Further, Jasser Auda, a Qatari professor who is one of the personalities behind the Shariah Index Project with Rauf, described Mogahed’s involvement in providing key data that helped formulate the Shariah Index plan to map out an Islamic state, even referring to Obama’s faith adviser as “sister Mogahed.”
What we know about the pending deal is that the Democrats and Republicans are agreeing to a Deficit Commission. Despite the media spin — and the spin of some Republican sycophants — the deficit commission, which will be a super committee of the Congress, will have the power to come up with new tax revenue.Read more
And if the Congress rejects the Commission’s demands for new tax revenue, there will be a trigger that cuts both medicare funding and defense funding.
Except, the defense funding cuts will be much more massive than the medicare cuts. And the GOP, in addition to seeing defense cut, would be hacking off seniors right before an election.
Before saying anything else about the debt ceiling crisis, let's confirm one thing: Obama does not like you, the demcratic process or Congress. Democracy is just too cumbersome for a man so lofty as the president of the world.Read more
He wants, more than anything else, to be our Dear Leader, Uncle Ho (or Uncle Joe, or Uncle B.O.), Il Duce, Der Führer, El Presidente (all crackpot socialists and Communists, by the way). And he has been leaving us breadcrumbs for the last two years.
That amounts to a $3.6 trillion tax increase over 10 years, three or four times the $800 billion to $1.2 trillion in revenue increases that Obama and Speaker John Boehner were kicking around. And all Democrats need to do to secure that deal is -- nothing.Democrats Can Lose Debt Fight, Win on Bush Tax Cuts: Ezra Klein
In 1963, a popular Democratic president was assassinated by a Marxist named Oswald, who had actually defected to the Soviet Union and returned to the U.S. with a Soviet wife, was an active member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, and had attempted to assassinate a right-wing general named Edwin Walker earlier in the year.How the Democrats Nearly Destroyed the Economy
Yet those who write history found these facts inconvenient. They created a different history in which the "atmosphere of hate" in the southern city of Dallas, Texas, led to the terrible political violence. In other words, it was political conservatism that led to John F. Kennedy's assassination.
Conclusion: The major cause of the financial crisis in the United States was the collapse of housing and mortgage markets resulting from an accumulation of an unprecedented number of weak and risky Non-Traditional Mortgages (NTMs). These NTMs began to default en masse beginning in 2006, triggering the collapse of the worldwide market for mortgage-backed securities and in turn triggering the instability and insolvency of financial institutions that we call the financial crisis. Government policies forced a systematic industry-wide loosening of underwriting standards in an effort to promote affordable housing, compounded by moral hazard spread by Fannie and Freddie."Here are six facts about the government's role in the crisis...
The New Deal's bargain was that Americans would trade higher taxes and less economic freedom for a social safety net. That was until the left decided that the social safety net was actually a wealth redistribution platform. The social safety net slid into the welfare state, a program of subsidies for reliable Democratic voters at the expense of the general public.A New Deal for America
Now the Social Security Trust Fund has been looted and FDR II is threatening that benefits won't be paid if congress doesn't commit to another extended deficit spending binge. Not on behalf of the social safety net, but the nanny and the welfare state.
The Democratic party loves taking credit for the social safety net, but they have proven to be completely irresponsible trustees, squandering the trust by borrowing against the sum, and then borrowing against the debt to fund an entirely separate agenda. What began as security for workers mutated into a bureaucracy that existed for its own sake expanding benefits and spending to bulk up its power and influence. . .
You went to Washington to change Washington. You went to Washington because you said it was broken and you worried about the future for your children and grandchildren.
And now, at the moment of crisis you are worried and second guessing yourself and looking for alternatives, ways out, and most of all a clear conscience. . .
First, this is not a political fight between Republicans and Democrats; it is a fight against 50-year trends toward statism. Second, it is a moral fight, not an economic one. Third, this is not a fight that anyone can win in the 15 months from now to the presidential election. It will take hard work for at least a decade.CARPE DIEM: AEI's Arthur Brooks on the Debt Ceiling in the WSJ
Consider a few facts. . .
