But, if humans are still evolving, especially in intelligence, as some scientists state, then in a purely simplistic, anecdotal, and basic Darwinian approach, it could be presumed, for example, that the difference between a Harvard educated lawyer vis-a-vis the crew of gentlemen who pick-up and dispose of your garbage every Wednesday, and disregarding extraneous factors such as family wealth, societal positions, affirmative action, etc., is the result of natural selection of intelligence. And I do apologize if I have offended any garbage collectors by mentioning their vocation in the same sentence as Harvard lawyers.

Every once in a while, something so dramatic, so scientifically astonishing comes along that it gives purist Darwinians and their natural selection theorem great pause and discomfort. But this stupefaction does lend much more credence to Kropotkin’s cooperation theory as a survival mechanism in human societies. In layman’s terms, large groups of stupid people can survive with the aid of mutual cooperation, thus eliminating their abysmal chances of competing and surviving on their own.

Now along comes Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who slipped through the evolutionary stupid net, and is the poster child for Kropotkin’s cooperation theory.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Congresswoman from Florida, and the Chair of the Democratic National Convention, has singlehandedly confirmed Kropotkin’s survival by cooperation as a scientific fact rather than theory. Schultz was elected by the majority of a league of humans who share the same defective cerebral traits and characteristics that would not be conducive for individual survival, and a large league of politicians who anointed her to the current position as their leader, who also share the same defective cerebral traits.

A list of the manifestations of Debbie’s defective and individually unsurvivable cerebral shortcomings:

• Senior citizens will die under Paul Ryan’s budget;
• Federal judges should be appointed based on their ability to feel people’s pain rather than their judicial qualifications;
• At the peak of the Obama-extended recession, she stated that the economy was turning around as GDP, unemployment, foreclosures, and every other economic indicator demonstrated that the economy was tanking;
• She has stated that she represents one of the largest African-American Jewish gay populations in the U.S., which happens to be in south Florida;
• She stated that her Florida district will be covered in salt water if we don’t stop global warming now;
• She blamed the Democrats for being soundly thrashed from the local to federal levels in the 2010 election cycle by “not articulating their accomplishments, to the voters” [sic];
• Regarding Obama’s $1 billion dollar stimulus package that was needed to prevent the jobless rate from rising above 8%, and thus promptly rising to over 10%, she stated, “The mantra that the Recovery Act did not work is such baloney.”

For the sake of brevity, the list was judiciously forced into truncation, as its bounds are mathematically incapable of being determined, and the need to focus on the current state of Debbie Wasserman Schultz is scientifically imperative. Ensuing is an excerpt of Debbie Wasserman Schultz being interviewed by Gretchen Carlson regarding the current state of the record-breaking string of 34 months of unemployment over 8% since 1948. Debbie was gasping for breath during the interview, as she had been jumping and jumping, leaping and leaping, and trying her best to reach the bottom rung of the intelligence food chain ladder:

Gretchen Carlson, FOX News: Unemployment has gone up precipitously since he (Obama) took office.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, DNC Chair: That is simply not true. In fact, unemployment has now dropped below 9%. It’s continuing to drop. He’s been focused on…

Carlson: It’s higher than when they promised the stimulus would lower it to 8%.

Wasserman Schultz: You see, that narrative doesn’t work for you anymore, though, because…

Carlson: It’s not my narrative. I’m just talking about facts.

Wasserman Schultz: You just said the unemployment rate is going up since Obama took office, and it hasn’t…

Carlson: Is unemployment higher since President Obama took office?

Wasserman Schultz: What’s happened since President Obama took office…

Carlson: Is unemployment higher than when he took office?

Wasserman Schultz: Unemployment is nearing right around where it was when President Obama took office and it’s dropping. You just said it’s been increasing and that’s not true.

This exchange is the unfortunate result of always staring above from the bottom of the intellectual food chain. Now if Debbie had a fully functional and evolutionary updated cerebral apparatus between her ears, this is what she would have said:

As you know, Gretchen, Barack Obama was sworn into office on January 20, 2009. The number of unemployed Americans on that fateful date was 7.8%. The number of people with jobs on that fateful day, in thousands, was 133,563.

Then our President, Barack Obama, proceeded to grift this nation of cowards, with no discernible evidence, demanding that he needed to pass a $1 billion dollar stimulus package to prevent unemployment from cresting 8%. This stimulus package was passed, then the unemployment rate accelerated to 10%, dragging his stimulus package with it.

Just last month, the beguiled government calculus for determining the unemployment rate presented to the uninformed public, and my league of evolutionary challenged liberals, led to the good news that the unemployment rate dropped from 9% to 8.6%, despite setting a record high joblessness length of 41 straight weeks. An integral part of the government’s calculus is to dissever the workers who quit looking for jobs, and those whose unemployment benefits have run their course. Now Gretchen, of course any non-progressive or liberal knows that the undeniable unemployment rate is around 16%, but when you can manufacture a mathematical calculus that does not count 315,000 workers who gave up looking for work, or those whose unemployment benefits have run their course, of course you can get an 8.6% unemployment rate. In fact, Gretchen, I am not surprised that the Obama administration did not come up with an unemployment rate of 1.7% considering the endless opportunities of eliminating certain factions of the unemployed.

Keep in mind Gretchen, that this November, this past November of 2011, almost three years since Obama took office, the number of Americans employed is, in thousands, 131,708–a drop from 133,563 employed on the day Obama was inaugurated. Gretchen, can you reconcile that number with the claim by Obama that the unemployment rate has dropped? I can’t. Or from another angle, the number of Americans not in the labor force when Obama took office was, in thousands, 80,554, and the number currently not in the labor force, in thousands, 86,558.

