Monday, December 31, 2012

Too Expensive to Die

The end is near.  Some kind of decision will be made on the fiscal cliff mess but it will more than likely be nothing substantial.  Knowing Congress, it will be a shot of morphine to ease our pain as we continue to be on death watch.

Speaking of death watch; no one other than financial gurus and geeks are talking about the impending rise in the estate tax.  Is no one paying attention to this blatant theft of savings and assets that have already been taxed once?

If nothing is done, on January 1, 2013 the estate tax will cripple more than what they are calling the “evil” rich.  It will reach down and squeeze the life out of working families who have managed to save money and assets for their heirs.  


If nothing is resolved the combined estate and gift tax exemption drops to $1 million and the estate tax rises to 55%.  That may not sound like a big deal to some people, but in reality it affects more than you know.  Family farms will be hit hard.  Many people who have homes in the more expensive cities and states will be hit by this tax.  Let’s say that you have a home and some stocks, bonds or cash that you have sacrificed to save and put away for your children; if you die at the stroke of midnight your hard earned (already taxed) money will be confiscated by the government at the rate of 55% over a $1 million dollar exemption.

Democrat Senator from Montana, Max Baucus has sided with the Republicans on this issue because of the impact this rate would have on family owned farms.  He has seen how many families have had to sell family owned properties that have been passed down from generation to generation.  One in ten families are predicted to pay this increase in 2013 if nothing is done and these estates involve asset-rich, cash poor farms.

There could be a compromise where we go back to the tax rates of 2009.  That would be a 45% rate with a $3.5 million exemption.  Vick Patten, former President of the American Family Institute says “America’s family businesses and family farms and family ranches produce 63 percent of all the jobs in America.  When they are forced into a situation where, at the end of each generation, the government confiscates half of or---in terms of what they propose on Jan. 1, more than half of all their capital---this has very, very, very detrimental effects on the survival of the business.”  Even with a compromise it would still affect too many families and would be a drop in the bucket toward solving this financial crisis. 

So the bottom line is, don’t die.  It is too expensive. The greedy government wants everything that you have worked for and saved during your lifetime.  They feel “entitled” to your assets and if you die they have the right to confiscate them. Why should you have the right to leave your hard earned money to your children or whomever you wish?  Obama will continue to push his “class warfare” agenda until there is no other class than the poor.  They will grab and steal from those who have contributed their blood, sweat and tears to build businesses and create prosperity.  With the confiscation of estates and assets after you die where will the incentive be to even create prosperity in the first place?  Is it just an exercise to see how much money you can make for the government?

In my opinion the estate tax should be abolished. If you work and pay taxes over your lifetime, you have the right as an American to distribute your assets after your death to whomever you choose without the sticky fingers of government stealing from you and your family.

50 Shades of Bush Blame                                          

By: Shawn Mitchell  / Townhall Columnist

Our topic today is how George Bush destroyed America. Or, more precisely, how the Left says he did. Naturally, their solution is for America to join the ranks of European social democracies. It’s the only way to not to repeat “the mistakes that got us here in the first place.”

The Left and their Old Media amplifiers tell a simple story: George Bush inherited frrm Bill Clinton a strong economy and a balanced budget. He proceeded to commit national arson by deregulating Wall Street, cutting taxes for the rich, and fighting two needless wars.

The long fuse of Bush’s fiscal folly finally struck dynamite in late 2008, blowing Clinton’s Camelot economy to bits. President Obama has struggled boldly—against Republican obstruction-- to fix problems so bad not even a modest genius like Bill Clinton could have fixed them in a single term. Clinton modestly admitted this in his convention keynote. So, steady on the transformational path. It’s the only way Forward to redistribution paradise and state allocated happiness.

It’s a measure of the current mood that this narrative has yet to get much pushback from battered conservatives. They’re suffering post traumatic stress from the election, and pre-traumatic stress,  bracing for the preordained blame if America dives off the cliff a gleeful president seems to be gunning for.

It’s a shame, because the tidy Bush tale is mostly false and grossly incomplete. It’s little more than a team shout for Democrats, media cheerleaders, and partisan supporters. For that purpose, it’s  quite effective, smearing conservative economic positions and providing perpetual cover for the cascading failure of Obama’s liberal policies: The worse things are, the more it will prove how badly Bush screwed things up.  Forever, says Madeline Albright.

The fog of national amnesia and unreason hides a lot, and denies the complexity that obviously exists. A nation’s—and president’s--economic success depends on many variables, including business climate, currency and credit strength, a reasonable fiscal balance of taxing and spending, and more. The president doesn’t exclusively control any of the variables. He jockeys for influence among other factors, including Congress, the Fed, the business cycle, and unpredictable world events. 

Viewing the big picture, Clinton was very lucky; Bush was very unlucky; and Obama is making it worse.

Clinton’s record can’t be assessed out of context: six of his eight budgets were Republican documents (recall the pre-banana republic era, when Congress actually passed national budgets, and the media would have savaged congressional leaders who refused); his economy and tax revenues were buoyed on the twin bubbles of early dot.com euphoria and Alan Greenspan’s loose exuberance; and after his ’94 rebuke by voters impelled him to declare big government dead, he generally governed moderately, playing strategic small ball, promoting global trade, and keeping largely out of the way of industry and the economy. 

Also important, Clinton famously lamented he missed the kind of earth-shaking events that can lend presidential “greatness,” but his economic record plainly benefitted from serving in a relatively uneventful decade. 

This is not to deny Clinton political “credit” for the prosperity America enjoyed. That’s how the game works. Presidents gain and lose stature for serendipitous reasons. But in debating policy choices, the Clinton years are no endorsement of the Obama agenda, far from it.

Too, if the charge is irresponsible deregulation, Bush deregulated very little. It was Clinton who signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall, allowing depository banks to participate in commercial banking and equity ventures. This broke firewalls that had protected depositors for decades.

Perhaps most critically, Clinton pumped risk and volatility into the finance and housing sectors. He pushed hard on banks to loosen standards and expand home loans under Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act. He authorized government sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac to buy subprime securities. 

That created a market for bundled mortgages. Thus, Clinton greatly expanded lucrative incentives for “predatory lending” that critics would in time blame fully on the private sector. 

All of this contributed to the dynamite that exploded in 2008. The smoke and soot are on Bush, but the fingerprints are Clinton’s.

Far from the simple epitaph “tax cuts and two wars,” Bush presided over an extraordinarily turbulent and challenging time for America. The economy endured severe blows quite well. The early internet mania was already tapering, when, months into his term, Bush was called to lead the nation from the smoldering ruins of September 11. The consequences included economic convulsions. Travel and tourism stopped cold and were choked for months. The first surge of the internet bubble popped for good. IPO’s that had pumped out garage-based millionaires dried up. Economic activity and tax revenues dropped sharply. Airports and travel resumed slowly and warily.

It’s surprising that jobs and the economy were as resilient as they were. Critics charge the Bush tax rate cuts didn’t create jobs. But there was job growth, and in context, they may have offered vital incentive for an economy reeling from so many body blows. They certainly have as fair claim to the Obama phrase of “jobs created or saved.” 