The voluntary giving of help, typically in the form of money, to those in needtax
A compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactionsThomas Jefferson
It is a duty certainly to give our sparings to those who want; but to see also that they are faithfully distributed, and duly apportioned to the respective wants of those receivers. And why give through agents whom we know not, to persons whom we know not, and in countries from which we get no account, where we can do it at short hand, to objects under our eye, through agents we know, and to supply wants we see?Keep Jesus Out of Your Socialism
The headline of the full-page ad asks, "What Would Jesus Cut?—A budget is a moral document." The text continues, "Our faith tells us that the moral test of a society is how it treats the poor."
The ad was produced by Sojourners, a self-described "evangelical" organization whose slogan is "Faith in Action for Social Justice." The ad was signed by Sojourners president Jim Wallis and more than two dozen Religious Left pastors, theologians, and activists. They urge our legislators to ask themselves, "What would Jesus cut?" from the federal budget.
How would you answer that question? My answer would be, "It's a nonsense question. Your premise is faulty. Your priorities are not His priorities."
For decades, policy makers have tried and failed to get Americans to eat less salt. In April 2010 the Institute of Medicine urged the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to regulate the amount of salt that food manufacturers put into products; New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has already convinced 16 companies to do so voluntarily. But if the U.S. does conquer salt, what will we gain? Bland french fries, for sure. But a healthy nation? Not necessarily.It's Time to End the War on Salt
This week a meta-analysis of seven studies involving a total of 6,250 subjects in the American Journal of Hypertension found no strong evidence that cutting salt intake reduces the risk for heart attacks, strokes or death in people with normal or high blood pressure...
Many of the new federal laws also set a lower bar for conviction than in the past: Prosecutors don't necessarily need to show that the defendant had criminal intent.As Criminal Laws Proliferate, More Are Ensnared
These factors are contributing to some unusual applications of justice.
I think it shook them up. I think it shook up the attorney general in Hawaii and the governor such that they looked at the evidence and said, “He’s right.” That’s plausible deniability; there’s no question. They knew they were presenting a fraud. “We’re in trouble.”The Post & Email Speaks with Douglas Vogt, Typesetting Expert
When you read the letter, you’ll see it. I said, “This is most likely going to be the end of the Democrat Party.” The letter is two pages. The point is that I think this letter scared them, especially when they saw plausible deniability, and I think they realized I’m right. When I defined “plausible deniability” on the affidavit, they said that middle management either is inaccessible or impossible to interrogate because they’ve beat the scene or they’re dead. It’s one or the other; that’s what happens with criminal organizations to protect the leadership.
A major provision of the healthcare reform law designed to prevent businesses from dropping coverage for their workers could inadvertently leave families without access to subsidized health insurance.Discovered: Another Rotten Obamacare Easter Egg
What is disturbing when reviewing the history of this time is how many Christian ministers defended the actions of government as fulfilling Holy Scripture's mandates to care for the poor, provide for parents in their old age and give to those who ask of you.The Theology of Social Security
With this shift of thinking, the state began to function in roles once reserved for the church—to the detriment of any who would question the legitimacy of the legislation on theological grounds. The same reception awaits those in the modern day who seek to resist any "progressive" social policy in any way for fear that they will be branded as uncaring or un-Christian in their ideas.
Has government power expanded to such a degree that the church now has no voice at all in the public square? Perhaps, but the modern era of public policy reveals just how much the government has gained and how much the church has lost.
Walmart is without question the most successful retailer in the history of the United States, and in the history of the entire world by almost any measure (number of stores, sales revenue, number of employees, market share, etc.) Here are some Walmart facts:CARPE DIEM: Walmart: The Most Successful Retailer in History
Department of Homeland security officials are warning of weaknesses in the technology supply chain that result in the importation of devices that are already infected with malware, spyware, backdoors and other malicious code that leave the units vulnerable to exploitation.Read more
You think you're being public servants who are negotiating in the interests of your constituents. You're not.Please read the whole thing!
You've become pawns for Barack Obama's 2012 re-election campaign. . .
You're not only being chumps, you're being suckers. It's not excusable, and everyone in and out of Washington except you can see how you're being used.
The financial news is just going to keep getting worse. This financial system is simply unsustainable. It is fundamentally unsound. The reality is that financial bubbles cannot keep expanding forever. Eventually they must burst.18 signs...
Over the next few weeks, keep a close eye on banking stocks and keep a close eye on European bond yields.
Hopefully things will stabilize.
Hopefully the next wave of the financial collapse is not about to hit us.
