Posted tagged ‘Political Propaganda’

The President’s Views On The Founding And The Second Amendment

January 13, 2016

President Obama held a town hall meeting about gun violence last week. When the President is off his teleprompter, he always lets his true ideology slip out for all to see. The video below is no exception.

Here is a recap of the video if you don’t want to watch it.

Gabby Gifford’s husband talks about how people are afraid that the government wants more back ground checks so it can have a registry, which will lead to confiscation, which will lead to a tyrannical government. He than asks, if the government wants to confiscate 350 million guns, how would they do that?

Some in the audience start to clap as the camera pans to a priest who is clapping and smiling. But look closely at the ladies on each side of him. Not only are they not clapping, they have a scowl on their faces.

One comment about the set up to the question. Tyrannical government doesn’t follow the confiscation of guns. Tyrannical government would have had to have been in existence long before any confiscation.


The President than says. “This notion of a conspiracy out there it gets wrapped up in concerns about the federal government. Now there’s a long history of that. That’s in our DNA. The United States was born suspicious of some distant authority.”

Mr. President, with all due respect, our founders weren’t suspicious of something distant. They were living with the reality of the tyrannical British authority that was present in the colonies. Of course the King was in England which was some distance away, but King George sent his governors and generals over here to rule over the colonists. The long arm of the King stretched across the ocean. The third amendment of the Constitution states, “No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner….” 

Our founders made this part of the Bill of Rights because “Red Coats” were actually taking over people’s homes without the consent of the owners. Doesn’t our constitutional scholar and chief know that we broke away from a tyrannical government that was here on our shores, not “something distant”? Of course he does. He is a propagandist along the lines of Edward Bernays, Joseph Goebbels, and Noam Chomsky.


He goes on to say that people who believe his government wants to confiscate guns are conspiracy theorists. Here is an excerpt.

“It is a conspiracy. Are you suggesting a notion that were creating a plot to take everyone’s guns away so that we can impose martial law. Is that a conspiracy? Yes that’s a conspiracy…..down state Illinois is closer to Kentucky than to Chicago and everybody hunts down there. And a lot of folks own guns so this is not alien territory to me. I’ve got a lot of friends…who are hunters….. It is a false notion that I believe is circulated for political reasons or commercial reasons in order to present a coming together of many people of good will to develop common sense rules that will make us safer…..

The propagandist and chief tries to use the term conspiracy to paint the opposition as crazies. He tries to make it seem like the only use for guns is hunting. He tries to seem sympathetic by saying he has friends who hunt. He implies that people of good will and common sense agree with him. He implies that the only reasons people don’t agree with him are because of political or economic interests.

The President and his ilk are willing to move their football down the ideological field inch by inch until they get what they want. Just look at how many decades it took to get government-run healthcare, and they aren’t finished yet. The progressives hope Obamacare is the penultimate step toward their goal of a single payer system. If Progressives where this patient with healthcare, don’t you think they’re willing to work in incremental steps over many decades to reach their goal of getting rid of guns?

Here is an article titled, “FLASHBACK”-Author Quotes Obama – Then Professor Obama Saying I Don’t Believe People Should Own Guns ,at In this article economics and author John Lott recalls conversations regarding gun laws they had while working at the University of Chicago. Here is an excerpt from the article.

“In chapter three of his new book, At The Brink, Mr. Lott discusses gun-control and takes the reader back to his time at the University of Chicago, where he and then visiting professor Barack Obama spoke on numerous occasions about guns in America.”

“I don’t believe People should be able to own guns,” Obama told Lott on day at the University of Chicago Law School.

“Lott explains that he first met Obama shortly after completing his research on concealed handgun laws and crime.”

“He did not come across as a moderate who wanted to bring people together,” Lott writes.

“After he introduced himself to Obama, Lott suggested that they have lunch one day to discuss their views on guns. According to Lott, Obama “grimaced and turned away.” That was the way many conversations with Obama ended, Lott says.”

“Although the Law School was famous for openness of its faculty and friendly engagement, Lott says, “Obama…preferred silent, scowling disdain to collegiality.”

“… in a Fox News interview Obama stated, “I have said consistently that I believe that the Second Amendment is an individual right.”

Lott isn’t convinced: “Despite his assurance to Fox News that he understands the Second Amendment, it’s a good bet that the positions Obama took on guns during his time at Chicago reveal his true convictions.

Who is telling the truth? President Obama or John Lott.


Related ArticleObama And Guns: Eleven False Or Misleading Claims From The President’s Remarks This Week, by John Lott, at

Related ArticleLet’s Take A “Serious” Look At Conspiracy Theories, at This is one of my favorite videos.



Why Stop At Community College? Let’s Make Everything Free!

