Hillary Would Give Us a Disastrous Third Obama Term

When it comes to unity, the Democrats talk a good game -- but in the end they promote disunity because their electability depends on dividing society into groups and inciting anger, resentment and distrust.

I don't need to cite examples of Democrats' blaming Republicans for divisiveness and falsely extolling their own aspirations of unity. They are everywhere. It's what they do, from their talk of our "common humanity," to their glorification of all kinds of diversity, except diversity of thought, to their proclaimed monopoly on tolerance.

It's ironic that Democrats get away with this lie. It is Republicans, or at least the conservatives among them, who preach that a rising tide lifts all boats -- that economic growth across the board will help the most people.

Democrats simply can't be honest about economic policy. They have to demonize the wealthy to incite class warfare. They must perpetuate and expand government dependency programs, which means creating incentives for people to remain out of the work force. They must vilify the rich for not paying their fair share of taxes, despite the undeniable fact that upper-income earners pay far more taxes -- actual and percentage -- and that the lower half of income earners pay no income taxes at all. How much "fairer" can it be for them?

I am old enough to remember then-Senator Barack Obama's 2008 campaign promise to bring all people together in a spirit of harmony and healing. I also remember him doing just the opposite once elected.

And I remember Obama's 2012 gamble of appealing directly to minorities and alienating other groups, apparently on the theory that disaffected groups outnumber the sum of all others -- or at least that agitating them would increase their turnout and ensure his victory. If a Republican candidate had dared such overt divisiveness, the mainstream media would have tarred and feathered him.

The Democrats are having a field day attacking Trump, and he's giving them way too much ammunition. But no matter whom Republicans put up, Democrats will viciously disparage them. To them, almost all Republican candidates and officeholders are mean-spirited bigots.

If only Republicans could successfully communicate their case that perpetual malaise, which is the only thing Democrats offer anymore, is unnecessary and correctable. If only they could demonstrate that the Democrats' socialistic and regulatory policies thwart prosperity for all groups of people -- except, ironically, the very wealthy.

But we haven't made our case, or it's falling on deaf ears, because Democrats are paying people, in effect, to remain on their plantations. They are encouraging them not to be productive members of society. They are deliberately undermining the nuclear family. They are fomenting envy and disharmony. It's tragic.

Look at Hillary Clinton's ballyhooed economic plan. What an utter package of deceit! She tells us she's going to create more than 10 million new jobs -- by continuing the same miserably failed policies of Barack Obama. Obama and Clinton claim they saved the economy from collapse after the 2008 financial crisis, which their policies caused. But eight years later we've yet to see appreciable economic growth from this team. For them, 1 percent growth is the new 5 percent. Obamanomics has given us the worst recovery since World War II. Indeed, it is an insult to the term "recovery" to designate this mess as such.

No matter what he says now, President Obama promised his obscene $800 billion "stimulus" package would actually stimulate, and it did the opposite.

But Clinton would continue the ruse, expecting us to believe four more years of this insanity will produce different results. Her five-part plan is more of the same nonsense: 1) Investing in infrastructure. (Deja vu, anyone?) 2) Make college available for all. (But how will graduates get jobs in their recessionary economy?) 3) Make companies share more profits with their employees. (And these people claim they're not socialists). 4) Make corporations, the wealthy and Wall Street pay their fair share. (I've covered this.) 5) Create policies that "support 21st-century families" -- equal pay, paid leave, reduced child care costs.

Seriously, which of these strategies could conceivably unleash sustained economic growth? Other than the infrastructure spending (which also won't create long-term growth), these ideas have nothing to do with expanding the economic pie, but only with redistribution. Not only is Clinton's five-point plan destined for failure, she will expand the regulatory state, which is smothering small businesses.

If Democrats ever believed in economic growth, they've long since abandoned it, going with the myth that we have a finite pie and that they, as Big Sister, must control how it's allocated, the free market be damned.

I repeat: The Democrats' viability requires keeping us at each other's throats. They must divide us. Consider Clinton's recent shunning of police unions. She is so desperate to retain 90 percent of the African-American vote that she told the 335,000-member National Fraternal Order of Police she won't seek their endorsement.

The chilling truth is that Hillary Clinton would give us a third Obama term, and I don't know how we can come back from it.

Free college, when "progressives" can't even educate K-12 kids in the basics?

America needs a leader who is himself/herself not "imprisoned" in the "progressive" ideological mindset.

Such a leader might be able to look behind the numbers of citizens in prisons and examine the possible connections between Progressive control of the public "education" system and the number of youth in prisons.

Clearly, anyone who speaks out against the Dept. of Education and all of the other multitudinous Progressive bureaucracies that control the propagandizing of children over the past few decades in the name of "educating" them must be willing to be marginalized by the media and politicians; but in order to understand the increase in prison populations and other societal ills, one must look behind the numbers and the crimes and examine objectively contributing facts to the cultural changes which may have brought them to where they are today. Progressives seldom do that, relying, instead on whatever the current Progressive narrative seems to be.

Even as early as the Year 1886, serious efforts to make that link were treated badly by the political structure of the day. At that date, today's self-identified "progressives" called themselves "liberals," though not in the "classical liberal" tradition.

