Friday, March 29, 2013

Honor them, thank them, respect their service always.


Another Round Goes to Bernanke


Apropos of my column of a week ago -- “Has Bernanke Gotten the Story Right?” -- this week’s paltry GDP revision again backs up the actions of the Federal Reserve chairman and his market-monetarist supporters.

Real GDP was a miniscule 0.4 percent at an annual rate for last year’s fourth quarter, up from an earlier estimate of 0.1 percent. Perhaps more to the point, the year-on-year GDP change is only 1.7 percent, less than the 2 percent average growth of the Obama recovery, which is still the weakest in modern times going back to 1947.

Inside the report, there was good strength in housing investment (17.6 percent), business equipment (11.8 percent), and business structures like factories and warehouses (16.7 percent), all in annual rates for last year’s fourth quarter. Consumer spending, however, was a rather soft 1.8 percent.

But get this: While government spending fell 7 percent, private sector GDP rose at a decent clip. This still suggests that budget cuts lead to government austerity, and are not a negative for private-sector prosperity. That’s a key lesson in this whole sequester debate.

Incidentally, corporate profits after-tax rose 13 percent year on year in the new GDP report. This shows how resilient business is, despite regulatory obstacles like Obamacare and all the various tax hikes that come with it.

But back to Bernanke. Nominal GDP, which is what the market monetarists want the Fed to target, has increased only 3.5 percent over the past year, which is below the 4 percent trend line of recent years. I believe my monetarist friends want a 5 percent target for national income. And that is why they want the Federal Reserve to continue its policy of pushing bank reserves into the system.

The problem is, much of the Fed’s $3 trillion balance sheet remains on deposit as excess bank reserves, getting a quarter percent interest rate from the central bank. The actual money supply -- M2 -- does not reflect the printing-press mythology that has grown up around the Fed’s story.

To wit, M2 over the past year has grown by less than 7 percent. But the turnover of money, called velocity, has fallen by 3.5 percent. Therefore, despite the Fed’s stimulus, overall nominal GDP (real growth plus inflation) is still a sluggish 3.5 percent.

What’s more, Bernanke’s boast that he has held inflation down remains true, at least through fourth-quarter revised GDP. Both the GDP deflator and the chain price index have increased only 1.8 percent, and show no signs of acceleration.

And the gold price is hovering around $1,600. It really hasn’t moved over the past year. Nor has it budged since the Fed instituted its latest quantitative-easing, bond-buying policy last September. Even more interesting, King Dollar continues to strengthen. In fact, the greenback has gained ground since the Fed’s September QE announcement.

As I’ve said before, the gigantic increase in the Fed’s balance sheet, which will run close to $4 trillion later this year, makes me very uneasy. And if the velocity turnover of money does pick up in the future, there will be an inflation problem that will be very difficult for the Fed to unwind. Can it sell its massive bond portfolio in a timely fashion? No one can say.

But at the moment, looking at the numbers, I’m going to give this round to Mr. Bernanke and his market-monetarist supporters. There is no massive printing-press money, no huge inflation jump, and certainly no overheated economy. With the U.S. economy rising at perhaps 2 to 3 percent in the first quarter, which is much better than the economies of Europe and Japan, and with the U.S. stock market hovering near record highs, I would have to characterize my stance as relatively optimistic, but certainly not irrationally exuberant.

However, I continue to disagree with the Fed chair on fiscal policy. We need more government spending cuts coupled with serious tax reduction for large and small companies in order to boost this economy without injecting more and more money. This supply-side policy would deliver a much more predictable and reliable path to prosperity.

But on monetary matters, it may just be that the Bernanke Fed is right where it should be.

Obamacare: An Alarming Check-Up

By: Ed Feulner / Townhall Columnist
Obamacare: An Alarming Check-Up

Three years old, eh? Well, with any luck, you’ll leave here with a clean bill of … uh-oh. I can see one problem already. Have you seen these tax hikes?