Bush was not a significant deregulator. Apart from a prow-growth tax policy, he wasn’t a fiscal conservative. Movement conservatives chafed at his big spending, big government initiatives. Importantly, though, Bush and some congressional Republicans raised concerns about the growing risk of Fan and Fred. For their trouble, they were bitterly denounced by Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and others.

If Bush wasn’t a limited government conservative, neither was he a credit balloonist. The fury hit in 2008, on Bush’s watch. He, and his party, understandably answered for it at the polls. But the disease that hit us was not mainly a symptom of the deficit spending liberals denounce Bush for. Rather, the infection flowed from bad loans, inflated portfolios, inflationary fed policy, and the moral hazard of a tax-backed safety net for bad bankers. 

The stigma for our credit crisis and slow recovery now falls not on fiscal moderates like Bush, but on tea partiers, populists, and free market advocates who just want government to tax and spend less and take its boot off the economy. Meanwhile, the banker friends of Bill and now Barack, the Bob Rubins, Jon Corzines, Tim Geithners, and Goldman Sachs of the world are covering for, and slapping each others’ backs, and laughing all the way to the tax-payer backed bank.

The mistakes that got us here, indeed.

The Obama Hustle

The Rediscovered Truth About Barack H Obama

BREAKING NEWS – Hawaii state registrar Alvin Onaka has publicly certified to AZ SOS Ken Bennett that Barack Obama’s HI birth certificate is legally non-valid and the White House image is a forgery.


English: This is the long form birth certifica...
Forged Obama COLB

As reported to AL HENDERSHOT, Editor of The Obama Hustle.

Hawaii state registrar Alvin Onaka has publicly certified to AZ SOS Ken Bennett that Barack Obama’s HI birth certificate is legally non-valid and the White House image is a forgery. He also confirmed to KS SOS Kris Kobach that the information contained in the White House image isNOT “identical to” that in the official record.

Many of you have replied to concerned constituents that the matter is settled by the public statements of Hawaii officials, the HDOH birth index list, the newspaper birth announcements, and Obama’s posted short-form and long-form birth certificates.  Onaka’s disclosure – the only one made by a HI official under oath –negates all that and fits the vast legal and forensic evidence collected so far, some of which is in my affidavit (privately posted at for NE criminal case #B2-119. Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his Cold Case Commander, Mike Zullo  (both of whom initially disbelieved the skeptics) have both signed affidavits saying there is legal-quality FORENSIC evidence that Obama’s long-form birth certificate and draft registration are forged. Onaka has now revealed the REASON for the forgery: to hide the non-validity of the birth record. 

Evidence in my affidavit proves (among other things) that the 1960-64 birth index includes non-valid records.

Onaka’s disclosure is proof of results-altering election fraud in every state in this country, since fraudulent filing documents were used to place Obama on every state’s ballot. Absent a non-Hawaii birth record, 

Obama doesn’t even have a legally-determined birth date, place, or parents so nobody can lawfully say he meets the age or citizenship requirements to be President – and yet every Certification of Nomination falsely swears that he is eligible.  EVERY electoral vote for Obama is thus now LEGALLY KNOWN to be fraudulently-obtained and must not be certified as lawful on Jan 8th. As with the Sandusky case, those with knowledge have legal responsibility to act, and that is now you.

Even if the majority in Congress wrongly certifies the electoral vote, that only makes Obama the President-elect. The 20th Amendment says that if the President-elect fails to qualify by Jan 20th, the Vice-President-elect must “act as President”. Without any legally-determined birth date, birth place, or birth parents, there is no way that Barack Obama could have qualified by Jan 20, 2009 – or can qualify by Jan 20, 2013, unless his birth facts ARE legally determined. The biggest favor any one of you can do for this whole process (and for Obama himself if he is to become President LAWFULLY) is to file a lawsuit (with standing) challenging Obama’s eligibility so that the records will be presented as evidence to a JUDICIAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE person or body (not legislative, according to Hawaii statute 338-17, so Congress is powerless on this issue) and birth facts determined. That’s the only way Obama can “qualify” by Jan 20, 2013.

Our President has committed perjury 6 times by swearing (in AZ, NC, and WV) that he is eligible, knowing that he has no valid HI birth certificate (and claiming a Kenyan birth in his bio until 2007), and let his spokesmen pass off two forgeries as genuine on his behalf. He knowingly allowed a decorated military surgeon to lose his life’s savings and retirement and spend 6 months in prison for simply wanting to know if his combat orders were lawful, or whether they Constitutionally had to come from Joe Biden instead – who OPPOSED the “surge”.

It appears that many felonies have been committed. An impeachment must precede a criminal investigation and trial, so failure to impeach is obstruction of equal protection & the rule of law – without which, none of your life’s work even matters because the laws you make will only be enforced when politically expedient to the powerful. A banana republic.
Op-ed: 
A reinstatement of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban will stop nothing
By: Diane Sori

Following the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, the anti-gun loons have been out in full force trying to get assault weapons (like the Bushmaster AR-15) banned because they erroneously believe this was the weapon 'the monster' used to slaughter the innocents that fateful day just a few short weeks ago.  

It was NOT.

But what all these gun control loons fail to understand is that an assault-weapons ban is NO guarantee that the number of mass shootings would decline. But with a president hell-bent on restricting access to so-called 'mean looking guns' (aka assault rifles) as his jump off point to repealing our Second Amendment with its stated right for 'We the People' to keep and bear arms, we face an uphill but winnable battle.

While nothing changes the fact that most gun crimes in America are committed with handguns NOT assault rifles, there are statistics those on the left won't like, including those compiled by a Northeastern University professor and the Census Bureau that show that the number of mass shootings since the 1980s has fluctuated annually, but with NO major upward or downward trend. In fact, according to FBI data, of the two-thirds of murders that involve firearms, about 69% involve handguns rather than rifles or shotguns of any kind. And estimates from all studies place the contribution of assault weapons to gun crime at around 1 or 2 percent at most.

In other words, banning assault weapons of any sort has absolutely NO bearing on the amount of firearm deaths that occur yearly. And remember, the term 'assault weapon' was invented by the anti-gun lobby as a way of blurring the distinction between modern semi-automatic rifles, which fire once per trigger pull, and selective-fire assault rifles, which can be set to fire continuously, a distinction that Obama just doesn't get. So simply saying laws should be changed to cover more 'assault weapons' is redundant because guns do not become 'assault weapons' until legislators decide to classify them as such. 

"You had that (the Federal Assault Weapons Ban) for 10 years when Dianne Feinstein passed that ban in '94. It was on the books. Columbine occurred right in the middle of it. It didn't make any difference," said NRA chief Wayne LaPierre. "I think that is a phony piece of legislation (referring to a new ban), and I do not believe it will pass for this reason."

I sure hope LaPierre is right, because if passed it would only be the start of Obama's trying to take ALL our guns away and putting them solely in the hands of the very ones we need to defend ourselves from...meaning him and his cronies.