Barack Obama and the Democrats’ policies are adding about 100,000 jobs per month; the United States currently has 13.3 million unemployed. Now here is the math, Gretchen: At the current trajectory of adding jobs, it would take 11 years to employee the 13.3 million jobless Americans, and this would have to include the impossibility that nothing changes, and something always changes. Also, Obama and the Democrats are the proud owners of GDP growth of 1.9% in the first quarter of 2011, 1.3% in the second quarter, and 1.8% in the third quarter. Now Gretchen, as you know, it takes a GDP growth rate of a minimum of 3% to keep unemployment from trending up, and a minimum of a 125,000 newly created jobs per month just to keep pace with our population growth. Obama and the Democrats will need at least a GDP growth rate of 5% to have a significant impact on the unemployment rate. When Obama is overcome with jubilation, and dancing about on Pennsylvania Avenue about his increase of 100,000 jobs, keep in mind that 100,000 jobs does not even keep up with our population growth. With an average GDP growth rate of 3.28 since 1947, our economy needs at least a 3-3.5% GDP growth rate to be healthy, and Obama and the Democrats’ policies are producing an average GDP growth rate under 2%, well you do the math.

Remember also, Gretchen, that two quarters of negative GDP growth rate is technically a recession, but the impact of a recession starts with several quarters of a slowing GDP growth rate. Barack Obama and the Democrats’ policies have caused the GDP growth rate to decline from a high of 3.5% in 2010 to a consistent and steady drop for the past six quarters.

Wow, Gretchen, where is your shredder? I’m shredding my official Democratic Party membership card now, live on the air.

Of course this is all silly, as we know that Debbie does not have a fully functional and evolutionary updated cerebral apparatus between her ears. But if she did, she might want to ponder this question: Was the country better off under Bush’s recession with unemployment at 7.8%, or Obama’s miraculous recovery with an unemployment rate of 9.0%?

There is one important accolade I must bestow upon Debbie Wasserman Schultz: however intellectually defective she may be, however far down the intellectual food chain she is, she can comfortably look over her shoulder and know that the Republican Party, and its presidential primary process is several steps behind her, showing characteristics of prokaryotes.

Liberalism in the United States has been subjugated to the omnipresent wrath of degeneration. It has digressed to the point that liberal policies can only lead a learned person to the conclusion that the malignant ideology, philosophy, and cerebral deficiencies of this league of mountebanks is patently indistinguishable from any organized group bent on destroying the fundamentals of this country.

Barack Obama has a jobs plan. There are two irrefutable components that are guaranteed to be its foundation before ever being presented: raising taxes on the rich is a panacea, and calculated numerical projections subordinate to mathematical theorems presented by a committee of honey badgers.

Obama did not disappoint.

Obama’s prelude to fatuity: “It’s only right we ask everyone to pay their fair share.” Interestingly, the dictionary defines “everyone” as this: pronoun, every person; everybody. This would include everyone who has an income to “pay their fair share.” Yet to Obama and liberals, “everyone” refers only to the taxpayers who shoulder more than their share of taxes. But in the fantastical world of 21st century liberalism, “everyone” means everyone except one half of the workforce in this country who pay naught federal income tax, yet are the primary beneficiaries of government handouts (money taken from the other half that do pay taxes) to the approximate total of $40 billion per year.

But before elaborating on Obama’s computative poppycock, it would be a breach of erudite protocol and everything sacrosanct in American politics to put pen to paper regarding the unadulterated duplicity of liberal policies, math, ideology, and economics, without at least a perfunctory reference or nugget of wisdom from Nancy Pelosi.

Nancy Pelosi has made what could quite possibly be the most imbecilic utterances by an organism with the ability to speak regarding job creation and stimulating the economy:

• Unemployment benefits “injects demand into the economy.”
• Unemployment benefits “is a job creator.”
• “Unemployment insurance, the economists tell us, return $2 for every $1 that is put out there for unemployment insurance.”
• It creates jobs to help reduce the deficit.
• “This is one of the biggest stimuluses to our economy. Economists will tell you this money is spent quickly. It injects demand into the economy, and is job creating.”
• Unemployment insurance “creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name because, again, it is money that is needed for families to survive, and it is spent. So it has a double benefit. It helps those who have lost their jobs, but it also is a job creator.”
• “It is the biggest bang for the buck when you do food stamps and unemployment insurance. The biggest bang for the buck.”

Pelosi’s stupefied economic theorems, and Obama’s as well, can be summarized in their entirety with one simple anecdotal sentence: You are jobless, broke, I give you $5 for a Happy Meal, and by the power of bewitchment, I will receive $10, perhaps delivered by a brilliant white unicorn.

Barack Obama has done something completely out of character for one who regurgitates pseudo-intellectual ideas offered up from the screen of a teleprompter: he actually charged someone with deciphering his deficit reduction plan and transcribing it to paper. It is understandable why he has not presented another grand idea on paper since this past February, as his budget for 2012 was rejected by the Senate 97-0, with contempt.

Barack Obama’s grand jobs plan purports to reduce the deficit by $3 trillion over a period of ten years, and add jobs aplenty. Adhering strictly to liberal math, liberal daydreaming, and liberalism’s crippling fiscal incompetence of understanding debt, deficit, and egregious spending, Obama’s plan is a dizzying and fantastical array of the continued infliction of his toxic fiscal ideology upon the American economy by crippling the only class of citizens who have the capacity to inject capital into the economy, create businesses, and ultimately create jobs. There is one absolute truth regarding the federal government that one should always remember when a politician is panhandling for money to create jobs: The federal government has never created one utilitarian job, but can destroy jobs faster than the private sector can create them. No U.S. President has created one utilitarian job; they merely implemented mechanisms that lessened the burdens on American businesses so they could create jobs.

Now, about that $3 trillion deficit reduction enchanting artifice. The liberal’s magical math is decomposing around Obama’s teleprompter. His jobs plan reduces the deficit in the proximity of nothing. Brewing in Obama’s jobs plan cauldron is a concoction of mathematical conjuration that would rival the outermost boundaries of schizophrenia. The ingredients: An inconsequential measure of $1.2 trillion of discretionary spending that was already included in the debt ceiling circus, a dash of $1.1 trillion from the Iraq and Afghanistan draw-downs that has already been accounted for in his presumed budget, one very large shovel-ready shovel heaping of $1.5 trillion in tax increases, and an unmeasured amount of new spending. Boil until indistinguishable from fantasy. When done, the American people will be served an ample helping of about 92% in tax increases, with a small side of about 8% in actual spending cuts.

