Exodus 18:21  21 "But choose men of ability from all of the people. They must have respect for God. You must be able to trust them. They must not try to get money by cheating others. Appoint them as officials.   

Once upon a time we had Ronald Reagan as president. At that time Americans also had Bob Hope, Johnny Cash, and Steve Jobs. Now Barack Obama occupies the White House and, oh boy, what a “change”—we have no Hope, no Cash and no Jobs.

Government is the problem.  Especially ones that have politicians who are inexperienced, vote present, only care about themselves, buying votes and not what happens to all of its people.

 “The Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —    Ronald Reagan  (especially if Democrats & Big Government Statists can buy votes.)

Giving the federal government more money would be like giving a cocaine addict more cocaine.”

Galatians 6:4  New Living Translation (NLT)  Pay careful attention to your own work, for then you will get the satisfaction of a job well done, and you won’t need to compare yourself to anyone else.   [ When you strive to be the person God made you to be, you’ll find real meaning, purpose, fulfillment, and satisfaction. You can’t focus on your purpose while looking at other people.]


 I Peter 2:1-3  Therefore, laying aside all malice, all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and all evil speaking, as newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby, if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is gracious. (NKJV)


 Lamentations 3:27 (New Century Version)  27 It is good for someone to work hard while he is young.

Proverbs 14:23  All hard work brings a profit, but mere talk leads only to poverty.

Proverbs 18:9  One who is slack in his work is brother to one who destroys

Proverbs 21:25  The craving of a sluggard will be the death of him, because his hands refuse to work.

Proverbs 28:19  Those who work (their land) will have abundant food, but those who chase fantasies will have their fill of poverty.

2 Thessalonians 3:8  nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you

Exodus 23:12  “Six days do your work, but on the seventh day do not work

Genesis 2:15  The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.

     2 Thessalonians 3:10-15  New Living Translation (NLT)  10 Even while we were with you, we gave you this command: “Those unwilling to work will not get to eat.”  11 Yet we hear that some of you are living idle lives, refusing to work and meddling in other people’s business. 12 We command such people and urge them in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and work to earn their own living. 13 As for the rest of you, dear brothers and sisters, never get tired of doing good.  14 Take note of those who refuse to obey what we say in this letter. Stay away from them so they will be ashamed. 15 Don’t think of them as enemies, but warn them as you would a brother or sister.[a]  

Obama’s hope & change (spend & regulate) will transform us into Greece…Voters…experience matters… time to wake up!    From the Huckabee Report:  Greece may cost the world a lot of money, but it is giving us something in return: a priceless lesson in the end results of socialism. The nation that's known as the “Cradle of Western Democracy” gave the world theater and philosophy, the Olympicsm even the very first coin. But now, they're down to their last coin. Like so many others, the Greeks fell for the idea of a nanny state providing for everyone from cradle to grave, and when the bill comes due, borrow money to cover it. Now that the Greek people are accustomed and feel entitled, they rioted when the socialist government they'd elected finally had to face reality and start making cuts.


Well, Monday, Standard & Poors slashed Greece's credit rating from B to Triple C, making it the lowest-rated country in the world. Its credit rating is now lower than Pakistan's, Grenada's, Jamaica's, and probably even your brother-in-law's. There's a push on to restructure Greece's debt, but S&P figures that means investors won't get what they were promised, so it's basically default by another name. Now, if you're wondering why you should care...not only is Greece threatening to set off another worldwide economic slide, but you should know how dire their situation is just for reference. Because even though Greece now has the lowest credit rating in the world, Bill Gross, the head of the giant bond fund Pimco, says there's another nation that's actually in worse financial shape. He says this country has made nearly $100 trillion worth of promises for bailouts and entitlement programs that it doesn't have the money to pay. That nation...the United States.


There is only one solution: Cut spending – by about $1 trillion a year. Instead, Washington cut planned spending by only $38 billion. If you want to understand how insignificant that cut was, let me put it in perspective.

Speaker of the House John Boehner

Let's say your family income is $21,700 a year, but you spend $38,200 using credit cards. Obviously, you can't go on much longer living like that. But instead of cutting up the credit cards and living within your means, you decide to cut spending by only $385 a year.   That's what Washington did in 2011.
             Another way to understand it is like this: Let's say there's a sewer backup in your neighborhood that causes your house to be filled up with sludge. What do you do?
1.Raise the ceilings of your house?  2.Pump out the sludge?  I think the choice is pretty obvious. Most of us would pump out the sludge. But that's not what Congress and Barack Obama did. Instead, they decided to raise the ceilings.  We can't go on like this much longer.  The day of reckoning is coming.
I need your urgent help in my “No More Red Ink” campaign




http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/110792-warren-buffets-plan-end-debt-and-fix-congress.html                "I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election."
*Congressional Reform Act of 2011*  
http://goinglikesixty.com/2011/01/congressional-reform-act-2011/                      PLEASE Sign it TODAY!!!!   http://www.petition2congress.com/3944/congressional-reform-act-2011/  

          1.No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no
pay when they are out of office.
          2.Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security or whatever the plan is for regular citizens. All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.
           3.Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.
           4.Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3% or rise at rate of Social Security or need to be on the ballot for a vote.
           5.Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
           6.Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.
           7.All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/12 and all government workers. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work. If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take three days for most people (in the U.S.) to receive the message. Maybe it is time.   THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS
Please Sign this petition today!!!   http://goinglikesixty.com/2011/01/congressional-reform-act-2011/        


http://online.worldmag.com/2011/10/11/jobs-cash-hope/  Once upon a time we had Ronald Reagan as president. At that time Americans also had Bob Hope, Johnny Cash, and Steve Jobs. Now Barack Obama occupies the White House and, oh boy, what a “change”—we have no Hope, no Cash and no Jobs.


Jobs actually told Obama he was headed for a one term presidency recognizing this problem.

Jobs was characteristically blunt. He seemed to have transformed from a liberal into a conservative.

"You're headed for a one-term presidency," he told Obama at the start of their meeting, insisting that the administration needed to be more business-friendly. As an example, Jobs described the ease with which companies can build factories in China compared to the United States, where "regulations and unnecessary costs" make it difficult for them.

Jobs also criticized America's education system, saying it was "crippled by union work rules," noted Isaacson. "Until the teachers' unions were broken, there was almost no hope for education reform." Jobs proposed allowing principals to hire and fire teachers based on merit, that schools stay open until 6 p.m. and that they be open 11 months a year.

Aiding Obama's Reelection Campaign

Jobs suggested that Obama meet six or seven other CEOs who could express the needs of innovative businesses -- but when White House aides added more names to the list, Jobs insisted that it was growing too big and that "he had no intention of coming." In preparation for the dinner, Jobs exhibited his notorious attention to detail, telling venture capitalist John Doerr that the menu of shrimp, cod and lentil salad was "far too fancy" and objecting to a chocolate truffle dessert. But he was overruled by the White House, which cited the president's fondness for cream pie.

Though Jobs was not that impressed by Obama, later telling Isaacson that his focus on the reasons that things can't get done "infuriates" him, they kept in touch and talked by phone a few more times. Jobs even offered to help create Obama's political ads for the 2012 campaign. "He had made the same offer in 2008, but he'd become annoyed when Obama's strategist David Axelrod wasn't totally deferential," writes Isaacson. Jobs later told the author that he wanted to do for Obama what the legendary "morning in America" ads did for Ronald Reagan.






Corporations would be required to count these new liabilities when they are taken on — and report a big loss to shareholders. Unlike businesses, however, Congress postpones recording spending commitments until it writes a check.

            The $61.6 trillion in unfunded obligations amounts to $534,000 per household. That's more than five times what Americans have borrowed for everything else — mortgages, car loans and other debt. It reflects the challenge as the number of retirees soars over the next 20 years and seniors try to collect on those spending promises.

            "The (federal) debt only tells us what the government owes to the public. It doesn't take into account what's owed to seniors, veterans and retired employees," says accountant Sheila Weinberg, founder of the Institute for Truth in Accounting, a Chicago-based group that advocates better financial reporting. "Without accurate accounting, we can't make good decisions."

            Michael Lind, policy director at the liberal New America Foundation's economic growth program, says there is no near-term crisis for federal retirement programs and that economic growth will make these programs more affordable.

            "The false claim that Social Security and Medicare are about to bankrupt the United States has been repeated for decades by conservatives and libertarians who pretend that their ideological opposition to these successful and cost-effective programs is based on worries about the deficit," he says.

            USA TODAY has calculated federal finances based on standard accounting rules since 2004 using data from the Medicare and Social Security annual reports and the little-known audited financial report of the federal government.  The government has promised pension and health benefits worth more than $700,000 per retired civil servant. The pension fund's key asset: federal IOUs.


http://www.cutcapandbalanceact.com/cutrunhide/           When has spending been cut when the debt ceiling has been raised?  If we spend like Greece, we will have to face the deep spending cuts & austerity measures that Greece is enduring.

            If you are broke, how can you pay for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps etc.???



House Republicans have passed the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act that responsibly increases the debt ceiling by finally forcing the federal government to live within its means. But President Obama, Where’s YOUR Plan?   A REAL plan that can be voted on and scored by the CBO as they can’t score a speech.

Rather than presenting a plan of his own, Obama has chosen to demagogue the only plan actually on the table.

It is he, not Republicans, who is inviting default by abdicating his responsibility to present a plan whatsoever.

Click here to sign our petition to President Obama, challenging him: Where’s YOUR Plan? 

Today we are also unveiling the new web video titled "Where's YOUR Plan?" that features Speaker John Boehner, Senator Jim DeMint, Senator Rubio, Congressman Jim Jordan, and Congressman Joe Walsh challenging President Obama.



In "The Hunger Games," the young heroes of the film were literally trying to survive the big-government, nanny-state-ordered "death panel" competition created to thin out the freedom-seeking herd of human sheep who foolishly thought their destiny should be in their hands and not that of the government.

At one point as they televise the games into a huge theatre of wealthy and protected government supporters, it's impossible not to see the vacuous and superficial faces as a collection of every single demographic group that blindly supports Barack Obama.  While comical, it's also more than frightening in its reality.

As bad as "The Hunger Games" is for Obama's "I'm better than you, so I will think for you" big-government image, "The Avengers" is worse. Much worse.

