposed to lessons that labeled the Boston Tea Party an act of terrorism. They were also instructed to create flags for socialist and communist countries. And they were also given in-depth lessons in the Islamic faith that included classroom readings from the Koran.
â€œThey are indoctrinating our children to hate America,â€ said Janice VanCleave, ofÂ Texas Education Patriots.Â â€œTexans are embarrassed about this.â€
VanCleaveâ€™s organization launched an investigation that exposed CSCOPE â€“ an electronic curriculum system that provides online lesson plans for teachers. The curriculum is used in 80 percent of the stateâ€™s school districts.
â€œItâ€™s built by teachers, designed by teachers and thatâ€™s whatâ€™s powerful about CSCOPE,â€ said Wade Lebay, director of state CSCOPE at the Region 13 Education Service Center in Austin.
[…] Â Â But critics â€“ including some state lawmakers â€“ believe the curriculum is anti-American.
â€œItâ€™s amazing that when you all called our Founding Fathers terrorists, in Texas, that you thought that wasnâ€™t going to cause problems,â€ said Sen. Dan Patrick, a member of the senate education committee.
Texas State Sen. Larry Taylor said he was especially disturbed by lessons that tried to equate the Boston Tea Party to the 9-11 terrorists.
â€œThey actually referred to it as a terrorist act,â€ he told Fox News. â€œThrowing tea into the harbor is nowhere near a terrorist act. To have our kids even thinking thatâ€¦â€
Taylor called the curriculum anti-American â€“ and said it put the Founding Fathers on the same footing as modern-day terrorists.
â€œTo even say these two examples are comparable or trying to equate them as being equal is egregious,â€ he said.
According to a new Pew Research CenterÂ poll, the majority of Americans say the federal government threatens their personal rights.
The poll, conducted from Jan. 9th-13thÂ among 1,500 adults, found that 53% of those surveyed think the federal government threatens their own personal rights and freedoms, the highest level found since Pew began polling on this subject in 1995. This outcome also represents the first time since Pew began polling that a majority of Americans saw the government as a threat. In March of 2010, 47% of those polled said that they viewed government as a threat to freedom.
The latest Pew survey also included questions about gun laws. Not surprisingly, given the current national controversy about gun control and Second Amendment rights, 62% of gun owners believe that the federal government poses a fundamental threat to their constitutional rights and freedom.
In addition, the surveyÂ foundÂ that, over the past two years, the percentage of conservative Republicans who view the government as a threat to freedom has jumped from 62% to 76%. 54% of conservatives consider government to be a â€œmajor threatâ€ to their constitutional rights.
One of the most remarkable and frightening aspects of President Barack Obamaâ€™s inaugural address was his dismissal of his opposition â€“ presumably the House Republican caucus – as â€œabsolutistsâ€ who are without â€œprinciple.â€
They are mucking up Obamaâ€™s agenda, and he wonâ€™t have it.
[…] Â Absolutism, as defined by Merriam-Webster, is a form of despotism – â€œgovernment by an absolute ruler or authority.â€ That the president of the United States is accusing his democratically-elected opponents of acting in a tyrannical fashion is a remarkable development with potentially profound implications.
Once the presidentâ€™s opponents have been defined in the American mind as despotically inclined, unsusceptible to reason, and unwilling to play by the normal rules of politics, it is only natural that extreme measures are permitted in response.
This White House has already shown a propensity toward ruling by executive fiat – whether by executive action that effectively enacts rejected legislation, by refusing to enforce existing law, or by crafting rules for legislation to grant vast new powers to bureaucrats.
Once it has de-legitimized the opposition, the White House can claim it is left with no choice but to accelerate and expand its use of executive power. What else can they do, the president and his operatives will argue, when faced with the insanity of the Republicans?
The press, which avidly buys into the notion that much of the House Republican caucus is beyond reason, will lend a sympathetic ear to Obama as he struggles with the forces of darkness.
