More “Muppet” than “Buffet” – Obama goes for populist message instead of leadership on tax.

President Obama’s “Buffet Rule” Tax push on millionaires represents most of what his term in office has come down to; lots of rhetoric filled with theatrics and little or no long term beneficial substance for the nation. President Obama himself said Wednesday, “Just taxing millionaires and billionaires, just imposing the Buffett Rule, won’t do enough to close the deficit, Well, I agree.”

The so-called Buffett Rule, which aims to set a minimum tax rate of 30 percent for Americans who earn more than $1 million annually. The president theatrically surrounded himself with some wealthy campaign contributors to make another pitch for a higher tax rate on the country’s biggest earners, even at one stage suggesting President Reagan would have supported it.

I use the term Muppet, instead of Buffet, as the current administrations cynicism, theatrics and contempt at which they treat the public is bordering on a scene from the “Muppet Show.” The White House honestly believes ordinary Americans, and others,  are not intelligent enough to see this latest stunt as nothing more then politicking at its worst.

If the President respectfully was serious about addressing the nations’ financial woes and put as much effort into getting the United States Democratic Controlled Senate to pass a budget, that would do more good for the nation and the economy, then the $49 billion the Buffet rule would bring in over ten years. The U.S. Senate has not passed a budget in almost 1080 days surely as president and leader of the nation, this serious matter deserves more than a fleeting moment of his time and attention.

President Obama’s claim that the Buffett Rule “is something that will get us moving in the right direction toward fairness” would be more convincing if his actions where more reflective of such rhetoric too. Three years into his presidency, President Obama has not introduced a plan for comprehensive tax reform, arguably the most important aspect for repairing America’s finances and boosting long-term economic growth. The fact is, this is a president who appointed the Simpson-Bowles commission only to then completely ignore its findings and is devoid of  purposeful ideas. He has failed to lead on tax reform and will no doubt return to more rhetoric about Congress failing to act, when it is voted down in Congress next week.

Where the president and Washington have got it wrong is their disregard for the ordinary person. Yes inequality is a huge and growing problem across America, and in other countries however; it is not a “Fair-Share” as President Obama argues that people want pushed. People want a “Fair-Society” where there are opportunities for personal and business growth, success and financial reward.

It should be every leader’s aspiration to create the circumstances to get as many people into the workplace as possible, not become dependent on the state for handouts. How can it be a “Fair-Share” when you are penalised for success if you attain it. If government steps back and respects individual liberty, successful people will reinvest in the economy and it will involve more people in the work environment ultimately delivering a better, more prosperous and “Fair-Society.”

Make no mistake about President Obama’s attempt to frame this as an issue of social equality; it has nothing to do with equality, or any tangible benefit except for the president, as the “Buffett Rule” polls well.

How much time has the president spent trying to sell this $49 billion Buffet Rule to the American people compared to solving the spending and deficit issues in Washington? American’s and others looking on, are not stupid Mr. President. It is a pity that a presidency which promised so much at the outset has become so arrogant in their belief that they can treat their public likes a bunch of Muppet’s.

The fact is yesterday’s speech and this populist token exercise has nothing to do with growing the American economy or tackling the more serious issues facing the nation. It does not serve the American people, it is fundamentally and solely electioneering at its worst.

Unfortunately, this presidency has lacked any real ambition or effort at meaningful tax reform. If the president and his administration believe the “Muppet Rule” will fool the ordinary American in exchange for their vote well, I believe ordinary American people are a lot smarter for themselves then the Obama administration believe them to be. Sadly, sound bites have well and truly replaced substance in modern American public service and politics while the people fail to be served.

It’s “Super Tuesday,” only Romney and Gingrich can emerge to challenge Obama

It is “Super Tuesday” in the GOP race to select the Republican nominee for November’s general election against incumbent President Barack Obama. “Super Tuesday” represents the biggest polling day so far in what has been an intense and sometimes bitter GOP race and will see contests in Ohio, Georgia, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Oklahoma, Idaho, North Dakota and Alaska. There are 419 of the 1,144 delegates needed to win the party’s nomination up for grabs.