The basic plot of "The Avengers" is that the freedom-defending superheroes have united to try to stop the totalitarian, big-government-loving Loki from subjugating all of humankind.  Like Obama, the despot-wannabe Loki is fond of giving speeches. Also like President Obama, he picks Germany to wax Marxist.  After terrifying and then herding hundreds of theater-goers into a public square, Loki demands that they kneel before him. When they do, he proceeds to give what will become the most quoted political speech of 2012 — precisely because it so eerily echoes the words and theology of President Obama and his mentor Saul Alinsky.  Says Loki to the cowering crowd now kneeling before him:

"I come with glad tidings of a world made free — from freedom. Freedom is life's great lie. The bright lure of freedom diminishes your life's joy in a mad scramble for power, for identity. Is this not simpler? Is this not your natural state?  "It is the unspoken truth of humanity: that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes your life's joy in a mad scramble for power. For identity. You were made to be ruled. In the end ... you will always kneel."

Bingo. The Obama-Alinsky philosophy in one liberty-destroying sound bite.

During the course of the movie, it is made clear that Loki — like Barack Obama — was handed his position and power in life and did not really earn it. As such, this truth and his obvious insecurities drive him in his maniacal quest for power.  If you need further proof that President Loki ... sorry, I mean Obama ... wants the government to do all of your thinking, look no further than the virtual woman he and his campaign have just created.  Her name is "Julia," and in the world of Barack Obama, from birth to a future "death panel" end, the nanny-state dictates her decisions.  Aside from being a truly weird and creepy creation, "Julia" is an insult to all women as the president and the Obama campaign tell them, "Don't worry, we, your government, will do the thinking for you."





What it really shows is Obama's vision of cradle-to-grave government dependency.

That's Obama's vision, anyway. Here's what Julia's life will really be like under his policies:

She'll start life by personally inheriting $1.5 million in federal debt, a third of which is due to Obama's reckless spending policies.

If she's like most kids, her public school education will have been hampered by Obama's union pals. And her college costs will likely be out of reach because of Obama-favored federal aid programs that have fueled tuition inflation.  If she graduates, she'll find she has a 50% chance of not getting a job, thanks to Obama's lousy economic recovery. And she'll be forced to buy insurance, whether she wants it or not, thanks to ObamaCare's mandate. 

Should Julia be dumb enough to try to start a business, she'll likely be dragged down by an avalanche of government red tape.  If she still manages to be successful, Obama will tax most of her earnings away, making it less likely that she'll be able to hire the next Julia in line.

Then, when Julia makes it to retirement, she'll find Medicare and Social Security broke, since Obama refuses to offer any meaningful entitlement improvements.  So, good luck, Julia.  You'll definitely need it if Obama is re-elected.


http://www.newsmax.com/US/julia-obama-ad-social/2012/05/07/id/438239?s=al&promo_code=ED81-1      The claim made in President Barack Obama’s “Life of Julia” info graphic that under Mitt Romney the fictional Julia’s Social Security benefits could be cut by 40 percent is misleading, The Washington Post said in a fact check that awarded the spot three Pinocchios.  The Post found that while Romney is proposing a cut in benefits for high-wage earners, candidate Obama in 2008 also targeted high wage earners as a way to extend Social Security’s solvency, pushing a payroll tax increase on those making more than $250,000. He opposed an increase in the retirement age.
“This frame of the ‘Life of Julia’ series is fairly misleading,” the Post concluded. “If Obama actually does something to improve the solvency of Social Security, benefits are likely to be cut in some fashion. If Obama — and future presidents — do nothing, benefits will also be cut.
“The Obama campaign could have chosen to fight Romney with real specifics — such as saying that Julia could retire as scheduled, without fear of an increase in her retirement age — but instead it chose to compare a version of Romney’s proposals with a potentially unrealistic outcome.
“Three Pinocchios.”     Obama is the best Pinocchio President and his pants are on fire….



Fortunately, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has been honest about the math. As he explained to Congress last year, "By definition, the unsustainable trajectories of deficits and debt that the (Congressional Budget Office) outlines cannot actually happen, because creditors would never be willing to lend to a government whose debt, relative to national income, is rising without limit."

Bernanke added, quoting a famous line from economist Herbert Stein, "If something can't go on forever, it will stop."

If current patterns hold, Washington will continue to behave as if there is no entitlement and debt crisis. We'll hear increasingly dire warnings and earnest promises to do something at the next crisis moment (i.e. the coming "fiscal cliff"), but no one will act decisively until we experience more economic pain.

For instance, "Medicare as we know it" ends in five years when Medicare Part A — the hospital insurance trust fund — runs out of money. Politicians who say we can continue Medicare without structural reforms are lying and are using seniors as rhetorical human shields to stay in power.

Economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff have shown that when debt reaches 90% of GDP (we're now at 101%) we lose 1 point of GDP growth, which slows the economy by 25% to 33% and prevents the creation of 1 million jobs annually. Reinhart and Rogoff's theory is being tested in real time and has been shown to be correct.

The key question, though, is this: Why would we borrow another $800 billion and create a drag on the economy when we could create confidence and certainty through entitlement and tax reform — lowering rates and broadening the base — and release $2 trillion into the economy? A long-term debt solution would give us much more bang for the buck than another bloated stimulus.

Finally, many on the left are wrongly arguing that "cuts" means austerity and slower growth. Yet, eliminating stupid and gratuitously wasteful and duplicative federal spending is not necessarily austerity. It is common sense and, in fact, stimulative. Not all dollars are spent or wasted equally. A dollar spent in the private sector does far more to stimulate growth than a dollar spent by GSA in Las Vegas.

Sweden of all places, which had the fastest growth in Europe last year, has just shown the world that smart tax cuts and spending cuts are the best stimulus.




There were no faux Greek columns when the president with the composite girlfriend and taste for canine filets officially began his 57-state campaign Saturday at Ohio State University's 18,300-seat Schottenstein Center that was only partially filled with those wearing faded "hope and change" T-shirts hoping to get their student loans paid off.  According to recent stats, only half of OSU graduates can expect to find jobs and like the rest of their brethren will take up residence in their parents' basements between occupy-whatever rallies.

The unemployment rate measuring the success or failure of those actually looking for work, which was to peak at 8% and then drop with passage of the stimulus, has remained above 8% for 39 months now — an index of misery not seen since the Great Depression.

As we've noted, labor force participation rate of 63.9% in April is the lowest since 1981, before the Reagan Recovery — the real tax-cutting deal — would unleash American entrepreneurs and risk-takers.

Since Obama has taken over, he has wiped out the entirety of the Reagan gains.



Billionaire and great American Donald Trump says of the new blockbuster book "Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House" that it's the "best book" he's read on Obama.   Here's what Trump said: “The Amateur is the best book I’ve read on how Barack Obama is wrecking our country. I urge everyone who cares about America to read Edward Klein’s eye-opening book.” The just-released book is skyrocketing on the best-seller lists, already hitting Amazon's top 10.




Two versions of the American dream now stand in sharp contrast. Which do you choose: Big government or personal responsibility?

As we look around us, we cannot help but see the malignancy creeping through our towns, cities and states - the entire nation being brought to its knees.  The cancer is government expansion through ever-increasing taxation and spending.  Citizen outcry has reached such a decibel level that the problem no longer can be kicked down the road.

In the documentary I Want Your Money, filmmaker Ray Griggs illustrates America's current plight and offers sound direction in our journey back to the America intended by its founders.

Griggs offers us a much-needed alternative to Michael Moore and the dismal image of our nation he has been spewing around the world. Griggs' film was released in theaters in October of 2010; while it was not well received by theater owners, cheering crowds filled the theaters that dared to show it on 500 screens across the U.S., helping stir the tide of Tea Party victories in the last elections.

I Want Your Money is about two diametrically opposed concepts of governance. One views the money you earned as yours and best allocated by you. It champions the traditional American dream, which has played out millions of times through generations of Americans, of improving one’s lot in life and the entrepreneurial spirit of daring to dream and to build big. The other believes that the federal government, using taxpayers’ money, should play a major role in leveling out the nation’s wealth to guarantee outcomes to all, regardless of effort.



Learning example of how a company, employers, JOBS and wealth are created AND  How capitalism works.  Facebook received its first investment of US$500,000 in June 2004 from PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel, in exchange for 7% of the company.[44] This was followed a year later by $12.7 million in venture capital from Accel Partners, and then $27.5 million more from Greylock Partners.[44][45] On October 24, 2007, Microsoft announced that it had purchased a 1.6% share of Facebook for $240 million, giving Facebook a total implied value of around $15 billion.[56] However, Microsoft bought preferred stock that carried special rights, such as "liquidation preferences" that meant Microsoft would get paid before common stockholders if the company were sold. Microsoft's purchase also included the right to place international ads on Facebook.[57] In November 2007, Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-shing invested $60 million in Facebook.[58]  In August 2008, BusinessWeek reported that private sales by employees, as well as purchases by venture capital firms, were being done at share prices that put the company's total valuation at between $3.75 billion and $5 billion.[57]   Facebook filed for an initial public offering on February 1, 2012.[70] The preliminary prospectus stated that the company was seeking to raise $5 billion. The document announced that the company had 845 million active monthly users and its website featured 2.7 billion daily likes and comments.[71] After the IPO, Zuckerberg will retain a 22% ownership share in Facebook and will own 57% of the voting shares.[72]  Underwriters valued the shares at $38 each, pricing the company at $104 billion, the largest valuation to date for a newly public company.[73] On May 16, one day before the IPO, Facebook announced that it would sell 25% more shares than originally planned due to high demand.[74] The IPO raised $16 billion, making it the third largest in U.S. history (just ahead of AT&T Wireless and behind only General Motors and Visa Inc.).[75][76] The stock price left the company with a higher market capitalization than all but a few U.S. corporations – surpassing heavyweights such as Amazon.com, McDonald's, Disney, and Kraft Foods – and made Zuckerberg's stock worth $19 billion.[75][76  Did you see the Government do anything here?  Why should the Government be so greedy and expect to get a cut from the ideas, risk, hard work, all ready taxed money & capital of Investors and  venture capital etc. in business??  Econ for Dummies 101…Hey Obama what classes did you take & what grades did you get?  Where’s your transcript and other educational doc’s?   You’re so smart and so brilliant right??…show and tell please.


venture capitalist Mitt Romney OR  venture socialist and incumbent President Barack Obama?

The attack ad blaming Romney and his investment firm Bain Capital for the failure of GST Steel, a Kansas City, Mo.-based company, fell flat after it became known Romney left Bain two years before the company failed in 2001.  That was also a time when 17 other steel companies that Bain had nothing to do with failed as prices imploded from the dumping of foreign steel in the U.S. market.

