by Bob Price (re-posted with permission of the author and TexasGOPVote.com)

President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden have made their bailout of General Motors Company (GM) the shining star on their re-election tree. Their claim is they saved the jobs of GM employees. But that is simply not the case. Yes, they may be saving jobs for their union supporters to whom they are obligated, but high-paying middle-class non-union jobs are being exported by the Outsourcer-in-Chief faster thanFelix Bumgartner fell from space yesterday.

Earlier this month, I wrote a story entitled, “Osama Bin Laden is Dead and GM is alive… and well in China“. In that story I illustrated with comments taken from GM’s website directly about the engineering and design jobs that were being moved from America to China. Here is an ad fromLet Freedom Ring confirming my story. For more information on Let Freedom Ring, please refer to this interview I did with LRF’s Alex Cortes.

The article I wrote prompted a response from General Motors.  Here is that response:

“This is Rob Peterson from General Motors Communications.  

“GM has a global policy to “build vehicles where we sell them,” which lowers vehicle cost for consumers in the over 120 markets where we do business.  Currently, 30 percent of GM’s GLOBAL sales occur in the United States.  All of the vehicles sold in the United States, except for the low-volume, Korean built Chevrolet Spark are built in North America.  Although GM does not import vehicles from China to the United States, several vehicles built in the United States are exported to China, including: the Chevy Volt, Buick Enclave and Cadillac SRX, CTS and Escalade are exported from North America to China 

“Doing business in China requires every foreign manufacturer to have a joint-venture with a Chinese company. GM has strategic partnerships in 30 countries, including China, which positions the GM brand as the leading automaker in the world’s largest and fastest-growing automotive markets – success other auto manufacturers like Ford, Toyota and Honda are feverishly attempting to duplicate.

“GM has not used any U.S. government bailout money to build a manufacturing footprint in China. Nor have we shared any of our first generation electric vehicle technology developed mostly before the bailout (Volt develoment began 3 years prior to the bailout) with our partners.  

“Since bankruptcy, GM has announced investments at 30 U.S. facilities totaling more than $7.3 billion, which created or retained more than 18,600 jobs.

“Factcheck.org has also looked into this and found the notion that GM was becoming a Chinese company to be false (http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/is-gm-becoming-china-motors/).
“Thanks, Rob”

Nice of them to include the rebuttle from the liberal hacks at FactCheck.org. I had some other thoughts about Rob’s response, but I thought I would look for someone who has been looking at this issue longer than I have for a response. I asked the co-author of the book “Death by China” and Board Member of the American Jobs Alliance, Greg Autry for his thoughts.  Here is his reply:

“The fact that GM, like most American companies is filled with MBAs who have been taught that the only thing on God’s Earth that matters is Return on Capital means they are going to do this. If we keep playing along with their Emperor’s New Clothes version of international trade and excusing reprehensible behavior things will continue.

“If you take money from A and invest other money in B at the same time you are still transferring capital. Any further explanation is accounting masterbation. You could track each physical piece of currency by serial number for all I care, it doesn’t change the fact. We all know this intuitively and it is just insulting when the financial hand waiving starts.

“There is nothing liberal or conservative in that. It is a fact If you take a loan on your home and then buy a car, sure there are lots of shenanigans you can play for tax purposes, but the fact is you’ve got so much money to make investments with and pouring more in from the house loan enables you to buy the car (hopefully not a GM one). Sure GM might have used money from a different pot or claim they can’t repatriate money because of tax treatment or whatever. Doesn’t change the fact.

“They are either one company or they are not. Either they are an American firm or they are not. I think they are not and should be treated like a foreign corporation doing business in the US and it should be made clear that their operations and employees abroad do not enjoy the protection of the US government. If they don’t like that, they can start behaving like a firm that puts America and American values ahead of profits.

“Honestly, I would like to see your friend at GM explain this before he says one more word:”

Cadillac, Official Sponsor of the Chinese Communist Revolution Celebration

It is clear, the earlier story touched a nerve with General Motors. Sorry about that… Sending our badly needed American jobs to China hits a nerve also… With your stockholders, the Voters of the United States of America.

President Obama wants you to believe he rode in on a white horse while wearing shining armor and rescued GM and American Jobs.  The truth is, he took your money, stole pensions from non-union employees, shipped non-union jobs to China and gave away important technology about American automobile manufacturing technology to the Chinese government – and he borrowed the money from them, that you will have to pay back with interest, to do so.  No thanks, Mr. President. That shining star is not very pretty anymore.

by Bob Quasius

We all vividly recall Bush derangement syndrome during the eight years of the Bush presidency, in which we constantly heard liberals whine and complain about Bush, blaming Bush for all of society’s ills. Even today we still hear Obama ‘blame it all on Bush’ in explaining his numerous failures as a president.

