Posted tagged ‘President Obama’

President Obama vs. Marcus Luttrell: If You Were ISIS Who Would You Fear More?

November 27, 2015

Who do you respect more, President Obama or Lone Survivor Marcus Luttrell?

Obama: U.N Climate Change Conference A ‘Powerful Rebuke To The Terrorists’.

Marcus Luttrell: ‘I Cower To No One’


Thomas Sowell Interprets President Obama’s Political Rhetoric

May 22, 2015

Thomas Sowell

No one puts so much substance into so few words as Thomas Sowell. His article titled, ‘Just Asking’ (click here), in which he interprets President Obama’s rhetoric about poverty, is just his most recent example. I don’t need to waste your time by saying anything else. Lets get right to some excerpts from the article.

“In a recent panel discussion on poverty at Georgetown University, President Barack Obama gave another demonstration of his mastery of rhetoric — and disregard of reality.”

“One of the ways of fighting poverty, he proposed, was to “ask from society’s lottery winners” that they make a “modest investment” in government programs to help the poor.”

“Since free speech is guaranteed to everyone by the First Amendment to the Constitution, there is nothing to prevent anybody from asking anything from anybody else.”

Despite pious rhetoric on the left about “asking” the more fortunate for more money, the government does not “ask” anything. It seizes what it wants by force. If you don’t pay up, it can take not only your paycheck, it can seize your bank account, put a lien on your home and/or put you in federal prison.”

“So please don’t insult our intelligence by talking piously about “asking.”

And please don’t call the government’s pouring trillions of tax dollars down a bottomless pit “investment.” Remember the soaring words from Barack Obama, in his early days in the White House, about “investing in the industries of the future”? After Solyndra and other companies in which he “invested” the taxpayers’ money went bankrupt, we haven’t heard those soaring words so much.”

“Then there are those who produced the wealth that politicians want to grab. In Obama’s rhetoric, these producers are called “society’s lottery winners.”

“Was Bill Gates a lottery winner? Or did he produce and sell a computer operating system that allows billions of people around the world to use computers, without knowing anything about the inner workings of this complex technology?”

“Was Henry Ford a lottery winner? Or did he revolutionize the production of automobiles, bringing the price down to the point where cars were no longer luxuries of the rich but vehicles that millions of ordinary people could afford, greatly expanding the scope of their lives?”

Most people who want to redistribute wealth don’t want to talk about how that wealth was produced in the first place. They just want “the rich” to pay their undefined “fair share” of taxes. This “fair share” must remain undefined because all it really means is “more.”

“Obama goes further than other income redistributionists. “You didn’t build that!” he declared to those who did. Why? Because those who created additions to the world’s wealth used government-built roads or other government-provided services to market their products.”

And who paid for those roads and other government-provided services if not the taxpayers? Since all other taxpayers, as well as non-taxpayers, also use government facilities, why are those who created private wealth not to use them also, since they are taxpayers as well?”

“The real question is whether the investment of wealth is likely to be done better by those who created that wealth in the first place or by politicians. The track record of politicians hardly suggests that turning ever more of a nation’s wealth over to them is likely to turn out well. It certainly has not turned well in the American economy under Barack Obama.
“The fact that most of the rhetorical ploys used by Barack Obama and other redistributionists will not stand up under scrutiny means very little politically. After all, how many people who come out of our schools and colleges today are capable of critical scrutiny?
Related ArticleThomas Sowell: Obama vs. America, at
Related ArticleThomas Sowell: Obama’s Failed Economic Policies, at
Related ArticleThomas Sowell Compares FDR And President Obama, at
Related ArticleThomas Sowell’s Vision Of The Anointed, at



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.


Obama Wants “Net Neutrality” Regulations. That’s Why We Should Oppose Them.

November 19, 2014

Here is a video of The President talking about net neutrality.

Sounds like he really wants to protect us, the little guys, from big corporations doesn’t it. Why should we believe the man who pushed a bill titled, “The Affordable Care Act”, which made healthcare less affordable. Is the term “Net Neutrality” any different from “The Affordable Care Act”. You can bet your life that Net Neutrality regulations will make the internet less neutral, less free, and more expensive.

This video is an example of the truth about Obamacare aka The Affordable Care Act. The administrations favorite economist when it came to Obamacare, Jonathan Gruber, is proud of the lies that were told in order to sell Obamacare to the public. When you watch this guy, you are actually watching what the President, his administration, and the Congressmen and Senators who voted for this, think about you.

Obamacare has made individuals less free to choose how they want to pay for their healthcare. Insurance companies were for this law because they thought they would benefit by its passage. With the stroke of the pen, the law created 30 million more costumers for insurance companies. The fact that it expanded Governments power over the individual makes politicians and bureaucrats happy. But who among us wouldn’t want our power expanded?

Net neutrality laws will help the already established tech companies and hurt the upstart competitors who, under normal market conditions, would normally be a check on the big providers. The threat of competitors trying to get market share keeps them in line. This is what Uber is doing to the taxi cartel. Big tech companies will be for this, or at least be tepid in their resistance to it. Once Government regulates the internet, these tech companies will be the protected cartel.

Politicians and bureaucrats will not only be able to tax the internet more easily, they will be able to make rules about content and access. Think of what bureaucrats (Lois Lerner) in the IRS did to stifle liberty minded groups from getting their message out. Politicians and bureaucrats are only in favor of free speech if they agree with what is said, they are never neutral when it comes to losing power.

