Crazy Dems
Using Their Words Against Them
California Becoming the New Detroit? PLUS: California Sales Tax Revenue Drops 33.5%
Powerline Blog posted a good story on the downward spiral Democrats are bringing our fair state:
Dickens needs to be updated: it’s a tale of two states. As Victor Davis Hansen writes, there is no California any more: “Driving across California is like going from Mississippi to Massachusetts without ever crossing a state line.” But even the coastal enclaves show signs of weakness. The Journal notes that even Silicon Valley is showing weaknesses. There have been considerable layoffs in the old-line semiconductor industry. True, Apple is about to open a new facility with 3,600 jobs—in Texas. Jerry Brown is was counting on the Facebook IPO to provide a fillip to the state’s coffers through capital gains taxes like the good old days of the Internet bubble of the 1990s, but with the Facebook faceplant, that is proving to be another wistful dream. So instead Jerry hopes to raise income taxes on—wait for it—just the rich, in a ballot initiative this November. He’ll pitch it as the only way to avoid deep cuts to schools, public safety, and so forth, and I hope the opponents of the measure will have the wit to show renderings of the high-speed rail to nowhere that the state’s voters have turned against as a sign of Brown’s real tax and spend priorities.
Robert J. Cristino points out at NewGeography.com that California is rapidly becoming “the new Detroit,” with this important parallel:
Like Detroit, California now has one party rule. The Democrats of California did not need a single Republican vote to pass their budget. Governor Brown’s plan is to address the nation’s largest deficit by raising taxes instead of cutting spending. If passed, the deficit would drop from $20 billion to a mere $16 billion. The budget does nothing to cure the systemic problems of a bloated bureaucracy. It does not eliminate one of California’s 519 state agencies.
Breitbart has this story as well about the tax revenues in this state o’mine:
The state has avoided default by temporarily borrowing from state trust funds, but those accounts will soon need their cash back to continue operating. Today California quickly began trying to sell $10 billion in municipal bonds to fund the record $28 billion they need to keep the lights on. With tax revenue plummeting and the state already the second lowest rated credit in the country, if the independent credit rating agencies downgrade the state to “junk bond”, California will be short up to $18 billion and default.
[….]
The governor justified signing the budget based on the twin assumption that the California economy was expanding and the voters would approve his tax initiative that would raise $8.5 billion. Many analysts doubted the voters willingness to vote to raise sales tax on themselves, but we were virtually alone in warning California’s shallow economic recovery had peaked and the state was at risk for a double dip recession.
State Controller John Chiang tried to rationalize that even though California revenues were “disappointingly” down $475 million in July: “However, because spending appears to be tracking and the funds that the State depends on for liquidity are performing well, California’s cash outlook remains stable.” This is sort of like the pilot of a jumbo jet announcing to the passengers that as a safety precaution they may want to cross your arms over your calves and grab your ankles and to brace yourself for possible impact.
This is similar to an earlier story I did about the 22% drop in Revenues:
State Controller John Chaing continues to uphold the California Great Seal Motto of “Eureka”, i.e., ‘I have found it’. But what Chaing is finding as Controller is that California’s economy as measured by tax revenues is still tanking. Compared to last year, State tax collections for February shriveled by $1.2 billion or 22%. The deterioration is more than double the shocking $535 million reported decline for last month. The cumulative fiscal year decline is $6.1 billion or down 11% versus this period in 2011.
While California Governor Brown promises strong economic growth is just around the corner, Chaing proves that the best way for Sacramento politicians to hurt the economy and thereby generate lower tax revenue, is to have the highest tax rates in the nation.
California politicians seem delusional in their continued delusion that high taxes have not savaged the State’s economy. Each month’s disappointment is written off as due to some one-time event.
The State Controller’s office did acknowledge that higher than normal tax refunds for February might have reduced the collection of some personal income taxes. Given that 2012 has an extra day in February for leap year, there might have been one day more of tax refunds sent out. But the Controller’s report shows personal income tax collections fell by $325 million, or 16% versus last year. Furthermore, leap year would have added another day for retail sales and use tax collection, but those revenues also fell during February-by an even larger $813 million, 25% decline from 2011.