Examine the case of an accomplished man by the name of Zacharias Montgomery who was denied an important post in government by his fellows in the U. S. Senate for doing just that. You will read some of his words below.

With that said, those who love liberty must be willing to come forward to declare that it is better to be remembered for standing on and articulating enduring principles of right versus wrong, liberty versus tyranny, than to be praised by the mainstream media and so-called "progressives."

Here are excerpted portions of the words of Zacharias Montgomery in his 1886 Book entitled "Poison Drops in the United States Senate . . . ." Although his treatise dealt primarily with the public school question, the following remarks might be helpful to those who, today, are concerned by what passes for "public education."

Excerpts from Zacharias Montgomery:

"My countrymen, disguise the fact as we may, there is in this country to-day, and in both the political Parties, an element which is ripe for a centralized despotism. There are men and corporations of vast wealth, whose iron grasp spans this whole continent, and who find it more difficult and more expensive to corrupt thirty odd State Legislatures than one Federal Congress. It was said of Nero of old that he wished the Roman people had but one head, so that he might cut it off at a single blow. And so it is with those moneyed kings who would rule this country through bribery, fraud, and intimidation.
"It is easy to see how, with all the powers of government centered at Washington in one Federal head, they could at a single stroke put an end to American liberty.
"But they well understand that before striking this blow the minds of the people must be prepared to receive it. And what surer or safer preparation could possibly be made than is now being made, by indoctrinating the minds of the rising generation with the idea that ours is already a consolidated government ; that the States of the Union have no sovereignty which is not subordinate to the will and pleasure of the Federal head, and that our Constitution is the mere creature of custom, and may therefore be legally altered or abolished by custom.
"Such are a few of the pernicious and poisonous doctrines which ten millions of American children are today drinking in with the very definitions of the words they are compelled to study. And yet the man who dares to utter a word of warning of the approaching danger is stigmatized as an enemy to education and unfit to be mentioned as a candidate for the humblest office.
"Be it so. Viewing this great question as I do, not for all the offices in the gift of the American people would I shrink from an open and candid avowal of my sentiments. If I have learned anything from the reading of history, it is that the man who, in violation of great principles, toils for temporary fame, purchases for himself either total oblivion or eternal infamy, while he who temporarily goes down battling for right principles always deserves, and generally secures, the gratitude of succeeding ages, and will carry with him the sustaining solace of a clean conscience, more precious than all the offices and honors in the gift of man.
"History tells us that Aristides was voted into banishment because he was just. Yet who would not a thousand times rather today be Aristides than be numbered amongst the proudest of his persecutors.
"Socrates, too, in violation of every principle of justice, was con demned to a dungeon and to death. Yet what name is more honored in history than his? And which of his unjust judges would not gladly, hide himself in the utter darkness of oblivion from the withering scorn and contempt of all mankind?
"From the noble example of Aristides and of Socrates let American statesmen learn wisdom, and from the undying infamy of their cowardly time-serving persecutors let political demagogues of today take warning."

So said Zacharias Montgomery in 1886. Read his complete work at HERE.

Anyone who reads his complete volume will realize that Montgomery's ability to see the consequences of what his fellow Americans were advocating in the area of education of youth.

Montgomery's analysis of what he called a "parental" system of education versus an "anti-parental" system was backed up by analytical documentation from public records. Please review pages 19 through 43 for statistical summaries from those records. Make up your own mind about the validity of this official's work.

Such an examination in the Year 2016 might lead citizens in those communities hurt the worst by "Progressive" education's failures, minorities and the poor, to consider insistence upon the "right to choose" the school their child attends.

GOP needs to argue that business spending.investment/venture capital & strong dollar “supply side” of the economy is at least as important as the “demand side” consumer confidence & spending /inflation side of the economy.
It can be argued that the New Deal never worked,—that we were competing in the 1940s, 1950s and early 1960s on the gold standard, without many pollution regulations, without any immigration....and when China was having a revolution, when Russia was under Stalinisum & suffering to rebuild after World War Two, when Korea was war-torn & all of Europe and Japan were decimated by war & were rebuilding. We came out of World War Two as the only man left standing & got the advantage of the U.S. dollar being the world’s reserve currency.
Things have changed since the late 1960s, so now getting rid of the tax on business payrolls and elimination of the corporate income tax are the best way to help our economy & bring in corporate headquarters & global investment & foreign earned multinational profits currently being held offshore.
Just lowering the corporate income tax is a mistake. If you look at the Reagan tax code, he had capital gains taxed at 28% and the top marginal tax rate at 28%—which was BELOW the corporate income tax rate...and he did this for a reason=-——because he wanted to thwart tax dodging. Steve Forbes is smart enough to propose a flat tax of 17% with a corporate and capital gains rate also at 17% to avoid tax dodging.
Donald Trump with Pence is making a big mistake that Bill Clinton made when he raised the top individual income tax rate to 40% steeply at just $250,000 income...then cut the capital gains rate from Reagan’s 28% to 20%——half his top income tax rate.....and it became a big tax dodge for the rich, which W Bush made even worse and wasn’t even smart enough to make dividends tax deductible.
Trump’s plan is for a 33% top individual income tax rate but a 15% corporate income tax rate-—creating another huge tax dodge when Reagan sought to eliminate them. The best way to get tax fairness is to get rid of the corporate income tax as an excise tax on goods & services that was meant to tax the rich originally before 1913, but never really did and eventually became used as a harbor for favors and corruption and a tax dodge and really for corporations to move offshore and keep profits out of the country....but also used as a way for the IRS to punish churches for free speech & free exercise of the church.
eliminate the corporate income tax & tax on business payrolls and have a 17.5% payroll tax capped at $500,000....-or better yet-——replace payroll taxes & corporate income tax with excise or a VAT or other consumption taxes-—combined with a 30% flat tax on income over $250,000 only...plus maybe a 45% bracket on income over $10million....just to get the reform passed by showing true progressivity without having the progressivity effect growth and the middle class. You tax cap gains as regular income and dividends as regular income but you index cap gains for inflation and eliminate all deductions...
You tell the middle class that they need to pay 17.5% to fund Social Security and Medicare so they won’t be cut....but they don’t have to pay any income tax.