In the addressÂ itself, President Obama made the case that liberty is not timeless; that it must adjust to the times, and that “preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action”–not to defend those freedoms from infringement, but to give them “meaning” through government regulation and redistribution.
â€œThereâ€™s a moment of opportunity now thatâ€™s important,â€ Pfeiffer said. â€œWhatâ€™s frustrating is that we donâ€™t have a political system or an opposition party worthy of the opportunity.â€
Note the contempt in Pfeiffer’s words–not just for the political opposition, but for the political system itself–a system designed by the Framers to include checks and balances to hold government power firmly in check.
[…] Â A year ago, President ObamaÂ observed: “[I]t turns out our Founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change that I would like sometimes.” Back then, facing re-election, he promised to be patient. Today, he is impatient–with the opposition, and the system itself. He will destroy both, if necessary, to achieve his vision of America–one where “government alone” does not do everything, but rather dictates to individuals what they should do, and choose, and want, to serve its sweeping designs.
Throughout most of human history, transfers of power involved the coronation of a king or emperor, who’s only claim to power was either his birth or the conquest of his rival, whose reign was for life, and whose subjects were at his complete mercy.
Two centuries ago, our founders gave us a radically different system, where leaders were chosen from among the people to be public servants who wereÂ held accountable by the people, where no man (regardless of position) was above the law, where power was limited to prevent its abuse, where God alone was our King, and where government was prevented from taking that dictatorial role in people’s lives.
It is an awesome privilege to be the beneficiary of such a gift, and yet it carries a heavy responsibility of civic duty to hold our government and public servants accountable when they overstep their legitimate, constitutional authority.
Today was a day of inauguration, not coronation. We respect the results of the election, but we also remember that the constitutional limits of government power and the rule of law that protects our liberties are NEVER up for a vote.
Today, it was not just a president who is being inaugurated, but also We The People, who must shoulder our responsibility to uphold and defend the constitution against all threats, foreign and domestic. May we take that solemn charge faithfully and honorably, as our founders did.
Sounding the same themes of class warfare that propelled his re-election campaign, President Barack Obama devoted hisÂ second inaugural addressÂ to laying out his second term agenda: a struggle to undo the seeming injustices of America’s past, and to overcome the army of straw men that stand in opposition to progress.
In the process, President Obama attempted nothing less than an assault on the timeless notion of liberty itself:
Through it all, we have never relinquished our skepticism of central authority, nor have we succumbed to the fiction that all society’s ills can be cured through government alone.
ButÂ we have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action.
After praising the “collective” and mocking the notion that America is a “nation of takers,” President Obama targeted the political opposition. He targeted those who “deny” climate change, attacked those who allegedly refused to reward the elderly for their contributions, and defied critics whom he said wanted “perpetual war.” He attacked the rich–as he has done so often over the past four years–and painted a caricature of an unjust nation: “…our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it….We do not believe that in this country, freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few.”
President Obama’s address failed to deliver on promises earlier in the day by senior political adviser David Axelrod that the speech would sound themes of national unity on a day of national “consecration.” Instead, the president sounded combative themes familiar from his divisive first term, albeit wrapped occasionally in the lofty rhetoric of “hope” and “tolerance,” and punctuated by the repeated refrain: “We, the People.”
[…] Â Throughout his address, the President maintained his voice in a near-shout. This was not an historic address, a reflection on a moment in history; it was an exhortation to political action, in contrast to the political reality of a divided Washington, in defiance of the profound economic challenges still facing the American people.
It was a declaration of political war on individual liberty. It was a wasted opportunity–and a warning.
Obama spelled out his true agenda: destroying founding principles about limited government to meet changing times. While paying lip service to â€œour skepticism of central authority,â€ Obama said that times have changed, and â€œso must weâ€: â€œfidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges â€¦ preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action.â€ This was the sheerest form of rhetoric sophistry; equating freedom with government control is an perverse reversal of language. Of course, the Constitution was written based on the notion that human natureÂ does not changeÂ â€“ people are not angels, nor devils, but self-interested creatures capable of greatness or evil, who must be checked against each other. But Obama doesnâ€™t believe that. He believes that man can be made anew.