Let’s see … five, 10, 15 … 18 tax hikes in all. Hardly seems wise, considering the fragile health of the economy, but there they are.
There’s the tax on individuals who don’t purchase health insurance. That’ll cost $55 billion over the next decade. I also see a 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health plans costing more than $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. It’ll be $111 billion for that between 2018 and 2022. And several smaller ones, such as limiting the amount people can set aside in their flexible spending accounts. $4.5 billion there from 2011 to 2022.

It all adds up, Obamacare. And it’s not healthy.

Hate to tell you this, but it gets worse. See this? That’s the number of people who are going to lose their current health insurance because of you. Not thousands, but millions. Seven million, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). And this isn’t guesswork; it’s already happening.

Take Universal Orlando, which recently announced that it won’t continue to cover its part-time workers.

Why? Not because they’re mean-hearted. Because they can’t afford it. Your prohibition of annual benefit limits beginning next year is making Universal’s health plans too expensive. Word is, this will affect about 500 Universal employees.

Or consider the American Veterinary Medical Association in Illinois. “[M]edical coverage will end for some 17,500 Association members and thousands of their dependents at year’s end,” the group says in a news release. And there are many more to come, from other employers. Ouch.

Wait. Obamacare, didn’t you say that nobody who liked his current plan would lose it? Yes. You promised it, in fact. Repeatedly. I’d better note that in your chart here.

You may be getting uncomfortable, but we’re not done yet. Over here, there’s another serious problem:

You’re hurting hiring -- and right at a time when the economy could use all the help it can get to reduce unemployment.

You don’t believe it? Look at the “Beige Book,” a report that the Federal Reserve publishes eight times a year detailing the economic activity in the Reserve’s 12 different regions. According to its most recent report: “Employers in several Districts cited the unknown effects of the Affordable Care Act as reasons for planned layoffs and reluctance to hire more staff.”

“Affordable Care Act.” That’s you.

There’s more. Good thing you’re sitting down. Turns out you’re making it more difficult to access Medicare services.

You can be as skeptical as you want, but this is right from the CBO and Medicare’s own trustees.

They’ve shown what you don’t want to admit: You’re raiding Medicare to pay for other new programs.

Payment rates for Medicare Advantage: down $156 billion over the next decade. Home health services: down $66 billion. Hospice services: down $17 billion. The biggest one is hospital services, which you cut by $260 billion. What’s that? No, the cuts do not target medical institutions or organizations suspected of waste, fraud, or abuse. Nice try.

Finally, I see that insurance premiums are going to skyrocket under you. It’s those coverage mandates you put in place -- they’re the culprit. According to a congressional report by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, some premiums are set to rise in every state. Yes, every state. And not by small amounts. In many states, they’re primed to go up by more than 50 percent; in others, by more than 100 percent. And it’s all due to changes you’ve introduced.

This despite your claim that your law would “cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year.” That sure isn’t working out, is it?

You can pay the receptionist on your way out. No, I’m afraid we don’t accept that insurance plan anymore.

Obamacare: "Driving Up Unemployment and Insurance Costs Since 2010™"

Jobless claims stopped their record-breaking, fearsome, FOUR-WEEK job-creation rampage today as the BLS reported that initial claim rose- again- by more than economists expected.

“First-time jobless claims rose by 16,000 to 357,000 in the week ended March 23,” reports Reuters, “the highest level in more than a month, Labor Department data showed today in Washington. The median forecast of 48 economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for an increase to 340,000. The four-week average climbed from the lowest level in five years.”

Economists, says Reuters, were expecting claims to come in between 330,000 at the low end and 355,000 at the high end.

“We’re not making progress the way we’d like to,” said Robert Brusca, president of Fact & Opinion Economics in New York, who projected claims would climb to 350,000. “It’s still a very disappointing picture for jobs.”

Disappointing for people too.

But not so bad for Obama, who is making a pitch today that we should…ban guns? Oh, wait…no this week it’s…the boondoggle on a study related to snail sex. No? Oh, yes…it’s gay marriage. Or wait, how about this one: an Easter egg roll that avoids using Jesus’ name or any talk of religion.