The biggest fight of the day will see current front-runner Mitt Romney, and unexpected rival Rick Santorum battle it out in the State of Ohio. Romney’s new slogan of “more jobs, less debt, smaller government” is part of a broader strategy, to counter Santorum’s appeal for both working-class voters and conservatives. A win for Santorum in Ohio is crucial as his support and lead in the polls is gradually being eaten into by Romney and Newt Gingrich.

Santorum has most to lose of all the candidates going into Super Tuesday, a failure to meet expectations and grind out a significant state victory will only add to the resurgence of conservative rival Gingrich. Gingrich was applauded by many yesterday, for a string of brilliant appearances on the Sunday political shows. A Santorum victory in Ohio, would yet again, turn the race on its head, while he is also aiming for victories in conservative Oklahoma and Tennessee.

Romney has been gaining ground on Santorum in the Ohio polls all week, eliminating a double-digit lead for the former senator from Pennsylvania, with one poll giving Romney the advantage, one gave Santorum the lead and the third showed a virtual tie. Romney is expected to easily win in Vermont and Massachusetts.

Romney’s superior organization and establishment support, combined with his massively funded Super PAC, has enabled him to compete all across the Super Tuesday landscape and potentially pick up more than half of the 419 delegates up for grabs.

In the state of Virginia, only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul made the ballot, as both Santorum and  Gingrich failed to meet the strict state criteria. This contest virtually guarantee’s a Romney victory in the state where he enjoys prominent backing in the shape of notable Republicans Governor Bob McDonnell and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor for the states 46 delegates.

Texas Congressman Ron Paul, who has yet to win a state primary or caucus despite his fanatical ground level support, is finally expected to pick up his first wins in Alaska and North Dakota’s caucuses.

Former House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich, seeking a path to a comeback, leads his home state of Georgia. Gingrich anticipates doing well in Tennessee, Oklahoma and Ohio and intends to carry on in the race, even if he finishes third overall on Super Tuesday, behind former Romney and Santorum. Gingrich hopes a Georgia victory will kick off his Southern Strategy of taking Alabama and Mississippi on March 13 and possibly Kansas, resulting in his third comeback in the GOP race, as the conservative alternative to Romney.

Former Presidential candidate Herman Cain hailed Newt Gingrich’s promise to push the price of a gallon of gas under $2.50 as the new “9-9-9” of the presidential campaign, he said, that gives voters a concrete promise of action. Gingrich has estimated that Americans will see a whopping $16 trillion to $18 trillion in federal tax revenue from the energy explosion, wiping out the national debt in one fell swoop.

I expect Romney to meet his expectations and win Ohio. Santorum will just fall short in Ohio but while he has enjoyed a strong six weeks of momentum, the pendulum is starting to shift away from him. He simply cannot discipline himself on the campaign trail in terms of some of his rhetoric and his constant commentary on social issues is playing into Team Obama’s hands. Santorum has raised his profile and in my view, exceeded expectations in this race so far and I credit him for that. However, if anyone believes he is actually capable of beating President Obama in a general election they are delusional.

I believe Gingrich will exceed expectations by winning Georgia comfortably, but will turn in stronger than expected performances in some of the other states in contention today. Gingrich is the solutions candidate, anybody observing him deliver a master class on topic narrative with the liberal media on Sunday, can’t help but realise, he is the real alternative to Romney.

Santorum’s bid will start to flounder after today, Newt will surge again, and the only matter that remains to be seen is how Romney, will cope on the campaign trail once he comes out from under the “Mittness Protection Programme.”

Newt can win the race still however, it is Romney’s to lose at this point.

Lesbian Exploits Her Child For Shock Value with Michele Bachmann

Bookmark and Share   Today America got another glimpse at how the left loves to exploit children.

In this most recent case, a lesbian who apparently stalks Michele Bachmann, decided to force a little boy to approach Congresswoman Bachmann and say to her;

“My Mommy is Gay and she doesn’t need fixing”.

But it was not assimple as all that.

As you can see in the video [see video below this post],  the child was coached and coaxed in to doing it.  After all, how many prepubescent adolescents do you know of whoare  passionate about their role in political activism?