The more likely reason tax collections continue falling is that businesses and successful people are leaving California for the better tax rates available in more pro-business states.
Derisively referred to as “Taxifornia” by the independent Pacific Research Institute, California wins the booby prize for the highest personal income taxes in the nation and higher sales tax rates than all but four other states. Though Californians benefit from Proposition 13 restrictions on how much their property tax can increase in one year, the state still has the worst state tax burden in the U.S.
Spectrum Locations Consultants recorded 254 California companies moved some or all of their work and jobs out of state in 2011, 26% more than in 2010 and five times as many as in 2009. According SLC President, Joe Vranich: the “top ten reasons companies are leaving California: 1) Poor rankings in surveys 2) More adversarial toward business 3) Uncontrollable public spending 4) Unfriendly business climate 5) Provable savings elsewhere 6) Most expensive business locations 7) Unfriendly legal environment for business 8) Worst regulatory burden 9) Severe tax treatment 10) Unprecedented energy costs.
A group of protesters organized by SEIU and `Obama For America` showed there Crazy Side (Quote: `We Love Dead Republicans`)
As the race heats up… more and more truthers will come out of the woodwork. First, lets watch a union organized protest via Weasel Zippers:
A group of protesters organized by SEIU and Obama For America showed up in Wisconsin to greet Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.
Here is my point. More and more as the high percentage of conspiratorially minded Dems become vocal, the above will almost be normal. Here are some stats and ideas between the left and the right in regards to conspiracies from an older FB chat:
PERCENTAGES
You are aware,I am sure, that the birther story was first started by a Democrat and the story made popular via Hillary Clinton. For instance, Politico says this in one of their classic articles:
☼ …Where did this idea come from? Who started it? And is there a grain of truth there? The answer lies in Democratic, not Republican politics, and in the bitter, exhausting spring of 2008. At the time, the Democratic presidential primary was slipping away from Hillary Clinton and some of her most passionate supporters grasped for something, anything that would deal a final reversal to Barack Obama. The theory’s proponents are a mix of hucksters and earnest conspiracy theorists, including prominently a lawyer who previously devoted himself to ‘proving’ that the Sept. 11 attacks were an inside job. Its believers are primarily people predisposed to dislike Obama. That willingness to believe the worst about officials of the opposite party is a common feature of presidential rumor-mongering: In 2006, an Ohio University/Scripps Howard poll found that slightly more than half of Democrats said they suspected the Bush Administration of complicity in the Sept. 11 attacks…. Read more: http://www.politico.com/
Let us digest this a bit. Let me reiterate the stat I ended with:
☼ Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure. Read more: http://
To be clear, Democrats by over a majority believed Bush either knew directly or they said they were “still on the fence.” Now, only 31% of Republican think/thought that Obama was not born in the states… 15% of Democrats believe the same, as well as 18% of Independents. However, a third who believe him to be born out of the country approve of him (http://
WHAT KIND OF CONSPIRACY?
So you have two conspiracies to compare, what do they show? One has a belief held that a person was born out of country, and that other people covered this up. In other words… when Obama was a child other adults made this happen, he was powerless to affect it, and may not have known (assuming such a thing to be true) about it until his Presidential run. That’s number one.
Number two deals with a conspiracy that posits a leader of these United States knew of the coming attack and allowed it to happen, thus killing fellow citizens and going to war over it — killing more Americans over an evil conspiracy. Many of these Democrats also believe Bush was involved in making this happen (http://hotair.com/
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist for an outside observer to say, “whoa, whoa, whoa… calm down DEMOCRATS [*not said in yelling tone, but merely to emphasize*]. Yeah this other conspiracy is nuts, but it doesn’t posit such an overtly evil act.” in other words a much larger number of Democrats are on the “fringe” and would I guess (if they were Republicans) be called racists for this assertion, like Republicans are called racist for their birtherism position (which I guess the 15% of Democrats are not?)
`Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared?` ~ Obama
Doug Ross (via Free Republic) exposes a very serious separation between the 200[+] years of our country and the vision Democrats have of our nation:
“Too many folks still don’t have a sense that tomorrow will be better than today. And so, the question in this election is which way do we go?” President Obama asked at a fundraiser in Chicago on Sunday.
“Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared?” Obama asked. “Or do we go backward to the same policies that got us in the mess in the first place?”
“I believe we have to go forward,” Obama said. “I believe we have to keep working to create an America where no matter who you are, no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, no matter what your last name is, no matter who you love, you can make it here if you try. That’s what’s at stake in November. That’s what is why I am running for a second term as president of the United States of America.”
Doug Ross continues his post by astutely commenting on the above:
“Shared prosperity” is collectivism. Statism. Marxism. It means taking from those who produce goods and services to fund those who don’t, which is certainly outside any legitimate function of government under the United States Constitution.
Democratic Party Platform Leaked ~ Same-Sex Marriage Supported (Subtitle: Losing the Black Vote Piece-by-Piece)
Some news Denny Burk has been keeping up with:
The draft language for the Democratic party platform on gay marriage has just been leaked, the Washington Blade reports. The language will be discussed and possibly amended when the full platform committee meets in Detroit this weekend. Here’s the language:
We support the right of all families to have equal respect, responsibilities, and protections under the law. We support marriage equality and support the movement to secure equal treatment under law for same-sex couples. We also support the freedom of churches and religious entities to decide how to administer marriage as a religious sacrament without government interference.
We oppose discriminatory federal and state constitutional amendments and other attempts to deny equal protection of the laws to committed same-sex couples who seek the same respect and responsibilities as other married couples. We support the full repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act.
How much of this will remain intact after the weekend remains to be seen. If it were adopted as it stands, it would be significant for a number of reasons, but here are just a few:
1. It would be the first time that a major U.S. political party has ever officially endorsed same-sex marriage.
2. By calling for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, this approach would force states where same-sex marriage is illegal to recognize same-sex marriage performed in states where it is legal. In effect, this would go against the states-rights approach that President Obama ostensibly favored when he endorsed gay marriage rights last May (though he himself also supports the repeal of DOMA).
3. By supporting the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act, this approach would require the federal government to recognize gay marriage.
4. The part about supporting “the freedom of churches and religious entities to decide how to administer marriage as a religious sacrament” is significant. It tells religious people that their beliefs can only be practiced within the four walls of the church. There is no room for a Christian definition of marriage as far as public policy is concerned. Under this approach, the government would say, “In your church, you can hold to the traditional definition of marriage. Out here in public, you will observe the definition that the federal government authorizes.”
Liberal Logic 101
Supporters of Tax Increase on Rich Don’t Know What Rich Are Currently Paying
`Mind-Numbingly Stupid` Is What Pelosi Is
Via Gateway Pundit
New York Ban on Sodas ~ S.E. Cupp Leads Discussion @Real News
If we are to be mothered, mother must know best. . . . In every age the men who want us under their thumb, if they have any sense, will put forward the particular pretension which the hopes and fears of that age render most potent. They ‘cash in.’ It has been magic, it has been Christianity. Now it will certainly be science. . . . Let us not be deceived by phrases about ‘Man taking charge of his own destiny.’ All that can really happen is that some men will take charge of the destiny of others. . . . The more completely we are planned the more powerful they will be.
[….]
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
The War on Women ~ Via Democrats and Their Policies
The Upside Down World of the Left
If you take a cola with you to murder your unborn baby in New York because of its gender, you’ll get in trouble….. for the cola” ~ Ben Howe
Military Chaplains Soon Forced Into Performing Same-Sex Marriages? (Two veterans from over a year ago think so)
BigGovernment has this:
The stage is being set so that military Chaplains can and most likely will be ordered to perform same sex marriage in contradiction to their religious beliefs.
WASHINGTON, May 22, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Democrat House leaders including Nancy Pelosi have opposed a measure to ensure military chaplains are not forced to perform same-sex “marriages,” arguing that it is based on a “manufactured crisis” and therefore unnecessary – a response strongly criticized by chaplain advocates.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Thursday echoed sentiments issued by the Obama White House regarding the conscience language, part of a defense spending bill, saying that “there’s nothing that says that chaplains act against their faith.”