Never fear: I think they’ll make up for it later with a Socratic seminar on “Jesus Stompin’.”

But who really cares? The recovery just keeps getting better and better, for people who live in DC.

Outside the Beltway, it’s a bit tougher.

Despite all the “great news” manufactured by the media about how “great” the economy is, average people aren’t so sure.

“The Conference Board, a private research group, said its index of consumer confidence declined about 8 points to 59.7 in March from a revised 68.0 in February,” reports theWall Street Journal, “the first reported as 69.6. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires had expected the index to fall, but only to 67.1.”

What the heck is wrong with these people?

Don’t they know we are in the greatest economic recovery in the history of the universe brought to us by the record-setting healthcare premiums charged by insurance companies as a result of Obamacare?

Obamacare: Driving Up Unemployment and Insurance Costs Since 2010.

The Obama administration seems to be scratching its collective talking-head about that one, with health Czarista Lady Sebelius finally admitting what those of us who bitterly cling to math have known all along: Yes, Obamacare will raise costs, not lower them.

“These folks will be moving into a really fully insured product for the first time, and so there may be a higher cost associated with getting into that market,” said Lady Sebelius. “But we feel pretty strongly that with subsidies available to a lot of that population that they are really going to see much better benefit for the money that they’re spending.”

As the folks over at Human Events explained, that’s fancy talk for you get to pay twice:  “Don’t worry, folks, ObamaCare is blowing premiums through the roof,” writes John Hayward, “but there will be subsidies available for lower-income Americans!  That means the rest of us will get screwed twice - once when we pay our higher insurance premiums, then again when we pay for all those lovely subsidies [provided by the federal government].”

And, look, when you finally give up and no longer wish to work to pay the freight for everyone else, you can be sure there’s some sort of Obama subsidy out there for you too.

357,000 people found out about that last week.

Bet they all love Obama now.

No?
Obama blocking "ethical alternative to importing oil from regimes such as Saudi Arabia"

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer


Obama's trip to Israel was a disaster, as he strong-armed Netanyahu into apologizing for Israel's defensive action against the Mavi Marmara jihad flotilla (which apology Al Jazeera -- as noted below -- happily characterized as "normalizing" ties between Israel and Turkey). And comparison of Israeli/"Palestinian" relations to those between the U.S. and Canada was simply bizarre. However, it looks as if Obama may have been on to something: he is standing in the way of a Canadian/U.S. oil pipeline that could end U.S. dependence on oil from Islamic supremacist states.