But only by government. And so Obama demonized limited government as anarchism, suggesting that meeting â€œthe demands of todayâ€™s world by acting aloneâ€ is like forcing American soldiers to meet â€œthe forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militiasâ€ â€“ a straw man argument so blatant it appeared Obama would wheel out Ray Bolger to present it. In pursuing his agenda, Obama made clear that he will ignore basic realities â€“ â€œwe reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future.â€ He made clear that he will create false histories â€“ â€œwe remember the lessons of our past, when twilight years were spent in poverty, and parents of a child with a disability had nowhere to turn.â€ He made clear that he will redefine taking and giving â€“ those who wish to save their money for their families and children are â€œtakers,â€ and those who wish to confiscate the wealth of others â€œstrengthen us.â€
In the end, Obamaâ€™s argument was a collectivist one. And it was an argument designed to irreparably tear this nation apart. Obama himself said it: â€œBeing true to our founding documents does not require us to agree on every contour of life; it does not mean we will all define liberty in exactly the same way â€¦â€
But this renders the Declaration of Independence Obama cited completely meaningless. The founders may have disagreed on many things, but they agreed on the meaning of liberty: the right to live as an individual, without centralized planning infringing basic property rights, economic opportunities, and religious freedoms. Obamaâ€™s fundamental redefinition of liberty to include communitarianism is not merely wrong, it spells the end of the political commonality that has held the fabric of the nation together. If we define liberty differently, then there is nothing to talk about: my liberty is your tyranny, and vice versa. Our goals can never be shared. That gap can never be bridged.
Obama sure knows how to pick the radical wackos. Never, in all my years attending different churches, have I EVER heard a pastor attack a particular group of people as “enemies,” ESPECIALLY over political differences!
I guarantee that if a pastor from a church that a conservative (Sarah Palin?) attended made comments about going into “battle” against Democrat “enemies,” the news media would be freaking out for a week about the “controversy” surrounding his “violent,” “extremist” rhetoric, demanding his resignation, and they’d have all the dirt from his past dug up within 24 hours.
At Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church, BraxtonÂ reportedlyÂ crafted his speech around Obamaâ€™s personal political slogan: â€œForward!â€
Obama, said Braxton, was just like Moses facing the Red Sea: â€œforward is the only option â€¦ The people couldnâ€™t turn around. The only thing that they could do was to go forward.â€ Obama, said Braxton, would have to overcome all obstacles â€“ like opposition from Republicans, presumably, or the bounds of the Constitution. Braxton continued, â€œMr. President, stand on the rock,â€ citing to Moses standing on Mount Horeb as his people camped outside the land of Israel.
In case Braxton missed it, America won its freedom 237 years ago, and the slaves were freed 150 years ago – by a REPUBLICAN. Â Obama isn’t leading anybody out of slavery. Â He’s leading them INTO slavery – the slavery of dependence on the Welfare State, which black conservatives like Star Parker call “Uncle Sam’s Plantation.”
But it wasnâ€™t enough to compare Obama with the founder of Judaism and the prophet of the Bible. Braxton added that Obamaâ€™s opponents were like the Biblical enemies of Moses, and that Obama would have to enter the battleÂ becauseÂ â€œsometimes enemies insist on doing it the hard way.â€
So anybody who doesn’t immediately bow and cave to Obama’s political agenda is an “enemy?” Â Funny, I thought Jesus taught believers to LOVE their enemies.
The service ended with the pastor leading the crowd in a chant of â€œForward.â€ Really.
This was no religious service. It was a worship service for the manÂ NewsweekÂ labeled â€œThe Second Coming.â€ And if Obama thinks anything like the pastor he chose just before taking his oath of office, America is in for a long, narcissistic, imperial four years.