The 750 jobs lost at GST are fewer than the 1,100 employees who lost their jobs at Obama’s bet on Solyndra, the stimulus-backed manufacturer of solar panels, and certainly fewer than the job losses at the "bailed out" Government Motors, its suppliers and the workers at the closed GM dealerships.

As Karl Rove recently noted, GM employed roughly 252,000 workers in 2008. Now it has 207,000, with 131,000 of them working in foreign plants.  "Based on data from the National Automobile Dealers Association, I estimate that as many as 100,000 Americans lost jobs at the companies' dealerships," Rove said in a recent op-ed.  What the Romney campaign has pointed out and needs to do more effectively is that capitalism involves risk-taking by entrepreneurs with their own money.

Sometimes the investments don't pan out.

But it's the marketplace that picks winners and losers, not a government that prints money and raises taxes and for which there are no real consequences.  As another Romney ad filmed in the depths of the Iowa winter points out, there are real consequences for the 23 million unemployed and underemployed Americans who constitute the body count of Obama’s hope and change's venture socialism.  As we've pointed out, if the millions who have dropped out of the workforce with little hope and little change in their pockets were counted, the true unemployment rate would be well into double digits, not the 8.1% praised as progress.  The official rate has remained above 8% for 39 months now, the longest such streak since the Great Depression.





More explanations on the vote and bill pages, so you can know exactly what your Member of Congress voted for or against, and why each one matters

• New information like chamber and party averages to help you see how your Members of Congress compare

• The all-new Watchlist, which lets you add Members of Congress to a page that you can use to hold them accountable

>> Check out the new legislative scorecard site and start your watchlist.




We have tested a number of issues but the policy that resonates best with the people is No Budget, No Pay. We need Members of Congress and their staff to walk us through the process of getting this legislation passed. If someone tries to muddy it up with amendments or block it in subcommittee, we need to know about it so that we can mobilize and publicly shame that person. We will work to get every member of the House and Senate on the record on this issue. I challenge anyone running for office to answer why they think they should get paid when they can't perform the most basic responsibilities of their job.





http://news.investors.com/article/609190/201204251909/democrats-fear-mongering-election-strategy.htm?Ntt=democrats-have-nothing-to-offer&p=full      Democrats have said, including President Obama, who called Rep. Paul Ryan's budget "thinly veiled social Darwinism".  So what do Democrats have to offer instead? Nothing.  The Senate hasn't produced a budget since 2009 and refuses to this year, which means that once again the red-ink hemorrhaging federal government will be operating without any spending guidelines. Obama's budget plan was so ludicrous that not one House Democrat would vote for it.  The Democrats' refusal to govern hardly ends here.

The country faces monumental problems — a national debt crisis, an entitlement crisis, an energy crisis, to say nothing of the lingering economic crisis.

But on issue after issue, Democrats have absolutely nothing constructive to offer — no entitlement-reform ideas, no budget-reform proposals, no debt-reduction plans, no credible energy policies.  Then again, what choice do Democrats have other than fear-mongering? They certainly can't run on their record. For two years, they enjoyed huge majorities in the House and Senate along with a willing partner in the White House, and got everything they wanted.

We've seen the results:  The worst economic recovery since the Great Depression, a national debt that's now bigger than the GDP, a massively wasteful stimulus program, skyrocketing oil and gas prices, high unemployment, stagnating incomes, and falling home prices. 

So their only option is to try to distract voters with scary campfire tales about evil Republicans. The real horror story, however, would be if voters rewarded the Democrats' empty fear campaign this November.


http://news.investors.com/article/610094/201205021842/a-new-do-nothing-congress-does-nothing.htm?Ntt=this-congress-like-one-in-48&p=full                 The Washington Post's Paul Kane went through the Do Nothing Democrat controlled Senate roll-call votes from this year and found that, of the 87 votes, the majority were on just three bills: 25 on the highway bill, 16 on the postal bill and 13 on an insider-trading bill. Sixteen others were on confirmations.  But there's a crucial difference: While a simple majority in the House can pass pretty much anything without agreement of the minority, the Senate is traditionally where bills go to die.



http://www.mrc.org/RealityCheck/uploads/MediaRealityCheck07272011.pdf          A Media Research Center study of the Big Three network evening and morning programs finds that, when it came to assigning blame for lack of a debt ceiling resolution, ABC, CBS and NBC’s coverage has placed the overwhelming majority of the blame on Republicans’ doorstep.  Of the Big Three networks, NBC was the most likely to pin the blame on the GOP, by a 27 to 6 margin (with four stories assigning equal blame). On CBS, 19 stories blamed Republicans vs. nine which tilted in favor of blaming Democrats (and five balanced), while on ABC, ten stories singled out Republicans for blame, vs. only two that painted Democrats as responsible and three suggesting equal responsibility.


http://www.saveamerica.com/                                This unique voter guide measures where the candidates really stand on marriage, children, adoption, family and moral standards. Because their actions speak louder than their words.

See it. Print it. Share it.


http://savingthedream.org/      The Heritage Foundation offers a detailed plan to redesign entitlement programs, guarantee assistance to those who need it, and save the American dream for future generations.  http://savingthedream.org/what-it-covers/government-spending/     



http://news.investors.com/article/599947/201202021852/obama-claims-jesus-endorses-his-economic-program.htm?Ntt=obamas-marxist-jesus                            Attending the National Prayer Breakfast on Thursday, President Obama declared that raising tax rates on higher incomes "coincides with Jesus' teaching that 'for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.'"  ( required to God, not Government…Obama really wasn’t paying attention in Rev. Wright’s church was he..)  It is disgraceful enough for a president to use a religious event to push an economic agenda that has already insured his place in history as the food stamp president.  But Obama began his remarks by claiming there was nothing political in what he would be saying.  This from a president who has conspicuously neglected attending religious services during his time in office — until recently, that is, with his re-election campaign revving up.

In the Parable of the Generous Employer, Christ condemns the worker who complains to his boss that "thou hast made them equal to us that have borne the burden of the day" by paying other workers more.  "Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?" the employer asks in response, in a Gospel passage that eloquently champions private property.  Jesus Christ was no socialist.  http://www.cultwatch.com/Devotional16.html                Matthew 19:27, 30; 20:1-16              



http://www.ehow.com/list_6688845_law-diminishing-returns.html               at some point, increases in raw materials produce smaller and smaller increases in production.  This also applies to Taxes and if Obama and the Democrats were  so smart, they would know this.  Maybe they should be required to take & pass some economics classes, budgeting classes, read the Constitution and Federalist Papers?

http://news.investors.com/article/599859/201202021815/indiana-becomes-right-to-work-state.htm?Ntt=a-right-to-work-in-indiana                        what's so bad about a law that merely says an individual shouldn't be forced at the workplace to support financially an organization that he or she doesn't believe acts in his or her interests?  American charities collectively took in nearly $300 billion in 2010. Yet American workers can't be trusted to support unions that supposedly represent their interests unless they are forced to do so? No law forces two-thirds of Americans to give to charity. And yet they do.


http://news.investors.com/article/601606/201202171832/prudence-is-key-for-gop-in-battling-obama.htm?Ntt=prudence-is-key                Tocqueville, after describing in "Democracy in America" how Americans avoided the perils of equality by forming voluntary associations, engaging in local government and believing in religions that disciplined their pursuit of self-interest into a pursuit of virtue, painted the picture of a darker future. Above a democratic populace, he writes, "an immense tutelary power is elevated, which alone takes charge of assuring their enjoyments and watching over their fate. It is absolute, detailed, rigid, far-seeing and mild. It would resemble paternal power if, like that, it had for its object to prepare men for manhood; but on the contrary, it seeks only to keep them fixed irrevocably in childhood; it likes citizens to enjoy themselves. It willingly works for their happiness; but it wants to be the unique agent and sole arbiter of that."

Thus Tocqueville, writing in the 1830s, foresees ObamaCare and the crony capitalism that produces a Super Bowl commercial from a government- and union-controlled company that seeks Obama's re-election.

"Thus, taking each individual by turns in its powerful hands and kneading him as it likes, the sovereign extends its arms over society as a whole; it covers its surface with a network of small, complicated, painstaking, uniform rules through which the most original minds and the most vigorous souls cannot clear a way to surpass the crowd; it does not break wills, but it softens them, bends them and directs them; it rarely forces one to act, but it constantly opposes itself to one's acting; it does not destroy, it prevents things from being born; it does not tyrannize, it hinders, compromises, enervates, extinguishes, dazes and finally reduces each nation to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrial animals of which the government is the shepherd."  That is what House Republicans are fighting to reverse.



http://news.investors.com/Article.aspx?id=603591&p=1&ibdbot=1              Last year, 41% of all babies born in the U.S. (including 53% of babies born to women under 30) were illegitimate, growing up without their own fathers. It is obvious that when the mother of these children has no husband to support her and her babies, she calls on big brother government. You and I then pay the bills for what is labeled welfare.

It's not poverty that causes broken families; it's the absence of marriage that causes poverty and puts kids below the designated poverty line. Social issues cause fiscal expenses.

I grew up during the Great Depression of the 1930s, and the American family — white and black — was not broken. It stayed together to face life's reversals. The massive national problem of having babies without marriage started with Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty in the 1960s. LBJ welfare channeled all the money and benefits to the woman, thereby making the husband and father unnecessary.

I'm not saying anything new; Charles Murray laid this all out more than 20 years ago. He said, "Illegitimacy is the single most important social problem of our time ... because it drives everything else," imposing gigantic costs on the taxpayers.

A conscious political strategy; it promotes dependence on government and more votes for the Democrats.

Most Americans are unaware that nearly $900 billion a year of federal taxpayers' money is handed out to non-taxpayers allegedly below a designated poverty line. Americans' lack of knowledge of the enormity of these handouts is why we sometimes hear reference to the "hidden" welfare state.

So why do we use tax dollars to discourage marriage and subsidize illegitimacy?  Welfare spending is a major cause of our unbalanced budgets and colossal debt. This hidden welfare state is the fastest growing part of government spending. And this doesn't include Social Security or Medicare payments.

Nor do the Heritage Foundation figures count the social and fiscal costs of the expensive problems that come mostly from female-headed households. These include drug addiction, sex, suicides, school dropouts, runaways and crime.

Welfare spending is a failure; it doesn't advance us toward any constructive goal, such as helping recipients to get on their feet economically. It merely increases dependence on government handouts and increases votes for big-spending politicians.