"Canada, Keystone, and the Palestinians," by Christine Williams at the Gatestone Institute, March 27:
As Obama wrapped up his Middle East tour, applauded by AIPAC for reaffirming "unbreakable bonds" and "deep affection" between two key allies; and by Al Jazeera for "normalizing" Israel Turkey ties, Obama's neighbors to the north are left scratching their heads about what he meant by his off-the-cuff statementthat compared Israeli-Palestinian relations to Canada-U.S. relations. 
After acknowledging in his speech the horror of an Israeli sleeping in his bed and having a rocket come through the roof, Obama went on to say: "Even though both sides have areas of strong disagreement, may be engaging in activities that the other side considers to be a breach of good faith, we have to push through those things…. There will be a sovereign Palestinian state, a sovereign Jewish State of Israel and those two states will be able to deal with each other the same way all states do. The United States and Canada have arguments once in a while."
The outlandish comparison – as Canadians do not lob rockets and missiles into Rochester or Detroit or claim the U.S. as "Occupied Canada" -- could have been an Obama gaffe to add to an open-mic one he made during his welcome ceremony after he landed in Israel and declared that this trip allowed him to "get away from Congress." Obama has become quite noted for minor and major gaffes, such as when he insulted Netanyahu and conspired with outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. Both incidents raised questions about his character, his policies and potentially hidden agendas.
Although one could not decipher any meaning behind Obama's odd comparison of American-Canadian relations with Israeli-Palestinian relations, one can note some important "arguments" the U.S. now faces with Canada: primarily the Keystone XL pipeline project, designed to carry oil from Canada to Texas oil refineries.
To address further these "once in a while arguments," a Forbes article illustrated how -- with policies similar to what are being promoted by Republicans -- Canada is outperforming the U.S. economically on every level. Entitled "What President Obama Doesn't Want You To Know About Canada", it cited senior sources in the Canadian government who met with Obama administration officials and said their impression was that the White House is jealous of the Canadian government's power to have its way. Even the notoriously liberal Canadian Broadcaster CBC featured in its community blog: "Republicans threaten move to Canada after Obama win"
The Obama administration's energy policy is starkly divergent from the Harper government's. Canada obtains oil from places such as the Athabasca oil sands region in northeastern Alberta, while the Obama administration has reduced drilling permits on public lands and has stalled the go-ahead of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada. The Keystone pipeline not only provides an ethical alternative to importing oil from regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Venezuela; it is also an "essential part of the North American energy marketplace" and of U.S.-Canada relations, according to former Conservative cabinet minister Jim Prentice, who is now a senior executive with the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.
When Obama rejected Keystone in early 2012, he pinned the blame for the decision on Republicans, accusing them for trying to push the administration to an earlier deadline. But Obama's dilemma about the Keystone project reveals underlying issues that could have long-term implications for Obama's credibility in his ongoing commitment to promote an agenda affecting "climate change," as well as to his liberal economic policies. For example, during a speech on China and India as emerging economies, Obama's assistant on economic policy, Lawrence Summers, raised the idea that India's political-economic model, which he referred to as the "Mumbai Consensus," may in the end win the day. According to Summers the Mumbai Consensus is "not based on ideas of laissez-faire capitalism that have proven obsolete or ideas of authoritarian capitalism that ultimately will prove not to be enduringly successful…." Recall that George Bush was the whipping boy for laissez-faire capitalism in certain camps after the Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae fiasco that led to the 2008 economic meltdown, even though it is no secret that the Democrats bore guilt.
With respect to Obama's credibility, right after taking office, in having vowed to promote policies that would supposedly moderate climate change, Obama committed the U.S. to the foreground of global climate change initiatives -- the centerpiece of which would entail revamping the flawed Kyoto protocol to bring include equitable commitments from countries such as China and India, which, despite being the most objectionable polluters, had been given free passes under the Kyoto accords. Now, years later and into his second term, Obama faces stumbling blocks in making good on his promises, not the least of which involves the Keystone pipeline.
Before tackling that issue, however, there are a couple other entanglements Obama is facing: now that Republicans control the House, Obama has apparently decided to move forward on his own with climate change initiatives, which include plans to engage federal agencies and the Environmental Protection Agency. National regulations will inevitably involve the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The problem is that Obama has failed to appoint a single judge to this powerful court that decides cases challenging agency regulations -- making him the first full-term president in over half a century to do so, and in effect hobbling his own agenda.
Even though Obama has twice thwarted the Keystone project, the Senate has just endorsed its construction, and House Republicans have vowed not to wait for Obama, but to sidestep the White House and vote on legislation to approve the Keystone project by Memorial Day.
Now that Obama has finished playing relationship counselor in the Middle East, he returns to the U.S. to face serious challenges coming in from Canada and from Congress.
Environmentalists have already started branding the Keystone pipeline as the "Obama Pipeline" and the "Obama Legacy on Keystone," and are asking questions such as: "What happens if it leaks?" The surrounding heat being generated from the Keystone controversy may well have had an influence upon Obama's gaffe in comparing U.S.-Canada relations with Israeli-Palestinian relations, even though in reality there is no comparison.

Vicious anti-Israel ads are going up in New York subway -- and AFDI is responding 

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer 

 

Thumbnail image for IslamicApartheid4.jpg
Read the New York Post story on our new AFDI ad campaign responding to these anti-Israel ads, and Pamela Geller's comments, here.

Help us keep our pro-freedom ads going: contribute here.

