dprin339's Blog

Posted on August 29, 2008 by madamab

Victory Is Mine, Saith MacBama

(Note: I hope Shakespeare will forgive me for appropriating his Scottish Play to describe the rise and fall of Barack Obama. It may help that he’s been dead for several hundred years.) and I hope that "madamab" will forgive me for appropriating HER scottish play, I just couldn't resist!  Thanks madamb!

THE SCENE: It is 2004. Brand-new Senator BARACK MACBAMA has just given his first “unity” speech at the Democratic National Convention, and the media is drooling, as is the Democratic Party. BARACK and MICHELLE (LADY) MACBAMA are at home in bed, discussing their next move. LADY MACBAMA is dressed in a red velvet smoking jacket over pink silk pajamas and is wearing reading glasses, perusing the papers. MACBAMA is reading over her shoulder. He is wearing ivory silk pajamas with a giant OMB monogram on the shirt pocket. The bedroom itself is done in overblown bordello-tacky, like the Greek temple in which MACBAMA will eventually be coronated.

LADY (wonderingly): I never imagined so much adulation could be sent thy way, my husband.

MACBAMA: Forsooth, it gladdens my heart greatly, my lady! Let us bask in the moment together.

(Both MACBAMAS glance up at the mirror above the bed, grin happily, then look back at each other, unsmiling.)

MACBAMA: Doth this portend aught for my future, my lady? In truth, I am confounded. For I have only just ascended the mighty corridors of power. Shall I count myself greedy to want more?

LADY: Surely not, my lord. Thy excellence and superiority to all living beings, save myself, know no bounds. How canst thou stop thine own ascendance to the very highest of offices?

MACBAMA: But would it be proper to begin the climb to that height, knowing that I have duties to those who elected me? I doubt myself, wife.

LADY (silkily): Truly, thou knowest thine own worth, MacBama. But if I cannot persuade thee, thou must go to the place of the Three Witches and abide their counsel. Surely they shall guide thee truly!

MACBAMA (smiling): Ah, my lady, thou art wise as always. Indeed, it shall be done.

(MACBAMA gets up and walks to the bathroom to shower and get ready for his meeting. As soon as he closes the door, LADY MACBAMA pulls a cell phone from under her pillow and speed dials.)

LADY (stage whispering): Hello? Nancy? Michelle here. Tell Howard and Donna that Operation Walking Eagle is a go! (listens for a moment) Yes, Nancy, you still have to do the thee and thou thing. You know he won’t get the point without you dressing it up all fancy. (listens a moment) Dammit, Nancy, do you want Hillary and Bill out or not? Just tell Donna and Howard to suck it up, or Hillary is going to be our next President! And nobody wants that, do they?

MACBAMA (from the bathroom): My lady, canst thou perforce locate mine instrument of communication?

LADY (whispering into phone): BLEEP! I’ve gotta go - Barack wants his cell phone. You know what to do. Later! (closes phone, puts it back under pillow, and addresses MACBAMA through door) My lord, I believe thy daughter hast borrowed it. Make haste to claim it from her and proceed to thy destination, husband! The secret of thy future shall soon be told!

(LIGHTS OUT.)

THE SCENE: DNC Headquarters, later that same day. MACBAMA is led, blindfolded, into a dark conference room, by two anonymous guards dressed like Secret Service men. NANCY PELOSI, HOWARD DEAN and DONNA BRAZILE (the THREE WITCHES) are seated at the conference table, awaiting The One. They are dressed in black robes and have flashlights under their chins, showing their faces, which seem to float in an eerie light.

PELOSI (imperiously to guards): Seat the petitioner, then remove his blindfold.

(The guards do so)

MACBAMA (in awe): Oh, Wise Ones, I beseech thee to guide me in my dilemma. For lo, my ambition grows large, and may o’erwhelm me. Knowest thou the future? Should I attempt the highest office in the land at this propitious moment? Or shall I first gain experience and distance from my past, and allow others to go before me?

DEAN: Behold, the prophecy of the Three Witches!

(DEAN points a remote control behind him, and a screen comes down. The projector in the ceiling turns on and projects the following message onto the screen:)

MACBAMA (reading aloud): “MACBAMA, thou shalt let nothing impede thy path to the Presidency of the United States of America. Shouldst thou give any ground to the forces arrayed against thee, thou shalt surely fail to gain the nomination of thy Party. Therefore, do not hesitate to use any tactics thou feelest necessary to win this battle. No man or woman shall stand against thy might - especially not those with the last name of Clinton.”

(As MACBAMA reads the name “Clinton,” the THREE WITCHES all hiss with hatred.)

THREE WITCHES: Clinton! Boooooga Booooooga!

(They turn off their flashlights and the room is plunged into semi-darkness.)

MACBAMA (resolved): Thank you, O Spirits. I shall obey thy commands. For it is written that none shall stand against me!

(LIGHTS OUT.)