To better understand liberal magic math, and to give some relevance to Pelosi’s economic hypothesis about unemployment benefits actually being one of the best ways to stimulate the economy, Obama’s synced hypothesis should be contemplated.

A few weeks ago, Jay Carney was asked the following question by the Wall Street Journal:”I understand why extending unemployment insurance provides relief to people who need it, but how does that create jobs?” Keep in mind, the teleprompter is Obama’s mind, and Carney his mouth; he responded, “Oh, well, uh, it is by, uh, I would expect a reporter from the Wall Street Journal would know this as part of the entrance exam.”

He then relied on the patented Pelosi approach with a meandering and intellectually impoverished declaration:

There are few other ways that can directly put money into the economy than applying unemployment insurance. It is one of the most direct ways to infuse money directly into the economy because people who are unemployed and obviously aren’t running a paycheck are going to spend the money that they get. They’re not going to save it, they’re going to spend it. And with unemployment insurance, that way, the money goes directly back into the economy, dollar for dollar virtually.

Carney was able to cap it off with irrefutable evidence that reality has become inaccessible to Obama with three supernatural statements:

1) He stated that Obama wants the benefits extended “as we continue to emerge from this recession.” 2) This is only one item of a “variety of things to grow the economy and create jobs.” 3) And, “This is one thing that economists of all stripes agree will directly affect growth, a half-percentage point I believe, economists believe is the payroll tax cut.”

The fundamental problem regarding the relationship between redistribution of wealth and its stimulating effect on the economy by Obama, Pelosi, liberals, et al., is one conspicuous question: Where does the funding of unemployment benefits come from, and what is the cost of the government’s involvement? The antithetical logic of liberalism’s magic math does not account for the money taken out of the economy to fund the unemployed, and the exorbitant cost for that money to pass through the plundering hands of bureaucrats.

Before the unemployment magic math can be made manifest, a cursory reconnaissance of the “cash for clunkers” program is in order. Unemployment insurance is a government program, and to have a government program, you need forms, lots of forms. The “cash for clunkers” program, being a government program, needed forms. Forms 1070, 1071, 1073, and 1075 to be exact. Now being a government program, it needed staff to manage these four forms, so staff was acquired, in this case about 78 employees equating to 160,353 hours of billable work to manage these forms. This equated to $150,000 per form to be managed. This beget more forms, which beget more workers, which beget…well you get the picture. The program was sold to the public at a cost of between $3,500 and $4,500 per rebate. The actual cost of the program, according to automotive consumer researcher Edmunds.com, was an additional $24,000 per car sold.

With much calculating, calculus, addition, subtraction, division, and multiplication, it is safe to assume that the federal government wastes about 40% of every dollar it absconds.

We now can proceed with unemployment magical math.

Logic would dictate that if the average employee makes $23.09 per hour (average weekly salary), equating to $923.60 per week, and unemployment benefits average $295 per week, losing one third of one’s salary may not be quite as stimulating as Obama would like you to believe.

In the fantastical world of Barack Obama, if $100 is taken from a taxpayer, then said $100 is given to an unemployed non-taxpayer, the economy has been stimulated by $100, and one or perhaps three jobs have been created. This is the crowning achievement of Barack Obama’s magical economics. But when the kaleidoscope is removed, and the formula is viewed from the grim spectacles of reality, the numbers seem to careen in another direction.

In the genuineness of reality, mathematics, and economics, Obama’s fantastical math is actually this: Mr. Taxpayer is planning to go to the mall and stimulate the economy while quenching some hedonistic shopping by spending $200. But Barack Obama annexes $100 from Mr. Taxpayer, the $100 is filtered through the United States federal government, and $60 is handed to Mr. Unemployed non-taxpayer. The economy has been stimulated by $120, not the intended $200. Mr. Taxpayer lost $100 he would have spent, $40 of it was sucked into the abyss of the federal government never to be seen again, and the remaining $60 was taken out of the economy to start with, so cannot be counted as additional stimulation. We are left with one person still unemployed, one person out $100, and the economy out $40. That is the difference between real math and magic math.

Temporary unemployment benefits are what they are: an expense paid for a reasonable amount of time to those who lost their jobs until they can become employed again. It is not a stimulus program, it does not create jobs, and it has a negative rather than a positive impact on the economy, but is the price we pay as a society. The hijacking of the unemployment program for political expediency by Barack Obama and the liberals, and then lying about how it benefits the economy, destroys what little honor and integrity is created by temporarily helping a fellow citizen in a time of need.

But then again, there is always hope that Obama’s magical math may work. If Barack Obama comes charging down Pennsylvania Avenue, mounted upon the back of brilliant white unicorn, with teleprompter in tow upon the back of a magical llama, that quite possibly could be a game changer; and in this fairytale, increasing borrowing will reduce the debt, the more jobs lost, the more the economy is stimulated, and taking every possible penny from the job creators will encourage them to create more jobs.

For the entirety of his first two years, he tried to work with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Sure they colluded, then circumvented the Constitution and congressional protocol and made ObamaCare law without a vote in the Senate. But what the do-nothing Congress did not do was pass a budget in 2010, legalize gay marriage, grant amnesty to all illegal aliens, increase business regulations 100 fold, and significantly raise taxes on the wealthy–all things important to the progressive agenda. Is it no wonder federal spending was out of control, and Obama was forced to almost double the federal deficit; he did not have a budget to guide him. He can’t be faulted for that. Anyway, I could go on and on about how the Democratic Party controlled Congress and the White House, but accomplished nothing, but that would distract from the personal email I received from Barack Obama, and my courteous and counseled reply. He called me “friend.”

From: Barack Obama

Subject: Frustrated
Date: August 31, 2011 10:51:52 PM EDT
To: admin Office

Reply-To: info@barackobama.com

Friend–

Today I asked for a joint session of Congress where I will lay out a clear plan to get Americans back to work.