The term “Bush Derangement Syndrome” was coined by Charles Krauthammer, a Harvard trained psychiatrist turned columnist in his epic op-ed titled “Bush Derangement Syndrome“:

It has been 25 years since I discovered a psychiatric syndrome (for the record: “Secondary Mania,” Archives of General Psychiatry, November 1978), and in the interim I haven’t been looking for new ones. But it’s time to don the white coat again. A plague is abroad in the land.

Bush Derangement Syndrome: the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of George W. Bush.

Now, I cannot testify to Howard Dean’s sanity before this campaign, but five terms as governor by a man with no visible tics and no history of involuntary confinement is pretty good evidence of a normal mental status. When he avers, however, that “the most interesting” theory as to why the president is “suppressing” the 9/11 report is that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance, it’s time to check on thorazine supplies.

When Rep. Cynthia McKinney first broached this idea before the 2002 primary election, it was considered so nutty it helped make her former Rep. McKinney. Today the Democratic presidential front-runner professes agnosticism as to whether the president of the United States was tipped off about 9/11 by the Saudis, and it goes unnoticed. The virus is spreading.

Bush Derangement Syndrome had mostly faded from memory until campaign season began in earnest. Now, just as viruses often mutate, Bush Derangement Syndrome has mutated into Romney Derangement Syndrome, and all the symptoms are pervasive!

The first symptom of this malady came with a SuperPac ad making the outrageous claim that Mitt Romney caused the cancer death of a woman. This claim was too much even for liberal leaning CNN, which thoroughly debunked this ad:

Not surprisingly, hardly a peep out of the Obama campaign, other than to point out they didn’t produce the ad, though Joe Soptic, who talks about his wife’s cancer death in the ad, is a regular figure in the Obama campaign. The RNC was able to tie Joe Soptic to the Obama campaign:

The latest wave of Romney Derangement Symdrome stems is evidenced in the liberal blogosphere and twittersphere, which is aghast that Sensata, which is 51.8% owned by Bain Capital, is closing a plant in Illinois and opening a plant in China, and the workers trained their replacements. The headlines are blaring… “Mitt Romney Gets Tax Break Off Firm Sending Jobs To China” and “Romney Profits From Bain Outsourcing Sensata Technologies to China, Employees Plead for Jobs“, and “Sensata workers rally against ‘Romney economy,’ Romney defends Bain Capital in acceptance speech.” There’s even a blog posting here at Tucson Citizen titled “The Romney Economy”

These news stories/blog postings all blame Mitt Romney for Sensata’s plant closure, but is this even factual? Blogger Kimberly Morin of Examiner.com debunks these claims in her blog titled “Liberal lies and hysteria try to tie Mitt Romney to Sensata closure“, pointing out a number of blatant lies, among them:

• FACT: Mitt Romney has nothing to do with Sensata. Bain Capital Investors have a 51.8% share of Sensata stock.
• FACT: Romney actually transferred what stocks he did own in Sensata to charities
• FACT: Romney hasn’t made business decisions at Bain for many years now. He and his wife Ann have a blind trust with Bain which means they have zero clue where their money is invested.
• FACT: The key people running Bain Capital Investors are Joshua Bekenstein, John Connaughton, Paul Edgerly, Mark Nunnelly, Stephen Pagliuca, Jordan Hitch and Matthew Levin. It seems that the majority of these ‘key people’, who make decisions like closing Sensata, are Democrats who support Obama. (see blog for details of their ties to Obama and the Democratic Party)
• FACT: Romney doesn’t own Sensata and the ‘tax break’ for outsourcing jobs itself is a myth. It’s a minor moving deduction and it’s miniscule.
• FACT: Romney cannot alter the decisions made by the people are actually running these businesses. He has zero influence on what these people choose to do with their business or employees.
• FACT: This lie is being perpetrated by people like left wing hacks at DailyKos. The photo they use as ‘proof’ is actually of the Sensata plant in China. (note: Baja Democrat here on Tucson Citizen fell for the misleading photo too, but at least had the decency to apologize, something Daily Kos has failed to do after misleading liberals everywhere).