In the video seen below, you see a very nervous child whois  so timid and uninspired by his Mother’s cause, that he has a very hard time repeating his Mother’s scripted message.

As the child is nudged toward the Congresswoman, a smiling Bachmann bends down to hear his statement but his words just can’t be heard.

When Bachmann tells the child that she couldn’t hear him ands explains that her ears may have been too far away, she leans in and very attentively asks the little boy to say whatever he was trying to tell her, again.  This time the lesbian mother nudges the kid again and says, it’s O.K., you can say it.

At that point, in still a barely audible tone, with Michele Bachmann’s ears practically pressed against the boys face,  she makes out his statement.

A little shocked by the child’s homosexual message, Bachmann pulls back and sweetly waves her hand and gently says “Goodbye”.

As the video goes viral, I am not quite sure what the incident was meant to do.

I do know that it shows me another example of the lack of judgement and decency that the most radical leftists in our nation have.  In this case, we have a lesbian who does not have the balls to deliver her own message to Michele Bachmann’s face, so instead, she exploits her nervous son and forces him to do her dirty work.  The episode raises a question that goes far beyond normal political discourse.  It raises the question, of how far is the left willing to go in the exploitation of children?

Political differences will always exist and different ways to make ones political case will always involve a measure of creativity that tries to get their point across in powerful ways.  As adults, we have the cognitive ability to process the intricacies of political discourse.  Adults are at least suppose to be able to rationally digest the facts and decisions for themselves that are base on logic and the experiences of life.

But children are different.  They are still developing their minds and are just beginning to experience life.  As such, their impressionable minds are easily molded and while parents have the right to shape the minds of their own children, we hope they at least instill in them the basics of good behavior, personal responsibility, and respectful conduct.   While a parent can certainly instill their own values in the own children, it is hoped that they are also responsible enough to help their kids develop a talent for independent thought.  But rational independent thinking can not be expected from children who are still in their single digits.

Yet liberals seem to love taking advantage of children.  They love to take a page from Marx and others communists who believe in the early doctrinarian of children in order to eliminate the possibility for any fair competition of ideas when it comes to ideology.

This exploitation of children became alarmingly apparent when in 2008, liberals embarked upon what, at the time I called, “The Messiah Mode and Barack Obama’s Political Madrasas“.

Back then, public school teachers were promoting the candidacy of Barack Obama with children who were held essentially held hostage to their teacher’s methods in their classrooms.

A college level teacher forced students to complete an assignment that ripped apart Sarah Palin’s speech at the Republican National Convention. A contrary approach that would have supported her speech by a student, who agreed with what she said, was unacceptable and did not fulfill the requirements of the assignment.

Shortly after that, low grade elementary school children were gathered together for days of rehearsal as they prepared for a choir performance that sang the virtues of Barack Obama.  And in Missouri, another teacher was reprimanded for gathering students together for pro-Obama, military-like, drills that shout out adoring chants for Barack. As you can see in the video, it is an eerie display of Nazi like military celebrations for Hitler.

I had hoped to present the videos of these instances as I did back in 2008. but for some reason, they have been scrubbed from the internet.

Most recently I was struck by the organizational meetings of Occupy Oakland protesters who actually set up a section for volunteers who wanted to organize public school children for their protests.

It was just another example of just how indecent the left is willing to be and what lengths they are willing to go to in order to try to advance their agenda.  In this case, I can only hope that the poor little boy in the video who is forced to be used as a weapon for use in his Mother’s political arsenal, does not grow up to be a confused, social misfit because of the public humiliation that his parents put him through.  Meanwhile, those who really care about children, might want to do their best to spare their own kids the embarrassment of being more of a political pawn than a beloved son or daughter growing up with parents who put their children’s interests before their political agendas.

Bookmark and Share

Hypocrite Ron Paul Takes an Ad Out Calling Newt Gingrich a Serial Hypocrite

 

Bookmark and ShareHellooooooo Kettle. This is the pot and I’m calling you black.

That is essentially what a new Ron Paul attack webad against Newt Gingrich is saying.