Hopefully the entire global financial system is not on the verge of a major implosion.
But you might want to get prepared just in case.
Washington is currently borrowing about 43 cents out of every dollar it spends, and is close to maxing out its credit limit.Find out here
Current law says Uncle Sam cannot borrow more than $14.3 trillion. A few months back, the Obama Administration demanded that Congress increase the national credit line by $2.5 trillion by May 16, or else, it warned, the United States would default on its debts, causing an “economic Armageddon.” ($2.5 trillion is just enough to aver the need for another debt hike until after the 2012 election.)
When May 16 came and went, and nothing happened, the Obama team set a new “Armageddon” date: August 2.
Unfortunately, a lot of folks in Washington and Wall Street – including some who should know better — seem to be taking this new deadline at face value. While it’s true that, at some point, the government will hit the ceiling and have to reduce spending by about 40 percent, exactly when that day will arrive, nobody knows for sure. And don’t believe anyone who tells you he does know. “No man knows the day or the hour.”
Maxed Out Day could be August 2. It could be August 22. Or it could be in September. The exact date really depends on whether the President is willing to tap certain reserves available to him, or decides to force a political crisis.
I cannot tell you when Maxed Out Day will be. But I can – and will — prove to you that August 2 doesn’t have to be it. Before I do so, here are three key numbers to remember:
1) We are projected to take in between $170 billion and $200 billion in August, in revenues.
2) We will likely spend about $300 billion in August.
3) Therefore, we face a gap of somewhere between $100 billion and $130 billion.
So what will happen, come the August 2 deadline?
For this, in essence, is what the debt-ceiling fight is all about -- the inexorable and ultimately fatal growth of the welfare state. If you don't believe it, just look at President Obama's veiled threat to withhold Grandma's Social Security benefits if Congress doesn't let him borrow another $2 trillion or so to get himself safely past the 2012 election.Uncle Sam, sugar daddy
According to the California Hospital Association (CHA), illegal aliens cost hospitals across the state about $1.25 billion a year in unpaid medical care.Read more
The CHA recently stated that $26 million of those costs are absorbed in the eight hospitals in Ventura County alone.
The American Hospital Association (AHA) is asking the Obama administration to compensate hospitals for the care they extend to the millions foreign nationals living in this country illegally.
In June, AHA President Richard Umbdenstock sent a letter to President Obama, reminding him that while federal law requires hospitals to provide emergency care to every patient who walks through the doors, those hospitals are now forced to eat the costs of treating uninsured illegal aliens.
Umbdenstock wrote that the Federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act mandates treatment of the unisured “yet federal support for hospitals providing these services to the undocumented population is virtually nonexistent. Many hospitals have had to curtail services, delay implementing services or close beds.”
He continued: “Hospitals should not have to bear the burden.”
...the action at Tahrir Square is not Egypt's most important story. The most important, strategically consequential story is that Egypt is rapidly going broke. By the end of the year, the military dictatorship will likely not only default on Egypt's loans. Field Marshal Tantawi and his deputies will almost certainly be unable to feed the Egyptian people.Caution: Storm Approaching
Obama was right out of upper-middle-class, liberal white guilt central casting: charismatic, young, half-African, an exotic name, hard-left credentials to the left of the hackish Hillary and Bill, full of platitudinous mush about “hope and change” and “millions of green jobs,” all directly imported from the faculty lounge, where gassing the car or changing light bulbs become complex endeavors.The Great Madness of 2004-10
And so we got an inexperienced, hard-left, messianic president whose job apparently was to enjoy life, politick, play golf, hang out at Martha’s Vineyard, pick up prizes and awards, and turn the economy and foreign policy over to the Ivy League professoriate.
What is progressive Islam? Many of us know nothing about this rapidly growing religion. In this video, Kamal Saleem, a former Muslim, explains details and practices of progressive Islam. Essentially, progressive Islam is a reflection of how the Arabs lived before Islam actually existed. Kamal draws frightening parallels between the symbol of the “falling star,” or Satan, and how this symbol is exalted in the Muslim faith. Kamal also details the three levels of Jihad (political, financial, and the sword, or war), and explains the reality that the goal of Jihad is to infiltrate America, and then declare war.Is Shariah Law Taking Over the World?