Of course none of the liberal blogosphere/twittersphere care to mention that a leading exporter of U.S. jobs to China is General Motors, also known as “Government Motors” because taxpayers own a huge stake in GM. GM has exported thousands of good U.S. jobs since the Obama rescue of GM, far in excess of the 200 or so jobs lost at Sensata, and taxpayers will likely lose tens of billions when our stake in GM is eventually sold.

Joe Biden is fond of serving up ‘red meat’ to supporters with “Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive and well.” However, since GM is exporting thousands of good U.S. jobs to China, it would be more appropriate to say “Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive and well… in China” as we recently blogged!

Obama’s economic policies are also driving U.S. employers to export jobs to China, as we pointed out in our blog “Devastating Realities of Obamacare: A Call to Repeal” (also posted here on Tucson Citizen). By increasing employee costs for U.S. employers, operations in the U.S. become less competitive and employers are encouraged to locate operations overseas to remain competitive.

No doubt we won’t hear from the liberal blogosphere about the damage to U.S. workers from Obama’s economic policies, ObamaTax/ObamaCare, and massive increases in regulations that are strangling businesses, but we’ll hear endlessly about how Mitt Romney profited from Sensata’s decision to close a small plant in Illinois, even though Mitt Romney had nothing to do with that closure. Now that’s Romney derangement syndrome!

by Bob Price (re-posted with permission of author and TexasGOPVote.com - original link)

Vice President Joe Biden likes to cheer “Osama Bin Laden is Dead and GM is Alive!” But what he doesn’t tell you is that since the illegal GM bankruptcy, President Barack Obama has been hard at work as the “Job-Exporter-in-Chief” moving thousands of high paying, middle-class, NON-UNION jobs to China. GM, the shining star on top of the Obama Re-Election “Winter Holiday Tree”, is leaving town quickly and what’s left is circling the drain.

In talking with former GM employees, I learned Obama has been sending non-union jobs like product design, engineering and drafting jobs to China. GM is investing heavily in China, with your taxpayer dollars. And, as you will see below, GM may well be headed right back into the Southern District of New York Bankruptcy Court.

Last week, Obama wanted everyone to think he made a gaffe when he said he wanted to “see us export more jobs, uh… export more products.”  He then stuttered for a second and then smoothly said, as if rehearsed, “Excuse me. I,I,I was channeling my opponent for a second.”  But the real truth, Obama is at war with middle-class, NON-UNION jobs in America. He is shutting them down wherever he can and now we see he is actually exporting them to China.

Take a look at the video below that talks about what the Obama Administration is doing in China:

Take note of the picture at the 50 second mark in the video (and shown below). This picture shows a 65,000 sq. ft. China Technology Center under construction in China and set to open later this fall. According to GM’s website, “The 65,000-square-meter ATC will serve as the home of four key GM technical and design organizations: the China Science Lab, Vehicle Engineering Lab, Advanced Powertrain Engineering Lab and Advanced Design Center. When complete it will include 62 test labs and nine research labs, and have more than 300 employees, including engineers, designers, researchers and technicians.” One must wonder how many of those 300 jobs used to be high-paying, non-union, American jobs.

If Biden is right that GM is alive, many in America believe that the US portion of GM is on life support at best. With questions about the bankruptcy process GM went through, including a lawsuit I found on BankruptcyLawReview.com that could potentially completely unravel the GM bankruptcy, GM could be anything but alive. I will report more deeply on this in a future story about GM.

Of course, it’s not just jobs Obama is exporting to China.  There is also a huge technology shipment heading that way. Last week, Investors Business Daily reported abuot GM and China sataing, “Government Motors, whose international headquarters is in Shanghai, recently announced it would be developing an electric-car platform with its longtime Chinese partner, Shanghai Automotive Industrial Corp. (SAIC), giving away technology developed at taxpayer expense. Obama has no problem with that either.”

So, is GM really the best thing Obama has done for America?  Or have his illegal actions in the bankruptcy courts and the unethical practice of using US taxpayer dollars to fund job creation and investment in China left us holding a brown paper bag full of really smelly stuff?

It looks like GM is more like the tarnished star on a Charlie Brown Christmas tree…

By Thomas Martin Salazar (Originally Published on Cafe Con Leche republicans blog)

The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is Obama’s crowning achievement. While the Affordable Care Act claims to lower costs, it runs into several problematic realities – realities that may cause the United States to be worse off than it would be without this bill. Consider this, you are watching TV or listening to the radio and hear a commercial boasting a new breakthrough prescription drug. But like clockwork, you inevitably hear a long list of side effects – symptoms which seem worse than the potential disease itself. The potential side effects of prescription drugs make us pause before proceeding. Likewise, we should consider the side effects of the laws and legislations passed by our congress, especially in regards to healthcare.  Health care is a major issue that affects every person and every business. And while the Affordable Care Act seems to come with many new perks and benefits, a deeper inspection of the proverbial fine print reveals that the side effects of Obamacare greatly outweigh its assumed benefits.