And as this debate continues, who does Obama appoint to head the committee investigating a reinstatement of the assault weapons ban...none other than VP Joe 'Bite-Me' Biden, the very man who helped pass the original along along with Diane Feinstein, the sponsor of this new hoped for ban. 

Remember, in the original ban Congress made a distinction between the broadly defined category of assault 'weapons' and the narrower category of assault 'rifles.' Assault weapons are semi-automatic firearms having certain features similar to those of military firearms.  Assault rifles are a selective fire (either fully automatic or burst-capable) rifle that uses an interchangeable cartridge and a detachable magazine.  The original ban was placed on assault 'weapons' and assault 'weapons' ammunition meaning the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 dealt with a very specific class of firearm and nothing else.

But lets cut to the chase and tell it like it really is...this new proposed assault weapons ban is nothing but an attempt to eliminate ‘straw purchases’ by hiding behind the claim about a gun show loophole that if you buy a gun at a gun show there’s NO background check.  But this is NOT true as all dealers and vendors must run a background check because that’s already law.  What they are trying to say is if two gun show attendees... customers NOT vendors or dealers...bring their own firearms and sell it to another customer with NO paperwork like you would get from a vendor or dealer, that would be a crime, meaning conducting private sales would be a crime.  This would force ALL firearm purchases to be registered allowing the government to know exactly who has a firearm and who doesn’t.  And if confiscation ever became policy they would know exactly who to go for.

However, to get this new hoped for ban passed it still has to go through the Republican controlled House, and such a bill would never make it through if the Republicans stand united against it. And something Obama, Biden, and Feinstein forget is that while a new ban might stop the sale of new semi-automatic rifles, more than three million semis are already in private citizen's hands, so what happens to those...will those people get a knock on the door by the Feds demanding they surrender their rifles...I really don't think the outcome of something like that would be very pretty...for the Feds that is.

So lets end this talk of reinstating any sort of assault weapons ban, and let it really sink in that guns, including assault weapons, don't kill people...people kill people. 

Got it... I surely hope so.

Sunday, December 30, 2012

Obama’s Deadly Plan for the Death Tax


In some ways, it would be fun to be a leftist.

No, I’m not talking about living a life of idleness and letting others pay my bills, though I suppose that’s tempting to some people.

And I’m not talking about becoming a Washington insider and using corrupt connections to obtain unearned wealth, though I confess I’m actually friends with some of those people.

Instead, I’m talking about what it must be like to engage in reckless demagoguery and personal smears.

Remember during the presidential campaign when Mitt Romney was – for all intents and purposes – accused of causing a woman’s death because of his actions at Bain Capital?

The pro-Obama Super-PAC that produced that ad relied on indirect connections and overlooked some very salient facts that completely disproved even the indirect connections.

But even though the ad was exposed as maliciously false, the folks who put it together probably laughed all the way to the bank.

With this in mind, maybe it’s time to publicly ask why President Obama wants to kill old people.

“Time for your death panel appointment”
This isn’t a blog post about Obamacare, though there certainly are enough horror stories from the United Kingdom to make us fearful of government-run healthcare.

I’m referring instead to what might happen because of Obama’s proposal for a much more onerous death tax, which is part of his class-warfare agenda and would take effect in just a couple of days.

It seems that there’s good evidence this may lead to some premature deaths. CNBC reports.

Many families are faced with a stark proposition. If the life of an elderly wealthy family member extends into 2013, the tax bills will be substantially higher. An estate that could bequest $3 million this year will leave just $1.9 million after taxes next year. Shifting a death from January to December could produce $1.1 million in tax savings. It may seem incredible to contemplate pulling the plug on grandma to save tax dollars. While we know that investors will sell stocks to avoid rising capital gains taxes, accelerating the death of a loved one seems at least a bit morbid—perhaps even evil. Will people really make life and death decisions based on taxes? Do we don our green eye shades when it comes to something this serious? There is good evidence that there is some “elasticity” in the timing of important decisions about life and death.

And what does that mean? Well, according to some of the academic research, the President is going to have proverbial blood on his hands.

Gans and Leigh looked into another natural experiment. In 1979, Australia abolished its federal inheritance taxes. Official records show that approximately 50 deaths were shifted from the week before the abolition to the week after. “Although we cannot rule out the possibility that our results are driven by misreporting, our results imply that over the very short run, the death rate may be highly elastic with respect to the inheritance tax rate,” Gans and Leigh write. This isn’t just something peculiar to Australia. Economists Wojciech Kopczuk of Columbia University and Joel Slemrod of the University of Michigan studied how mortality rates in the United States were changed by falling or rising estate taxes. They note that while the evidence of “death elasticity” is “not overwhelming,” every $10,000 in available tax savings increases the chance of dying in the low-tax period by 1.6 percent. This is true both when taxes are falling, so that people are surviving longer to achieve the tax savings, and when they are rising, so that people are dying earlier, according to Kopczuk and Slemrod. “Death elasticity” does not necessarily mean that greedy relatives are pulling the plug on the dying or forcing the sickly to extend their lives into a lower taxed period. According to a 2008 paper from University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Doctor G. Stuart Mendenhall, while tax increases give potential heirs large economic incentives to limit care that would prolong life, distressed patients may “voluntarily trade prolongation of their life past the end [a low tax period] for large ?nancial implications for their kin.

I’ve previously cited the research from Australia, and also wrote a post about incentives to die in 2010, when the death tax temporarily was abolished, so this research makes sense.

What’s the bottom line?

…based on past reactions to changes in taxes, it at least seems likely that some deaths that might otherwise have occurred shortly after January 1 will occur shortly before. Death may slip in ahead of the tax man for some with estates worth over $1 million.

In the grand scheme of things, I have a hard time feeling anguish about some elderly rich guy dying today rather than one week from now. But there is real data to suggest that Obama’s policies will cause premature deaths.


And these premature deaths will only occur because the President is greedy for more revenue from a tax that shouldn’t even exist. Indeed, it’s worth noting that every pro-growth tax reform plan – such as the flat tax or national sales tax – eliminates this pernicious form of double taxation.

Since I’m an economist, I can’t resist a final comment about this tax having a terrible impact on capital formation. This is bad for workers, since it translates into lower wages.

And it’s definitely not good for U.S. competitiveness.

P.S. Whatever you do, don’t die in New Jersey.

P.P.S. It’s a morbid topic, but there is such a thing as death tax humor.

On Obamacare (and Guns), We Won't Comply

Americans know instinctively that when liberals start talking about deficit reduction that’s it’s just a case of the fantods, as Huckleberry Finn would say. And say what you will about old Huck, but he knew a couple of frauds when he saw them.    

No matter what liberal “Wonks” like Ezra Klein say about the historically dumb healthcare “reform” known as Obamcare, Americans are uneasy about it.

And they should be.

More and more law-abiding Americans say that they have constitutional objections to the healthcare and liberty land grab by the Obama administration.

Coming next? It could be guns!

Despite Sotomayor Ruling, Hobby Lobby Won’t Comply With Abortifacient Mandate, says the National Catholic Register.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing Hobby Lobby as well as a number of other organizations and groups that have filed lawsuits against the mandate, said in a statement posted on its website following Sotomayor’s decision that the company would not provide abortifacient drugs in its health-insurance plan.

And the trend could grow, from healthcare to guns. And then, Houston, we have a problem.

The best thing- as Democrat strategist James Carville admitted last year- that could have happened for the Democrats is for the Supreme Court to have tossed out the landmark legislation that bears Obama's name.

But that didn't happen, so now the Democrats are stuck trying to make another bad law work.

Obamacare supporters like Ezra Klein, instead of trying to fix the problem continue to play dirty pool when it comes to healthcare reform.  They now count it as a deficit fighter, when in fact, it’s no such thing.

Unless of course you count any bill with a tax increase in it as a deficit fighter. A defense contract could be a deficit fighter too, if a defense contract was designed just like Obamacare.

Here let me show you the sleight of hand that liberals did to claim Obamacare fights the deficit.  

Say, for example, that when we decommission the old Nimitz-class carriers we then replace them with the newer Gerald Ford class of carriers at $15 billion a clip. Let’s say, in this example, that we then raise taxes 3.8 percent on people who go over a certain income limit, to an extent that we not only pay for each carrier but we also create a surplus of $100 billion that we can apply to the deficit- just as they did in Obamcare. 

Actually in the case of the aircraft carriers, the exact same tax increase that the used for Obamacare would pay for the carriers and leave a surplus of $180 billion over the same period, almost twice what Obamacare claims. 

Then we could pass both the replacement aircraft carrier budget authorization and the tax increase in one bundle- just as they did with Obamacare- and call it the The American Affordable Defense Act (AADA).   

Then any time someone threatens to scrap the Ford class carriers we could cry out “But getting rid of the AADA would add to the deficit!”

While the typical American doesn’t necessarily know the ins and outs of Obamacare, the same confidence game has been played on them so may times that they are wise to it.  

Counting on public stupidity to see a massive new spending program, like Obamacare, as some sort of deficit fighter, because THEY SAY IT IS, just shows you how weak the original case for Obamacare was in the first place.

And only in Washington can you start off entitlement reform that’s supposed to reduce spending, by ushering in a massive new government program that will greatly grow government spending. And then pat yourself on the back for it.  

Wasn’t it the same type of entitlement Ponzi scheme that gave us the problem in the first place?

Wonks and politicians may not see it, but those guys are in the process of self term-limiting out of business anyway- either by votes or by pageviews. 2010 was just a preview, not a conclusion even accepting the standstill in the 2012 election.

Readers know that I hate to pick on the Washington Post this way, but I don’t know anyone who would willingly call themselves a wonk in the first place. The Post’s Wonk brand is stuck in the Way-Back Machine of the 1990s.

The Wonk Disneyland, known as DC, is exactly what gets us these kinds of political and mathematical ruses that pass for solutions these day. The only choice we will have soon is to stop complying with federal mandates like Obamacare.

Because Americans continue to favor repeal of Obamacare.

The Supreme Court decision calling Obamacare a tax will likely reinforce the opinion that it’s a flawed piece of legislation that greatly expands government bureaucracy at a time when Americans think that government is doing too much not too little.

You can pass Obamacare as a deficit measure and call it Constitutional -and then wonk about it all you want. But Americans know the truth.

Obamacare, like the tax on tea that saw a load of it dumped into Boston Harbor in 1773, is just plain dumb.  And both also go against natural law.

I won't comply.
Op-ed:
Tick-tock...the clock ticks down on the 'supposed' fiscal cliff
By: Diane Sori

As the dreaded imaginary fiscal cliff draws near (you know, the one that is just a stalling tactic to get more time to drain our pockets to pay down the IOUs owed to foreign countries), what happens if we do go over this shoved in our faces non-existent cliff...simply NOTHING unexpected will happen, as we know the dog and pony show going on in DC is just so Obama can jockey for time to get what he wants...and the Republicans and 'We the People' be damned.

The sun will still rise and our economy will go on albeit with Obama's $560 BILLION tax increases and government spending cuts in place.  And even though he knows this will cause the unemployment rate to rise to 9.1% by year's end, which in turn will slow down the already weakened US economy by causing a drop of 0.5% in the real gross domestic product, he doesn't care even though these are numbers even he won't be able to hide.

Oh wait, he will...the msm will help him do it.

And add into that the fact that the expiration of the payroll tax cuts will happen, the expiration of Bush's tax cuts for the highest-income households will happen, and the start of the new Medicare surtax on high income earners will also go into effect...but all that matters to Obama is that he got his way.

So how will all this affect us...breaking the tax increases down into simple numbers means that Americans in the lowest 20% of the income scale would pay an average of about $400 more in taxes per year....middle-income households would pay about $2,000 more in taxes per year...the top 20% of taxpayers would pay about $14,000 more a year in taxes per year...and the Obama hated 1%ers would pay an average of $120,000 more in taxes per year, which would make it financially hard for them to create new businesses and jobs which would have helped put Americans back to work.

But that's what Obama wants so more will have to become dependent on the government for their survival...and more will see him as the one who saved them from ruin.

And while Obama and the talking news heads keep bloviating about this supposed cliff to total disaster, remember this entire concept of a fiscal cliff was simply the creation of Obama and Congress, who couldn't agree on a yearly budget that would have helped us reduce the deficit.  So, to resolve the impasse back in August 2011, Congress decided to push the big decisions off by 17 months but now the decisions are due.

So with the January 1st deadline closing in, going over the 'supposed' cliff will fall squarely on Obama and Congress, because they couldn't get the job they were elected to do done on time.  And that will cause the Obama and Congress made up fiscal cliff to haunt us all next year or until some agreement between both parties is made hopefully sooner rather than later.

But truth be told is that Obama and Congress are both playing the scare game with the masses.  Anyone with any semblance of intelligence knows there's a stop gap measure in place allowing for a few extra weeks of haggling giving Obama time to make a deal and appear as the hero who stopped what would have been the highest tax increase in US history along with some of the deepest spending cuts to our defense and military budget (to the tune of half a TRILLION dollars over ten years).

And as long as Obama and those in Congress seem to be working towards a deal, the tax hikes and spending cuts will be held off for a few weeks and could be repealed retroactively once a deal is reached, making Obama the hero...our lord and savior (gagging on that one) exulted by the msm yet again.

However, there are two things that even Obama can't wiggle out of...the first is that we will once again reach our borrowing limit on December 31st, leading him to go full-force ahead in trying to get the debt ceiling raised no later than February, so that he can continue his out of control spending at 'We the People's' expense.

And the second is that the US credit rating will be downgraded yet again if the debt ceiling isn't raised, upsetting the worldwide stock markets and banking industries.

So, will a twelfth hour deal suddenly be made to save Obama's reputation as our savior...by tonight or tomorrow we should know but hopefully it will all blow up in his face...he built it, let him own it.

Saturday, December 29, 2012

Senator Feinstein’s power-grabbing anti-weapons proposal threatens U.S. Constitution (+Video)

By Jodi Fowler / Editor, Conservative Nexus

Vilifying the United States Constitution has long been a foul-smelling ambition for Democrats, but now these radical Progressive leftists currently in power are attempting an all out destruction of our Constitution’s 2nd Amendment gun ownership rights with their recent attempt of off-the-wall gun banning proposals with Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) commandeering this scheme. Her bill broadens the Gun Control Act of 1994 which expired in 2004 and was not renewed. And, as usual, the Progressives who ‘never let a good crisis go to waste,’ are using the horrific murders of 26 teachers and young students in Newtown, Connecticut, to gain momentum for the bill’s passage although the majority of the American populace objects to losing their right to own guns.

Senator Feinstein has been working on her anti-gun bill for over a year, planning to release it in the first 2013 Congressional session, but chose bring it to the forefront earlier after the Connecticut school shootings. What a convenient manipulation of this grievous loss of life for political gain.

But as Conservative radio commentator Mark Levin reveals in his recent video (click link below), Feinstein is on record herself admitting “carrying” a gun for protection. So, what makes it alright for her to utilize her 2nd Amendment rights, but not for good, honest Americans deserving of self-protection?

http://conservativenexus.com/article/senator-feinsteins-power-grabbing-anti-weapons-proposal-threatens-u-s-constitution-video-2/

Her bill also calls for a federal registry of gun owners along with their fingerprints and a photograph. And, what will this solve, nothing, because criminals will continue to gain access to illegal weapons one way or another? A prime example is yesterday’s milestone in Chicago, a gun ban city, when their murder rate reached the 500 mark.

A summary of Feinstein’s bill states:
  • Stops the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of more than 100 specifically-named firearms as well as certain semiautomatic rifles, handguns and shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.
  • Stops the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of large-capacity ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
  • Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
  • grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;
  • exempting more than 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting and sporting purposes; and
  • exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.
See entire bill here.

The outcry for 2nd Amendment rights eradication does not stop with Feinstein, but is also condemned by other outspoken Hollywood and public figures critics such as Michael Moore, Mia Farrow, Piers Morgan, Rashsida Jones, and Alec Baldwin to name a few. However, big names such as these are most often escorted by gun-carrying bodyguards as are Senators, Congressmen, state leaders, and other well-known political figures, Conservative and Progressive alike.

So the point is not decrying owning a gun(s), the point is destroying our freedoms via tearing down our Constitutional rights and creating more federal control of our American populace also known as a police state. Via control along with his crony elites such as Senator Diane Feinstein, President Barack Obama is bent on creating the destruction of our liberties.

The WaPo Kerry Endorsement: Curious and Curiouser

The WaPo Kerry Endorsement: Curious and Curiouser

By: Ken Blackwell / Townhall Columnist 

The editorial staff of the Washington Post, surely meant well. They wanted readers to think that Sen. John Kerry’s vast experience in foreign policy over four decades equips him to serve as Secretary of State in the second Obama administration.

The editorial, titled “John Kerry: Well-suited to be Secretary of State,” gets that part right. The natty Mr. Kerry certainly looks the part of a globe-trotting senior U.S. diplomat.

As to his qualifications for that role, we’re reminded of Frederick the Great’s response when he was urged to make a less than stellar general a field marshal. Reminded the only occasionally victorious general had been in every battle for years, Frederick pointed to his mount: “So has my mule. Must I make him a field marshal, too?”

The Post editorialists offer a tour d’horizon of world hot spots and suggests Kerry has already been helpful in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt and Sudan.

Can anyone point to improvements in U.S. policy toward any of those benighted lands under this administration? Do we really need Kerry’s help to persuade Hamid Karzai take more U.S. gold to hold more dubious elections?

The millions of Christian refugees who have fled Sudan will find cold comfort in the thought that John Kerry has helped smooth their flight.

Pakistan? Only two percent of Pakistani citizens pay taxes, NPR tells us, but now Americans will face tax hikes in part so we can continue lavishing money on a country that hates us.

The Post editorial helpfully reminds us that Kerry was “convinced by” Syria’s cynical Bashir al-Assad that the Damascus butcher was actually a reformer. And this is evidence of his fitness for office?

Perhaps the most curious part of the Post endorsement of Kerry is the notion that defeated presidential candidates have something special to offer as Secretary of State. Nice thought, if it doesn’t collide with the test of history.

Consider William Seward, Lincoln’s defeated rival and hand-picked Sec. of State. Seward gave Lincoln shrewd advice on the Emancipation Proclamation, to be sure, and on shepherding the Thirteenth Amendment that abolished slavery through a lame-duck Congress (as the movie Lincoln memorably records).

But Seward’s foreign policy ideas were positively dangerous. In the midst of Civil War, he welcomed a war with Great Britain. That could have proven fatal for the embattled Union. Lincoln wisely leashed the wily New Yorker, saying: “One war at a time, Seward.”

Another presidential loser, William Jennings Bryan, was Democrat Woodrow Wilson’s disastrous choice for Sec. of State. Pacifist Bryan busied himself concluding binding arbitration treaties with scores of foreign states—like Uruguay and Switzerland.

When Germany sank the Lusitania in 1915, killing thousands of civilians, Bryan quit in a huff. Despite the deaths of hundreds of Americans, including infants, Bryan thought Wilson’s stiff note—typed on his own typewriter--was too “one-sided” against the Germans. It seems Bryan thought the doomed Lusitania had put herself right in the path of those German torpedoes.

Republican Charles Evans Hughes lost to President Wilson by a whisker in 1916. Former President Theodore Roosevelt, frustrated with Hughes, who hailed from T.R.’s native New York. He dismissed the wishy-washy Hughes as “Wilson with whiskers.”

A poor campaigner, Hughes was even worse as Warren Harding’s Sec. of State. Hughes pursued naval disarmament after World War I. That antagonized Japan. And stripped U.S. defenses in the Pacific.

Thousands of the nearly 80,000 U.S. and Filipino troops taken prisoner died on the infamous Bataan Death March of 1942. The crosses over their makeshift graves bear mute testimony to unwise foreign policies heedlessly pursued.

Speaking of New Yorkers who failed to catch the presidential gold ring, we come to former senator, now Sec. of State, Hillary Clinton. We sincerely hope Madame Secretary recovers from her concussion soon.
But while her widely anticipated congressional testimony on the Benghazi debacle will grab headlines, the totality of her tenure should not be passed over.

She badgered Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper, most undiplomatically in public, in Ottawa for not pushing abortion in pro-life East African nations. She helped Vice President Biden force abortion into the new Kenya constitution, threatening these African Christians with a cutoff of U.S. aid. This, from a Secretary of State who once admitted abortion is "wrong."

[Newsweek, Oct. 31, 1994]

While claiming to champion women worldwide, Hillary Clinton has been mum about the global war on unborn baby girls. Estimates range in the hundreds of millions of unborn children killed because they were female.

But, we digress!

Given the record of defeated presidential candidates trying to make a comeback as Secretary of State, the Post’sendorsement becomes curious and curiouser. Senators should press Sen. Kerry hard before taking the Post’s advice on this nomination.
Happy New Year 2013
By: Oliver North / Townhall Columnist


WASHINGTON -- It's "Auld Lang Syne" time again. Robert Burns is credited with "collecting" the lyrics for the old Scottish drinking and dancing ballad that's become a traditional part of New Year's festivities. The most memorable verses -- "should old acquaintance be forgot and never brought to mind" and the chorus, "for auld lang syne, my dear, for auld lang syne, we'll take a cup o' kindness yet for auld lang syne" -- are often described as reminders of "the good old times" amid new beginnings. That's a tough task this year. Saying goodbye to 2012 won't be hard. But looking forward with hope for a better year in 2013 is a real challenge.

Peering into a chasm from the edge of the "fiscal cliff" isn't the way most of us wanted to end the first dozen years of the 21st century. We all know it's the nature of government to grow in size, power and expense. But how many of us really expected that the fools in Washington would drown our progeny in a sea of deficits, debt and ever-higher taxes? Nobody I know expected the Internal Revenue Service to become the dominant fixture in our lives.

As 2012 began, did anyone anticipate it would become "The Year of the Cover-up"? Who believed the year would end with more emphasis on banning personally owned firearms than deterring our adversaries from acquiring nuclear weapons? Did anyone anticipate that our constitutionally protected freedoms would fall under the purview of the United Nations? A year ago, who among us expected we still would face the prospect of prolonged global recession, radical Islamic chaos in the Middle East, and endless genocide in Syria?

But as we ring out 2012 and welcome 2013, that's where we are. So as we "take a cup o' kindness yet for auld lang syne," what should we expect in the new year ahead -- apprehension or anticipation? Frequent readers of this column know I suffer from a severe case of chronic optimism. Clip and save this column until next year so you can rate my powers of prognostication:

--Fiscal cliff. The potentates of pork on the Potomac will kick the can down the road without breaking their toes. Taxes will go up for all of us, and Warren Buffett will pronounce it to be a good thing. The incredibly selfish baby boomers will demand that their "entitlements" and "benefits" not be cut -- but they will be anyway. Small businesses, the engine of our economy, will sputter -- and find new ways to survive but not prosper. Washington's political class will be glad 2013 is not an election year. Many will regret not following Sen. Jim DeMint into more productive endeavors.

--The cover-ups. Hillary Clinton will recover from her concussion, but she won't recall what she did or didn't know about abysmal security at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. John Kerry, the most anti-U.S. military secretary of state in history will try to sweep the mess under the rug while promising reforms -- and dreaming up new ways to punish Israel. Attorney General Eric Holder will continue to cover up White House complicity in his "Fast and Furious" gunrunning operation.

--U.S. military. Personnel reductions, cuts in benefits and delays in replacing worn-out weapons and equipment will degrade the finest fighting force in the history of the world. Many combat-experienced troops who defended us and offered others the hope of freedom will join private companies to "backfill" current commitments in Afghanistan and Africa. Thanks to organizations such as Freedom Alliance, the American people will be reminded to keep our commitments to the men and women of our armed forces and their families and honor their service and sacrifice.

--The ayatollahs. A failing Iranian economy and the collapse of Bashar Assad's sanguinary regime in Syria will put increasing pressure on the hagiocracy ruling in Tehran. Though the Obama administration lacks the will to support a second "Green Revolution" in Iran, others will do so. It will be the last chance to prevent the ayatollahs from acquiring -- and using -- nuclear weapons.

--The Second Amendment. Vice President Joe Biden's "task force" will ignore the National Rifle Association's advice to protect our children with armed security guards in our schools. Instead, the B-Team will recommend banning certain firearms based on cosmetics. America's parents will respond with a dramatic increase in families opting to home-school.

As we sing "Auld Lang Syne" this year, I will recall 2012 as the year the good Lord blessed Betsy and me with our 13th and 14th grandchildren. I'll remember being welcomed home from difficult and dangerous places by loving family members who prayed for my safe return. I will be reminded of friends from Vietnam to Somalia to Iraq and Afghanistan -- some departed, others still here -- and be grateful for knowing them.

For me, "Auld Lang Syne" isn't about the "good old times"; it's about good people. The lyrics are a reminiscence about not past events but relationships. It's people who help us weather the tough times of life -- and enjoy pleasant events. As we face an uncertain tomorrow, "Auld Lang Syne" is a reminder to stay close to those we love and who love us in return.

Dead boy in iconic photo of Egyptian PM and Hamas top dog was killed by "Palestinians," not Israelis

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

KandilHaniyeh.jpgKandil and Haniyeh: Atrocity theater with boy killed by Palestinians


The cynicism of the "Palestinian" jihad propaganda machine is truly breathtaking. "HRW Confirms Gaza Terrorists Killed Gaza Boy Shown in Iconic Photo of Egypt’s PM and Hamas’s Haniyeh," by Zach Pontz for Algemeiner, December 24 (thanks to Pamela Geller):
Human Rights Watch has acknowledged that terrorists killed civilians in Gaza during Operation Pillar of Defense when rockets being fired into Israel fell short.
“Rockets that fell short of their intended targets in Israel apparently killed at least two Palestinians in Gaza and wounded others,” Human Rights Watch said.
The specific case mentioned in the report involves the four year-old boy used as a political tool by Egyptian Prime Minister Hesham Kandil during his visit to Gaza.
Holding back tears, Kandil kissed the boy’s lifeless body as he was presented him by Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh. Kandil said,”What I saw today in the hospital, the wounded and the martyrs, the boy … whose blood is still on my hands and clothes, is something that we cannot keep silent about.” At the time Israel strongly denied being involved in the boy’s death.
In the report Human Rights Watch places blame squarely on terrorists in Gaza for the boy’s death. “Some rockets launched by Palestinian armed groups fell short and struck inside Gaza.
On November 16, a rocket that appears to have been launched from within Gaza hit a crowded street in the Gazan town of Jabalya, killing a man, 23, and a boy, 4, and wounding five people.”n
The report, released Monday, accuses terror groups in Gaza of violating the laws of war. It states: “Under the laws of war, parties to an armed conflict are required to take all feasible precautions to protect civilians under their control from the effects of attacks and not to place military targets in or near densely populated areas. Human Rights Watch has not been able to identify any instances in November in which a Palestinian armed group warned civilians to evacuate an area before a rocket launch.”...

Friday, December 28, 2012

Congressman blasts Obama's decision to 'arm' extremists

Calls decision to give Muslim Brotherhood F-16s 'unwise'

by John Griffing / WND Exclusive



Congressman Ted Poe, R-Texas, says it is irresponsible for Barack Obama to be “arming” a country that may be aiming for the destruction of Israel with a shipment of 20 F-16 fighter jets.

“It is reckless and unwise for the U.S. to give F-16s to Egypt and its new president/dictator, controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood,” he told WND.

“This extremist group is notoriously anti-American and anti-Israel. The United States should not be arming a country ruled by a group that has the destruction of Israel in its charter.”

Poe’s comments fall in line with other critics of the move, confirmed recently by federal officials.

Florida Rep. Vern Buchanan said, “American tax dollars must not be used to aid and abet any dictatorial regime that stands with terrorists,” and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, said, “We should also be cautious about the arms we provide.”

Obama is proceeding with his plan to gift Egypt with 20 brand new F-16 fighter jets as part of a $450 million aid package promised to Egypt in 2010 when it was led by the U.S.-friendly Hosni Mubarak regime.

Now Egypt is governed by the openly hostile Muslim Brotherhood, which has called for the destruction of America and Israel. The new President Mohammed Morsi, head of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, recently joined in a public prayer to the effect of “Oh Allah, destroy the Jews and their supporters. Oh Allah, disperse them, rend them asunder.”

Poe, a member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, wasn’t pleased. Nor was Gen. Jim Cash, the former director of NORAD, who believes Obama’s actions just plain wrong.

“In my opinion, continuing to support them financially through foreign aid is criminal. I say that to emphasize how I feel about providing any type of weapon system to them. We have an out-of-control government right now, and this will cost this nation greatly in the long run,” he told WND.

America in the past frequently has withdrawn promises of arms shipments when instability seems evident.

But the promised delivery is going ahead for Morsi, whose regime recently began talks with Iran and its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is known for his virulent calls for the overthrow of the West and his pursuit of nuclear weapons.

He has said he wants to “wipe Israel off the face of the map” and that “We don’t shy away from declaring that Islam is ready to rule the world.”

Critics believe that by doing business with Ahmadinejad, Morsi has forfeited his right to military help from the U.S., most certainly Obama’s gift of 20 F-16s.

But Obama’s pursuit of his own plan falls on the heels of other situations where critics contend he has given aid to those who are not America’s friends.

Among those incidents:
  • Obama proposed granting civilian protections to Islamic terrorists.
  • Obama indirectly funneled $20 million to terrorist organization Hamas. Obama has publicly stated that the aims of Hamas are fine, so long as they are achieved “peacefully.”
  • Obama reneged on missile defense pledges to Eastern European allies in a leaked deal with the Russian Federation, and used British nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip in the face of British.
  • Obama delayed investigation of the Fort Hood massacre for months, warning of “political theater,” and yet wasted no time classifying any domestic violence as the result of conservative opposition to his policies as “terrorist,” even having the DHS release reports to that effect.
  • Obama has sought cuts to the U.S. nuclear deterrent that would reduce deliverable warheads to 300, which could leave America critically exposed to possible nuclear attack.
  • Obama has begun announcing once secret U.S. missile tests and satellite launches.
  • Obama unilaterally ended a strategic practice called “calculated ambiguity,” considered crucial by defense insiders, publicizing the exact number of warheads in America’s arsenal.
  • Obama has pledged to “de-MIRV” all American ICBMs – dramatically reducing options if an exchange ever took place between the United States and Russia – as there were some 3,000 strategic targets listed in the former Soviet Union at the close of the last decade.
  • Obama has allowed Iran to acquire top secret U.S. drone technology. Drones have self-destruct capability and, as Dick Cheney pointed out, can alternatively be destroyed by U.S. fighter-jets from the air – preventing acquisition by U.S. enemies. Former NORAD Director Jim Cash, when contacted by WND, said he did not believe the drone acquisition to be accidental.
  • Obama has publicly stated that Iran has the right to attain “nuclear energy.”
  • Obama has sent guns to Mexican drug cartels, not for tracking purposes, but in an apparent move to transfer weapons across international borders.
  • Obama has proposed awarding medals to soldiers in Afghanistan for “restraint,” saying he wants to avoid words like “victory,” and announced his intent to give the Taliban (the organization that trained and equipped al-Qaida prior to 9/11), a formal role in Afghanistan.
  • Obama removed “jihadi” from the national security lexicon.
  • Obama is vocally critical of America’s “superpower” status.
  • Obama ordered the creation of a “citizen assassination” program, attends “kill committee” meetings for the same, all while advocating Miranda rights for foreign terrorists.
In addition to the list, which is not exhaustive, there are structural issues, like intelligence leaks earlier this year or the leak of the TSA playbook, which could conceivably enable American enemies to exploit weaknesses in current transportation infrastructure.

There are also the more philosophical issues that are thought by some to represent an inherent anti-American default position on the part of the president. The Muslim Prayer Day in 2009 is one such example.

Imams were permitted by Obama to hold a Muslim Prayer Day near White House premises in 2009, the same year Obama prohibited a similar Christian “Day of Prayer” despite the longstanding precedent for such gatherings. One of the speakers at the event is on record saying, “We are going to the White House, so that Islam will be victorious, Allah willing, and the White House will become … Muslim house.”

Similarly, Siraj Wihhaj, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 WTC bombings, was invited to deliver the “Juma,” an Islamic prayer, at the 2012 Democratic National Convention. Wihhaj once remarked, “It is my duty and our duty as Muslims to replace the U.S. Constitution with the Quran.”

The invitation later was withdrawn after media coverage made the issue the focus of controversy.

Polls: NRA has higher favorable rating than Obama

By: Byron York / Beltway Confidential


A new Gallup poll shows that the National Rifle Association, the target of a wave of intensely negative news coverage after the Newtown, Connecticut school shootings, still has a favorable rating of 54 percent.  While down from the organization’s 60 percent favorable rating in 2005, that is still about a point higher than President Obama’s personal favorable rating.

A Huffington Post average of the president’s favorable ratings places it at 52.3 percent.  That average includes favorable ratings of 49 percent in a December 16 CBS News poll, 53 percent in a December 9 Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, and 56 percent in a November 18 CNN poll.

On the NRA, Gallup found that 83 percent of Republicans give the nation’s largest pro-gun organization a favorable rating.  Fifty-four percent of independents view the NRA favorably, and 36 percent of Democrats do so.

Gallup also found a difference between the public’s general favorable impression of the NRA and views on specific issues.  Only 35 percent of those surveyed said the NRA expresses their views on gun issues most or all of the time.  That means there is a significant part of the population that views the NRA favorably yet still disagrees with the organization from time to time.

Obama vs. America's Fiscal Health

By: David Limbaugh / Townhall Daily Columnist
Obama vs. America's Fiscal Health
 
The reason President Obama and Republicans can't come to an agreement on the fiscal cliff negotiations is that they don't share the same goals. This is also the key to understanding why President Obama appears far less worried about going over the cliff.

Republicans are focused on restoring the nation's financial health by promoting economic growth and reducing our horrendous deficits and debt. President Obama's primary aim is to complete his project of fundamentally transforming America.

I ask you loyal Democrats to please consider these things. Obama has demonstrated almost no concern for our crushing debt or deficits -- at least not since calling President George W. Bush unpatriotic for presiding over deficits and debt dramatically smaller than his own.

Obama's treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, showed a casual indifference to our debt when responding to questions from Rep. Paul Ryan during budget hearings. He flippantly admitted the administration had no long-term plan for bringing our debt under control and was unapologetic for having failed to submit any plan to restructure our entitlements.

When David Letterman asked Obama about the size of the national debt, Obama couldn't even make a guess. It seemed to be the furthest thing from his mind.

But Obama's cynicism about the debt doesn't change the fact that it is a looming national crisis. It's undeniable that our entitlement obligations are growing at an unsustainable pace and that our national debt and the annual mandatory interest payments on it are reaching alarming heights.

The budget debates essentially boil down to the Republicans' desire to return the nation to financial health vs. Obama's desire to use the government's taxing and spending powers as tools to remake America in his image rather than to facilitate economic growth or balance the budget.

Before you write off my comments as unfairly partisan, I ask you to ponder Obama's major negotiating demands. He is insistent, is he not, on increasing tax rates and reducing deductions for higher-income earners, even though it's an objective fact that Obama's plan to raise taxes on just a small percentage of Americans would not generate enough revenue to make a significant dent in our nation's deficits or debt. He has to be demanding this change, then, for other reasons. I can think of none, other than his idea of fairness, by which he means punishing the rich, even if it won't improve the economy or our fiscal picture.

Further, he has stubbornly resisted meaningful spending cuts and has absolutely continued to dig his heels in over GOP efforts to reform entitlements to avoid our nation's impending financial meltdown.

On top of all this, Obama wants $80 billion more in "stimulus" spending. Can you believe this? In budget negotiations that are supposed to be about fiscal sanity, he's wedded to yet more federal spending of money we don't have. Finally, he is demanding that Republicans surrender their authority to set limits on future spending through budget ceilings.

As you can see, Obama's goal of fundamentally remaking America happens to be nearly incompatible with economic growth and national solvency.

Don't you see? There is no way Obama can do what he was born to do -- remake America in his image -- unless he continues to implement the very policies that drove us toward this cliff in the first place. Obama's ideology compels him to keep spending borrowed money and increase growth-suppressing tax rates on the very people whose productivity is imperative for economic growth. Maybe Obama cares some about economic growth and our national deficits and debt. Maybe not. Either way, he's tied to policies that harm both.

Republicans, for their part, are trying to get our spending and entitlements under control and to keep tax rates no higher than they are, not to protect the rich -- although the last time I looked, the Constitution applies to them, too -- but to protect economic growth and foster liberty.

Contrary to Obama's class warfare propaganda, it is his own policies, not those of Republicans, that promote greed and envy, by keeping people worked up about how much the other guy is making rather than encouraging them to become productive members of society.

How convenient for Obama that he can advance his goal of redistributing income and assets by characterizing Republicans as people who care only about the rich, which is absurd on its face.

A national leader who believed in America's founding principles and who subscribed to promoting equal opportunity rather than equal outcomes would be encouraging people off the government dependency cycle and into productive jobs. He would be seeking long-term solutions to our national debt rather than downplaying the crisis and using class warfare to facilitate his goal of social engineering.

The question is not whether America will wake up but when.

 
Media Ushers in Cowardly New World
What a difference a few month makes.

Last month we were told by a fawning news media how great things were. The economy was a little engine that could.  And the declining unemployment rate was touted in headlines as significant progress toward economic recovery.

Unemployment rate falls to 7.8% in September, reported the Washington Post- a four-year low...”nearly”… whatever “nearly” means.

“The nation’s jobless rate dropped to its lowest point in nearly four years in September. And unlike some recent declines, this one happened for the right reason: not because people gave up looking for a job, but because far more people reported having one.”

Hurray! The exclamation points by the Post (!!!) were implied.

Unemployment year-over-year still has magically dropped from 8.7 percent to 7.7 percent, not withstanding September, because mostly people stopped looking for work.

But you wouldn’t have known it by press accounts this year.

Oh my! Not in an election year? Under Obama? The most transparent politician…EVER?

Now clear of the pressures of presidential election politics, the press story has changed just slightly and so unexpectedly.
 
“Of course, things aren’t THAT great.” There are still plenty of reasons, we’re told, to write Obama a big, fat blank check because the economy is very, very fragile. 

It’s almost as if- I don’t know- had the fiscal cliff not existed, politicians would have had to invent it to justify more deficit spending.

Because the unemployment rate for November, touted at 7.7 percent, is dropping once again, this time for the wrong reasons, just as it has throughout 2012.

But now the press is taking note.

“And economists noted that the unemployment rate would have risen if more people hadn’t stopped looking for work,” reports the Associated Press regarding the most recent unemployment report. “Once people without jobs stop looking for one, they’re no longer counted as unemployed.”

Oh, my! Where was this transparently opportunistic analysis during the election?

While there are around 2.5 million more people with jobs year over year, those jobs just cover new entrants into the labor market. Still there are 2.4 more people not counted in the labor force since last November.

How convenient for an administration bent on getting people to stop looking for work while needing the unemployment rate to go down. 

And, the reason of course for the shifting press coverage is so they can now make the argument that only the government, through the intervention of the holy spirit of Obama, can rescue us, assisted by the crucifixion of the rich, who must pay for our sins. 

There are now 350,000 fewer people in the labor force now than in October, reports the BLS . In addition, the labor participation rates have fallen another 0.2 percent, which is 542,000 more people not in the workforce since October, echoes the press eagerly. There are 122,000 fewer people with jobs, month over month. And since about 200,000 new people enter the workforce each month, it shouldn’t surprise us that under Obama, of course, the unemployment rate is going down while not adding actual jobs.          

Ok, here’s the point that the press, the Democrats and the GOP moderates won’t tell you America: Even if you solve the so-called fiscal cliff, Obama’s voodoo economic policies won’t work. They aren’t based on economic science. They are rigid ideology wrapped in the gift paper packaging of wishful and convenient thinking.

They aren’t so much socialist as they are the most logical extension decades of Keynesian thought. Obamanomics, in fact, are the culmination of 80 years of liberal thought from both the left and the right in this country.  

And with four more years of out-of-control government run by the same technocrats who got us into the mess, in December of 2016 you’ll wish then that you were as well off as you are today.

Obamanomics works so poorly that the typical ways that we measure economics can’t even adequately explain what’s going on in the economy. The old rules don’t apply anymore, because fiscal and monetary policies don’t conform to the economic realities facing the country.

These massive distortions can be seen in stock markets and supermarkets- and, as we see, in the unemployment rate, which is going down despite unemployment technically remaining unchanged.

Commodity prices, which should be much lower, have remained stubbornly high despite a worldwide economic slowdown; gold trades independently of the dollar on speculation regarding government policies; public benefits remain sacrosanct and celebrated even as they literally bankrupt public budgets; and Joe Biden remains a heartbeat away from being the most powerfully inappropriate man in the universe.     

We’ve entered a cowardly new world where every time someone gives up looking for work it helps drop the official unemployment rate, while simultaneously allowing Obama to shellac the rich.

It’s kind of like following a policy where a dollar’s value today is only worth 90 cents tomorrow. Who would do THAT on purpose? 

And it all took place in a few, short election months.

Think what a difference four more years will make.