Where is the IRS to challenge the church’s tax exempt status for preaching politics from the pulpit? Â Oh, that’s right: they only enforce that against conservative churches that don’t worship at the altar of the Almighty Messianic Welfare State.
I’m so sick of this narcissist being compared to my Lord and Savior. This is the kind of crap you see in banana republic dictatorships that worship their leaders as Messianic, god-like figures. In America, our leaders are PUBLIC SERVANTS. NOT gods!
Even the byline, “America expects, can he deliver?” suggests that it’s the president’s job to rise to god-like expectations of those who look to him as their provider and savior. Â That is NOT the role of ANY government official, least of all the chief executive of a country founded on freedom!
People have been deifying Obama for four years now, and he NEVER speaks out against it. He’s a narcissist and it strokes his ego. He basks in it. It is VERY SICK!
Why would a teacher’s association want anÂ unrepentantÂ domestic terroristÂ – who participated in three bombings and regretted that he didn’t do moreÂ – as their keynote speaker regarding educating America’s youth? Â This is theÂ equivalentÂ of inviting Timothy McVey to speak.
Is THIS the kind of person they admire, who’s advice on molding young minds they want to follow? Â Â Just imagine what they’re teaching their students if they have such little discretion and no moral compass!
The Association of Teacher Educators has recruited Chicago professor â€“ and former domestic terrorist â€“ William Ayers to speak at their theÂ 2013 Annual MeetingÂ in Atlanta, Georgia which will be held next month.
William Ayers, a co-founder of the radical Weather Underground domestic terror group, was a key figure during the 2008 presidential campaign due to his Chicago ties to then-Senator Obama.
The organizationâ€™s executive director, David Ritchey, confirmed that Ayers would be a keynote speaker at the conference although he admitted that he wasnâ€™t involved in the selection process.
Ritchey added that although Ayers was a controversial figure he had been invited due to his â€œwork in the education field, apart from all the other stuff.â€
TheÂ website biographyÂ makes no specific mention of Ayersâ€™ controversial background, describing him as the â€œformerly Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior University Scholar at the University of Illinois at Chicago.â€
The only “work” Ayers does in education is indoctrinating students with his radical ideas and training others how to do the same. Â Although this teachers’ association won’t publicly condone his actions, they don’t condemn them either, and they clearly agree with his radical leftist ideas, or else they wouldn’t have invited him to share them.
On Mondayâ€™s broadcast of â€œAmerica Liveâ€ with host Megyn Kelly, conservative radio talk show host Mark Levin made an appearance to elaborate on remarks he made on his radio show last week about the president and his disregard for the Constitution.
Levin referred to Obama as an â€œimperial presidentâ€ and pointed to his rhetoric about what he will do in lieu of legislative action by Congress by using executive order.
â€œIâ€™m not into imperial presidents who act imperial and speak imperial and Obama forgets thereâ€™s a Constitution,â€ Levin said. â€œYes, he keeps telling us he won re-election, congratulations. But guess what, the Constitution wasnâ€™t up for election. Itâ€™s not up for a plebiscite or referendum. He has to comply with it, too. He was sent back to Washington, but heâ€™s got a strict list of rules that he has to follow as president. So when he gets up there and starts saying, â€˜If Congress doesnâ€™t do this Iâ€™m going to do this unilaterally,â€™ it violates separation of powers a lot of the times. And this a man whoâ€™s been pushing the edge of the envelope as far as Iâ€™m concerned, whether itâ€™s the appointment clause, whether itâ€™s his unilateral on immigration, whether itâ€™s his trashing the commerce clause and tax clause under ObamaCare. Now theyâ€™re talking about executive orders on the Second Amendment. Theyâ€™ve issued regulations on the First Amendment attacking religious liberty. This notion that he might be able to lift the debt ceiling, you know, unilaterally under the 14th amendment.â€
â€œWhat the hell is this?â€ Levin said. â€œHe was elected president. Congratulations. This guy makes Richard Nixon look like a man who followed the law all the time. I think we have an imperial president. He sounds imperial, heâ€™s arrogant as hell and so, Iâ€™m furious about this and Iâ€™m going to tell you why. We are a magnificent country. We donâ€™t need to be turned upside-down. We donâ€™t need to run from crisis to crisis to crisis. Heâ€™s bankrupting this country. He says, â€˜Weâ€™ve had a discussion about the debt.â€™ When did we have a discussion about the debt? Weâ€™ve had a debate about taxes. The man is never around to have a discussion about anything. So, yes, he causes me to be furious when I watch and listen to him.â€
Health insuranceÂ companies across the country are seeking and winning double-digit increases in premiums for some customers, even though one of the biggest objectives of the Obama administrationâ€™sÂ health care lawÂ was to stem the rapid rise in insurance costs for consumers.