THE SCENE: Inauguration Day, 2009. MACBAMA and his Lady are watching the inauguration of President John McCain and his Vice President, Sarah Palin, from the comfort of their bedroom. They are both the worse for wear, having overindulged to bear the pain of this moment, and there are bottles of JD strewn about the room. MACBAMA is smoking a cigarette; LADY is drinking straight from the latest bottle.

MACBAMA: How did this happen? The Three Witches promised me that no man or woman could beat me!

LADY (drunk): You are so stupid, Barack. They didn’t say anything about a man AND a woman! And PUMAs either! Damnit, you gotta learn how to read the fine print!

MACBAMA: BLEEP. You’re right. (sighs disconsolately) Well, what do we do now?

LADY: Get ready for 2012, I guess.

MACBAMA (firmly): If it’s all the same to you, Michelle, I think I’ll trust my own judgment next time. (getting an idea) Hey! Maybe I’ll start spending more time with you and the girls. After all, family values are important to me!

LADY (wailing in anguish): Noooooooooooooo!

(LIGHTS OUT.)

by Richard W. Rahn

Richard W. Rahn is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth.

This article appeared in the Washington Times on August 27, 2008.

Which of the following families is "richer"? The first family consists of a wife who has recently become a medical doctor, and she makes $160,000 per year. Her husband is a small business entrepreneur who makes $110,000 per year, giving them a total family income of $270,000 per year. However, they are still paying off the loans the wife took out for medical school and the loans the husband took out to start his business, amounting to debts of $300,000. Their total assets are valued at $450,000; hence, their real net worth or wealth (the difference between gross assets and liabilities) is only $150,000.

The second family consists of a trial lawyer who took early retirement and his non-working wife. They have an annual income of $230,000, all of it derived from interest on tax-free municipal bonds they own. However, their net worth is $7 million, consisting of $5 million in bonds, a million-dollar home with no mortgage, and a million dollars in art work, home furnishings, automobiles and personal items.

Many politicians and media people confuse taxable income with disposable and in-kind income.

The second family is clearly far better off financially than the first family, yet many in the U.S. Congress, including Sen. Barack Obama, want to increase taxes on the first (and poorer) family and not on the wealthier family. They have mis-defined "rich" by confusing a flow (income) with a stock (real net assets), and thus come to the wrong conclusion. They want to tax those (who make more than $250,000 a year) who are trying to become rich, while preserving the status for those who already have wealth.

Increasing taxes on those 2.3 million American households who earn more than $250,000 per year is foolish and destructive for several reasons. It reduces the incentives for highly productive people to spend years in school obtaining needed skills, and then work hard in producing goods and services desired by their fellow citizens. It encourages the misallocation of productive resources by encouraging people to find ways to minimize the tax burden rather than to use their labor and savings for the highest and best use. It reduces the mobility of families up and down the income scale, and freezes the advantages of those who have substantial inherited wealth (e.g., the Kennedys, Kerrys, Pelosis, etc.). & don’t forget the Obamas & the McCains

Those who want the "rich" to pay more or "give back" not only confuse income with wealth, but also fail to understand life cycle mobility, and the effects of taxation and income redistribution programs on "disposable income." Many people, when they are young (including the average graduate student), would be classified as poor in terms of taxable income. Most people have a sharp rise in family or "household" income after they graduate from school, and many of these enter the definition of "upper income" in their forties and fifties, but after they retire, their taxable income often drops to the point where they are considered middle income, even though they may have more than a million dollars in net assets. Income distribution is most often defined by "household" income as contrasted with individual income. Most low-income "households" consist of single (often young) individuals, while most families with more than one income earner are higher income "households." The fact is there are about 4 times (8.9 million) as many households that have net assets of a million or more than there are households that earn more than $250,000. And many of the high-income households do not have a million dollars in net assets.

Many politicians and media people confuse taxable income with disposable and in-kind income. Because of the highly progressive income tax system, (97 percent of income taxes are paid by the top 50 percent of income earners and the top 1 percent pays 40 percent of the tax, despite having only 20 percent of the income), the difference in high-income and low-income families in after-tax income is far less than pre-tax income. In addition, there are many government welfare and subsidy programs for low-income people that are not included in many of the standard definitions of income.

Given that high marginal tax rates on income are counterproductive, some have argued for a wealth tax, but that doesn't work either. A wealth tax mainly taxes productive capital, thus reducing job and productivity growth, and it also encourages people to move their wealth to other countries and/or engage in extravagant expenditures - as the French have found out, much to their regret.

Mr. Obama also says that he wants to increase the capital gains tax. Many people have times in their lives when they reap a substantial capital gain from the sale of a farm or small business or a vacation home, etc. If they receive a couple of hundred thousand dollars or more from the capital gain, they appear to be "rich" in that year, according to Mr. Obama's definition, even though they may have an average yearly income of less than $100,000 and net assets of less than a half-million dollars. They will not only be taxed at a higher rate, but if the asset has been held for many years and has grown in value no faster than inflation, they will be taxed on imaginary income, and may well suffer a real loss - which is not only economically destructive but immoral.