Next week, I will deliver the details of the plan and call on lawmakers to pass it.

Whether they will do the job they were elected to do is ultimately up to them.

But both you and I can pressure them to do the right thing. We can send the message that the American people are playing by the rules and meeting their responsibilities—and it’s time for our leaders in Congress to meet theirs.

And we must hold them accountable if they don’t.

So I’m asking you to stand with me in calling on Congress to step up and take action on jobs:
http://my.barackobama.com/Time-To-Act

No matter how things go in the weeks and months ahead, this will be an important challenge for our organization.

It’s been a long time since Congress was focused on what the American people need them to be focused on.
I know that you’re frustrated by that. I am, too.

That’s why I’m putting forward a set of bipartisan proposals to help grow the economy and create jobs—that means strengthening our small businesses, giving needed breaks to middle-class families, while taking responsible steps to bring down our deficit.

I’m asking lawmakers to look past short-term politics and take action on that plan. But we’ve got to do this together.

I will deliver this message to Congress next week, but I’m asking you to stand alongside me today:
http://my.barackobama.com/Time-To-Act

More to come,
Barack

After much cogitation, contemplation, and serious thinking, here is my reply directly to President Obama:

From: Jim Byrd

Subject: Very Frustrated
Date: September 02, 2011 11:59:59 PM EDT
To: Barack Hussein Obama

Reply-To: info@jimbyrd.com

Friend–

I am sure your job creation speech and proposition will be absolutely spectacular. How could it not? You have had two years and eight months to perfect it and address the unemployment issue. I understand that great things and great ideas take time to ruminate until fruition, especially within a great mind such as yours. I am certain that most Americans will not understand your logic, as it will certainly be “beyond their pay grade,” just as many are incapable of understanding your profound logic that the only way to reduce our national debt is to double what we borrow. Genius. But pay no mind to them, Mr. President.

I am still confused about the brouhaha that erupted regarding your wanting to save the country, slash unemployment by half, and showcase your job building prowess on television to the American people during a joint session of Congress next Wednesday at coincidentally the exact time of the Republican presidential debate. Coincidences are funny things, aren’t they? You told Congress that you are showing up with teleprompter and television cameras in tow to address Congress next Wednesday, and that should be the end of it. The lack of respect from the Republicans is appalling, don’t you agree?

These Republicans and Tea Partiers are gnashing their teeth and wringing their hands about some silly archaic precedent that needs to be followed before you can address a joint session of Congress. Something about the House of Representatives and the Senate being required to adopt a concurrent resolution to allow a joint session of Congress to receive the President. I have never heard of such a thing, and I am sure neither have you, especially since you served in the Senate. You have to be invited? You are the President, you should be able to just tell them when you will be there, then show up. Just last month while seeking Hispanic votes, you told La Raza, “Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting.” So just do it. And so what if Congress has three hours of voting scheduled on their first day back starting at 6:30. They should come back a day early and take care of that business. After all, you cut short your latest vacation to take control of Hurricane Irene. Seems like a fair trade-off to me.

I also hope that Congress will do the job they were elected to do as do you. So far the Republicans have been doing exactly what they were elected to do: keep taxes low, reduce the debt, try and reduce government regulations so businesses can create jobs, and a sundry of other nefarious things the Tea Party is demanding of them. It is the Republicans doing the dirty work of the Tea Party and the vast majority of the American people who elected them in an unprecedented sweep in the 2010 elections that is thwarting your ability to lead this nation down a nuanced and understandingly sustained delayed path to prosperity.

You are correct, “it has been a long time since Congress was focused on what the American people need them to be focused on.” What has it been, 25 days or so since they left for their summer recess? That is far too long to not focus on what the American people overwhelmingly elected them to focus on in the 2010 elections. You should be able to call them back. If I were you, I would have called both John Boehner and Harry Reid from the fairways of Martha’s Vineyard and demanded they return to Washington, D.C. and focus.

We all look forward to your bipartisan proposal to finally grow this economy and create many jobs. But please do not make the same mistake as with your last stimulus package. In the sage words of uber-Keynesian and Nobel Prize for Economics winner Paul Krugman regarding your trifling $800 billion stimulus package, “I’d like to see it bigger. I understand that there’s difficulty in actually spending that much money, and I–they’re also afraid of the–of the T word. They’re afraid of a trillion dollar for the two-year number.” Well, since there was not much difficulty in spending that $800 billion, and fast, please think on a grander scale next time around.

I have a few suggestions for you if you decide to implement another stimulus package:

Remember that stimulus grant you gave to the Nevada Clark County Urban Forestry Revitalization Project? The one where you were going to revitalize urban neighborhoods in Clark County with trees, plants, and whatnots. And don’t forget the green-industry training as well. Well, you only gave them $500,000 to plant some trees to stimulate their economy, and it resulted in only 1.72 jobs. Can 1.72 be considered plural? I’ll have to check on that. Imagine if you had spent $1 billion in Clark County. That would be 2000 jobs created. I am sure that is plural, but I am not so sure what the county would look like with a billion dollars’ worth of trees and such. I will check with a landscaper and get back with you.

Remember your $2.4 billion to advance car batteries? Johnson Controls, Inc. in Holland, Michigan got $300 million of that stimulus money. It created 150 jobs. Now that is getting closer to spectacular. Only $2,000,000 per job created. Imagine if it was $300 billion. That is 150,000 jobs that you would have created. But keep in mind the rule of economies of scale. I am sure that if you spent $300 billion, the cost per job would drop to at the most $1,650,000 per job. I am sure you will agree that is quite the bargain.

Remember the $500 million you gave to Solyndra for some “shovel ready” jobs producing solar panels? Well, as you may know, they filed bankruptcy and the stimulus money actually produced 1,100 employees who just lost their jobs. But this is a double positive for you. I am working on an algorithm that will calculate the exact dollar amount that the layoff of 1,100 employees will stimulate the economy and create jobs. The serendipity of the possibilities of a positive economic impact from these 1,100 layoffs is almost immeasurable. Hear me out:

Your very own Nancy Pelosi enumerated the benefits of unemployment insurance:

“It injects demand into the economy… is a job creator. This is one of the biggest stimuluses to our economy. Economists will tell you this money is spent quickly. It injects demand into the economy, and is job creating. It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name because, again, it is money that is needed for families to survive, and it is spent.”