The ad entitled “Serial Hypocrisy” spends about two and a half minutes repeating three or four supposed examples of Newt Gingrich being a hypocrite. It shows Newt on a bench with Nancy Pelosi talking about climate change, and has scenes of him talking about corrupt politicians and then goes to news cuts of stories about Newt making money from services rendered to Freddie Mac.

The ad does do a good of job of making Newt like a fat cat politician and if you didn’t know the truth, you might fall for Ron Paul’s distortions and hatchet job.

But what Ron Paul’s ad does not do is show how using those same tactics in an ad against Ron Paul would be even more damaging to Ronnie himself. For instance;

  • Cut 1: Ron Paul shaking his bony fingers in the air as he squawks out a line about “we got to stop all this pork”
  • Cut 2: Ron Paul’s bony hand is seen signing on as a sponsor to a bill requesting $8 million from the federal government to pay for a study on wild American shrimp
  • Cut 3: Ron Paul waving his bony fingers in the air as he says “term limits are the only way we can get back to a citizen legislature and get rid of career politicians”
  • Cut 4: Ron Paul stands with his wife in front of a podium with a big American flag hanging behind him as he addresses supporters and thanks them for electing him to his eleventh consecutive term in Congress
  • Cut 5: Ron Paul flails his bony arms wildlyin the air during a presidential debate as he shouts “we have got to make the government stop spending so much money. We just don’t have any to spend”
  • Cut 6: Congressman Ron Paul stands outside Galveston City Hall in his district and presents the City’s Mayor with an oversized federal government check in the amount of $400 million for over 65 different pieces of pork barrel legislation that Ron Paul sponsored in just one year.
  • Cut 7: Ron Paul waving his bony fingers around on the floor of the House of Representatives and as part of the debt ceiling debate, he is arguing that the sale of gold reserves would be “a good and moral decision” and would ameliorate the financial crisis.
  • Cut 8: A screen that shows a list of the more than 12 gold mines and corporations that he owns stocks in and would profit from in a sell off

Now that’s real serial hypocrisy.

But let’s move beyond the lies of Ron Paul. Instead let us look at how typical a politician Ron Paul is being.

For a man whose fans consider him to be a nonpolitician, Ron Paul sure knows how to act like a politician and how to play politics.

Instead of constructively trying to convince us that his isolationist policies would make us a safer and a better nation, here he is fixated on tarnishing the newest person to cheat him out of the stop spot in the polls. Instead of Ron Paul trying to make the case for himself with credible arguments that defend his positions, he attacks the one man in this campaign who has made it a point not to turn this campaign in to a useless debate about non-issues. Instead of trying to convince us why he believes that the United States brought 9/11 upon itself, he is going after the one candidate who has consistently tried to keep the debate on the issues and even succeeded in making the media do so in the presidential debates.

Newt is the latest recipient of Ron Paul’s garbage simply because Newt has moved in to the front of the pack. Ron Paul did this with Rick Perry when he spent his moment at the top. Meanwhile, Ron paul remains one of the few candidates who hasn’t spent at least a day in the number one spot. And apparently he knows that the only way he can be number one is by being the only one left standing. So Ron Paul has decided to run his campaign basedc on some sort of political scorched earth strategy that says, if I can’t beat Obama, no one can.

Ron Paul is nothing but a sore loser.

The man can not convince more than 12% of the population that he is right about anything and so now he resorts to playing King of the Hill by throwing mud at his opponents. In this case, Ron paul will pay a heavy price for going so negative. From this new ad against Newt Gingrich, there will be a significant backlash against Paul, one that will have many of the voters whose support he wants, tune him out and turn him off. Many of us have been looking for a good reason to shut Paul out and now, he just gave it to us.

Bookmark and Share

Tonight’s CBS/National Journal Republican Presidential Debate on Foreign Policy

Bookmark and Share   What happens in tonight’s presidential debate matters a little less than the media spin that will be put on the debate in the days following the debate.  The decision to hold the debate on a Saturday night, is sure to produce a relatively small audience of viewers who will be seeing the debate live.  That means the vast majority of voters are going to be reaching their conclusions about the candidate’s performances through second hand descriptions crafted by the media and its talking heads.  This will allow any highs or lows in their debate performances to be exaggerated to whatever extent the authors describing the debate wish to with slightly more success than in past debates.