Those who confuse taxable income with wealth are guilty of both sloppy use of language and sloppy thinking. Is it prudent to trust the writing of the tax code to a group of sloppy thinkers?

 

Thursday, August 28, 2008 3:26 PM

By: Jim Meyers

The Barack Obama campaign has called on supporters to confront powerful radio station WGN-AM in Chicago for giving air time to an Obama critic.

"WGN radio is giving right-wing hatchet man Stanley Kurtz a forum to air his baseless, fear-mongering terrorist smears," Obama's campaign wrote in an e-mail to supporters, saying Kurtz is “pushing lies, distortions, and manipulations about Barack and University of Illinois professor William Ayers."

Kurtz, a conservative writer, recently penned an article for the National Review that examined Obama's ties to Ayers, a former 1960s radical and terrorist bomber who later emerged as a school reform advocate in Chicago.

The magazine had been blocked in its attempts to obtain University of Illinois at Chicago records regarding a school reform initiative called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which Obama chaired and Ayers co-founded, the Chicago Tribune reported. The school reversed its position and made the records available on Tuesday.

On Wednesday evening, Obama's campaign urged supporters to call the radio station to voice their protests.

"Tell WGN that by providing Kurtz with airtime, they are legitimizing baseless attacks from a smear-merchant and lowering the standards of political discourse," the e-mail stated.

"It is absolutely unacceptable that WGN would give a slimy character assassin like Kurtz time for his divisive, destructive ranting on our public airwaves. At the very least, they should offer sane, honest rebuttal to every one of Kurtz's lies."

Zack Christenson, executive producer of "Extension 720 with Milt Rosenburg" — the show that invited Kurtz on the air — said the response was strong.

"I would say this is the biggest response we've ever got from a campaign or a candidate," he told the Tribune, which owns WGN. "This is really unprecedented with the show, the way that people are flooding the calls and our e-mail boxes."

Christenson asserted that the Obama campaign was asked to have someone appear on the show and declined the request.

The National Review responded in an editorial: “Obama supporters risibly complain that shining a light on the Obama/Ayers relationship is a ‘smear’ and smacks of ‘guilt by association.’ A presidential candidate’s choice to associate himself with an unrepentant terrorist would be highly relevant in any event — does anyone think the Obamedia would keep mum if John McCain had a long-standing relationship with David Duke or an abortion-clinic bomber?”

----------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------

More whining and complaining without taking ANY action whatsoever. The SMARTEST thing to have done is to SHOW UP and make their case!

But, not ONCE has Oblahblah bothered to take his precious time to SHOW UP. Not with this group, not with O'Reilly, Hannity, etc.

He would rather just WHINE about the horrible injustice being done to him.

Can you imaginge if Hillary wins a floor vote?
Urban America will ignite. Read on.

I Smell a Clinton Coup Brewing
By JB Williams Tuesday, August 19, 2008



After Barockstar?s near fatal empty suit performance at Saddleback Saturday, the Obama spin machine is in damage control overdrive. I wonder if they?ve had time to realize that they have been triangulated by the Clinton war room and set up to take a fall at the DNC convention?

That old Clinton war room stench is in the air again? It seems the empty suit and his empty headed staff is not quite up to speed on Clintonian strategeries.

Consider the latest Clinton maneuvers
? Camp Clinton convinced Camp Obama to help liquidate her campaign debts.
? Camp Clinton convinced Camp Obama to call for Florida and Michigan voters to be counted. It?s the right thing to do, of course. But had it already been done, Hillary would already be the nominee.
? Camp Clinton convinces Camp Obama to agree to a floor vote at the convention when all the cameras will be rolling. What if Clinton wins on the floor?
? Camp Clinton removes Obama supporter John Edwards from the equation, along with his scheduled convention speaking spot, on the basis that he is now a known lying cheater. But Bill Clinton (also a known lying cheater) is the headliner of the convention, and he?s not an Obama supporter at all.
? Barockstar tanks on national TV only days before the convention and his campaign staff is sent out to do damage control, leaving the super-delegates gasping in a holy BLEEP moment, with the sudden realization that this empty suit is in no way ready for the big show. Only a promise to make a VP announcement this week can get his failed TV appearance off the front pages.
? Meanwhile, Camp Clinton is mobilizing millions of NObama minions and staging a convention coup in which Hillary can ride in on silver steed to save the party from complete implosion on an international stage?

Even James Carville, Dick Morris and Oliver Stone combined, could not have written this script any better. All we need is a second gunman on the grassy knoll. Howard Dean maybe?

The fact that millions of Democrat voters were intentionally disenfranchised by their own party in the primaries leaves the chosen one the prime target of too many in-house enemies. And nobody in American politics is better at organizing, mobilizing and exploiting in-house enemies than the Clintons.

Barockstar?s off-teleprompter performances consistently make George Bush look like a silver tongued genius. That fact makes even the most ardent Obama supporters second guess their early hypnotic socialist driven lust for the chosen one.

Ship Obama is taking on water faster than the spin machine can bail. The DNC i