In this special video for the Oak Initiative, Kamal Saleem speaks about Shariah Law and how it is taking over the world. Shariah Law is the constitution of Islam, and dictates every move a Muslim should make throughout their life. Kamal also speaks about the three levels of Jihad, or “Holy War” – political, financial, and the sword, or war. Kamal goes into detail about many of the cruelties included in the Shariah Law, including honor killing, which claimed the lives of 6,000 women last year. Shariah Law is even being carried out in the United States, yet one would never hear about it in the media. In America, our constitution desires that we live in peace with every nation, but when you look at the doctrine of Islam, it fights this basic desire. We are enabling Shariah Law on our own land and our watch if we do not stand up for the truth.
"A growing number of citizens are taking action against the encroachment of totalitarianism here in America. GE is playing a major role in monitoring your every move while you’re INSIDE your home. How are they doing it? Ask the folks in California."Our show producer Dave lives in Northern California and guess what he discovered attached to his home? The GE Smart Meter...
Remember Barack’s August vacation? Yeah, he cared so much about Granny that he saw her only for an hour and did not take Michelle and the girls to visit the woman who he credits with helping raise him. Pretty odd behavior.
When you add the mountain of new rules required by Dodd-Frank to those of Obamacare, plus the threat of higher taxes caused by Washington’s spending spree, you get an astounding level of apprehension and plunging confidence for employers and their customers. You get uneasiness among banks that flows down to businesses and consumers in the form of tight credit.Dodd-Frank blocks road to recovery
The disastrous consequences for our economy are very real. . .
While Dodd-Frank does all this to harm our economy, it unfortunately fails to even address the biggest cause of the financial crisis: the government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that fueled the riot of imprudent lending that knocked our economy down to its knees.
The Wall Street Journal can barely believe that Barack Obama made $1 trillion in new taxes the cost to Republicans for raising the debt ceiling and making cuts in federal spending. Obama keeps saying that he has cut taxes, but the Journal reminds people that Obama has raised taxes, too — and in key ways that impact capital. The ObamaCare bill will raise taxes in a number of unpleasant ways, all in support of vast new federal spending and regulatory adventurism, with these just a few of the worst:WSJ: Let’s not forget Obama’s already-imposed new taxes
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today on taxes and small business job creation.Read more
Numerous provisions affect the tax climate for small businesses, including payroll taxes, capital gains taxes, and the treatment of capital investment. But I will focus on marginal income tax rates because that's where there seems to be the most disagreement and uncertainly about the future direction of tax policy. The Obama administration has proposed increasing the top two individual income tax rates, but that policy would likely have a negative impact on U.S. economic growth.
The administration has offered some narrow and temporary tax breaks for small business job creation, but that is not a promising approach for tax policy. Instead, Congress should focus on creating a simple, neutral, and pro-growth tax structure for all American businesses, large and small. After all, there is no strict separation of large and small businesses in the tax code. Many businesses that report their profits on individual returns are medium and larger businesses.
New jobs are created by fast-growing businesses, whether small or large. A new job at a multinational computer chip maker is certainly as valuable as a new job at the corner restaurant, and probably more durable. Thus, while my remarks focus on tax policies for smaller businesses, large C corporations are also crucial to U.S. economic growth. Policymakers should consider reforms to reduce statutory tax rates on both corporate and noncorporate businesses.1
Responses to High Marginal Tax Rates
The Obama administration is proposing to raise the top two individual income tax rates from 33 and 35 percent to 36 and 39.6 percent, respectively, in 2011. That would likely harm investment, job creation, and growth. Higher marginal tax rates reduce incentives for productive activities, such as working and expanding businesses, and they increase incentives for unproductive activities, such as tax avoidance and evasion.
If income tax rates rise next year, we may not perceive large negative effects right away, but changes in marginal tax rates do affect behavior over the long term. Some high-income workers would decide to work fewer hours and retire a bit earlier. Some spouses in two-earner families would decide to stay out of the workforce. Some angel investors would have less cash to invest in start-up ventures. And some small businesses would decide not to buy new equipment or hire new workers.