January 20, 2015

President Obama wants to make tuition free at 2 year community colleges. Here is an excerpt from the White House Fact Sheet: Free Community College For Responsible Students, at “Today the President is unveiling the America’s College Promise proposal to make two years of community college free for responsible students, letting students earn the first half of a bachelor’s degree and earn skills needed in the workforce at no cost.


College education can’t have “no cost”, because it is an economic good. No matter how much the Presidents utopian vision of the world tries to tell us it isn’t an economic good, it is. What is an economic good? It is a good that is scarce and/or has to be brought to the market by the use of labor and capital. In other words it has to be produced. Air and sunlight are examples of non economic goods because they exist in abundance without having to be produced by anyone. There are very few non economic goods.

Someone has to pay for an economic good. The producer pays the original cost for the production of an economic good. If the good can’t be exchanged at a price that covers the cost, plus a profit, it tells the producer that there is no market for the good and the producer will cease production and absorb the loss.

I love the phrase “AT NO COST“. There is no such thing as, at no cost, in a world ruled by scarce resources that have alternative uses. Economic goods always have a cost and no amount of rhetoric can escape this reality. Political rhetoric is an attempt to shift the cost to someone else. I suspect we, the tax payers, are going to be forced to pay the cost for this new “free” good. Let’s take a look at this from another angle. Instead of shifting the cost of community college to the tax payers, lets see if we can shift the cost to some other individuals.


If educating our children is so important that we need to make it free, let’s make the professors volunteer to teach at no cost. Let’s make the workers at the colleges provide their services at no cost. Let’s make text-book companies provide their books at no cost. Let’s make businesses who support the infrastructure of the college provide their good of service at no cost. This would lower the cost of college significantly or possibly make it free if we went far enough down the chain of production.

What would happen if Government bureaucrats mandated that every good and service was free? Would you continue to work as many hours at your job, or would you spend some of your time doing other things that are now free? Anybody with a degree of common sense knows that this wouldn’t work. No one would provide their good or service for free. People trade their good or service for money, and then exchange this money for other goods (food, clothing, shelter, etc.) that allow them to survive every day. If everything was free they wouldn’t need to work.

When you went to the grocery would you choose the ground beef you’ve always purchased, or would you upgrade to ground sirloin or a T-Bone steak? When it was time to get a new car would you choose a used car like you’ve always chosen or would you get a new car?

Do you see the problem? People will choose to consume more things and different things than they would have when there was a price on goods. People will also produce less because they know they can get what they want for free without any corresponding production. We can’t escape the reality of the world we live in. We live in a world of scarce means that have to be used to satisfy the unlimited ends desired by all individuals. Scarce resources, time, labor, and capital have to be rationed in some way. There are three ways to ration scarce resources: 1) through prices in a free market economy, 2) by bureaucrats in a centrally planned economy, 3) or by fighting over them. Voluntary cooperation in a price coordinated free market economy uses scarce resources in the most efficient way possible. It also satisfies a higher amount of ends out of the unlimited number of ends that exist among all individuals. There is no other way of rationing scarce resources, that currently exists, that can come close to what the free market has produced.

Free college isn’t free, the cost is just shifted. Obamacare is an attempt by Government to shift the cost of healthcare to the taxpayer. Welfare, food stamps, and subsidies to big businesses are other examples of shifting costs to the tax payer. As more is made free by Government officials, less will be produced in the free market. Central planning ultimately leads to a lower standard of living, or as F.A. Hayek has said, it’s “The Road to Serfdom“.


Here is another excerpt from the fact sheet; “Responsible.. students who attend at least half-time, maintain a 2.5 GPA while in college, and make steady progress toward completing their program will have their tuition eliminated.

Why is the President going to discriminate against students who, through no fault of their own, are irresponsible. Why should they be made to pay? Why should there be a cut off at a 2.5 GPA? Why not 2.2 or 2.0? What heartless bureaucrat arbitrarily chose 2.5? Shouldn’t it be more like our graduated income tax? Wouldn’t it be “fair” to gradually increase the amount a student would pay at each incremental point they receive below a 2.5 GPA? The President is being mean and unfair, which are the very qualities he paints his political opposition with.

Read the fact sheet. It is a piece of political propaganda that would make Joseph Goebbels blush.


Burger King, Corporate Tax Inversions, And Political Theater.

September 1, 2014


Just an 80's era Burger King

The recent bashing of Burger King about their merger with Tim Hortons is nothing more than political theater being staged for the upcoming November elections. The political strategy of: divide us into as many groups as possible, pit us against each other using propaganda, and set up the false narrative that Government is the only solution to the made up problem is in full swing. In this case it’s the usual tried and true tactic of the haves vs. the have-nots.