"Vicious, anti-Israel ads in New York subway," by Pamela Geller in WND, March 26:
In typically disrespectful and offensive fashion, Muslim Americans (for “Palestine”) have issued the latest blood libel against the Jews on the holy day of Passover. 
The Islamic supremacists announced triumphantly in a press release Friday that an “Israeli Apartheid ad” was going to begin to appear in New York train stations on Monday (Passover began Monday night). “The American Muslims for Palestine” described itself as a “national grassroots organization educating the public about Palestine and its rich cultural and historical heritage” – not an easy job to do for a made-up country and a fictional people.
They said that their new “nationwide outdoor advertising campaign” called for “an end to Israeli apartheid and to unconditional American aid for Israel.” And they said that the New York run was just the beginning, and that the ads would run elsewhere around the country as well.
And so again, with little fanfare and no outraged opposition or media firestorm or condemnation, Muslim Jew-haters are running their fourth repulsive anti-Semitic campaign in the New York City transit system. It is important to point out that it is these campaigns that were the impetus for the pro-Israel and #MyJihad campaigns of my organization, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, or AFDI. And I can assure you that this latest Goebbels-style demonization of the Jews will not go unanswered. We are working feverishly right now to get ads responding to these ready for submission.
Apartheid? Anne Bayefsky notes that “there were once an estimated 900,000 Jews” in the Muslim world, “but today there are less than a few thousand. They were given a choice: Die, convert or flee.” That’s apartheid. The slaughter of gays across the Muslim world: that’s apartheid. The persecution of Christians across the Muslim world: that’s apartheid. The prohibition of non-Muslims from even entering Mecca: that’s apartheid. Muslims are freer in Israel than in any Muslim country.
This anti-Israel ad is exactly the technique that Hitler’s minions used. If you read the writings of Goebbels, the Nazi narrative was that they were the victims. They were the put-upon ones. That’s how they sold annihilation. And this is the same thing. It’s not surprising that Islamic supremacists would appropriate the propaganda methods of the Third Reich, as they partnered with Hitler and shared the same goal.
This war on the Jews has nothing to do with land. That’s the evil and fallacious narrative that the annihilationists and Jew-haters have appropriated to sell this steaming pile of dung to normalize the genocidal imperative of the Islamic jihad against the Jews.
It’s the Big Lie, and it has been going on since 1948. For that matter, it has been going on for 1,400 years. Khaybar, Khaybar, ya yahud, jaish Muhammad sa yaoud (“Khaybar, Khaybar, O Jews, the army of Muhammad shall return”) is a frequently-heard war chant of genocidal jihadis, referring to Muhammad’s massacre of the remaining Jews of Arabia (the ones he hadn’t already killed, exiled or enslaved) at the oasis of Khaybar. Muhammad also suggested that Muslims could hasten the coming of the end times by murdering Jews, when he said that “the last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him” (Sahih Muslim 6985).
Modern-day Muslims have taken this genocidal bloodlust to heart. One of our ads features a quote from a music video that ran on Hamas’s Al Aqsa TV: “Killing Jews is worship that draws us close to Allah”.
We are the only ones who are effectively countering this anti-Semitic propaganda campaign. We will be unveiling a new campaign this week to expose the lies and massive deceit about ongoing Islamic tyranny. Help us keep our pro-freedom ads going: contribute here.

The Republican Shell Game On Obamacare

by / Personal Liberty Digest

The Republican Shell Game On Obamacare
PHOTOS.COM
Give us a break! That’s what Congress finally did on Saturday, when after a marathon session in the Senate, Congressmen all agreed to head out of town for their two-week spring break. So we’re safe from their meddlesome efforts until April 8.

But what a show they put on before they left. After arguing most of the night, the Senate finally managed to pass its first budget in four years at 4:56 in the morning. The final vote was 50-49, with every Republican opposing it. They were joined by four Democrats: Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Mark Begich of Alaska and Max Baucus of Montana. Not so coincidentally, all four are up for re-election next year.

I’ll have more to say about the battle of the budgets in a moment. But first I need to comment on two recent Senate votes on Obamacare and the incredible hypocrisy they demonstrated. First, Congressional Republicans declared their unwavering opposition to the badly misnamed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Then they voted to fund it for the rest of the year.