And your very own Press Secretary, Jay Carney, said, “There are few other ways that can directly put money into the economy than applying unemployment insurance.”

And don’t forget what your very own Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, just recently stated regarding food stamps: “Food Stamps have contributed to job growth in the private sector for 17 consecutive months and serve as a form of economic stimulus, and having people on food stamps acts as a stimulus, creating $1.84 for every dollar spent.”

And you have said yourself, “It’s probably the biggest boost that we can give an economy because those folks are most likely to spend the money with businesses, and that gives them customers.”

So the stimulating effect of the 1,100 unemployed Solyndra workers if they file for unemployment benefits and Food Stamps, according to your calculations, could be the equivalent of 10,000 jobs. Be sure to mention that in your speech. That will knock them over.

So in conclusion, I am anticipating your speech next Wednesday, I mean Thursday now, right? I will certainly have my DVR programmed to record your speech in its entirety, as I, along with most of the nation, and members of Congress, will be watching the NFL’s opening night with the Saints vs. the Packers. You have already created a mini economic stimulus of sorts, as there was a run on smart phones and ear-buds at the Georgetown Best Buy by congressional members. Although I am certain it was not for the purpose of video streaming the NFL game during your speech.

More to come,

Jim

His speech was an ananemic and exhausted attempt to pit American against American, citizen against business, children against corporations, rich against poor, and the fail-safe progressive platform of us against them–the same tired and failed ineffective class warfare scheme that is used time and time again. He mentioned the tax loopholes six times for corporate jets– loopholes he created–and now it is these very tax breaks he assures us will be the destruction student loans, food safety, and the prediction of the weather. He attempted to paint a picture of corporations holding fists full of dollars via his loopholes, when in reality the tax break is only an accelerated depreciation on the corporate jets. He has a steady record of vilifying and mischaracterizing an industry for political expediency, and this time he is assailing the aviation industry for votes. Barack Obama has repeatedly demonstrated that he is pathologically incapable of grasping the political, intellectual, and ideological requirements to lead the most rudimentary enterprise.

The catalyst of his tantrum is the $5 trillion he has added to our national debt, and his insistence on adding an additional $2 trillion to a debt that is already un-payable, for which his pitch has been that all the spending programs he has added will reduce the debt; rather than reign in the government’s uncontrolled spending, he has identified a villain and needs the country to believe by increasing the corporations’ taxes, more money will pour into the government coffers and he will have slayed the villain for the sake of the defenseless proletariat.

The tax cuts I’m proposing we get rid of are tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, tax breaks for oil companies and hedge fund managers and corporate jet owners. Before we ask our seniors to pay more for health care, before we cut our children’s education, before we sacrifice our commitment to the research and innovation that will help create more jobs in the economy, I think it’s only fair to ask an oil company or a corporate jet owner that has done so well to give up that tax break that no other business enjoys.

Yes indeed, he is going to eliminate that tax break for all these “millionaires and billionaires.” You know the fat-cat type; by eliminating the itemized deductions of those “millionaires and billionaires” making $250,000 per year, which is primarily all small business owners, the tax revenue will fill the government coffers.

Obama is taking class warfare to unparalleled heights, playing the dirtiest trick of them all, the weather and food cards: “It might compromise the National Weather Services. It means food inspection might be compromised.” No president, no liberal progressive leader of this county has been as abjectly detached from reality. Obama is either suffering from acute psychosis, or it is very apparent why he won’t release his college transcripts.

Obama said, “Call me naive, but my expectation is leaders are going to lead.” We have had bad presidents, corrupt presidents, ineffective presidents, great presidents, but Barack Obama is the first president with a pathological inability to lead. He has taken a nuanced backseat on every crisis he has turned his back upon.

Barack Obama and progressives have a deleterious disregard for history. As George Santayana said regarding those who do not heed history’s lessons, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” The progressives’ pathological disregard for intelligence, commonsense, and historical data for the implementation of their historically insolvent ideologies has always been a bewildering genetic defect. Barack Obama is a banal and unimaginative servant to this ideology. History has taught us a lesson on taxing items and industries of the wealthy. President Bush tried it last after breaking his “read my lips” pledge of no new taxes with his Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 on November 5, 1990.

The genius of this liberal grift concocted by Ted Kennedy and George Mitchell was to wring an extra $9 billion from the rich. A 10% luxury tax was applied to automobiles, aircraft, jewelry, furs, and yachts costing over $100,000. It was a given the rich would just continue buying and paying the extra tax. Unfortunately, the liberals violated the most fundamental economic principle of supply and demand. The tax made the high-end yachts too expensive, so the demand dropped. America’s short history is fraught with industries decimated by government intervention for the sake of a buck. The consequences of the yacht industry and its employees by this one act of trying to soak the rich:

• Anticipated $9 billion in tax revenue over five years.
• The expected revenue the first year was $1.8 billion.
• First year tax revenues were only $97 million, only 5.4% of first year expectations.
• Why? The rich stopped buying yachts, at least in the U.S.
• Yacht and luxury boat sales dropped 70% in 1991 and all boat sales dropped 18%.
• Boat manufacturers filed bankruptcy, and an estimated 25,000 people lost their jobs because of the tax.
• The government paid $24 million in unemployment benefits from the lost jobs.
• The Treasury Department stated that the luxury tax revenue of $97 million would not cover the lost income tax from the unemployed workers and lost tax revenue from the manufacturers that filed bankruptcy.
• The evil rich did buy yachts, just from other countries.
• The liberal scheme to tax the rich backfired with dire economic repercussions and was repealed in 1993 after only two years of costing the government money by taxing the rich.

The irony and just consequences were that Ted Kennedy’s state of Massachusetts and George Mitchell’s state of Maine were the hardest hit, as were primary yacht and luxury boat builders.

