Year: 2011
Montage from the Left Fomenting Hate
The Party of Peace Peaceably ATTACKS!
Taxes were 79%-I guess thats not an increase either using the logic of the Lib herein
Media Mash w/ Bozell & Hannity – The Suicide Bomber Edition
Whats Okay with Big Gov and Not Okay With It (Nanny State Comparisons)
Libertarian Republican notes the latest nanny state move by the banning of cartoon characters for sugary cereals.
The Federal Government, pushed along by liberal pressure groups, is taking the first steps towards banning the sale of sugary cereals and salt-abundant foods to kids.
CBS News reports: “GOP decries “nanny state” push on junk food ads”:
To critics, it’s the latest example of “nanny state” overreach by the federal government that could cost money and jobs.
The issue? A proposed set of voluntary guidelines backed by the Obama administration designed to limit the marketing of junk food to children through mascots like “Tony the Tiger,” the smiling animated figure used for decades to sell Kellogg’s “Frosted Flakes” breakfast cereal. Under the guidelines, companies would only be able to advertize and promote healthy foods low in fat, sugar…
Professor Walter Williams described these “Do Gooders” as lifestyle Nazis. CS Lewis aptly talked about his fear of such people:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.
C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock, p. 292.
The government will demand the following to be placed on cigarette packs (forcing private business to place gruesome photos on their product:
That, however, is not my main focus. What I do wish to zero in on is what causes the secular left does go to the mat/floor for. That is, the above at the Federal level is kosher… the below at the local level is not! That is, to ban simple labels inserted into biology textbooks simply warning the school children about the monolithic view taught in their science classes [in regards to origin science, not working science] in a small label inserted into their biology textbooks:
- This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered. (Selman v. Cobb County School District)
- Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves. As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. (Tammy Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District)
How is this argument misconstrued with straw-men and non-sequiturs? Here is a great example that comes from an evolutionary website, first the person posts this graphic equating ID to the following:
Did you notice the lumping in of Neo-Darwinian THEORY with laws of science and effects that are repeatable, observable? The author contunues down the non-sequitur road creating a straw-man and then defeating it, not the real argument:
How long does this fight need to go on? Do we need to teach the “strengths and weaknesses” of the theory of gravity? That’s right. That’s all it is. A theory. But I don’t see any creationists defiantly jumping off cliffs.
One commentator also hops in and says something that is truly amazing and shows you the depths of non-thinking in regards to this topic:
The world is flat, the moon landing was a hoax, global warming is not real, and intelligent design is true. Amazing what some people will resort to, just to avoid facing the truth and questioning their beliefs or their lifestyles.
All I have to say is “WOW!” Which brings me to the god centered vacuum that man tries to fill with himself. And this is the bottom line, do you want to give ultimate credence to The Designer, or the creature:
Romans 1:21-23 (ESV):
For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
I would hope, to rightly understand what Intelligent Design theorists ARE saying, one would take the time to read the small portion entitled “The Golden Arm,” posted after an atheists point about ID:
If science really is permanently committed to methodological naturalism – the philosophical position that restricts all explanations in science to naturalistic explanations – it follows that the aim of science is not generating true theories. Instead, the aim of science would be something like: generating the best theories that can be formulated subject to the restriction that the theories are naturalistic. More and more evidence could come in suggesting that a supernatural being exists, but scientific theories wouldn’t be allowed to acknowledge that possibility.
Bradley Monton, author of Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design ~ Apologetics315 h/t
Enjoy the following read, click to enlarge:
Read My Future Lips
Debt Ceiling Flashback: 2011-Not Doing It An Act of Terrorism (MSNBC); 2004-Doing it an Embarresment to Republicans (MSNBC)
What a difference an election makes. NewsBusters has this little gem tucked away, and keep in mind this is a reason Bush scored low among us conservatives… he spent more and more on programs that need to be totally eradicated (like the Dept of Education):
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews and Andrea Mitchell have been telling viewers in recent days that Republicans considering blocking an increase in the debt ceiling could be creating a financial crisis.