What the heck’s going on here?

Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), two tough young conservatives who defeated more establishment-type Republicans to win election, lived up to their campaign promises to try to end Obamacare. They forced a vote in the Senate on an amendment to defund the program. As expected, the measure lost on a straight party-line vote, with 55 Democrats voting against it and all 45 Republicans in the Senate voting in favor.

On March 20, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell made a wonderful speech on the floor of the Senate:
In my view, Obamacare is a colossal mistake for our country. There’s just no way to fix it. It needs to be pulled out by its roots and we need to start over.
This bill needs to be repealed and replaced — not with another unreadable law or another 20,000 pages of regulations – but with common-sense reforms that actually lower health care costs.
And anyone who thinks we’ve given up that fight is dead wrong.
On March 15, McConnell gave a speech denouncing Obamacare at the Conservative Political Action Conference. He stood next to a stack of papers that were taller than he was, which he said were the 20,000 pages of new regulations that have been issued so far to implement this healthcare monstrosity.
Some 828 pages of new regulations were issued in just one day, he said; and he warned that there are many more to come.

On March 11, in remarks on the Senate floor, McConnell said:
This law is a disaster waiting to happen.
Imagine the burden we’re placing on the single mom who wants to open her own store. Or the young entrepreneur who wants to sell some new idea. Or the business owners we all know from back home — the folks who employ so many of our constituents.
Instead of encouraging them to create jobs and grow the economy, we’re hitting them with a brick of regulations.
That all sounds pretty good, doesn’t it? But McConnell and 19 other Republican Senators voted to fund Obamacare for the rest fiscal 2013.

What you’ve got here is a perfect example of how many Republicans can vote for “business as usual” in Washington, while at the same time making sure they can posture as staunch conservatives for the folks back home.

Here are the 20 Republican Senators who voted in favor of the Cruz amendment, knowing it would fail, but then voted in favor of a measure to make sure the healthcare monstrosity gets all of the taxpayer funds it needs to continue operations for the rest of this fiscal year:

Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, John Barrasso of Wyoming, Roy Blunt of Missouri, John Boozman of Arkansas, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Dan Coats of Indiana, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Susan Collins of Maine, Bob Corker of Tennessee, John Cornyn of Texas, Orrin Hatch of Utah, John Hoeven of North Dakota, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Mike Johanns of Nevada, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Richard Shelby of Alabama, John Thune of South Dakota and Roger Wicker of Mississippi.

By the way, you may be wondering why the vote to fund Obamacare was included in an omnibus piece of legislation called a “continuing resolution.” The reason is that our august leaders know that they can get a lot more votes for their massive spending programs if they lump enough things together in one humongous package. So rather than individual votes on various parts of the Federal budget, we get one all-inclusive continuing resolution.

It’s so much safer that way. Witness what just happened with efforts to defund Obamacare.

In the predawn hours of March 23, the Democratic majority in the Senate also did something that it has vigorously avoided for the past four years: It passed a budget.

As the kids would say, big whoop. The Democrats’ plan calls for almost $1 trillion in new revenue over the next 10 years. But thanks to 62 percent more spending over the decade, even if they get all that new revenue, the budget still won’t balance.

The Republicans, meanwhile, didn’t do much better. The Paul Ryan budget, which the House passed and the Senate rejected, also called for more spending, just not quite as much. The Republican budget would have increased Federal spending by 40 percent over the next 10 years. But thanks to increased revenue from our slowly growing economy, the budget was supposed to have balanced by year 10.

Mind you, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are actually calling for a reduction in government spending. The best we can hope for, they say, is a slight reduction in the proposed growth of government.

Until we more people in the U.S. Senate who will stick to their campaign promises on every vote and who don’t engage in the sort of shell game we just saw with funding for Obamacare, I’m afraid they are probably correct.

Of the 21 Senate seats currently held by Democrats that will be contested next year, Republicans have to win only six of them in addition to retaining the seats they hold in order to regain control of the Senate.