A major negative side effect of Obamacare is the potential for Americans to lose their current doctors. For instance, his plan gives no incentives for businesses to keep their employees on their current health care plans. This of course will result in many people losing the ability to see their own doctor that they have possibly seen for years, unless they pay out of pocket. The Democrats actually passed and the President signed this bill that is more cost effective for large companies to pay the $2,000 penalty built into the Affordable Care Act, rather than paying for each individual employee’s health insurance. This is exposed, in a report prepared by the Ways and Means Committee. It states,

“In total, the 71 Fortune 100 companies that responded to this inquiry could save an estimated $28.6 billion in 2014 alone by eliminating health insurance coverage for their more than 5.9 million U.S. employees (impacting more than 10.2 million employees and dependents covered by those plans) and instead paying the $2,000 per full-time employee fine created in the Democrats’ health care law. From 2014 through 2023, these employers could save an astounding $422.4 billion if they took this action.” 

“Individually, these employers could save, on average, $402.3 million ($4,821 per full-time and part-time U.S. employee) – on an after tax basis – in 2014 alone by eliminating their health insurance coverage and instead paying the employer mandates $2,000 per full-time employee fine. From 2014 through 2023, the average employer responding to the survey could save $5.9 billion if they dropped coverage in favor of paying the mandate penalty.” 

Furthermore, the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) projects – in a worst case scenario – that 20 million Americans could lose their coverage. Therefore close to 20 million Americans could lose their current doctors because of this.

A second negative side effect is that this new tax will not just impact the fortune 100 companies and their employees, but it will also negatively impact hiring practices of small business. According to the Manhattan Institute’s senior fellow Diana Furchtgott-Roth:

“The mandated $2,000 tax per worker in the new health care law, effective 2014 and levied on employers who do not provide the right kind of health insurance, is discouraging hiring. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 will raise the cost of employment when fully implemented in 2014. Companies with 50 or more workers will be required to offer a generous health insurance package, with no lifetime caps and no copayments for routine visits, or pay an annual penalty of $2,000 for each full-time worker. Moving from 49 to 50 workers will cost a firm $40,000 a year.” 

This is another example of a job destroying policy that will negatively affect real people. Just like you and me, businesses run on incentives, and incentives like these will hinder our economy from growing. Diana Furchotgott-Roths’s study also reveals that this law disproportionately will affect minorities and high school dropouts when it comes to employment opportunities. This is all a result of an ill-advised penalty to punish small business by making the cost of employing new people more expensive. Moreover, the effect this would have on economic growth and job creation would be significantly counterproductive towards the goal of emerging from this recession.

A third negative side effect is the 500-700 billion dollars in spending reductions to Medicare. This is problematic since the United States has a large ageing population and with our advances in medical technology (thank God) we now are able to live longer than ever before. With this reality, cuts to Medicare could not come at a worse time. In fact, these cuts to Medicare will cause 15% of hospitals to run potentially at a loss. This means that close to 15% of hospitals that help Medicare patients who are elderly could go out of business because of the loss in revenue due to reduced Medicare spending. For instance, Avick Roy of Forbs states,

“The Obama administration’s own Medicare actuary, Richard Foster, has explained that the Obamacare Medicare cuts could make unprofitable 15 percent of hospitals serving Medicare patients. “It is doubtful that many [hospitals and other health care providers] will be able to improve their own productivity to the degree” necessary to accommodate the cuts, Foster has written. “Thus, providers for whom Medicare constitutes a substantial portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable, and, absent legislative intervention, might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing care for beneficiaries. [Our] simulations…suggest that roughly 15 percent of [hospitalization] providers would become unprofitable within the 10-year projection as a result of the [spending cuts].” (hyperlink original to Avik’s quote)

In the end it comes down to basic economics – you cannot have an increasing demand without equivalent growth in supply and actually believe that costs will go down. If these hospitals close their doors, it will reduce supply and cause health care costs to increase even more. This proves to be increasingly problematic, since the Affordable Care Act also increases demand by mandating all the uninsured to be insured (or pay a penalty). This law hypothetically was intended to lower health care costs; yet it does nothing to increase the supply of care, while simultaneously increasing the demand for that care. It is simply economically flawed to think this will lower health care costs. Currently, the health care industry accounts for about 18% of the United States’ GDP. This sector is too large for us to ignore.