There are principles, fundamental principles, which govern economics that cannot be manipulated without consequences, regardless of the desires of any particular ideology. Barack Obama has violated almost every conceivable economic principle available and the economy is suffering as a result. The $1 trillion stimulus package was going to keep unemployment under 8%. While unemployment was 7.3 % at the time of the sitmulus, and after $666 billion, it is at 9.1 and hemorrhaging jobs each month. The stimulus package has not created any net jobs of relevance outside the public sector, and what few jobs it has created, private and public sector, cost $666 billion, or $278,000 per job for an estimated 2.4 million jobs, according to the numbers just released by his very own White House’s Council of Economic Advisers. Jeffery Anderson of The Weekly Standard stated that just cutting a check for $100,000 to each of the 2.4 million alleged created jobs would have saved taxpayers $427 billion. This assumes of course that all these jobs were created by the stimulus package. Of course the White House has sharply rebuked these numbers by Obama’s handpicked Council of Economic Advisers. Next stop for his advisers, or Economic Czars, is under the bus.

The moral: stick with principles, history, and economic common sense. If spending is out of control, and revenues are maximized, and you can’t pay the bills, cut the spending, and if your revenue stream consists of only one half of the country, start shaking down the half that do not pay taxes. And when voting for a President, ascertain if he understands just a modicum of economic fundamentals; an elementary grasp of U.S. history, a working knowledge of the Constitution, and a discernible dash of character would not hurt either.

[youtube=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_3T-Af57Pg

Conservatives/Federalists believe that this federated group of states, governed by a representative government with the Constitution as the foundation and the rule of law as the bedrock that keeps this country from spiraling into the abyss that has historically plagued other forms of government.

Traditional liberal Democrats believe that the Constitution is, at best, a rough and antiquated guideline of law that can be edited and adapted to whatever capricious disposition the country is experiencing at the moment, whether it be in the name of improvement, progress, reform, or votes.

Contemporary Democrats/Fascists, quite frankly, see the Constitution as an inconvenient barrier in the conversion from Federalism to Nationalism, then progressing into some form of a Fascist central governing body. And quite contrary to what the Left would have you believe, Fascism is a predilection of the Left, not the Right.

Barack Obama and the leaders of the Democratic Congress have governed, especially since Obama’s inauguration, with quintessential Fascism. Three of the Supreme Court justices, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, David Souter, and John Paul Stevens have legislated from the bench in a bizarre and agenda-driven, activist manner, in stark contrast to the original intent and meaning of the Constitution and its role in this Republican form of government. With Justice Souter’s retirement, and the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to replace him on the bench, it is imperative to ascertain where she fits, ideologically, into the make-up of the court.

The Supreme Court is the omnipotent arbitrator of the constitutionality of laws and their applications. This is the universally accepted role of the court dating back to the Marshall court with Marbury v. Madison in 1803. The court’s judicial review power was relativity benign until FDR’s expeditious assault on the Constitution and the rule of law. The Supreme Court, the last bastion of Federalism at the time, struck down, repeatedly, various components of Roosevelt’s New Deal legislation as unconstitutional. At this point, it became apparent that if a political party were going to circumvent the Constitution to advance an agenda, it would be necessary to gerrymander the Supreme Court. FDR tried packing the court with justices he could control. He was eventually able to replace enough justices to get his New Deal rubber stamped by the Supreme Court. Congress rejected the court packing scheme, the power and politicization of the Supreme Court in the modern era had begun.

The scatology of  American politics involved in the appointing and confirming of a Supreme Court justice,  one of nine who will magisterially be arbitrating the law of a sharply divided nation–ideologically and politically–will now put Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s entire being under the microscope. What does she mean to the Constitution, Nationalism, Federalism, original intent, original meaning, activism, identity politics, agendas, the Left, the Right, etcetera, and etcetera?

I have a few questions that should be asked of Judge Sotomayor regarding some of her controversial rulings, and contextually puzzling remarks regarding the role of a justice on the Supreme Court. This country has an erratic history, especially in the twentieth century, of Supreme Court rulings that strayed, for trendy and ideological reasons, far from the original intent of the Constitution. And for this country to be shackled to malignant case law has become a perpetual disservice. The questions asked of Sotomayor, or any other nominee, should be directly related to the meaning of the Constitution, and not whimsical interpretations by various nihilists on the bench.

Series One: Since you will be one of nine justices sitting on the highest court of these United States, my first question concerns the United States’ form of government.

In your senior thesis at Princeton, The Impact Of The Life Of Luis Muñoz Marin On The Political And Economic History of Puerto Rico, 1930-1975, you referred to yourself as a Puerto Rican nationalist. Also, in the body of your thesis, you repeatedly referred to the Congress of these United States as the North American Congress, and Mainland Congress.

Do you have a clear understanding of the American form of government?  If so, why did you refer to the Congress as the North American Congress and Mainland Congress?  Do you understand our form of government, but disagree with it, or do you not understand it?  Do you understand that if confirmed, the Senate of these United States, and not the North American Senate, will confirm you?

Do you consider yourself an American citizen, a Puerto Rican citizen, or an American citizen who is a proponent of Puerto Rican nationalism?

Series Two: You have, in the past, referred to yourself as an “affirmative action baby.” You were admitted to Princeton and Yale with substandard test scores, by your own admission, because you were Hispanic, and poor. Your exact statement on a panel of three female judges was: “if I had gone through the traditional numbers route of those institutions, it would have been highly questionable if I would have been accepted.”

Do you think it fair, considering there were other applicants to Princeton and Yale with markedly higher academic achievements, and possibly a better work ethic than you, that you were chosen over them solely based on your ethnicity and financial hardships? And, without referencing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any other “racial quota” laws, do you believe that your taking their deserved spot violated their equal protection rights under the 14^th Amendment?

Series Three: The Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF), issued a brief stating that the right to an abortion is the same as any other fundamental right. You were serving on the board of PRLDEF at the time of this brief.