Politicians and bureaucrats have been trying for years to figure out how to intervene into the internet. The internet is what has allowed our economy to grow in spite of the interventions by the Government and the Fed. Now, for some reason, the President and bureaucrats want to intervene into an area of the economy that has had exponential expansion without the “help” of Government regulations.

Tyrants want to control information because truth is never on their side. Since the internet is the marketplace for truth, even democratically elected tyrants want to have the ability to control and/or propagandize their message.

Even if the President and the FCC succeed in getting regulations, the internet Jeannie is out of the bottle. They will show their true tyrannical colors with these regulations, but the marketplace will find ways to deliver a highly demanded market good outside of these Government regulations. The tighter they squeeze, the more will slip from their hands.


Rand Paul and Mike Lee Respond To The State Of The Union Address

January 30, 2014

Senators Rand Paul and Mike Lee gave responses to the President’s state of the union address. These two are speaking a completely different language than the President is speaking. They are speaking the language of individual liberty, and the President is speaking the language of collective central planning. Unfortunately tens of millions of people in this country don’t understand the language of individual liberty, because they were taught the language of collective central planning. It is our job to educate them that liberty is superior to central planning. I think the tide is turning because these two responses would never have been given just a few years ago.

These responses show the fundamental differences between liberty and central planning that is summed up so well in my favorite quote by F. A. Hayek, “The coordination of men’s activities through central planning or through voluntary cooperation are roads going in very different directions. The first to serfdom and poverty the second to freedom and plenty.”

We have been slowly going down the road to serfdom for too long, it is time to change direction.

Here is Senator Rand Paul’s response.

Here is Senator Mike Lee’s response.

Related ArticleLet The Counterfeiting Continue! The Fed Is Stuck In Their Feedback Loop, by

Related ArticleTom Woods Explains The Austrian Business Cycle, by

Walker’s State Of The State Address vs. Obama’s State Of The Union Address

January 29, 2014

These two videos show the difference between a Governor who trusts the wisdom of individuals, and a President who trusts the special wisdom of Government bureaucrats.

In Governor Walker’s state of the state address, he is able to talk about the actual results of policies that have rolled back Government intervention in the free market, although not as much of a rollback for my taste. In the President’s state of the union address, he is painting a vision about a fantasy world that can be created by expanding the decision-making of Government, while shrinking market based decisions by individuals.

Walker’s policies have brought $900 million more in tax receipts than the state spends. Obama’s exponential expansion of Bushes policies, read here,  has increased the Federal debt by $7 trillion.

Walker is going to refund the tax surplus to the individuals who produced it, allowing them to use the dollars as they see fit. Obama is talking about expanding government even farther than he already has, which means taking more from producers. The Federal Government can’t spend anything that it first doesn’t confiscate from you, therefore, all Government spending is simply the substitution of politician’s decisions on how to spend the money taken in taxes, for your decision on how you would have used those confiscated dollars.

Walker understands that real jobs are created by individuals making decisions in the market. Obama thinks jobs are created from top down decrees by Government bureaucrats and politicians.

In this video Walker seems to understand the importance of producers. He understands that you get less economic activity if you burden producers with taxes and regulation.

Contrast what Walker said with what the President says in the video below, if you can get through it. The Presidents speech is more of a theatrical production with soaring rhetoric, appealing to your emotions instead of your brain.

The fact that the Peoples Republic of Wisconsin can change course and slowly start heading in the direction of individual liberty gives me hope for the country as a whole. We may be at a point in history where liberty is on the rise and the state is on the decline. It may not seem that way if you look at the present political situation, but just remember it is dark in the middle of a tunnel. I think more individuals are changing their thinking about the role and scope of Government in their lives. Politics will follow this sea change, it won’t lead it. In Rand Paul’s response to the state of the union show, he talked about how Federal Reserve policies caused our economic problem in the first place. This is an example of the sea change, because the Federal Reserve would never have been talked about, let alone been accused of causing the problem, just five years ago.

Related ArticleWalter E. Williams: “Are We Moving Toward More Personal Liberty, Or More Government Control Over Our Lives”, by

The President and Vice President Don’t Support Ending The Filisterbuster Rule

November 21, 2013
President Barack Obama and Vice President Jose...

President Barack Obama and Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


The move by the Senate Democrats to end the filibuster rule on Presidential appointees isn’t even supported by the leaders of the Democrat party, President Obama and Vice President Biden. President Obama and Vice President Biden are righteously indignant about the ending of the filibuster rule because it would take away a constitutional check on the majority. I applaud these staunch defenders of the constitution against the tyranny of the majority, and the fact that their own party is in the majority shows real courage. Watch the videos below and be prepared to be inspired by the tough stance these two intrepid leaders take.



I want to sincerely apologize for getting this post wrong. I thought these two videos were responses to todays vote in the Senate which ended the filibuster rule for appointees. These videos are actually from 2005 when both men were in the Senate and both were righteously indignant over the Republican controlled Senate talking about getting rid of the filibuster. Why would anybody believe anything a politician says after what has gone on the last two months?

Related ArticleThe Most Recent Arbitrary And Unrestrained Exercises of Power By The Federal Government, by

Related ArticleWhat Is Tyranny? The President Should Know The Definition, by

Related ArticleJuly 4th, Declaring Independence From Tyranny, by

Related ArticleThomas Sowell Explains How Democracy And Freedom Are Not The Same Thing, at