Finally, the fourth negative side effect exacerbates the problem that the Affordable Care Act was intended to fix through lowering costs. The problem is that it does nothing for increasing the supply of doctors or care providers. This law actually incentivizes the opposite. For example, a recent Investors Business Daily editorial looked into a poll taken by the Doctor Patient Medical Association. It states, “A stunning 83% of physicians, answering by fax and online from April 18 to May 22, are thinking about quitting their profession, and 65% say government involvement is most to blame for current health care problems.”(bold added). Thus, if doctors decide they no longer wish to practice medicine, this results in one thing – a reduction in supply. Thus the Affordable Care Act inadvertently, while it may have been well intentioned, will surely increase the overall cost of health care.

Therefore, this law does little to nothing to lower the costs of healthcare in America. This should not be surprising. Remember President Obama promised he would bring insurance premiums down for American families by $2,500. Sadly this was another broken promise, because premiums have increased by $3,000 on American families. In fact Investors Business daily explains that “premiums climbed faster in Obama’s four years than they did in the previous four under President Bush, the survey data show.” In theory, President Obama’s and the Democrats’ health care policies were intended to lower cost, but in reality they failed to do so; for in order for healthcare costs to go down, there needs to be an increase in the number of healthcare providers and suppliers to meet the new and enlarged demand.  Americans must think beyond the benefits of today and look at the realities of tomorrow. Hence, we need to repeal the Affordable Care Act!

Editors note: as with all blog postings that appear with a by-line, the opinions presented are the author’s and not necessarily the positions of Cafe Con Leche Republicans.

Thomas Martin Salazar is an Arizona leader of the Café con Leche Republicans. He holds a Bachelor’s degree in History from Grand Canyon University and is currently working on obtaining a MDiv in Biblical Communication from Phoenix Seminary. Thomas has also served as the Grand Canyon University College Republicans Vice President and interim President (February 2007-April 2008) and as a Maricopa County Republican Precinct committeeman (August 2009 – August 2012).

Other post by Thomas Salazar:
Gary Johnson, the Wasted Vote 

By Alex Gonzalez (re-posted with permission of the author and Latinos Ready to Vote – original link)

I became convinced that the crucial difference between these countries wasn’t geography.  I noticed the most successful countries shared something in common.  They were the freest.  They protected the rights of the individual.  They enforced the rule of law.  And they encouraged free enterprise.  They understood that economic freedom is the only force in history that has consistently lifted people out of poverty – and kept people out of poverty—Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney gave a speech at the Clinton Global Initiative arguing that the most successful nations, those who have moved from poverty to developed nations,  have a  common denominator:  the rule of law and property rights.  And he is right.  In building a democratic and free nation, property rights and culture do matter.  History shows us that that culture was developed  Britain  and American.

Three months ago, Mitt Romney also  gave a speech in Warsaw, Poland  and wrote an Op-ed for the National Review arguing that the reason why Israel was economically and military superior to Palestinians was because of culture. Some cultures are more prone to develop political institutions for the protection of property rights, democratic, and capitalism. So, in fact, what Mitt argued in Poland about Israeli and Palestinian, and in Clinton Global initiate is what he learned, as he has openly stated,  from the book The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: why some are so poor and why are so wealthy  by David  S. Landes.

The crux of book by Harvard professor David  Landes, which is the foundation for Mitt Romney foreign policy views,  is that economic and political success for nations is  a matter of  culture, and thus, economic progress occurs  only in nations that promote institutionalism—devotion to the intuitions of government—like Northern Europe and North America, as Landes repeatedly  argues  in the book.

I have read the books twice and I can tell you with certainty  that books is  a great  chronological exploration into the development Western Style democracy, Capitalism,  and  the Industrial Revolution in northern Europe,–all of  which were fueled by the Reformation. According to Landes, British tradition of rule of law, justices, the limits of government powers and Protestant values and “moralism,” is the main reason why Northern Europe and America became wealthy nations. Consequently,  prosperous nations, as Mitt Romney correctly argues,  are built by the rule of law in which  the institutions  of government protect private property and Natural Rights.  In other words, there cannot be natural rights without Institutionalism  or Constitutionalism.