That situation could be either a big help to individual candidates or major problem for them.  Most especially Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and to a lesser extent Mitt Romney.

If Perry can somehow pull off a debate appearance that is gaffe free, and startles opinion makers with an eloquent, well thought out, and articulate view on foreign policy and national security, that will result in reports that praise him to an extent that could help him begin to dig his way out of the hole he has dug himself in to with previous bumbling and stumbling debate appearances.

For Herman Cain, foreign policy and national security are considered his weakest area of expertise.  In fact he has no expertise in these areas and has proven that in the past with multiple faux pas, such as his misunderstanding of China’s already having an a nuclear capacity.   For him, this debate could either solidify his front tier position or be the beginning of the end.  If you remember, it was a foreign policy question that helped sink the election of Presidential Gerald Ford in 1976 [see video below this post].

Ford flubbed a statement about the Soviet Union and made a misstatement that claimed there was no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and that there will never be one under a Ford Administration.  After President Ford was pressed to clarify his position, he reaffirmed his belief that there was no Soviet domination in Eastern Europe. 

In the days following the debate, President Ford conducted an interview with Jim Lehrer.  In it Lehrer asked Ford about that answer.  The exchange went like this:

PRESIDENT FORD: There is no question I did not adequately explain what I was thinking. I felt very strongly that regardless of the number of Soviet armored divisions in Poland, the Russians would never dominate the Polish spirit. That’s what I should have said. I simply left out the fact that, at that time in 1976, the Russians had about 10 to 15 divisions in Poland.

JIM LEHRER: Did you realize there on the stage that night that President Ford had made a serious mistake?

PRESIDENT CARTER: Yes, I did. And I was prepared to jump in, you know, and take advantage of it. But just on the spur of the moment, I realized that it would serve me better to let the news reporters question President Ford’s analysis and judgment.

JIM LEHRER: Did you have any idea that you had said something wrong?

PRESIDENT FORD: Not at the time. Not at the time. In retrospect, obviously, the inclusion of a sentence or maybe a phrase would have made all the difference in the world.The reason for a federal government is to provide for the national security of its people.

The problem was that the answer remained a major gaffe that hurt the President.  He spent valuable time having to explain his answer and try to set the record straight.

With less than 60 days to go before the first votes in the presidential nominating contest take place, neither Cain or anyone else can afford to be put in the position that Ford had put himself in to back in 1976.

The one person who will probably fuel any fire in tonight’s debate will undoubtedly be Ron Paul.

Paul’s isolationist policies (and make no mistake, they are isolationist policies) are almost certainly going to spark a clash between him and Rick Santorum, who in past debates, has been one of the candidates on the stage who were most genuinely offended by Paul’s views on Israel, defense, and America’s role in the world.  While Paul’s views will certainly play up to his small but vocal liberal-tarian base of obnoxious supporters, it will do little to broaden his appeal.  But the way in which Ron Paul presents his isolationist policies could stir up emotions the emotions of some of the other candidates to the extent that one or more of them way state or phrase something in a way that will make headlines for them.

The debate will take place at Wofford College in Spartanburg, South Carolina at 8:00 PM EST.

Moderated by CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley and National Journal congressional correspondent Major Garrett, the debate will air on the CBS Television Network and will be webcast at CBSNews.com and NationalJournal.com.  The final half hour will only be available online, except for the West Coast where the full debate will air on television.

Bookmark and Share

How The Media Just Might Make Herman Cain President

Bookmark and Share   At a campaign event in Kalamazoo, Michigan on Friday, someone from the audience joked to Herman Cain that Anita Hill was trying to call him [see the video below this post].  Those around the two me broke out in laughter.  So did Cain.  In response to the sarcastic reference to Anita Hill’s false claims of sexual harassment against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas decades ago, Herman Cain lightheartedly joked back “Is she gonna endorse me?”

The exchange was actually very innocent and not initiated by Cain.  However the liberal media immediately began to pounce on the episode and turned it in a negative news story that liberals are eating up and trying to make some kind of point with.