The British government introduced a higher tax rate on the rich in 2010, promising that it would bring in added revenue. But, as any sensible person could have guessed, just the opposite has happened.

Gordon Brown's Labour Party government launched the 50% rate in income taxes allegedly as a means to bring in more revenue.

The "surge" wasn't even a trickle. In fact, there was actually a reversal. Collections fell by $800 million compared to income tax payments a year earlier.

There is, however, little thinking going on.  If there was, those who stand behind punishing the rich might notice how their idea negatively affects more than government revenue.

History is an effective teacher, and the past shows how penalizing the rich ( aka job creators, employers, investors )  carries grave consequences.  A prime lesson was learned more than two decades ago, when in 1990 a 10% surcharge was levied on sales of yachts costing more than $100,000, cars priced above $30,000 and other "luxury" items.  Though the Joint Committee on Taxation projected that the 1991 revenue from the tax would be $31 million, it was only about half that — $16.6 million.  Worse, the tax killed 330 jobs among jewelry manufacturers and 1,470 in the aircraft industry. It also wiped out 7,600 positions in the boating industry, the Joint Economic Committee later found.  We hope that wasn't the outcome the lawmakers were looking for when they passed the luxury tax. But it is the one they got, and it will be the one they get again if they succeed in draining the wealthy for their "fair share."




Most Americans in 2011 experienced a day-to-day inflation rate of 7.2 percent—more than two times the official estimate released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Thank you Obama & Democrats for printing all those dollars as the weaker dollar goes down (which commodities are priced in) causing commodity prices to go up…so we pay for your irresponsible, Greek style explosion in spending. This preliminary finding based on a price index with static weights comes from the Everyday Price Index (EPI). AIER developed the new proprietary index to measure the actual price experience of ordinary people.

The most widely quoted official estimate, the Consumer Price Index (CPI), puts the 2011 inflation rate at 3.1 percent. That’s because the CPI uses a different array of goods and services to calculate the average annual percentage change in the cost of living.  The Everyday Price Index includes only the prices of goods and services that the average consumer purchases at least once a month. The index includes food and beverages, household energy products and services, other utilities, motor fuel, prescription drugs, child care fees, phone services, personal care products, and other goods and services purchased on a regular basis. 

Unlike the CPI, the Everyday Price Index does not include housing. Despite the housing debacle caused in part by variable rate mortgages, most people do not renegotiate rent or mortgage payments on a regular basis. In addition, the index ignores big-ticket items such as household appliances and furnishings and new and used cars. It also excludes less expensive but irregularly purchased goods such as apparel and information technology. The frequently purchased products in the Everyday Price Index make up only about 39 percent of total household spending. But changes in the prices of these products are what people experience day to day. They account for sticker shock at the pump and at the supermarket check-out, and they impact month-to-month household budgets in a way that fixed costs do not.



http://news.investors.com/article/600680/201202091828/liberals-donand8217t-like-wealth-earned-honestly.htm?Ntt=congress-real-plutocrats                   Liberals are disgusted by people who made their own money, as Romney did at Bain Capital. But they admire ill-gotten gains, which is how John Kerry, John Edwards, Jon Corzine, John F. Kennedy, Franklin D. Roosevelt and innumerable other spokesmen for the downtrodden amassed their fortunes.  Democrats are very proud of the rich, patrician FDR — who inherited all of his money and then launched a series of federal entitlements designed to bankrupt America 60 years later. JFK also inherited his wealth, from a father who made his money as a bootlegger and stock manipulator. (In their defense, both went on to create jobs for bartenders and prostitutes.)  Kerry is in a special category of the gigolo. He acquired his fortune by marrying someone, who married someone, who inherited the money — leading Kerry's children to refer to Teresa Heinz Kerry as their "step-money." In what can only be described as luck, Kerry's first wife was also an heiress.

Even when Kerry refused to release his wife's tax returns in order to avoid the humiliation of revealing his allowance, the press was demurely silent. John Edwards made well over $50 million by shaking down hardworking doctors with junk science lawsuits — as the New York Times has since admitted. The highlight of his sideshows was when he channeled unborn children in front of illiterate jurors.

(In the Democrats' moral universe, the unborn have no right to life, but they're perfectly acceptable as witnesses for the plaintiff in a malpractice suit.)

The six wealthiest senators are all Democrats, half of whom married or inherited their money. Some other multimillionaire Democrats are:

• Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the second-richest senator after Kerry, who inherited his money.

• Dianne Feinstein of California, the sixth-richest senator, who married her money.

• Maria Cantwell of Washington, a bogus dot-com multimillionaire who cashed out before the stock crashed.

• Claire McCaskill of Missouri, the ninth-richest senator, who failed to pay taxes on her private plane until she was caught last year, and who married her money.

Meanwhile, with few exceptions, Republicans either made money on their own or they don't have it. It's no accident Democrats oppose a tax on wealth, of which they have boatloads, but strongly support taxes on income, which they typically do not have.

Democrats don't hate the rich; they are the rich, luxuriating in fortunes acquired by inheritance or marriage, fleecing the taxpayer, trial lawyer hucksterism or disreputable money manipulation. Their contempt is reserved for those who engage in honest work for a living, whom they accuse of "greed" for wanting to pay the government a little less.


http://news.investors.com/article/600854/201202101833/democrats-refusal-to-pass-budget-is-illegal.htm?Ntt=when-leaders-turn-lawless     "the fact is," Congress is required under the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to pass a spending plan and then have it scored by the Congressional Budget Office and signed by the president. That none of this happens suggests a level of disrespect for the law and the people found only among criminals.  It has everything to do with Democrats' refusal to admit that their unparalleled spending binge and exploding debt will soon lead to a tidal wave of tax hikes on average Americans.


Have you seen the official White House version of what the New York Times headline writers call "A Responsible Budget"?  My favorite bit is Chart 5-1 on Page 58 of their 500-page appendix on "Analytical Perspectives." This is entitled "Publicly Held Debt Under 2013 Budget Policy Projections." As shown above, it's a straight line going straight up before disappearing off the top right-hand corner of the graph in the year 2084

the Obama condoms-for-clunkers giveaway and a debt-to-GDP ratio of 900% by 2075 — are not unconnected. In Greece, 100 grandparents have 42 grandchildren — i.e., an upside-down family tree. As I wrote in this space a few weeks ago, "If 100 geezers run up a bazillion dollars' worth of debt, is it likely that 42 youngsters will ever be able to pay it off?" Most analysts know the answer to that question: Greece is demographically insolvent. So it's looking to Germany to continue bankrolling its First World lifestyle. A nation that did without having kids of its own is in no mood to maintain Greece as the ingrate slacker who never moves out of the house.

Testifying before Congress, Timmy Geithner referred only to "demographic challenges" — an oblique allusion to the fact that the U.S. economy is about to be terminally clobbered by 100 trillion dollars of entitlement obligations it can never meet. And, as Chart 5-1 on page 58 of the official Obama budget "Analytical Perspectives" makes plain, your feckless, decadent rulers have no plans to do anything about it.

Instead, the Democrats shriek, ooh, Republican prudes who can't get any action want to shut down your sex life! According to CBO projections, by midcentury mere interest payments on the debt will exceed federal revenues.

For purposes of comparison, by 1788 Louis XVI's government in France was spending a mere 60% of revenues on debt service, and we know how that worked out for His Majesty shortly thereafter.

Not to worry, says Barry Antoinette. Let them eat condoms.  This is a very curious priority for a dying republic. "Birth control" is accessible, indeed ubiquitous, and, by comparison with anything from a gallon of gas to basic cable, one of the cheapest expenses in the average budget. But where is the compelling societal interest in the state prioritizing and subsidizing it? Especially when you're already the Brokest Nation in History.   But in America an oblivious political class, led by a president who characterizes young motherhood as a "punishment," prefers to offer solutions to problems that don't exist rather than the ones that are all too real.

I think this is what they call handing out condoms on the Titanic.  Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit, distills the current hysteria thus: "It's as if we passed a law requiring mosques to sell bacon and then, when people objected, responded by saying 'What's wrong with bacon? You're trying to ban bacon!!!!'"  Americans foolish enough to fall for the Democrats' crude bit of misdirection can hardly complain about their rendezvous with the sharp end of that page 58 budget graph.  People are free to buy bacon, and free to buy condoms. But the state has no compelling interest to force either down your throat.

http://news.investors.com/article/600123/201202031854/obama-word-and-deed-differ-on-capital-gains.htm?Ntt=cap-gains-rhetoric   If you invest in a business paying the 35% corporate tax rate, your capital gain is diminished by the business having that much less left over to reinvest in itself. And most investors are buying assets with money that already has been taxed once, when they received it as wages or business income. The tax on capital gains has been reduced to zero for investors who hold qualified small-business stock for five years. ("Small" here means having less than $50 million in assets at the time the investment is made). Last Tuesday, Obama announced a new package that would make the cap-gains break permanent. It makes plenty of sense to give investors a tax-free gain if they put money into a new business and have the patience to wait five years before cashing out. Risks are high in these investments, and it's fitting that the rewards should be the same.  But who are these investors?  They are angels, venture capitalists and others with plenty of money.



Reality check: Obama got his entire domestic agenda passed through Congress in his first two years in office.  It included a massive $1 trillion stimulus package, a $1.8 trillion health-reform bill and the biggest regulatory overhaul of the financial sector since the New Deal.

Almost everything he wanted was delivered to him on a silver platter by a Democratic-controlled Congress.  Only, the stimulus bill did not stimulate the economy as forecast, though it did explode the deficit. Infrastructure spending for bridges and other construction projects went instead to public-sector unions.  Even Obama admitted that his "shovel-ready jobs" never materialized.  And instead of helping, ObamaCare and the Dodd-Frank Act only worsened the crisis.  Now even Democrats are blocking his nostrums.  Not a single member of Congress voted for Obama's last two budgets. This is a stunning repudiation of his leadership.