In Landes’ argument, which is a similar argument made by Samuel  Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations,  the Protestant Reformation in Northern Europe led to high levels of  literacy, the Industrial Revolution, democracy, and  subsequently to the rule of law and the development of Constitutionalism.  Similarly, Protestantism developed  Capitalism in the British Isles by the bourgeois  capitalist class. However,  but the books also notes that,   in order for the bourgeois  capitalist-class  and the Lords to be able to trade without fear of someone  stealing  your goods, or other invading your land, the bourgeois, the Capitals-class and the Lords agree to Pay a levy for protection and Constitutional guarantees of private property rights, not some Libertarian selfish rural mantra.  Thus, any nation based in rule of law and property rights are by nature  dependent on institutionalism.

Thus, the culture that Romney referred to in his speech for the Clinton Global Initiate is the culture that promotes Constitutionalism and the creation of intuitions of government that will protect private property and democracy.  Hence, it was this culture that sprung from a protestant  British-American  model that made  nations thrive in the 20^th century  because they too shifted to a   culture of Constitutionalism—institutionalism, and Capitalism.

As conservative American Culturists like  Landes and Samuel  Huntington unapologetically argue that such a culture sprung from Protestantism in the Britain.   Moreover,  this culture sprung  specifically from  Anglo-Saxon Protestant  culture in America  Britain.  Furthermore  Professor Landes promoted his economic  “prosperity” argument from Max Weber’s The Protestant Ethnic to include that western-style Capitalism was a tenet of Protestantism.

Max Weber argued in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism that Protestantism is important to because it is a fervent positive religious ideal, “a calling.” And this calling was the catalyst to the development of western-style capitalism. The rationalization, or organization,    Weber argues, was psychological conditions that made possible the development of capitalist societies in Protestantism because labor organizations were “rational.” Thus, Rationalism is a system not based on tradition but on a deliberate systematic adjustments of economics meant to attainment of the objective of economic profit. So in Landes’s books, nations and economies—just like Capitalism– need to be organized by reason, not superstitions. And this what Romney message is to world; nation can be prosperous if they too organized their societies and systems of government under the rule law, property rights

But unlike Landes who stops with pro-British views, Samuel Huntington  dealt with this concept    to explain the American character;  and his argument is simple. The American creed is made of Anglo-Protestant British culture. But unlike Landes and Romney who make simple religious observation to explain the disparity to two nations in the same geographical location. Huntington argued that Anglo-Protestant culture is not unique to only British people since culture is learnt behavior, and thereby, other people can learn this culture as well.

Culture can be changed, according Huntington,  and thus  the American Anglo-Protestant creed  transcends race and religions, because, in America we had inclusive  Protestant groups   that made it possible  “non-white” non-protestant  groups to convert to protestant  ideals of Constitutionalism,  Institutionalism and Capitalism. As a result, Protestant inclusiveness of  “moralism” made now-white culture into white, which in Huntington argument this was  the  case for Jews, Irish,  Italians and Ester European  who changed their religious superstitions  for protestant America ideal.

In the late 18th century, according to Huntington, there was a need to broaden the characterization of American ethnic identity to included Catholics from Ireland, Germany, Italy, Southern, and Eastern Europe. “The ethnic (religious) composition of America was broaden to include Irish and Germans” and churches utilized their religions to transform their alliances from Roman Catholicism to American Catholicism–alliances to Americans institution, not Rome. These new religious groups had to adapt to standards of the Anglo-Saxon patterns of institutionalism. As a result, without the principles of Protestantism, such institutionalism and dedication protect the rights of  individualism.

I was often struck by the enormous differences in the wealth and well-being of people living in different nations. I was interested in how nations that were so close to each other in terms of geography could be so different in terms of prosperity. Take, for example, Mexico and the United States, Israel and Egypt, Chile and Ecuador–Mitt Romney

In Huntington’s view, while Ireland, Italy, and Eastern Europe stayed poor and undeveloped for another 100 years, the immigrants and their American offspring  in the US became economically successful because they embraced the Protestant model of government  and Capitalism.  It would be genetically impossible for an Irish-man to change his gene pool, according Huntington. But Irish, Italians, Poles,  and Jews change the ancestral culture to Protestant-Anglo culture model in the US. And this the culture that Mitt Romney describes in his speeches on how “culture does matters.”  Not only any culture, but Anlgo Protestant culture.