Particularly vulnerable to the high rates are small businesses and people who do not have employer-provided insurance and must buy it on their own.
Why should this surprise?Â The must-issue regulation built into ObamaCare increases costs for the insurers, who cannot draw all of the needed revenues from the high-risk pool, thanks to mandates on rates.Â That means those costs have to get spread out to everyone in the pool.Â This is nothing more than Risk Pool 101, a course that Congress flunked repeatedly in the ObamaCare debate.
And why are rates rising higher on individual premiums than employer-based premiums?Â First off, the economics of aggregation are always going to work out that way; insurers want large groups of customers, and itâ€™s less costly in the long run to find customers that way rather than one at a time.Â Iâ€™d guess that the employer-aggregate pool might generate somewhat lower costs than the general population too (especially after must-issue), but thatâ€™s just speculation.Â WhatÂ isnâ€™tÂ speculation is that ObamaCare heavily regulates the individual markets in 2014 based on a law that doesnâ€™t have many details in how that is supposed to be accomplished, based on state exchanges that may never exist in more than half of the states.Â In that kind of environment, can anyone blame the insurers for basing premiums on worst-case scenarios this year?
None of this surprises those who both understand risk pools and the dynamic reaction to regulation.Â Itâ€™s amusing to see everyone else be shocked,Â shockedÂ that ObamaCare ends up driving costs upward even further.
In an interview with Stephen Moore of theÂ Wall Street Journal, newly re-elected House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) opened up about President Obamaâ€™s utter unwillingness to cut a single dollar from federal spending. In a stunning admission, Obama reportedly told Boehner, â€œWe donâ€™t have a spending problem.â€
Boehner added that President Obama continues to maintain that Americaâ€™s federal deficit is caused not by governmental overspending but by â€œa health-care problem.â€ Said Boehner, â€œThey blame all of the fiscal woes on our health-care system.â€ Boehner told Obama, â€œClearly we have a health-care problem, which is about to get worse with Obamacare. But, Mr. President, we have a very serious spending problem.â€ Obama eventually replied, â€œIâ€™m getting tired of hearing you say that.â€
Obama may be tired of hearing Boehner talk about a spending problem, particularly when Obama has been re-elected on the basis of ignoring government spending. Nonetheless, America does have a spending problem, which Obama is steadfastly ignoring. â€œHeâ€™s so ideological himself,â€ Boehner explained, â€œand heâ€™s unwilling to take on the left of his own party.â€ Thatâ€™s why Obama refused to raise the retirement age for Medicare after agreeing to it. â€œHe admitted in meetings that he couldnâ€™t sell things to his own members,â€ said Boehner. â€œBut he didnâ€™t even want to try â€¦ We could never get him to step up.â€
President Obamaâ€™s supporters love to call him the â€œcoolâ€ President, a â€œno dramaâ€ guy, and generally like to claim he is unflappable in office. Whatever the truth of that claim, there is one thing for sure: he doesnâ€™t sweat the small stuff. Like following the law. During his four years in office this president has shown he couldnâ€™t care less about the laws heâ€™s supposed to be governed by as president.