As you should be well aware, the Constitution, on which you will rule if appointed, derives its fundamental rights from natural law, or God’s law. Also eloquently stated by Supreme Court justice Benjamin Cardozo in the case of Palko v. Connecticut, 1937, fundamental rights are, “the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty, without which justice is not possible. To deprive an individual of these rights is a hardship so acute and shocking that our polity will not endure it.”

With that in mind, do you believe that the right to abort a fetus is a fundamental right derived from God, and if so, do you believe that, as Justice Cardozo stated, that depriving one of the right to abort a fetus would cause “a hardship so acute and shocking that our polity will not endure it?”

Series Four: In 2005, you stated to a group of law students at Duke University that the U.S. Court of Appeals “is where policy is made.”  Are you aware that these United States have three branches of government? Do you understand that the Legislative Branch makes the laws, the Executive Branch approves and enforces the laws, and the Judicial Branch interprets the laws and determines if the laws are Constitutional? Do you believe that the role of a judge is to make the laws and policies that govern this country?

Series Five: You have stated in the past that, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” In your defense, Barack Obama, referring to that statement said, “I think she’d say that her word choice in 2001 was poor… I am sure she would have restated it.”

Would you have restated it, and if so, which particular time would you have done so? Was it the 4000 word lecture that you prepared and gave at the University of California, Berkeley, that was turned into a law-review article? Or was it when you made the same statement in a speech in 1994 in Puerto Rico? Or was it when you stated it in 1999 at the Women’s Bar Association of New York? Or was it in 1999, at a speech at Yale University?  Or was it in a lecture in 2000 at the City University of New York School of Law? Or was it in 2002 at the Princeton Club? Or was it in a lecture in 2003, at Seton Hall?

And can you explain how a “wise Latina woman” would reach a better conclusion than a white male regarding Constitutional law, that quite frankly, was written by old, wise, white men over two-hundred years ago?

Series Six: In the case of Maloney v. Cuomo, you joined in the opinion on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that the rights of the Second Amendment do not apply to the states, and a state can restrict an individual’s Second Amendment rights. You also stated, “it is settled law, however, that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right.” You also issued an opinion in 2004 that “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.”

Is it your opinion, since the Second Amendment does not apply to the states, that the states are free to limit the entire scope of the Bill of Rights for individuals?  Do you believe that all state gun laws should supersede all federal gun laws? Can you explain how, when clearly stated in the Constitution in the Second Amendment, “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right?” And can you explain how you reached the conclusion that possessing a gun it not a fundamental right, but aborting a fetus is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution?

In your answer, use only the Constitution and related information from its ratification for reference, no case law, and be specific and avoid the murky use of a penumbra to ferret out an implied right to privacy as Justice Blackmun did in Roe v. Wade.

Series Seven: In the case of Ricci v. DeStefano, a decision of yours that was recently overturned by the Supreme Court, you ruled that the white firefighters that passed the test for promotions were not discriminated against when the city of New Haven invalidated the test results because only two Latinos and no African Americans scored high enough for a promotion.

One question in this matter: If no white firefighters had passed the test, and only African American firefighters had passed the test, and the city refused to invalidate the test and the white firefighters sued, would you have ruled that the white firefighters had been discriminated against?

Sonia Sotomayor will be front and center in the news this week as her confirmation hearings begin, but if three things were different about her, she would in all probability be an unknown quantity, and certainly not a candidate for a Supreme Court justice. If she had been born rich, white, and male, but maintained the same substandard academic achievements, Princeton and Yale would not have been factored into the equation, and law school, especially an Ivy League school, would have been an impossibility.

It is manifestly apparent that Sotomayor has demonstrated the she has not, and will not, according to the oath she will be required to take, adhere to that oath of office: “I, Sonia Sotomayor, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as Supreme Court Justice under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.

Sotomayor has demonstrated time and again that she is incapable of meting out equal justice without being influenced by poverty, wealth, race, or any other minority or underprivileged-related plight.

The primary reasons that Obama picked her were that she is Hispanic, a woman, and she will violate her oath of office, just as Ginsberg, Souter, Stevens, and Breyer have done on a continual basis. Obama could not advance his Leftist agenda otherwise.

Many political pundits have been taken to task for labeling Sotomayor a racist because of her straightforward racist rulings and statements. But if a white male had made the statement that  “I would hope that a wise, white male with the richness of his experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life,” is there any doubt as to how the character of the person making that statement would be branded?

China February Auto Sales Rise 25% After Tax Cuts (Update1)

March 10 (Bloomberg) — China vehicle sales surged 25 percent in February, the first gain in four months, after the government cut taxes on some models, helping the country extend its lead as the world’s largest auto market this year.

Sales of passenger cars, buses and trucks climbed to 827,600, the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers said today in Beijing. The tally in the first two months rose 2.7 percent to 1.56 million, compared with a 39 percent decline to 1.35 million in the U.S.

Also in the same article, GM, the floundering U.S. auto maker, anticipates a 5-10 percent increase in manufacturing in China this year. Amazing how productivity increases sans U.S. government interventions, taxes, laws, regulations, unions, etcetera.

GM, the biggest overseas automaker in China, raised its forecast for the nation’s market growth this year to a range of between 5 percent and 10 percent from an earlier prediction of less than 3 percent, GM Asia-Pacific President Nick Reilly, said last week.

Perhaps the Chinese have been reading up on Ronald Reagan.

One could follow the path of the United States along the sequences listed in the above quote, and could quite confidently, and inarguably, deduce the current locality of the United States’ democratic evolvement. The congressional election in 2006 and the presidential election of 2008 would, through the prism of common sense, place the United States in the from complacence to apathy stage of democratic evolution.