Thus, Romney is right that culture, more than geography, matters for the economic prosperity and democracy. More importantly,  this “culture”  of rule of law and private property is not unique to one group, but  rather to the core Protestant values that can become universal by including and inviting other groups. For example, if we were to compare the economic development between Britain and Ireland, two nations  that  share  same geographical location, they could be so different economic and cultural development.  Also,  German and Poland share the same geographical  region but their culture is different since only Germany has thrived economically  for centuries while Poland has remained a poor Easter European nation,

Romney made such a statement while in Poland.  But Landes’ books also explained that culture of Eastern   Europe—in Poland—also have been ravaged by failed  states and authoritarian regimes because of their culture, such has religion. Landes argues that Eastern Europe lacks western ideals.  Thus, They opted for superstitions,  authoritarian  regimes over  innovation, and democracy, and capitalism.  In fact, as Landes points out, the problem with Eastern Europe is because Christian Orthodox superstitions religious archaic system made impossible for the development of strong Institutions of government  and democracy;  they are  incompatible  with Capitalism and Protestant “moralism” or rule of laws and property rights.

Democracy and Capitalism is a raw business and it takes cultivating and internal fighting among cultural and political groups. And those cultures that fought for Democracy, rule of law and property rights were developed in cultural enclaves like Britain and America. With the Protestant  culture of “moralism,” rule of  law, limited government, property right, the world would be different place.  So culture does matter.

Guest Op-ed by Sharon Sebastian              Website:  www.DarwinsRacists.com

Barack Obama is desperate to make people believe that he really cares about “the middle class.” After four years, his actions speak louder than words. Some 85% of the middle class say they are worse off today than they were ten years ago. According to the Wall Street Journal, from the time Obama took office in 2009, “The Obama years have been brutal on middle-class incomes” wiping out “$4019 in real income” for families. The report goes on to say, “The last time incomes fell this fast was during the late 1970s under Jimmy Carter, and it’s no coincidence that economic policies then and now are so similar. If Mr. Obama succeeds in convincing voters that he really is the tribune of the middle class, it will be the political conjurer’s trick of the century.”

The financial loss and burden imposed by Obama will be greater on all workers, including Black, Hispanic, Asian and White, when looming tax hikes go into effect January 2013 along with Obamacare’s vast array of hidden taxes set to further rip family budgets apart. The question is — why has the middle class been hit so hard by Obama? Is it an ideological grudge?

Obama had two doggedly radical mentors that shaped both his ideology and his current policies. One was a committed hardcore Communist and the other was renowned as a hardcore Socialist.  Neither man stressed American values, but taught the opposite — that America with its free enterprise, republic based, God-worshipping system is the enemy of the people. Frank Marshall Davis, a reported pedophile, race mongerer and strident Communist, was Obama’s family friend and was recruited by Obama’s grandfather to educate young Barry in the ways of the world. It was, however, Obama’s educational mentor, that stressed that if “real power” is to be gained, it must be done at the expense of the American people and the economy.

Obama Teaching Saul Alinsky Tactics (Photo Credit: AP)

The late Harvard Professor Saul Alinsky wrote that the key to weaken — then take over America, its economy and its people — is to “destroy the middle class.” Alinsky advocated use of class and race warfare. He believed that “wealth redistribution,” taking from those who work and giving it to those who don’t, is the catalyst to bring down the U.S. economy and free-market capitalism. After four years in office, Obama is well on his way to doing just that. Alinsky’s socialist guidebook is embedded in Obama’s record of economic policies that he has visited upon all Americans and their families — specifically the “middle class.”

It should be noted that Alinsky began his book, Rules for Radicals, with a tribute to: “…the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer.” Alinsky championed and sought to emulate Lucifer, otherwise known as Satan. Alinsky’s game plan was to lie, cheat and steal elections in order to control the American people and bring American commerce to its knees. Excerpt from my April 2010 article: Power At Any Cost: The Training of Barack Obama:

Alinsky clearly recognized that Lucifer or Satan is also the king of deception. It is upon deception that Alinsky built his political strategy. Deception, he taught his followers, is the Trojan horse that gets you inside the gates where you can then access power and retain it by any means available – no matter the costs to the people, the government or the nation. Again, it is upon deception that Alinsky built his political strategy. It is Alinsky’s strategy that Barack Obama wrote on a blackboard and can be seen teaching to ACORN members during his days as a Chicago Community Organizer. Obama’s educational-mentor Alinsky also worked as a Chicago Community Organizer before him.

It is true that Saul Alinsky preferred the teachings of Lenin, who murdered millions, to the teachings of Mao, who also murdered millions. Mao advocated obtaining power by the barrel of the gun. Lenin was more subtle by first advocating working the system and obtaining power by the vote, then using the barrel of the gun to keep it.  Alinsky had no qualms about stealing the vote as a means to reach his end result – power.  For Saul Alinsky, deception is the key to everything.  Say one thing, do another, even change the meanings of words. Pretend to be bi-partisan in order to get the upper hand. For Alinsky, the means don’t matter – destroy whomever or whatever gets in your way. Alinsky made it clear that what his followers want “is power.”