How large are the behavioral responses to marginal income tax rate changes? Many empirical studies have found that reported income is quite responsive to the top income tax rates. In a 2009 paper, for example, economists Emmanuel Saez, Joel Slemrod, and Seth Giertz noted that the share of income "received by the top 1 percent of income recipients started to increase precisely after 1981 when marginal tax rates started to decline. The timing of the jump in the share of top incomes from 1986 to 1988 corresponds exactly to the sharp drop in the weighted average marginal tax rates from 45 percent to 29 percent after the Tax Reform Act of 1986. [This] provides circumstantial but quite compelling evidence that high incomes are indeed responsive to marginal tax rates."2
A typical finding is that a tax rate increase that reduces the after-tax share on additional income by 10 percent results in shrinking reported income by about 4 percent.3 For higher earners, empirical studies usually find substantially larger behavioral responses.4 That's because higher-income taxpayers typically have more flexibility on their working decisions and they have greater shares of financial and business income, which are more responsive and mobile than labor income.
A side-effect of these behavioral responses is that governments raise less money than they expect from tax rate increases, particularly at the top end. If Congress raised the top income tax rate from 35 to 39.6 percent, the government would gain 4.6 percentage points on the money in the top bracket. But reported income would fall modestly, and that fall would offset a substantial portion of the revenue gain. In a recent paper, economist Robert Carroll summarized Treasury estimates that modeled changes in the top two income tax rates.5 The results suggest that raising the top two rates would cause reported income of affected taxpayers to fall three percent, which would be enough to offset about 40 percent of the expected static revenue gain.
When considering raising tax rates at the top end, Congress needs to think carefully about who would be hit. Today's highest-earners are generally not passive inheritors of wealth, but are usually self-made and entrepreneurial.6 Business ownership and current earnings are the main sources of wealth for the richest individuals, while inheritances account for less than one-fifth of the assets of the richest people and that share has been declining.7 As economist Glenn Hubbard noted, "when you look at data, you see that people who are rich almost entirely are rich because of entrepreneurial risk taking,"8
Many with high incomes are angel investors, who help to fuel small business expansion. There are at least 300,000 angel investors in the United States, who are often wealthy individuals and have been entrepreneurs themselves.9 They provide an important source of financing for fast-growing small businesses. If their taxes go up, they will have less money and fewer incentives to invest, while perhaps parking more of their funds in tax-free municipal bonds.
In sum, trying to raise revenue by increasing the top income tax rates is a perverse budget strategy. It would hit some of the most talented people in the economy. Since high earners generally have the largest behavioral responses to taxes, the deadweight losses (or costs of inefficiency) of such tax changes would be quite large.10 And since deadweight losses rise more than proportionally as marginal tax rates rise, raising the top rates would be very counterproductive.11
On Feb. 21, the 600 Northwestern University students enrolled in the popular Human Sexuality course taught by professor John Michael Bailey were told that if they wished to stay after class -- it was clearly made optional -- they would see a live demonstration of female ejaculation, the subject of that day's class. A naked young woman (not a student) would demonstrate a "f---saw" and come to orgasm in front of the students. About 120 students stayed. . .Read more
During Kagan’s confirmation process, the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee asked her a series of written questions about her involvement in the health-care issue. One question inquired whether she had ever been “asked about your opinion regarding the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to any proposed health care legislation … or the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to potential litigation resulting from such legislation.” Another question asked her whether she had “ever offered any views or comments” on the same subjects.Judiciary Committee Launches Probe of Kagan’s Involvement in Obamacare
Kagan answered both questions: “No.”
In his letter to Attorney General Holder, Judiciary Chairman Smith said: “Yet, documents released by the Department of Justice in response to Freedom of Information Act requests raise questions about that unequivocal denial.”
For those coming in late: Issa and Grassley are investigating the horrifically botched Fast & Furious program that Justice/BATFE had put together, starting in late 2009.Fast and Furious update: Ken Melson’s secret testimony.
The Center for Security Policy’s report, Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases evaluates 50 Appellate Court cases from 23 states that involve conflicts between Shariah (Islamic law) and American state law.
These cases are the stories of Muslim American families, mostly Muslim women and children, who were asking American courts to preserve their rights to equal protection and due process. These families came to America for freedom from the discriminatory and cruel laws of Shariah. When our courts then apply Shariah law in the lives of these families, and deny them equal protection, they are betraying the principles on which America was founded.
The study’s findings suggest that Shariah law has entered into state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy. Some commentators have said there are no more than one or two cases of Shariah law in U.S. state court cases; yet we found 50 significant cases just from the small sample of appellate published cases.