It's painfully obvious Obama’s plan didn't work. And more of the same won't work any better.  Obama had his shot, and blew it. Like he said, he doesn't deserve a second chance.


http://news.investors.com/article/613655/201206041914/obama-economic-recovery-worst-since-great-depression.htm?Ntt=obamanomics-the-lowlights      This is what Obamanomics has wrought. Fiscal promiscuity. Trickle-up poverty. Shared misery.  Too much to list here, follow the link…


http://news.investors.com/article/613025/201205300911/obama-recovery-much-worse-than-average.htm?Ntt=jobs-lag-by-65-mil-in-obamas-recovery&p=full     Thanks to the Democrats and Obama’s policies, the Obama “recovery” has come in well below average on several key indicators compared with the previous 10 economic recoveries, dating back to 1949, according to an IBD analysis of various economic data.  And on several measures, the current recovery — which started five months after Obama took office and is now in its 35th month — is the worst on record since World War II.   Obama got everything he wanted in terms of economic policy his first two years in office, when he had solid Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, including a massive stimulus, Cash for Clunkers, mortgage aid, Wall Street reform, ObamaCare and so on and now we suffer the results.         



The president accuses his likely opponent of outsourcing jobs as his re-election campaign hires telemarketers in Canada and the Philippines. And what about GM in China and those electric cars built in Finland?  Team Obama spent nearly $4,700 on services from a Canadian telemarketing company called Pacific East between March and June. The Obama campaign also paid a call center in Manila, Philippines, $78,314.10 for telemarketing services between the start of the campaign and March.  Few people remember an August 2010 report at InformationWeek.com about the U.S. Agency for International Development, a federal agency run by a hand-picked Obama appointee, launching a $36 million program to train workers, including 3,000 specialists in IT and related functions, in South Asia.  They were to provide offshore IT and business services to American companies looking to take advantage of the Asian subcontinent's low labor costs.

The hypocrisy only starts here. While blocking the Keystone XL pipeline and the 20,000 jobs it would bring immediately, with hundreds of thousands later in an economic ripple effect, this is the President who applauded a U.S. Export-Import Bank's loan to Brazil's state-run Petrobras in the amount of $2 billion with the promise of more to follow.  At the time, Obama was railing against tax incentives for U.S. oil companies and still is.

The Obama administration had no problem with approving a plan by electric car company Fisker to use part of its $529 million federal stimulus loan guarantee to build its manufacturing facility, and the 500 jobs it supports, in Finland.

Speaking of GM, Government Motors, whose international headquarters is in Shanghai, recently announced it would be developing an electric car platform with its longtime Chinese partner, the Shanghai Automotive Industrial Corporation (SAIC). The president has no problem with that, either. As part of doing business in China, GM, which has become virtually a wholly owned subsidiary of the U.S. taxpayer, must share its taxpayer-subsidized technology with Beijing as a cost of doing business there, including that used in the heavily subsidized Chevy Volt.

According to a recent report by the Investigative Reporting Workshop at the American University's School of Communication in Washington, D.C., nearly $2 billion in money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has been spent on wind power. Nearly 80% of that money has gone to foreign manufacturers of wind turbines, the study found.

Mitt Romney and Bain Capital oversaw the creation of tens of thousands of jobs by companies like Staples, Sports Authority and Domino's Pizza. President Obama would keep the highest corporate tax rate in the world, carry out a job-outsourcing energy policy, expand job-killing regulations and impose job-killing ObamaCare.  It is President Obama who is outsourcing American jobs and downsizing the American economy.


Raser Technologies, ECOtality, Nevada Geothermal Power (NGP), First Solar, Abound Solar, Inc., Beacon Power, SunPower, Brightsource, Solyndra, Amazingly, Obama has declared that all the projects received funding “based solely on their merits.” But as Hoover Institution scholar Peter Schweizer reported in his book, “Throw Them All Out,” fully 71 percent of the Obama Energy Department’s grants and loans went to “individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama’s National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party.” Collectively, these Obama cronies raised $457,834 for his campaign, and they were in turn approved for grants or loans of nearly $11.35 billion. Obama said this week it’s not the president’s job “to make a lot of money for investors.” Well, he sure seems to have made a lot of (taxpayer) money for investors in his political machine.  All that cronyism and corruption is catching up with the administration. According to Politico, “The Energy Department’s inspector general has launched more than 100 criminal investigations” related to the department’s green-energy programs.



So why do they shift overseas?  Sometimes it's just good business. Being near customers helps sales. As U.S. economic growth has slowed and Asian economies have grown, it makes sense to invest in other, faster-growing markets.

It is also often cheaper to manufacture abroad. The time, cost and drudgery of foreign trips, and the added expense and delay of overseas shipping, are offset by lower labor and input costs. But cost savings are rarely the only reason.

A big factor is that U.S. laws encourage overseas investment. The United States taxes overseas income if a company attempts to invest it back in America, so businesses are incentivized to leave their foreign earnings abroad. Every company with overseas revenue faces this perverse incentive.  In addition, the U.S. not only has the world's highest corporate tax rate, but it is also one of the few nations to tax the global earnings of multinational companies based here.

Our immigration laws also encourage investment in overseas jobs. Absurd visa limits, rules and quotas restrict U.S. companies from hiring and bringing to our nation the world's best and brightest employees. This means that much of the talent companies need to innovate and grow is living outside the U.S.  If those highly skilled workers cannot come here, then U.S. companies will go to them. So with the money companies have parked abroad, they buy or build overseas facilities and hire whoever they want.

The United States also has one of the highest concentrations of lawyers among developed nations — with twice as many lawyers as in the European Union — a litigious environment, tough and growing anti-discrimination laws, a heavy pro-union atmosphere, plaintiff-favorable tort laws and an increasingly regulatory federal government. All of these factors encourage U.S. companies to invest abroad.  Despite all of this, if a U.S. company with global sales keeps the bulk of its employees in America, our laws sadly encourage a foreign company to buy it. Since non-U.S. earnings are not subject to the world's highest corporate tax rates, transferring ownership overseas saves a company's owners huge amounts in taxes.  It's crazy that our laws encourage businesses to be sold to foreign owners, but it's true.  Shapiro is president and CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association, the U.S. trade association representing more than 2,000 consumer electronics companies, and author of the book, "The Comeback: How Innovation Will Restore the American Dream."





http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bssQuery?&Db=112&stepID=S*&stepD=o&stepD1=20120712           Do Nothing Democrat SenateLast Major Action - Obtain a list of all bills with Major Actions on the specified date   Items 1 through 28 of 28…that is it?  What do we get for the money we pay them??  Where is their Budget?  Where are the Jobs bills???  Why vote for any Democrats??  Why doesn’t Democrat Leader Harry Reid get something done??


http://www.unityrally2012.com/sponsors/                   More than 25,000 Patriots have signed up to virtually march on Tampa August 26th and if you are reading this email and haven't signed up I have just one question for you: Will you spend just a couple of minutes to create a FREE VIRTUAL MARCHER to help us advance our message of freedom and liberty?  Don't wait another minute!  Sign up now and let's get the number UP!  The Unity Rally is a critical piece of the strategy to keep the focus on the danger America is facing. Stand with us, shouting the message that we are here to finish the job we started in 2010 by winning control of the White House, the Senate and increasing our majority in the House of Representatives. This is no time to sit on the sidelines hoping others do the heavy lifting. Signing up will not cost you anything and only takes a couple of minutes. Please do it now!

Click here to create your virtual marcher now


http://news.investors.com/article/615029/201206151805/obama-speech-was-filled-with-falsehoods.htm?Ntt=obama-speech-full-of-fallacy-and-falsehood&p=full   the president gave Americans a falsehood wrapped in a fallacy.  The falsehood is that he has been serious about cutting government spending. The fallacy is that this election will be some sort of referendum that will break the logjam in Washington.

Fallacy first. "Both parties have laid out their policies on the table for all to see," Obama said. "What's holding us back is a stalemate in Washington between two fundamentally different views of which direction America should take. And this election is your chance to break that stalemate."

He's right about the stalemate. But he's absolutely wrong that November offers an opportunity to break it.

No scenario shows either party with a chance of amassing a solid governing majority of the sort Obama had when he took office. The way to break the stalemate is through compromise, not conquest.

And that leads to the falsehood. Despite his claim that "both parties have laid out their policies on the table," Obama has made no serious proposal to fix the runaway entitlement programs that threaten to swamp the government's finances.  "My own deficit plan would strengthen Medicare and Medicaid for the long haul by slowing the growth of health care costs — not shifting them to seniors and vulnerable families," Obama said. "And my plan would reduce our yearly domestic spending to its lowest level as a share of the economy in nearly 60 years."

That's incorrect. As Politifact has pointed out, Obama's claim that he would reduce annual domestic spending to a percentage of gross domestic product not seen in 60 years is true only if you don't count the enormous spending on programs such as Medicare.  Of more concern is Obama's nonsensical claim that he has a deficit plan that would strengthen Medicare for the long haul.  As the Washington Post's Lori Montgomery has reported, the president's 2013 budget marked "the second year in a row Obama has ignored calls to restructure Social Security and Medicare entitlement programs."  Nothing in Obama's speech came close to a proposal to fix the debt problem; he dealt with that only at the end of the speech — largely by complaining about Republicans' refusal to consider higher taxes on the wealthy.  Obama's speech was a rehash of earlier proposals — such as sending more Americans to community college and spending more on clean energy.  Those plans for additional spending would be more credible if he had a plausible plan to reform entitlement spending, the biggest driver of future debt.  Undoubtedly, Obama would take heat from his base if he put forth a serious plan along the lines of Bowles-Simpson, whose recommendations he never quite embraced.




http://news.investors.com/article/614548/201206121726/size-of-us-debt-threatens-the-economy.htm?Ntt=william-dunkelberg&p=full                         Ask anyone who owns a business what happens if you borrow and spend more than you take in as revenue.  After your listener has a good chuckle, she will undoubtedly tell you that you won't have that business for very long.  Then ask her what happens if the government behaves that way — borrowing and spending, constantly, for years, without any plan to stop and continually spending more than it receives in revenue. We used debt to help live beyond our means. The governments that represent us did the same, making generous promises without provisions to pay for them.

At some point, probably sooner rather than later (and as is now the case in Europe), lenders will refuse to finance our political insanity at interest rates we can afford, if at all.

But it is the president who must take responsibility for our fiscal trajectory, provide leadership and offer a credible program that will immediately start to balance spending and tax revenues without discouraging the needed vitality of the private sector.

The European experience bears witness to what will happen if the U.S. continues to raise the debt limit, if our government is permitted to borrow more money without implementing a credible program of fiscal discipline that lenders can believe in.  Record high unemployment in eurozone countries has left many nations finding that borrowing costs are too high to allow government debt to be serviced without imposing crushing taxes and broken promises on the populous.