Over at the NPR, National Propaganda Radio,  liberal poison pens were running out of ink with comments like this ;

m moore (1900)

m moore (1900) wrote:

Oh my!  Her’Cain surrounded by all white christian people and all laughing at a victim of sexual harassment?
I wonder how much the Koch bros pays Her’Cain for being a minstrel show entertainer.

 

Bruce Foster (bwf27)Bruce Foster (bwf27)wrote:

What Herman Cain has clearly reminded us is that you don’t have to be “white” to be a bigot.

 

 

C Morris (CMorris)

C Morris (CMorris) wrote:

TeaPublican slate = clueless malevolent clowns

 

 
For all the Cainiacs attacking Frank James I ask: is there something in this post that isn’t factual? If so, call it out. Otherwise you are attacking a reporter for the “crime” of reporting the facts and if you can’t handle the facts then the problem lies with you, not Mr. James.
 

World Dweller (worlddweller)

World Dweller (worlddweller) wrote:

Wow, my confidence in Mr Cain’s diplomatic ability only increases with every word that comes out of his mouth. (sarcasm)It seems like every day now he says something that is insulting. At the debates the other night, it was an unfounded ‘Princess Pelosi’. Today it’s lack of sensitivity and laughing about the serious charges against him(or is that every day now?).Despite the insults etc., I would like hime to be the Republican nominee, simply for the entertainment value it would bring to the debates against Obama! 

What do you expect from the brainwashed mocha skim milk,  latte,  vanilla foaming, burnt bean, Stabuck, espresso swillers, who drop $7.00 for a cup of coffee and sip it while they map out their Occupy Wall Street agendas against capitalism?   These are the same people who were hanging George Bush in effigy for the ongoing war in Afghanistan but are today, throwing Molotov cocktails at Oakland police. 

That’s the type of stuff I expect from the hypocritical based left.  But it is not what I expected from Newt Gingrich who in a radio interview with one of my favorite conservative talking heads Laura Ingraham.  When asked about the joke, Newt stated

“He may well be innocent, and I think it’s perfectly reasonable for him to defend himself and for him to make clear who his accusers are, but these are not things, I think, that you joke about.”

That is probably a good point, but one that is particularly good for Newt, a man with his own different set of luggage to carry.  But in the case of Herman Cain, its a different story, and that plot is beginning to unfold in the following way.  Unlike Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain is not a politician.  It is a difference people like.  And part of that attraction is a refreshing bluntness that Cain has.  People find it refreshing to hear honest opinion and not political rhetoric. 

In a Fox News interview about the issue on Friday, Cain explained how a supporter joked that Hill was trying to contact him and went on to say:

“And my response was ‘Is she going to endorse me?”

He added, “I thought it was damn funny and it was”.

“He said it in a humorous way. I gave back a humorous response. It was in no way intended to be an insult toward Anita Hill or anybody else,” Cain said.

That type of honesty is welcomed by many voters.  They appreciate hearing a political figure speak and react in ways that are human, not plastic and Herman Cain is anything but plastic. 

As such, the media’s attempt to make hay out of the episode simply gave Cain another opportunity to prove to voters that he is real, and is one of them……… a person who realizes that government is broke and knows that it will not be fixed by the status quo, establishment in politics.   So in the end, the attempt by the left and its media entities did one thing and one thing only by jumping on Cain for his innocent quip……..they simply gave voters another reason to rally around Herman Cain.  They gave him the opportunity to demonstrate that he is real, not fake.  That he is in tune with them, not Occupy Wall Street. 

Eventually the media and Herman Cain’s opponents are going to realize that people do not hold Cain to the same political standard that they hold Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney to. Whether that is right or wrong, is not in question.  It is just simply is that way and as such, not only can he get a way with things that other politicians can’t, he can use them to his advantage. 

So the moral of this story is, unless the media has a silver bullet to use against Cain, they should keep their fingers off the trigger.  Eventually they will realize that the more they thow at Cain, the larger the rally around Cain gets.

Bookmark and Share

New Obama Christmas Tree Tax Enacted to Fund Government Marketing Scheme

    Bookmark and Share   As the Republican presidential candidates prepare for tonight’s debate, I can only hope that at least one of them will be the following line;

  “This Administration has created more new taxes and fees than they have jobs.  Their latest is a tax on Christmas”.