But it sure wouldn’t hurt if, at the same time, some of the soft-as-marshmallows Republicans in the list above could also be replaced by some people with a little more backbone.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.
Op-ed:
Countdown to gun control...maybe not
By: Diane Sori

 
“He (Michael Bloomberg) can’t spend enough of his $27 billion to try to impose his will on the American public,” said NRA Chief Executive Officer Wayne LaPierre.

NO, but he can sure try as the 'bad guns kill people' bleeding heart liberals are giving a final push to put gun control laws into place that challenge our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Using the standard anti-gun propaganda of 'it's for the children,' Mayors Against Illegal Guns (a group run and financed by ubber leftist and muslim lover NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg) this week began a $12 million dollar television blitz targeting Senators (who are on Easter and Passover recess) in 13 states in an attempt to garner votes to 'fix' what they consider our broken gun laws (which by the way like our immigration laws are NOT broken...they're just NOT enforced).

And of course our ever-loving Barack HUSSEIN Obama stuck his nose into this as yesterday he had another White House 'it's all about me' photo-op event where he gave a speech accusing opponents of his gun control proposals of drumming up fear, and urged his supporters to call members of Congress and pressure them into backing his proposals. And true to form he had mothers who support tougher gun laws...mothers who were victims either directly or indirectly of gun violence...as a backdrop as he played for sympathy, and once again exploited the child victims of the Newtown Massacre for political fodder and political fodder alone.

"It is deeply unfortunate that he continues to use the tragedy at Newtown as a backdrop for pushing legislation that would have done nothing to prevent that horrible crime" said Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) after Obama finished his bloviations, which included saying, "There are some powerful voices on the other side that are interested in running out the clock, or changing the subject...They're doing everything they can to make all our progress collapse under the weight of fear and frustration."

NO...I don't think so as changing the subject on our Constitutionally given right to keep and bear arms is NOT something we're interested in letting the clock run out on.

And so those in the Obama trenches continue pushing hard for stricter gun control laws as they work their fingers to the bone in a last ditch effort to influence any Senator who is still fence sitting into embracing their point of view. Yesterday, more than 140 public events in 29 states were held in what was called a 'National Day to Demand Action'...to end gun violence. And for those who couldn't make it to events in person, an organized call campaign to pressure congressional offices to support what they claim is 'the common sense reforms' that a majority of Americans want was also held.

I hate to inform them but what the majority of Americans want is for Obama to keep his hands off our Second Amendment...but I digress...

Mayors Against Illegal Guns, in conjunction with Organizing for Action, Americans for Responsible Solutions and other (leftist) groups organized these events to try and convince the populace that inanimate objects like guns are the problem while they still completely ignore the fact that guns are NOT the problem...people are the people...bad people who will always find a way to get guns NO matter how many laws are put into place.

So as we near the April 8th start of the debate in the Senate, thankfully, Prince Harry knew they didn't have the votes to renew and expand the so-called 'assault rifle ban,' so he took that off the table (Senator Dianne 'I can have a gun but you can't' Feinstein will still try to push it through as an amendment) leaving Obama and crew to push hard for the only things they have even a chance of getting passed, including legislation that would require universal background checks for every firearm purchased in this country, strengthened punishments for illegal firearm trafficking, and more money for school security.

But Obama's hoped for required background checks for all firearms purchases is NOT being proposed for altruistic reasons but for the sole purpose of keeping a national gun registry so he and his minions can see which one of us are armed and which one of us aren't. And don't let all the bloviating 'it's all about the children' rhetoric coming out of Obama's and the gun controllers mouths fool you into believing otherwise.

And with Republicans in the Senate planning to ensure that any gun control proposal require a 60-vote threshold in order to proceed, and with four Senators (Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Mike Lee) ready to filibuster any gun control proposals, maybe this will NOT be a win for Obama and his gun control loons, but a win for 'We the People' and our Constitution, because as the saying goes, 'if you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have guns' and we all know about this outlaw administration...now don't we.