Liberals want a $15 minimum wage but they want to exempt small business and certain jobs from it? what about salespeople working on commissions, not guaranteed any income?
Liberals used to brag about a 40% work week, but now admit it is failing because people are working “2 and 3 jobs to make ends meet”. The 40 hour work week obviously is left over from a past time of no immigration and no competition, no public sector unions running Democrats, no communista running the country and its schools........so GOP should deal with Democrats before the election and highlight the BS.
GOP will vote for a $10 minimum wage NOW if Democrats will agree that business investment and spending are important and will eliminate payroll taxes and the corporate income tax and make the individual tax code much less steep....getting the 30% bracket up to at least $250,000 if not to $500,000 or a million. perhaps cap payroll tax at $1million and put a 30% tax rate on income over $1 million, with a 45% tax bracket on income over $10million?
Pass a $10 min wage, going to $15 over 10 years thereafter ONLY if you eliminate the corporate income tax too...and reform the tax code drastically for less steepness and more towards business spending along with consumer spending and progressivity....then

change labor laws to make a 55 hour work week with 30 weeks paid vacation at the start......with a 45 minute lunch ON the clock and 3- 25 minute breaks on the clock by law. and you make the labor laws and Obamacare apply to ALL businesses equally not just to “big” business only while exempting “small” business. See if Democrats and Obama vote against or veto a $10-$15 dollar minimum wage or if workers think it’s ok for small business to pay far less minimum wage than big business.

If you eliminate the corporate income tax and tax on business payrolls and move to a 55 hour work week but with paid 45 lunch on the clock and 3 longer 25 minute breaks....both business and labor might buy into the changes.... but then you make “over 55 hours” pay..not time and a half.......but triple time. Right now, time and a half overtime is not helping workers but is hurting them! Certain states have a very seasonal economy, eg.....lots of hours in the winter, less than 40 hours in the summer months. Business expects their workers to work as much as 80 hoursper week in the winter busy season and then accept working 30 or 35 hours in the summer....and pays the workers less per hour because they know that they will pau out lots of overtime and hire lots of temp workers from November to April each year.
Having a 55 hour work week with OT paying TRIPLE makes it so business may not exploit its workers in this way. It puts a real ceiling on OT. Also, OT should be paid DAILY, not weekly or bi-weekly. Some employers currently expect workers to work 16 hours one day...then cut them loose early the next few days to bring down those 8 hours overtime from the one day. If you work 8 hours overtime in one day , you should get paid for it.....not be forced to go home early or come in late in subsequent days so employers don’t have to pay any overtime while still holding workers responsible for getting the same amount of work done.
GOP needs to heed Jesus’ words and “be wise as serpents, but gentle as doves”. They need to be their own men & not be ideologues and not surrender core principles or get fooled by liberals or cave into them.
Obama won two straight elections running against “the Bush tax cuts and deficits”....so why would Trump and Pence run on big tax cuts and deficits again—plus creating big tax dodges for the wealthiest people. They need to reform taxes so that business AND workers benefit, so we bring in more revenues without punishing business or middle class workers and without having to cut SS or Medicare.
Obama pushed a “payroll tax holiday” in 2011 as a ruse to sucker in the GOP because they never met a tax cut they didn’t like—even if it was just temporary. Obama wanted to put GOP on the spot in 2012 by having to choose to raise taxes on the middle class and not on the rich, but they dodged the issue by extending the cut past the election then letting it phase out...then complaining about poor GDP growth since! They should have called Obama’s bluff and made the payroll tax cut permanent because—after all-—Reagan raised the SS tax so high in the 1980s that it ran a revenue surplus for 30 years on the backs of middle class and business OVER-PAYMENTS. It would have been better politics and economics if GOP said...”Let’s make the payroll tax cut permanent-—even cut it to 4.5%..but eliminate the cap on the business side and bring back the Clinton 36% bracket at $500,000 and the 40% bracket at $1,000,000.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.