The result will be that chaplains of certain faiths abandon the military as they are forced to choose between violating their faiths or being driven out for not performing such marriage ceremonies.
What is required is the respect of certain long-established and broadly supported religious beliefs. We currently lack a White House and Democrat leadership capable of providing this respect. When Leftists empowered by big government meet religion, religion loses and is ultimately diminished in size and influence.
In a recent response to a friend post on FaceBook, I mentioned the types of areas that same-sex marriage hurts religious belief and places where faith and care and concern for the poor as well as children:
…Unfortunately, like many others, this is what Thomas Sowell calls “stage one” thinking. Emotions based policy making without asking what affect a decision will have on society. The oldest (and most successful) adoption agency in Massachusetts (80-years in the field of placing children with families, Illinois and California are sure to follow) and DC had to shut their doors because of their religious option to prefer heterosexual couples when adopting to homosexual couples, from Universities ceasing to give insurance to their students and staff, to forcing chaplains in the military to marry gay couples. These are the early consequences to stage one thinking…
You can add military chaplains to the mix. Decisions like these do not just affect “marriage,” they reverberate throughout all society. Special rights always sets up battles and shows how they destroy healthy thinking, for instance this dichotomy:
“If homosexuality is really genetic, we may soon be able to tell if a fetus is predisposed to homosexuality, in which case many parents might choose to abort it. Will gay rights activists continue to support abortion rights if this occurs?” ~ Dale A. Berryhill, The Assault: Liberalism’s Attack on Religion, Freedom, and Democracy
The question become this, then. Would conservatively religious people serving LESS in the military hurt or help our nation? Does forcing one to reject his religious conscience by Government edict good or bad for society? This is stage two thinking. About 0.1 percent of all American military personnel officially declare themselves to be atheists, while about 77% are Christians — with about 3,000 chaplains — of some flavor (Catholic, Protestant, and the like). Would our military and national defense suffer if less-and-less Christians joined? The left never asks these questions, they merely legislate from emotional stances:
The Blaze has this portion on the matter:
According to a policy statement released by the administration yesterday, President Barack Obama “strongly objects” to provisions in a House defense authorization bill that would prohibit the use of U.S. military property in same-sex marriages and protect military chaplains who refuse to perform gay marriage ceremonies against their religious beliefs.
Arguing that the measure’s “overbroad terms,“ the Obama administration claims such a measure ”is potentially harmful to good order and discipline.”
Commentary Magazine ends their wonderful article on this topic very astutely:
…If President Obama does veto the protections offered to chaplains by the House — as his Office of Management and Budget recommends — then it is possible to envision a future where Catholic, evangelical and Orthodox Jewish clergy will no longer be welcome as military chaplains.
At the American Conservative, Rod Dreher quotes American Jewish Congress chief counsel Marc Stern as saying that, “no one seriously believes that clergy will be forced, or even asked, to perform marriages that are anathema to them.” Yet the “sea change” that same-sex marriage will create in American law will bring with it consequences that advocates for this measure aren’t acknowledging. As Dreher writes:
The strategy of the pro-SSM side seems to be to deny that anything like this could possibly happen, and that people who say it could are being irresponsible scaremongers. Then when it actually happens, they’ll say oh, who cares; those bigots deserve what they get.
Dreher is right. The legal problem here is not so much the direct issue of redefining marriage from the traditional understanding of it being one man and one woman. Rather, it is the implications that stem from government sanction that will redefine some religious believers as being outside of not only mainstream opinion but literally outlaws and vulnerable to prosecution and/or defunding on the grounds of discrimination against gays.
The only way for advocates of same-sex marriage to avoid the stigmatizing of some faiths in this manner is to agree to legal stipulations that remove any possibility that religious institutions could be compelled to sanction behavior their religion regards as immoral. But if they refuse to do so, as the White House is indicating with its opposition to House protections for military chaplains, then gay marriage ceases to be a civil rights issue and becomes the focal point of a kulturkampf in which religious freedom is on the line. If that is the way things are heading, then military chaplains won’t be the last victims in the purge of believers.