Just over one-half of this country elected a president and Congress that not only promised, but have in the first weeks, aggressively enacted, or are in the process of enacting, laws and executive orders that will have long lasting and devastating effects on this country, all for the sake of dependence. It is one-half of this country’s profound apathy and obscene dependency that has given Barack Obama and the Democrat majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate an avenue with which to implement their socialist ideology through the guise of a “stimulus package”. The most absurd aspect of this “stimulus package” Obama has been merchandising with his infomercial-styled tour is his promise to rescue the economy from impending economic Armageddon, but what he will not acknowledge is that the current state of the economy was caused by the perennially unsuccessful Keynesian economics that he intends to implement. The Democrat’s “stimulus package” would be more appropriately named if stimulus were substituted with malignancy. This “stimulus package” consists primarily of pork, earmarks, and pet projects on the economic side; and on the political side, it is laden with socialistic contrivances that have been cryptically sequestered since the days of Eugene Debs. This bill contains less than five percent of anything that could even remotely be considered capable of stimulating the economy.

Just over one-half of the voters entered into a Faustian pact with the left by trading our capitalist economy for a socialist form of government without knowing the contents or the ramifications of the pact. The abject ignorance of the American populace in regard to basic economics is partially to blame. With only a rudimentary knowledge of economics, the average American would have been able to discern, with knowledge, that Barack Obama was, and is currently, lying to 100% of the American public about what his plan will do for the economy–but one-half of the American people, apparently, could care less. For those who care, this is not a stimulus bill, it is a spending bill, and is a tool for the Democrats to buy votes and consolidate and monopolize socialistic power. It is the same reason that FDR was elected for three terms–because he bought votes with other people’s money which granted him the audacity to try to consolidate and monopolize power. Considering the character and blatant power-grabbing history of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and the governing style of Barack Obama since taking office, this is a systematic agenda for taking control.

Obama has two more readily available tools for absolute socialistic rule of this country, and has already exercised one of them by moving the Census Bureau from the Commerce Department to the White House; and by bestowing the powers to operate the Census Bureau on his Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, Obama has the potential to control how congressional districts are divided after the 2010 census. This is a power grab reminiscent of FDR’s Supreme Court packing scheme, the difference being, the Congress FDR dealt with rejected the idea out of some remnants of duty buried within them; but this morally insolvent Congress has demonstrated a boundless approach in the enacting of a socialistic ideology. How does taking the Census Bureau out of the hands of non-partisan mathematical scientists, and giving it to a rabidly partisan chief of staff, have the potential to create perpetual power? Joseph Stalin said it best: “Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.” Whoever controls the census, controls congressional redistricting; and whoever controls congressional redistricting, controls who is elected to the House of Representatives–etcetera, etcetera.

Another tool that Obama and the Democrats have readily at their disposal is the reenactment of the Fairness Doctrine. Talk radio is dominated by conservative talk shows; most conservatives get their information from talk radio; conservative talk radio continually exposes the underbelly of the Democrat party. The reenactment of the Fairness Doctrine would silence conservative radio, and could reach as far as television and internet content, as the Democrats in power have demonstrated that their reach, if unchecked, has no boundaries. This is an act that would more than likely not survive the Supreme Court on 1st Amendment principles. And if enacted, and defeated at that the Supreme Court level, it will present an opportunity for Obama to “pack the court”, and he will only get resistance from one-half of this country and the minority of Republicans, sans Snowe, Collins, and Specter, in the Congress.

There is a potential Armageddon on the horizon, but it is not from the source the Democrats would have you believe; converting the strongest capitalist country the world has ever known into a socialist society is the Armageddon that looms.

But not all is a lost cause. Barack Obama’s only discernible skill and track record is the ability to campaign. He campaigned his way through the ugly Chicago politics to the state senate by being more unprincipled than his adversaries; he campaigned his way to the U.S. Senate with the same tactics; and now that he is President, he is campaigning daily for the acceptance and passage of his “stimulus package”. His problem is that his presidential failure will start with the impending passage of his “stimulus package”, which will wrap an almost immeasurable albatross around his neck, the Congress’ neck, and America’s neck. And once the magnitude and contents, become manifest, the only relief from the misery it will wreak will be the repossession of this country by more than one-half of the American voters.

]]> http://www.jimbyrd.com/barack-obamas-presidency-has-failed-in-the-first-three-weeks-part-one/feed 1 http://www.jimbyrd.com/putting-all-the-cards-on-the-table http://www.jimbyrd.com/putting-all-the-cards-on-the-table#comments Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:51:00 +0000 jimbyrd http://74.52.28.50/~jimbyrd/putting-all-the-cards-on-the-table

Big oil companies spared tax hikes
Thursday, June 21, 2007 12:26:13 PMSenate Republicans on Thursday blocked a $32 billion package of tax breaks for renewable energy that would have been financed mostly by new taxes on major oil companies.

Democrats came three votes short of overcoming a threatened GOP filibuster that was keeping the measure from being attached to a broader energy bill. Republican senators argued that the nearly $29 billion in additional taxes on major oil companies would have led to reduced production and higher gasoline prices.

Because of Republican opposition, Democrats needed 60 votes to allow the package to come up for a vote, but fell short, 57-36. With a number of senators not voting, Democrats could resurrect the measure later, though there was no immediate indication of that.

Here is a quote by Hilliary Clinton:” I want to take those profits and put them into an alternative energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy alternatives that will actually begin to move us toward the direction of independence.”

Just so you know the score when you fill up your vehicle and complain about how the oil companies are price gouging. The gouging information you are getting is coming from liberals. All the Democrat front runners in the 2008 presidential race have at one point or another declared that they are going to take the big oil company’s excessive profits. Excessive always being a term that is very subjective.

Let’s take one company, Exxon, for example. Last year Exxon had record profits of $39 billion for the fiscal year 2006. Exxon makes on average 10 cents per gallon. The higher profits are the result of higher volume of gasoline consumed. Contrast that with what the government makes per gallon–50 cents per gallon on average. On Exxon’s sales alone the government made $195 billion dollars. Remember there are many more large oil companies, this is just one.

Now 10 cents profit per gallon of gasoline that is selling for $3 per gallon is around 3%. I doubt you would find many companies on the Fortune 500 turning just a 3% profit. Why aren’t the liberals windbags rattling their sabres about companies like Microsoft, Apple, Coca Cola, etc. that enjoy a significantly higher profit margins? Classic Demagoguery.