This lawlessness started all the way back before he even became president. It was widely discussed in 2008 that he blatantly violated campaign donations laws by refusing to put in controls on his website that would preventÂ illegal, foreign donations. And weâ€™ve only just learned as 2013 began that his 2008 campaign was levied the largest fine ever imposed on a presidential campaign for violations of campaign laws. In January the nation learned thatÂ the FEC fined Obama $375,000Â for campaign reporting violations.
Once he became President, Obama immediately began misuse his powers to control Washingtonâ€™s regulatory machinery to pay back pals and warp rules for ideological reasons. This president generally wields his regulatory powers with kid gloves to pay off supporters while at the same time that velvety hand holds a cudgel to smite foes.
One of his very first moves when he was swept into Washington, for instance, was to begin a program to give big payoffs to his union masters.
Obama has also engaged in a strong campaign to misuse the Department of Justice for political purposes. His emplacement of Eric Holder as Attorney General was only the first move to turn the DoJ into a weapon against Americans he doesnâ€™t like. Writer and former DoJ lawyer J.Christian Adams hasÂ chronicledthe extensive damage Holderâ€™s DoJ has done to the country with his and Obamaâ€™s politicization of the department.
[…] Â Obama has used the Environmental Protection Agency as a weapon repeatedly, as well. In only the latest example we find that a federal court has determined that the EPA overstepped its boundaries byÂ idiotically claiming that water is a â€œpollutantâ€Â in order to force its will on state officials.
Another example of Obamaâ€™s disinterest in following the law was his responsibility to report his upcoming regulatory changes, the last report of which was due in October butÂ wasnâ€™t bothered withÂ until December â€” convenientlyafterÂ the election. The earlier April report he never issued at all.
He’s by no means done abusing the rule of law and the constitution to get what he wants. Â And until the co-equal branches of government grow the spine needed to keep in him in check, he never will be.
With the fiscal cliff deal signed into law, the nationâ€™s attention now turns to the debt ceiling debate, scheduled to hit in the next two months. As America reaches the debt ceiling yet again â€“ an unbelievable $16.4 trillion debt ceiling needs another increase in order to allow us to borrow more cash to pay our bills â€“ Republicans insist that we finally begin dealing with our spending problem. That, of course, was the purpose of the fiscal cliff deal in the first place: to preserve as many of the Bush tax rates as possible, consider tax rates a finished issue, and move on to spending cuts. As Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said on ABCâ€™sÂ This Week, â€œThe tax issue is finished, over, completed. Thatâ€™s behind us. Now the question is: what are we going to do about the biggest problem confronting our country and our future? And thatâ€™s our spending addiction.â€
Not so fast.
The bullies in the Democratic Party have no intention of cutting a single dollar. Instead, they want to tighten their stranglehold on the windpipes of job producers and entrepreneurs. This morning, virtually every Democrat on virtually every Sunday show said the same thing: no cuts, more taxes. So much for the Republican attempt to take the tax discussion off the table.
Obama used his weekly address to declare that he “will not compromise” with the co-equal branch of government that constitutionally holds the power of the purse:
In his weekly address, Obama lashed out at Republicans for even suggesting that the debt ceiling issue be used as leverage to cut spending:
As I said earlier this week, one thing I will not compromise over is whether or not Congress should pay the tab for a bill theyâ€™ve already racked up.Â If Congress refuses to give the United States the ability to pay its bills on time, the consequences for the entire global economy could be catastrophic.Â The last time Congress threatened this course of action, our entire economy suffered for it.Â Our families and our businesses cannot afford that dangerous game again.
This is nonsense. Weâ€™ve racked up bills, and we will not have to default to pay them â€“ we just have to cut. Even if we hit the debt ceiling, we will not need to default on our debts â€“ we will simply stop providing non-essential government services (which, for the most part, we should do anyway) and then use that money to pay our debts.
But Obama is aÂ bully, and so he thinks he can unilaterally dictate Americaâ€™s debt policy. He demonizes anyone who disagrees. He ignores the Constitution, and instead plays the class warfare card…