Raising the debt limit with no accompanying credible fiscal plan may keep the government open this month, this year or next, but will punch a politically irreversible hole in the hull of our sinking sovereign ship of state.  Fearing a repetition of events in Europe, small-business owners are not likely to hire and expand and invest in a future that is so uncertain.  And without a thriving small-business sector, our economy may never fully recover.  • Dunkelberg is chief economist for the National Federation of Independent Business.


http://news.investors.com/article/617687/201207101851/obama-hometown-chicago-murder-capital.htm?p=full                   In Obama's Chicago, A Trayvon Martin Every Day

"I got a letter from a viewer the other day who asked us why we were spending so much time at 'The Evening News' covering Afghanistan when more people were dying in Chicago," Pelley said. "Why is the murder rate up 30%?"  Pelley put the number of murders in Chicago at 275 so far this year.

Mayor Emanuel announced Monday that he's devoting another $4 million to tear down vacant buildings where gang members live and store guns and drugs. Structurally sound buildings will be boarded up. But why are they vacant and boarded up? Why did 200,000 people flee Chicago in the past decade?

Chicago, like Illinois, is overtaxed and overregulated, a climate that attracts neither businesses nor people. It was the ideological incubator for a community organizer who would become president and blame all of America's problems on those who worked hard and succeeded.

Decades of progressive liberalism that started with LBJ's Great Society did much to destroy the black family in America.  Progressive liberalism does not teach the values of hard work and reaping the fruits of one's labor. It gives men fish instead of teaching them how to fish. It demeans the value of marriage




There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)  If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

And now, the brilliant analysis. His first sentence shows his socialist tendencies.

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back.  What’s stopping them? Nothing. They are free to give back, to create foundations that teach what they know, to create organizations that fund small businesses, to found private schools that lift up those who need a hand. They can use their property to give back however, they choose.

But Obama isn’t about “giving.” Charities and their work are not as effective as the work of the centralized government. Obama’s talking about increasing taxes on the richest Americans. He’s talking about taking, and that’s what this whole campaign is about. Obama wants to vilify the most successful people in America so those who live in jealousy of them will empower the government to loot the rich and redistribute the booty.  Bastiat called it “legalized plunder.”

The remainder of the above quote is nothing but a justification for increasing the fleecing. If they are not responsible for their success, but are instead in debt to the collective work of civilization, they should be forced to repay their debt.  Explain to me how that’s freedom. Explain to me how any man can claim himself free if he’s in debt from the moment of birth. How can you have liberty if you owe a debt to the government that can never be fully repaid? How can you be free if the government feels it moral to take as much plunder from you as it deems “moral,” and calling it “giving back?”  He’s not advocating an increase in charitable giving. He advocating an increase in legalized plunder.  According to Obama, the more successful we are, the more we become indentured servants to the collective.  That’s not America.




Obama, above it all, while the businessman loses everything.

Please retweet this post with #ObamaDidThis and share the microsite, ObamaDidThisOnHisOwn.com on Facebook.


"If you've got a business - you didn't build that. Somebody else made it happen!"  
From Liberty News Network:  According to President Obama, the more successful we are, the more we become indentured servants to the collective.  Obama's speech in Roanoke, VA has evoked the condemnation of America's business owners, the Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business!


In Obama’s warped world, it is the government which should determine the allocation of resources and that is why they have changed the verbiage when referring to a federal tax cut, as needing to be “paid for,” as if the government is entitled to every dollar that is made by the American worker, and each of us should just be thankful that Obama and pals allow us to keep a portion of it as recompense for our hard work.



Click Here To Watch Mitt Romney Discuss Why President Obama Has Not Fixed The Economy: http://youtu.be/V0YpHUsVjXk

MITT ROMNEY: “Something happened on Friday. President Obama exposed what he really thinks about free people and the American vision and government, what he really thinks about America itself. He probably wants to understand why his policies failed. If you want to understand why his policies have failed, why what he has done has not created jobs or rising incomes in America, you can look at what he said. And what he said was this, he said, and I quote, and he’s speaking by the way of businesses, like this one, small businesses, big businesses, middle-size businesses, mining businesses, manufacturing, service businesses of all kinds. He said this: ‘If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.’ That somebody else is government, in his view. He goes on to describe the people who deserve the credit for building this business. And, of course, he describes people who we care very deeply about, who make a difference in our lives: our schoolteachers, firefighters, people who build roads. We need those things. We value schoolteachers, firefighters, people who build roads. You really couldn’t have a business if you didn’t have those things. But, you know, we pay for those things. Alright? The taxpayers pay for government. It’s not like government just provides those to all of us and we say, ‘Oh, thank you government for doing those things.’ No, in fact, we pay for them and we benefit from them and we appreciate the work that they do and the sacrifices that are done by people who work in government. But they did not build this business.”







Where did all the Obama Democrat Stimulus taxpayer money go???




Which man would you rather have managing the struggling US economy?  Before you offer your final answer, read today's superb Wall Street Journal editorial comparing Romney's massive success at Bain Capital with the cronyism of Obama's mismanaged, "green jobs" flop.




http://news.investors.com/article/617563/201207091910/obama-again-punts-on-fiscal-responsibility.htm?Ntt=why-fairness-is-a-job-killer  Remember in August 2009, when Obama supported extending the Bush tax cuts because, as he then put it, "The last thing we want to do is raise taxes during a recession"?  Well, here we are with 8.2% unemployment (we haven't been below 8% for 3-1/2 years), meager 1.9% average GDP growth with a very real threat of recession on the horizon, trillion-dollar deficits extending as far as the eye can see, and this is a good time to raise taxes?

Doubly confusing is the fact that Obama and his Democrat allies are on the record as saying that the Bush tax cuts did not work. Yet he wants to extend them for the middle class, but only for a year.

Please tell us, Mr. President, why extend tax cuts you don't believe worked?

And the president still has nothing to say about so-called "Taxmageddon," the fiscal cliff that awaits next year as the Bush tax cuts end.  The top 2% pay nearly 50% of all income taxes, but take home less than 30% of all U.S. income. Is that fair?  The "rich" Obama wants to increase taxes on are the job creators and entrepreneurs. The top 2% of earners report 66% of all pass-through business income, 25% of all net business and professional income, and 85% of all partnership and S Corp. income.

They're business owners. Tax them at a higher rate, and you'll have fewer new businesses and fewer jobs. It's the middle-class that will suffer, not the rich.  Voters should reject the siren song of "fairness" and "get the rich." It will only bring misery — and poverty.



http://visiontoamerica.com/11024/obama-would-rather-campaign-than-meet-with-jobs-council/                      Speaker John Boehner noted today that Republicans are “the only ones in town who’ve offered a plan to address both the threat to our security that’s posed by the defense sequester, and the threat to our economy posed by the coming tax hike.” President Obama, on the other hand, “hasn’t lifted a finger to work with the Congress on jobs or to resolve these big issues.” Boehner noted: the president “doesn’t even have time to meet with his own jobs council. He’s just out there campaigning every day and looking for somebody else to blame.” 


http://news.investors.com/article/618146/201207131919/call-public-employees-what-they-are-and8212-economy-destroyers.htm?Ntt=douglas-mackinnon&p=full                          The next time you see a city, county, state or federal public employee — be they teachers, postal workers, librarians, in the mayor's office, or even police or firefighters — don't view them as neighbors, friends or friendly civil servants, but rather as the destroyers of your economic future.  To be sure, the vast majority of these people are incredibly decent human beings — and no doubt see themselves that way. Just as the vast majority of them are very intelligent and know right from wrong.

Every honest American knows that if one of these public service jobs was offered tomorrow with zero pension — jobs that pay from $20,000 to well over $100,000 per year — thousands of the unemployed would line up immediately and consider themselves blessed with good fortune if they landed one.  In large part because of the unchecked greed of the public employee unions and workers, San Bernardino this week became the third California city to seek bankruptcy protection.  Of course, if you were looking for that honest explanation from Democrats and pro-public employee union media outlets such as the Los Angeles Times or Reuters, good luck.

As non-public employees continue to raid more of their precious life saving to pay for these unfunded gold-plated public employee pensions and health care plans, the obvious question has to be asked: Do these public employees deserve a pension at all? The answer of course is "no."

In the United States of America, other than liberty, we are entitled to nothing.

As the something for nothing, big-government proponents cripple the economies of Greece, Italy, Spain, California, Illinois, New York, Maryland and numerous other countries and municipalities, when do the Americans not participating in this threat to their welfare and the welfare of their children scream, "Enough is enough!"



http://news.investors.com/article/618006/201207121907/instead-of-rewarding-illegals-romney-slows-the-flow.htm?Ntt=fixing-the-spigot                                            Mitt Romney's campaign has laid out an immigration strategy that ends rewards for lawbreaking, stops political pandering and makes rule of law matter again.

'Gov. Romney believes that young illegal immigrants brought here as children should have the chance to become permanent residents if they serve honorably in the U.S. military," a Romney spokeswoman told CNS News this week. "And illegal immigrants should be able to register and get in line with other applicants."

Military service actually benefits U.S. interests first, rather than rewarding illegals first. Service asks something of immigrants in return for a shot at citizenship. Having to "pay" for citizenship this way would make it something that would be treated with value once won. Giveaways are never valued.

Service would also require evidence of loyalty and patriotism to the U.S., something the educational option of the Dream Act fails to address. An illegal who wants to party with the frat boys at State U is fundamentally different in kind from the illegal who is willing to give up his freedom for six years and possibly fight and die for the U.S.

Third, service would require some level of provable merit and English proficiency, the lack of which are no issue for Dream Act educational institutions with all their gut majors and remedial courses.  Military service is also, historically, a superior assimilator of immigrants, which the American people have the right to demand of immigrants.

In short, the Romney proposal allows two paths to citizenship for illegals — get in line like everyone else or serve our country as many of the best Americans do.  This serious proposal will halt "the immigration magnet," as Romney has put it, and treat immigrants like human beings instead of special interest groups.




Many Americans believe President Franklin D. Roosevelt's Keynesian conversion beat back the Great Depression. It's pure myth. In the 1930s, the United States doubled government outlays relative to GDP. The unemployment rate didn't fall; instead, it jumped from 3.2% in 1929 to 25.2% in 1933 — an outcome contrary to Keynes' doctrine.  See chart!!  http://news.investors.com/photopopup.aspx?path=ISS3c070912.gif&docId=617318&xmpSource=&width=600&height=431&caption=

Only two periods of rising government spending have been associated with falling unemployment — 1917-19 and 1941-45. They're both times of major world wars, where millions of adults were plucked from the civilian labor force to serve in the military.  The share of the adult population on active duty rose from 0.3% in 1916 to 4.5% in 1918 and from 0.5% in 1940 to 12.3% in 1945.