Seven years ago after George W. Bush was re-elected and the debt ceiling had been raised in November 2004, the perilously liberal couple felt Republicans should be “embarrassed” for having done so (transcripts follow with commentary):
ANDREA MITCHELL: But what is looking over his shoulder is history. He wants a legacy. He wants to be able to do something about Social Security. He knows he’s got to do something about deficit reduction. That is the big embarrassment for Republicans. They ought to be ashamed of themselves, what the Hill Republicans have done. They’ve been worse than Democrats.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: They just increased the debt ceiling.
MITCHELL: Exactly.
This exchange occurred on the November 21, 2004, installment of “The Chris Matthews Show.”
Yet as NewsBusters has been reporting, Matthews has in the past several days twice referred to Republicans as terrorists because they’re refusing to support a raise in the debt ceiling if it includes tax increases.
Larry Elder has some fun with one of Casey Anthonies Lawyers
Undefeated~Trailer
What a Twit[ter]!
From the Wall Street Journal:
President Obama was right about his audacity, if not always the hope. Six months after he agreed to a bipartisan extension of current tax rates, he is now insisting on tax increases as part of the debt-ceiling talks. At his press conference yesterday he repeated this demand, as well as his recent talking point that taxes are lower than they’ve been in generations. Let’s examine that claim because it explains Washington’s real revenue problem—slow economic growth.
Mr. Obama has a point that tax receipts are near historic lows, but the cause isn’t tax rates that are too low. As the nearby table shows, as recently as 2007 the current tax structure raised 18.5% of GDP in revenue, which is slightly above the modern historical average. Even in 2008, when the economy grew not at all, federal tax receipts still came in at 17.5% of the economy.
Today’s revenue problem is the result of the mediocre economic recovery. Tax collections in 2009 fell below 15% of GDP, the lowest level since 1950. But remarkably, tax receipts stayed that low even in the recovery year of 2010. So far this fiscal year tax receipts are growing at a healthy 10% clip, so the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) January estimate of 14.8% of GDP is probably low. We suspect revenues will be closer to 16%, but even that would be the weakest revenue rebound from any recession in 50 years, and far below the average tax take since 1970 of 18.2%.
But what about the liberal claim, repeated constantly, that the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 caused today’s deficits? CBO has shown this to be demonstrably false. On May 12, the budget arm of Congress examined the changes in its baseline projections from 2001 through 2011. In 2001, it had predicted a surplus in 2011 of $889 billion. Instead, it expects a deficit of $1.4 trillion.
What explains that $2.29 trillion budget reversal? Well, the direct revenue loss from the combination of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts contributed roughly $216 billion, or only about 9.5% of the $2.29 trillion. And keep in mind that even this low figure is based on a static revenue model that assumes almost no gains from faster economic growth.
After the Bush investment tax cuts of 2003, tax revenues were $786 billion higher in 2007 ($2.568 trillion) than they were in 2003 ($1.782 trillion), the biggest four-year increase in U.S. history. So as flawed as it is, the current tax code with a top personal income tax rate of 35% is clearly capable of generating big revenue gains.
CBO’s data show that by far the biggest change in its deficit forecast is the spending bonanza, with outlays in 2011 that are $1.135 trillion higher than the budget office estimated a decade ago. One-third of that is higher interest payments on the national debt, notwithstanding record low interest rates. But $523 billion is due to domestic spending increases, including defense, education, Medicaid and the Obama stimulus. Mr. Bush’s Medicare drug plan accounts for $53 billion of this unanticipated spending in 2011.
The other big revenue reductions come from the “temporary” tax changes of the Obama stimulus and 2010 bipartisan tax deal. CBO says the December tax deal—which includes the one-year payroll tax cut and the annual fix on the alternative minimum tax—will reduce revenues by $196 billion this year. The temporary speedup in business expensing will cost another $55 billion.
One online post puts it thusly:
To put it simply though: we don’t have a tax revenue problem, we are spending way too much. The stats show this perfectly. In 2005 we generated $2.1 Trillion in taxes, and had $2.5 Trillion in federal spending. In 2010 we saw almost $3.5 Trillion in expenses, yet collected almost the same in taxes. These are official numbers from the White House, and not some partisan made up numbers.
[….]
We are spending way too much than what we take in, and we need to cut the excess bloat in our government. We need a much flatter and simpler tax code than what we have currently. The solution is simple: we need to spend less than what we earn.
Did I Ever Tell You That I Love PhotoShop?