Others have asserted with certainty that state court judges will always reject any foreign law, including Shariah law, when it conflicts with the Constitution or state public policy; yet we found 15 Trial Court cases, and 12 Appellate Court cases, where Shariah was found to be applicable in these particular cases. The facts are the facts: some judges are making decisions deferring to Shariah law even when those decisions conflict with Constitutional protections.
Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases includes summaries of several cases in which the court’s application of Shariah law appears to be in direct conflict with Constitutional liberties and the public policies of the state.
In a blockbuster development in the Operation Fast & Furious gun-running scandal, Acting ATF Director Kenneth Melson secretly testified before House and Senate investigators on July 4 with his own personal lawyer present, former United States Attorney Richard Cullen, without the knowledge of the ATF or the Department of Justice.Read more
The current controversy over whether to deal with our massive national debt by cutting spending, or whether instead to raise tax rates on "the rich," is a classic example of talking points versus reality.Politics Versus Reality
Most of those who favor simply raising tax rates on "the rich" -- or who say that we cannot afford to allow the Bush "tax cuts for the rich" to continue -- show not the slightest interest in the history of what has actually happened when tax rates were raised to high levels on "the rich," as compared to what has actually happened when there have been "tax cuts for the rich."
As far as such people are concerned, those questions have already been settled by their talking points. Why confuse the issue by digging into empirical evidence about what has actually happened when one policy or the other was followed?
...maybe Obama was just lucky enough to have a benefactor that many of us would have envied… a rich guy who spills more than $100,000 before breakfast each day and who just wanted to see him get a college education.Obama And “Family”
And maybe the White House Personnel Office just happened to stumble across an eager young Muslim university student and, in the interest of greater international understanding, decided to give her an inside look at how our government operates.
And maybe this young woman proved to be such an asset that the First Lady of the United States decided to keep her on through her White House years and into her years as Secretary of State, where she is privy to some of our most closely-guarded national secrets.
All of these things are possible… but not likely. More than likely, Barack Obama, the Abedins, Anthony Weiner, the Clintons, Khalid al-Mansour, and Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, a mixture of Christians, Jews, and Muslims, are all in one way or another joined at the hip.
Like Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Bill Ayers, and Bernadine Dorhn, they are all members of Barack Obama’s extended political “family,” all willing to see Israel “tossed under the bus.”
A new Harvard University study claims that the Fourth of July has become a "Right Wing celebration." David Yangizawa-Drott of the Kennedy School of Government and Andreas Madestam of Milan, Italy's Bocconi University claim "The political right has been more successful in appropriating American patriotism and its symbols during the 20th century.
The learned professors have it wrong. The political right didn't "appropriate" American patriotism as much as the political left abandoned it.
A residual tragedy of the 1960s was the taint of ideology on patriotism.
"America, love it or leave it!" bumper stickers alienated the anti-Vietnam War/pro-civil rights left, just as protesters burning our flag disgusted the Greatest Generation who had fought and died for that flag.
We have disrespected our flag in a thousand ways. We removed it from our front porches and town squares only to wear it as a bikini top, jock strap or do-rag, or allow hack politicians to wrap themselves in it to pander for votes.
The Harvard study says, "Republican adults celebrate (the) Fourth of July more intensively."
It wasn't always like this. While we've always fought among ourselves over policy and power, we took for granted our mutual love of country.
Last week our national anthem was booed at the Rose Bowl. . .
...Envy is not the same as jealousy or covetousness. The covetous person says, “I wish I had what he has, and I’m miserable that I don’t have it.” Envy is quantitatively different. “I’d like to have what he has, but I know I can never get it. Nobody should be allowed to have it or at least that much of it. I’ll work to destroy it. Maybe I can get the government to make it illegal to own or too expensive to keep.” This is why the Bible describes envy as “rottenness of the bones” (Prov. 14:30). . .Why Some People Want to Stick it to the Rich
Cain was the first envier. . .
Modern-day economic theory feeds off the sin of envy. The first step is to promise the citizenry that they will get some of the largess of the rich. When that only goes so far, legislators will make it more difficult for the prosperous to remain prosperous. Obstacles will be put up to stifle their success, all in the name of equality. We’ve seen it happen before. The Communists had to build a wall around East Berlin to keep the industrious from fleeing the politics of envy.
Alias Barack Obama: a lie is born: The greatest identity fraud in history Paperback – July 10, 2012