In short, unemployment fell not because of government spending but because of government conscription — hardly a good way to cure joblessness or evidence of a Keynesian miracle.

At all other times during this 110-year sweep of U.S. history, government spending and unemployment rates have moved in the same direction. In the 1920s, both trended downward. The Depression decade saw them rise in tandem.  From the 1950s through the 1970s, spending and unemployment moved up and down together. In the 1980s-90s, they had another nicely choreographed decline.

Yet another Democrat Obama Keynesian policy failure hasn't led to a reappraisal of the belief that spending can solve the economy's problems???





President John F. Kennedy once said of those who would oppose us: "We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed." That was the longstanding reason for our nuclear deterrence strategy.

President Obama has decided that indeed we are going to tempt them with weakness.

In a 2009 speech in Prague, President Obama spoke of "America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons," ignoring the fact before 1945 we lived in such a world and it was neither peaceful nor secure.  the administration's plan to cut the nuclear force to as low as 300 "alone is sufficient to vote against Obama in November."



http://news.investors.com/article/618355/201207161909/decent-romney-letting-obama-skate-to-victory.htm?p=full                  Romney's record is all Obama has to talk about. He can't talk about his own, and certainly not about the zombie economy or the unpopular Obama-Care. And he can't repeat the soaring rhetoric of "hope and change." Going negative is the only way he can win.

To overcome Obama's gutter assault, Romney must learn political jujitsu — the art of turning the force of your enemy's attacks back on him, putting him off balance. In jujitsu, you don't defend so much as counterattack and redirect negative energy at your opponent.

For instance: "My tax records? The real question is: When will Obama turn over his college records? What's he hiding from voters?  "The president has the gall to call me dishonest when he was caught by a Washington Post biographer telling no fewer than 38 lies in his own memoir, the same memoir that made him a millionaire! Now he's lying about his $2 trillion health care tax. How can Americans trust him with four more years?"

If Romney and his surrogates go on the cable shows and use such rhetorical leverage often enough — consistently, with one voice — it will move the media off Romney and onto Obama where it belongs.

After Obama's easy 2004 Senate win, he and then-media consultant David Axelrod rejoiced over their "spooky" luck that neither Democrats nor Republicans ran attack ads against him.  "My greatest bit of good fortune was that no candidate ran a negative TV ad about me," Obama recounted in his 2006 autobiography, even though the National Republican Senatorial Committee found enough dirt "to do the trick." Only, the attacks never came.  Obama also got a break in 2008 when John McCain treated him with kid gloves. He refused to touch the Rev. Wright scandal, and even lauded Obama's radical community organizing as "very honorable."  Obama could have a glass chin. But Romney will never know until he takes the gloves off.






As the Obama campaign and the media continue to press Mitt Romney to release more of his tax returns, and to suggest--without a shred of evidence--that he is a “felon,” it is worth noting how much critical information Barack Obama has withheld from view--both as a candidate in 2008, and during his term in office. Here is a Breitbart News top ten list of things that Obama has refused to release (a complete list would fill volumes):

10. State senate papers. In the 2008 primary, Obama criticized Hillary Clinton for not releasing papers from her eight years time as First Lady--but failed to produce any papers from his eight years in Springfield. “They could have been thrown out,” he said.

9. Academic transcripts. His supposed academic brilliance was a major selling point, but Obama (by his own admission) was a mediocre student. His GPA at Occidental was a B-plus at best, and his entering class at Columbia was weak. Can he prove his merit?

8. Book proposal. Obama’s literary agent claimed he was “born in Kenya”--for sixteen years. His original book proposal exists--biographer David Maraniss refers to it--and seems to have embellished other key details of his life. Yet it has never been released.

7. Medical records. In 2000, and again (briefly) in 2008, GOP presidential candidate Sen. John McCain released thousands of pages of his medical records. Obama, who had abused drugs and continued smoking, merely provided a one-page doctor’s note.

6. Small-dollar donors. In 2008, the McCain campaign released the names of donors who had contributed less than $200, though it was not required to do so. But the Obama campaign refused, amidst accusations it had accepted illegal foreign contributions.

5. The Khalidi tape. In 2003, Obama attended a party for his good friend, the radical Palestinian academic Rashid Khalidi. The event featured incendiary anti-Israel rhetoric. The LA Times broke the story, but has refused to release the tape--and so has Obama.

4. The real White House guest list. Touting its transparency, the Obama White House released its guest logs--but kept many visits secret, and moved meetings with lobbyists off-site. It also refused to confirm the identities of visitors like Bertha Lewis of ACORN.

3. Countless FOIA requests. The Obama administration has been described as “the worst” ever in complying with Freedom of Information Act requests for documents. It has also punished whistleblowers like David Walpin, who exposed cronyism in Americorps.

2. Health reform negotiations. Candidate Obama promised that health care reform negotiations would be televised on C-SPAN. Instead, there were back-room deals worth millions with lobbyists and legislators--the details of which are only beginning to emerge.

1. Fast and Furious documents. After months of stonewalling Congress, Attorney General Eric Holder asked President Obama to use executive privilege to conceal thousands of documents related to the deadly scandal--and Obama did just that.

In addition to the above, Obama and his campaign have lied about many facts about his past--his membership in the New Party; his extensive connections with ACORN; and his continued relationship with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, among other examples. Obama’s own memoir is filled with fabrications. And now he is lying about his opponent’s honorable record in business. He--and the media--have no shame.




If there's nothing to hide, why not release these academic records?  Why is the White House stonewalling?  An objective press corps ought to be curious. But it has by and large refused to pursue the issue, even though it hectored George W. Bush to release his college transcripts.  Here are 10 reasons the electorate has every right to see Obama's records:

1. Liberal historians have crowned Obama "the smartest guy ever to become president." Prove it. We're not convinced. Neither are the millions of Americans who still can't find jobs, thanks to his failed policies. Let's see his course work. Did he get an F in Econ 101 while acing his Marxism classes? We wouldn't be surprised.

9. Another Democrat stonewaller, John Kerry, refused to turn over his college records during his 2004 White House run. He finally relented the next year, revealing several D's and a GPA nearly identical to Bush's. Yet Kerry was portrayed by the media as the mental giant in the race.

10. The Obama camp has hypocritically demanded GOP rival Mitt Romney turn over 10 years of tax records, which arguably are more personal than academic records.

Romney ought to issue a challenge to Obama by turning over his grades from Brigham Young University, where he reportedly graduated with a 3.97 GPA and highest honors, and from Harvard, where he simultaneously earned an MBA and law degree.





http://news.investors.com/article/612950/201205291845/consumer-confidence-flatlines-under-obama.htm?Ntt=public-vote-of-no-confidence                        The current reading is worse when you realize that under President Bush — you know, the guy who Obama passes the buck onto for ruining the economy — confidence averaged 88.  That's despite two recessions, a terrorist massacre and two long wars.              

Throughout Obama's "recovery," the index has averaged 57.  What reason do people have to feel confident today?  Almost three years into the recovery, unemployment is still above 8%, household incomes are down more than 5%, gasoline prices remain at historic highs, and the economy can only eke out meager gains.  On top of this, we learned this week that housing prices are back at their mid-2002 levels. So, naturally, Obama's again making excuses and shifting blame.

Indeed, the only reason the economy continues to struggle for breath is because Obama continues to choke off its air supply. Even now, he has no clue how his policy prescriptions of vast new federal spending, gargantuan debt, massive regulation, a government health care takeover, and endless bashing of businessmen, profits and the "rich" are killing the “recovery”, jobs & hampering growth.  Still, we are confident of one thing. The economy will come roaring back to life once all that stops.




http://news.investors.com/article/613319/201205311855/obama-gaffe-describes-polish-death-camps-webhed-obamas-tone-deaf-camp-a-question-of-competence.htm?Ntt=the-presidents-tone-deaf-camp&p=full                        Is Obama the Ron Burgundy of presidents, a clone of the talking-head newscaster in the movie "Anchorman" who was all style and no substance and would literally read anything placed on his teleprompter without understanding its meaning or consequence?  His continued rhetorical and policy gaffes makes one wonder if the Preezy of the United Steezy, as late-night host Jimmy Fallon described Obama, is still, after nearly four years of on-the-job training, not ready for prime time.




4 Pinocchios:  (Obama the best Pinocchio President yet) The Obama campaign apparently loves to ding former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney with the charge of “outsourcing.” On several occasions, we have faulted the campaign for its claims (LIES), apparently to little avail.  Now, all of the claims (LIES) have been combined in one 30-second ad, with the added incendiary charge that Romney was a “corporate raider.” Let’s look anew at this material.

The Fact Checker covered renowned corporate raiders such as Carl Icahn and his ilk. We also have closely studied Bain Capital and can find no examples that come close to this situation; its deals were done in close association with management. Indeed, Bain generally held onto its investments for four or five years, in contrast to the quick bust-em-ups of real corporate raiders. So calling Romney a “corporate raider” is a real stretch (LIE). Regarding the outsourcing claims, we have frowned on these before. The Obama campaign rests its case on three examples of Bain-controlled companies sending jobs overseas. But only one of the examples — involving Holson Burns Group — took place when Romney was actively managing Bain Capital.  Regarding the other claims (LIES), concerning Canadian electronics maker SMTC Manufacturing and customer service firm Modus Media, the Obama campaign tries to take advantage of a gray area in which Romney had stepped down from Bain — to manage the Salt Lake City Olympics — but had not sold his shares in the firm. We had previously given the Obama campaign Three Pinocchios for such tactics (LIES).

The Pinocchio Test:   The Obama campaign fails to make its case. On just about every level, this ad is misleading, unfair and untrue, (MORE LIES) from the use of “corporate raider” to its examples of alleged outsourcing.  Simply repeating the same debunked claims won’t make them any more correct.