The line may be an exaggeration but it is representative of the Obama Administration and the  liberal ideology which dominates today’s Democratic Party.   This was exemplified by yesterday’s declaration by President Obama’s Agriculture Department to  impose a new 15 cent charge on all fresh Christmas trees.

The tax is suppose to to support a new Federal program to improve the image and marketing of Christmas trees.

According to the Federal Register of November 8, 2011,  Acting Administrator of Agricultural Marketing David R. Shipman announced that the Secretary of Agriculture will appoint a Christmas Tree Promotion Board. which will be responsible for running  a “program of promotion, research, evaluation, and information designed to strengthen the Christmas tree industry’s position in the marketplace; maintain and expand existing markets for Christmas trees; and to carry out programs, plans, and projects designed to provide maximum benefits to the Christmas tree industry”

So the President and his czarist minions now want to take up marketing.  I guess they have marketed the U.S. Postal Service so well that they now want to broaden their example by doing for Christmas trees, what they did for the postal service.

According to the National Christmas Tree Association  The program was developed under the Commodity Promotion, Research and Information Act of 1996 and there are at least 18 other similar programs already in effect for various agricultural commodities. The NCTA states;

 “Although smaller in scope, the Christmas tree program will be similar to recognizable programs for milk, cotton and beef that have brought consumers commodity-oriented messages such as “Got Milk?” and “Beef, It’s what’s for dinner.”

The National Christmas Tree Association apparently supports the news tax on Christmas trees, and why not?  Fifteen cents is not likely to prevent anyone from buying a Christmas tree.  Most people view tradition to be worth at least that.  However, the cost is not the point here.  The point is that the federal government should not be involved in doing what an organization like the National Christmas Tree Association should be doing……promoting the image of the tree growing industry and sales of Christmas trees.

While I guess some might claim that coming up with the phrase “Got Milk” is some stroke of genius, I have to ask if the federal government should be trying to do the job of N.W. Ayer or BBDO ?

Hopefully someone in tonight’s debate will use the new Christmas tax as an example of how the federal government is trying to take the place of the private sector, which in effect, is an Atlas Shrugged-like example of a slow march to socialism.  Hopefully someone in tonight’s Republican presidential debate will mention the fact that while the Obama Administration claims it wants to improve the image of Christmas Tree growers, they are at the same time participants in the the liberal led mission to ban Christmas trees from the public square and play a game of political correctness that will not even allow you to call a pine tree adorned with decorations and lights, a Christmas Tree.  Instead they try to define Christmas as a socially responsible, environmentally conscious, gender neutral, celebration of the winter solstice holiday, and they call Christmas trees “holiday trees”.  If they were holiday trees, why don’t people drag them into their houses and decorate them for Columbus Day or Martin Luther King, jr. Day?  How many holidays trees have beautifully colored Easter eggs wrapped under them in your livingroom?

Fifteen cents is no big deal.  At least not untill next year when the federal government decides that their marketing of the Christmas tree industry isn’t go so well, so they have to turn the fifteen cents a tree tax into a twenty cent per foot of each tree tax, and start raising it each year thereafter.  It will be a big deal when we inevitably find out that all the money being collected to promote Christmas trees was borrowed by Congress to help finance the ailing Social Security fund.  Wake up people!   We are talking about the federal government here!  How many programs should it be running?  What businesses and industries should it be in?

The National Christmas Tree Association may like this tax because it allows them to participate in the federal boondoggle that picks and chooses who it wants to benefit, but conservatives understand that new taxes just mean more more government, more spending, and less freedom.  Now they are just trying to exploit Christmas to further their desire for more government, more spending, and more control of the private sector and Americans in general.

Hopefully this will not go unmentioned in tonight’s Republican presidential debate.

Meanwhile the Obama’s Special Occassions Czar, Ebenezer Scrooge, has announced that the words of othe famed Christmas Carol, uh…..I mean holiday carol, Oh Tannenbaum, will  now have its words changed to “O-bama tree,O-bama tree, You give us so much in taxes.”

Bookmark and Share

%d bloggers like this: