Comprehensive Tyranny of the Global Commie Unionist Corporate Criminal Regimes ;

The pursuit of happiness
and the acquisition of wealth
and property are as integral to
capitalism as the products
advertised on television.

But President Obama
would have Americans
believe that this activity
is inherently evil and
must be curbed.

Obama has appointed a czar
to oversee what he deems
"excessive" pay.

And according to President Obama,
there is a point at which someone has
"enough" money.

Assuming Obama's premise is correct,
who is he to make such a determination?

Who is Congress?

These men and women are public servants,
not public masters, as noted by financial
commentator Thomas Sowell.

Moreover,
these individuals long ago made "enough"
-- with President Obama raking in over
$5 million this year.

At the heart of this paradigm
is the mistaken belief that the
economy is a zero-sum game,
a fixed pie that neither expands
nor contracts, and that making
money takes money from
someone else.

In this paradigm,
the existence of tycoons
like Bill Gates "steals"
opportunity from the poor
and removes wealth from
the "fixed" economy.

This misconception is
bad economics and certainly
bad politics for a free country.

Bill Gates' possession
of large quantities of money
in no way removes wealth
or reduces the opportunities
for others to climb the ladder
of economic success.

The economy is a dynamic
and constantly expanding
(not static) entity.

This is why,
apart from outdated CBO models,
tax cuts yield greater revenue than
tax increases -- because when people
are given more of their money to spend,
investments are made, jobs are created,
the income base expands, and a smaller
slice returns greater revenue.

If the economy were static,
the rich would pay less after
tax cuts, but the most current
data indicate that the rich pay
a larger share of the tax burden
after tax cuts.

Furthermore,
a principle called income mobility
demonstrates that the poorest in
American society often rise to the
highest echelons of American society
in the course of single decade
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/the_end_game_of_class_warfare.html

Should Americans be concerned
about a Federal Communications
Commission official having once
suggested that if government doesn't
help minorities reduce white ownership
of broadcast media, then only violence
would assure the protection of
minorities' civil rights?

In the little-noticed 2007 publication
"The Erosion of Civil Rights," Mark Lloyd
attempted to make a case for Washington
controlling media ownership.

At the time, Lloyd -- now FCC
Chief Diversity Officer -- was a
senior fellow at the Center
for American Progress.

Lloyd's contribution, "Civil Rights
and Communications Policy-2006,"
is saturated with straw man arguments.

Ideologues use two
predominant straw man templates.

Type I declares the existence
of nonexistent problems in order
to draw implications that bolster
ideological talking points.

Type II
offers imagined evidence
against imagined problems
to strengthen talking points.

Mark Lloyd depended
on Type I straw men in "Civil Rights
and Communications Policy-2006."

He wrote,
"Communications policy
determines who gets to speak
to whom, how soon and at what cost."

Bad policy
"enhances one
group's ability to
communicate and
limits another group,"
violates the limited group's
civil rights, and "perpetuates
the stereotypes one group
holds about the other."

There is no proof
of a "communications policy"
that either benefits or hurts
certain "groups," and yet Lloyd
stated the contention as fact.

Indeed, there's no proof
that Americans communicate
according to any "policy" at all.

The very idea
of government-controlled
communications violates
the First Amendment.

Lloyd's follow-on
points depend on the
reader not noticing the hocus-pocus
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/the_fccs_covert_mission_to_bal.html