A corporate tax inversions is simply a corporation merging with an overseas company from a country that has a lower tax rate. The President has been propagandizing inversions lately for political reasons. If you don’t believe me watch this short video ( if you can get through the first minute). The words used, the tone of his voice, and the misinformation in this video would make Joseph Goebbels envious.

Tactics like this aren’t new. In May of 2013 Apple was brought in front of a Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee hearing to be lambasted about their tax practices. These hearings are always political theater. But in this case something different happened. Senator Rand Paul took the unpopular stance of defending Apple.

Which video do you believe is factually true of just a piece of propaganda. We have to be able to sift through the propaganda and rhetoric of both sides in order to get to the truth.


The Federal Government will collect $20 billion less in tax revenue over a decade if tax inversions aren’t halted (read here). That’s only $2 billion a year out of a $3.7 trillion yearly Federal budget, or .001 percent of the budget. If you add the fact that the Fed is still printing $25 billion a month, you see the insignificant amount of money involved. Politicians will propagandize inversions by saying, “this will ‘cost tax payers’ blah blah blah”, or something about corporations, “trying to avoid paying their fair share”. This is purely political posturing through propaganda.


Here is an article titled, Buffett Burger King Funds Flip Obama’s Inversion Calculus. It is interesting to see all the corners these crony capitalists and politicians get paint into because of their incestuous relationship with each other. Here are some excerpts.

“Billionaire Warren Buffett was an ally of President Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign and the force behind Obama’s “Buffett Rule,” designed to increase tax bills for the wealthiest Americans. Now, the second-richest man in the U.S. has dented Obama’s effort to stamp out corporate inversions.”

“The danger for Democrats is that Buffett’s investment in the burger-fries-and-a-Coke company’s inversion might flip that calculation and make it politically easier for other corporations to follow suit without suffering repudiation from the public or the White House.”

“That’s because Buffett in the past has served as a sort of unofficial adviser to Obama on business and financial matters, someone whose stamp of approval has offered political cover when the president has been accused of being anti-business or of unfairly targeting the wealthy….If Obama were to question the Burger King deal publicly now, it would mean putting himself at odds with Buffett.”

“I proposed closing this unpatriotic tax loophole for good,” Obama said in his weekly address on July 26. “Rather than double-down on the top-down economics that let a fortunate few play by their own rules, let’s embrace an economic patriotism..”

“…Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew called on Congress to pass a law requiring that foreign shareholders account for 50 percent of the ownership of a new merger between a U.S. company and a foreign one … The administration wants that change made retroactive to May…. legislation taking effect after the president signs it into law — could have the perverse effect of encouraging corporations to act more quickly, negotiate new deals and rush to close those transactions before the bill is enacted,” Lew wrote. “It would be a mistake for Congress to pass anti-inversion legislation that creates a race against the clock and encourages more, not fewer, inversions.”

I want to disinfect myself after reading that.


Former Senator and 1972 Democratic Presidential nominee George McGovern talked about his experience dealing with Government regulations and mandates after he retired from politics and became a business owner, in this article titled What I Know Now: Nibbled To Death. Here are a few excerpts from the article.

“The second lesson I learned by owning the Stratford Inn is that legislators and government regulators must more carefully consider the economic and management burdens we have been imposing on U.S. business.”

“….if I were back in the U.S. Senate or in the White House, I would ask a lot of questions before I voted for any more burdens on the thousands of struggling businesses across the nation….. I would ask whether specific legislation exacts a managerial price exceeding any overall benefit it might produce. What are the real economic and social gains of the legislation when compared with the costs and competitive handicaps it imposes on businesspeople?”

“…While running my struggling hotel, I never once missed a payroll. What happens to the people who counted on that, and to their families and community, when an owner goes under? Those questions worry me, and they ought to worry all of us who love this country as a land of promise and opportunity.”

I think this article was written around 1993. If Senator McGovern thought regulations and mandates were bad then, what would he think about them if he were alive today. Senator McGovern was a big Government leftist, but he realized at some point regulations and mandates destroy economic activity. [Or did he just want regulations to be at a level in which his business could survive? Would he have written this this article if regulations weren’t at a level that affected his business? His business just happened to be the submarginal business, what if it had been the supramarginal business?}.


“The economy” is what results when each individual is free to make decisions on what to produce, consume, save, or exchange according to what he values at any particular time. Outside of protecting  property rights, contracts, and torts: government interventions hamper the decision-making by individuals, by definition hurting the economy.

Government intervention substitutes the decisions of individual politicians and bureaucrats, for the decisions of free individuals in the market, creating a lower overall standard of living, and individuals who are less satisfied.

Politicians are always performing in the political theater, because they realize that the political process is the only way they can get in positions of power to enforce their superior wisdom on the masses. We have to realize this, and be able to weed out the propaganda from the facts if we are going to be able to turn the big Government ship around.