Though Alinsky died before Obama could make it into his classroom, an Investor Business Daily editorial traces Obama’s affair with Alinsky’s radical ideology: “Obama first learned Alinsky’s rules in the 1980s, when Alinskyite radicals with the Chicago-based Alinsky group Gamaliel Foundation recruited, hired, trained and paid [Obama] as a community organizer in South Side Chicago …In 1988, Obama even wrote a chapter for the book “After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois,” …he traveled to Los Angeles for eight days of intense training at Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation. In turn, he trained other community organizers in Alinsky agitation tactics. Obama also taught Alinsky’s “Power Analysis” methods at the University of Chicago.

Ed Blumenfeld wrote in The New American: “One of Obama’s advisors during his 2008 election campaign was Peter Dreier. …Stanley Kurtz, in Radical-in-Chief, credits Dreier with formulating the stealth plan to destroy capitalism. His plan is to gradually expand government spending until the country nears fiscal collapse. At that point, a public accustomed to entitlements will presumably turn on its capitalist masters when they propose cutbacks to restore fiscal balance.”

The one Alinsky constant learned by the Obama administration is deception. Now, as the election is at hand, it attempts a full-blown cover-up from Benghazi-gate to fake unemployment stats to deflecting its own deceit by accusing its opponent of lying – a trait that the radical Democrats and their leader have mastered exceedingly well.  While professing to “care for the middle class,” Obama’s answer to lift the middle class out of its current slide into poverty is to deluge Americans with hidden taxes attached to Obamacare, send gasoline and fuel costs soaring by denying drilling permits and clean coal and printing a flood of devalued dollars that create inflated costs on food, clothing and American households. VP Joe Biden is right that the last four years of Obama have “buried” the middle class along with women heads-of-households as concurrent casualties. Obama has left 5.5 million women unemployed putting the poverty rate among women at 16.3% — the highest in 17 years. In the Socialist power-play, Black-Americans are collateral damage. According to the Chicago Tribune, failed economic policies have led to the “Wiping out of gains made in the last 30 years [by Blacks], with plummets in wealth and high rates of foreclosures.” Socialism spares no race, no one is exempt from its hardships.

Foretelling Obama’s agenda for the middle class, Tony Adkins of Conservative-Daily reports: “The WARN Act is a federal law requiring that most employers give 60 calendar days’ notice before they institute plant closings and mass layoffs. The point is to give workers some time to adapt to their upcoming unemployment by looking for another job, adjusting finances, or entering training for new skills. It’s the right thing to do…and, it’s the law.  But, that pesky law has a bad timing consequence for our sitting President. …funding cuts signed by President Obama are about to result in an estimated two million jobs being lost; but, layoffs right before an election would be politically toxic, and Obama wants to avoid angry, laid off workers who might tend to vote for Romney. So, he has therefore instructed his Office of Management and Budget to ignore the law and WAIT to send out notices [until after the election].” Again, no race, no one, is spared from this hardship.

“Obama learned his lesson well,” David Alinsky [Saul Alinsky's son] reportedly stated, “I am proud to see that my father’s model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing.” Alinsky taught that the key to destroying the middle class is to create a failed economy that destroys private sector jobs which leads to a powerless, but growing subset of laid-off workers who become reliant on and controlled by the government. It is Alinsky’s dream come to life at the destructive hands of Barack Obama, President of the United States.

Related article: POWER AT ANY COST:  THE TRAINING OF BARACK OBAMA

http://darwinsracists.com/book/?p=68

Sharon Sebastian’s insights on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdZHzMG66Kg

Sharon Sebastian (www.DarwinsRacists.com) is an author, writer, and contributor to various forms of media including cultural and political broadcasts, print, and online websites. In addition to the heated global debate on creation vs. evolution, her second book, Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, highlights the impact of Social Darwinism’s Marxist/Socialist underpinnings on the culture, the faith and current policy out of Washington. Critics are calling Darwin’s Racists – “Incredibly Timely” and “A Book for our Times.” Sebastian’s political and cultural analyses are published nationally and internationally. Website: www.DarwinsRacists.com. “Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow” may be ordered at: www.DarwinsRacists.com, www.Amazon.com, www.BarnesandNoble.com and at bookstores online and worldwide. Sharon Sebastian’s insights on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdZHzMG66Kg