RECIPE FOR SUCCESS:  http://www.nomblog.com/25192/          A study by the Brookings Institution has shown that for those that 1. graduate from high school, 2. who get a full-time job, and 3. wait until 21 before they marry and 4. then have their first child, the probability of becoming poor is 2 percent. And if those factors are absent, the probability of being poor is 76%," said Gov. Romney  http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba428


http://cainsolutionsrevolution.com/news/the-welfare-work-requirement-obama-obliterates-clintons-best-achievement            the 1996 welfare reform act.  The bill “ended warfare as we know it” as Clinton liked to say, and introduced stringent requirements that able-bodied welfare recipients either work or spend time preparing for work. It was a good idea and it reversed the expansion of the welfare rolls for the first time in decades. The key was that states were not allowed to waive the work requirements. Congress wrote this section of the law very carefully because they knew that some state bureaucrats would try to do just that.
On Thursday, the Obama Administration issued a directive allowing states to waive the work requirement – and only the work requirement. In fact, Sebelius has no authority to grant such waivers. The bill makes that very clear by limiting the allowance of waivers to one section only, and it very explicitly excludes the work requirement from that section. This was not an accident. The power of the bill, and of the whole idea, was that it would only succeed if the work requirement was mandatory for all states and for all recipients.
It only took four years after the bill had eliminated the old Aid for Families with Dependent Children program, and replaced it with the new Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program, for poverty to plummet while welfare caseloads were cut in half, according to a report from the Heritage Foundation.
So why would Obama get rid of the work requirements? I can think of two reasons – one ideological and the other political.
The ideological reason is that liberals hated welfare reform from day one. They predicted it would push millions more children into poverty. When it did exactly the opposite, their hatred was not abated in the slightest. They are convinced that the only way for people to get by is the reliability of a check from the government, and to them, the notion that you would replace this security blanket with this strange thing called a job is simply absurd.
The political reason is cynical but simple. People who depend on the government to be their primary benefactor vote Democratic, and if their dependence is permanent, then they vote Democratic for life. Even if these folks don’t vote, expanding the welfare rolls will allow for the expansion of the programs all across the country – and the newly hired welfare bureaucrats will vote Democratic, because their subsistence is dependent on the government as well.
Ronald Reagan liked to say that he defined compassion not by how many people we help, but by how many people no longer need our help. Obviously, and not surprisingly, Barack Obama’s view is exactly the opposite. The more people who depend on government largesse, and the easier it is for them to get it and keep getting it, the more job security he creates – for himself.  And he’s even willing to grant waivers that the law expressly forbids in order to make it happen.



The assiduous merchant, the laborious husbandman, the active mechanic, and the industrious manufacturer,--all orders of men, look forward with eager expectation and growing alacrity to this pleasing reward of their toils. The often-agitated question between agriculture and commerce has, from indubitable experience, received a decision which has silenced the rivalship that once subsisted between them, and has proved, to the satisfaction of their friends, that their interests are intimately blended and interwoven. It has been found in various countries that, in proportion as commerce has flourished, land has risen in value. And how could it have happened otherwise? Could that which procures a freer vent for the products of the earth, which furnishes new incitements to the cultivation of land, which is the most powerful instrument in increasing the quantity of money in a state--could that, in fine, which is the faithful handmaid of labor and industry, in every shape, fail to augment that article, which is the prolific parent of far the greatest part of the objects upon which they are exerted? It is astonishing that so simple a truth should ever have had an adversary; and it is one, among a multitude of proofs, how apt a spirit of ill-informed jealousy, or of too great abstraction and refinement, is to lead men astray from the plainest truths of reason and conviction.

The ability of a country to pay taxes must always be proportioned, in a great degree, to the quantity of money in circulation, and to the celerity with which it circulates. Commerce, contributing to both these objects, must of necessity render the payment of taxes easier, and facilitate the requisite supplies to the treasury.  The pockets of the farmers, on the other hand, will reluctantly yield but scanty supplies, in the unwelcome shape of impositions on their houses and lands; and personal property is too precarious and invisible a fund to be laid hold of in any other way than by the inperceptible agency of taxes on consumption.   http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/federalist.html





http://patriotupdate.com/26608/runaway-slave-is-obamas-worst-nightmare                    A one-time NAACP local chapter president, Reverend Bryant became a conservative activist after his realization that the entitlement mindset of the “progressive” black community is the equivalent of trading one form of tyranny for another. In the documentary, Reverend Bryant makes the argument that it’s time for a new “Underground Railroad” movement to help liberate all Americans from the contemporary form of a government-run plantation: entitlements.  For more information on the Runaway Slave documentary, please visit www.runawayslavemovie.com.   Citing statistics that demonstrate increasingly high rates of abortion, crime, unemployment and single parent households in the black community, the film features interviews with politicians and everyday Americans including economist Thomas Sowell, Dr. Alveda King, U.S. Representative Allen West, GOP Presidential Candidate Herman Cain, activist Star Parker and many others.





Being rich is cool. Not only that, but when someone has become rich, others should endeavor to learn as much as they can about how he or she did it, instead of resenting it and dismissing it as merely lucking out because of all the help the government provided.
           The best example I can give you is my dad. He started his adult life in the 1940 with nothing but the clothes on his back. At one point he worked three jobs at the same time. I suppose wealth is relative to everyone’s situation, but my dad had a goal of getting rich as he defined it – and he achieved his goal.
            Did the government deserve any credit for his success? When he walked off that small dirt farm in Tennessee, the road wasn’t even paved. I’m not saying there were no government functions that worked well and benefited him. Of course there were. But they were the same ones that benefited everybody else. My dad achieved his particular goals because of his particular dedication, his good plan and his hard work. And yes, he was perfectly within his rights to be proud of himself for being so smart and working so hard.
             And let’s be honest: It was true then, and it’s even truer today, that when you get rich you largely do it in spite of the government – its rules, its regulations, its confiscatory tax policies . . . and now the tendency of certain leaders to assail you for your success.
The coolest thing about rich people is that, in order to get rich, you have to make your skill and your capital work for other people. Instead of ripping Bain Capital for its success, the Obama Administration and the media should study what Bain did and how it did it. Bain created thousands of jobs – many more on a net basis than it eliminated via strategic layoffs – because it made smart business decisions and built successful enterprises.
            I’ll take that any day over what Obama does, which is to flush money down the toilet in the form of stimulus that doesn’t stimulate, “green energy” investments that lead straight to bankruptcy and tax and regulatory policies that stifle capital formation and entrepreneurial innovation.  Mitt Romney got rich because he is smart and he works hard. That makes him pretty darn cool in my book. Those of you who resent the rich, get over it and study how they did it. Along the way, you’ll discover that the rich not only pay most of the taxes, but in all likelihood they pay your paycheck too.
            And you’d better study them while you can, because there’s no telling how many of them will be left once Obama gets finished with them.




States compete and so do other countries vs. the USA.  We scored all 50 states on 51 measures of competitiveness developed with input from business groups including the National Association of Manufacturers and the Council on Competitiveness. States received points based on their rankings in each metric. Then, we separated those metrics into ten broad categories, weighting the categories based on how frequently they are cited in state economic development marketing materials. That way, our study ranks the states based on the criteria they use to sell themselves.



http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2012/07/18/the-ultimate-takedown-of-obamas-you-didnt-build-that-speech/?singlepage=true                               Here’s the shocking truth: President Obama and Elizabeth Warren are correct — we all benefit from certain taxpayer-funded collectivist government infrastructure projects and programs. And here’s the other shocking truth: Therefore, we should limit government expenditures to just those programs. Why? Because most of the other government programs either • hinder, constrict or penalize entrepreneurial activity; or • benefit some people to the detriment of others; or • waste money on bureaucracy, overhead or ill-considered expenditures that end up indebting the nation and by extension all Americans.

So what Obama and Warren are really stating is this:

Only one-fourth of your federal tax dollars go to projects and programs that benefit the general public and entrepreneurs; the other three-fourths are essentially a complete waste, or are at best optional if we could afford them.  Which of course is exactly what fiscal conservatives have been arguing all along.  So yeah, I agree with Obama: Let’s slash the federal budget by 75%, and only fund services and programs that directly serve the public good.

Obama and Warren have intentionally conflated local taxes with federal taxes. In most localities across the country, public education, police and firefighters, and street repair are primarily paid for by property taxes, local sales taxes, and state taxes. Federal grants can supplement local funds, but rarely is a school district or a police department propped up entirely with federal money.  So if we revisit Obama’s and Warren’s speeches, they’re actually making an argument for increased local taxes. And yet they and their audiences somehow imagine that the arguments given are a legitimate rationale for increased federal taxes.  As I said at the beginning of this essay, Obama has just unintentionally proved the conservatives’ case for limited government, and for decentralization and local control.




Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA), Chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, on Monday said the White House appears to be responsible for leaking classified national security information.  ‘‘I think the White House has to understand that some of this is coming from their ranks,’’ Feinstein said at a World Affairs Council forum, according to the Associated Press (AP).

Republicans, such as Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), have accused the Obama administration of leaking national security information to win votes. Specifically, McCain mentioned the computer virus program that disabled some of Iran’s nuclear facilities -- and other sensitive national security matters.

Democrat Pat Caddell has pointed the finger at National Security Adviser Tom Donilon as the primary leaker of sensitive national security information.


2. Been married to ONE woman his entire life, and has been faithful to her,  including through her bouts with breast cancer and MS.

5. Highly intelligent. Graduated cum laude from both Harvard Law School and  Harvard Business School . . . and by the way, his academic records are NOT  sealed.

7. Represents an America of “yesterday”, where people believed in God, went to Church, didn’t screw around, worked hard, and became a SUCCESS!

9. Oh yes . . . he’s a MORMON. We need to be very afraid of that very strange religion that teaches its members to be clean-living, patriotic, fiscally responsible, charitable, self-reliant, and honest. Compare Romney’s Mormonism with the rhetoric of Jeremiah Wright.

10. And one more point . . . pundits say because of his wealth, he can’t relate to ordinary Americans. I guess that’s because he made that money HIMSELF . . .  as opposed to marrying it or inheriting it from Dad. Apparently, he didn’t understand that actually working at a job and earning your own money made you un-relatable and offensive to Americans.



See what the biggest companies in the nation are doing to promote homosexuality.



http://zionica.com/2012/07/07/tennessee-sex-ed-law-could-be-national-model/       State legislators in Tennessee have made it official: Sex toys and graphic promotions of sexual activity are not welcome in public schools.  With the signing into law of SB 3310 by Gov. Bill Haslam, public schools that teach sex education classes must emphasize abstinence, and teachers are barred from promoting “gateway sexual activity” that encourages students to sexually experiment.

“We are very pleased with the passage of the Tennessee law, and we think that it could and should serve as a model for other states to follow,” said Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association.

Tennessee only mandates sex education in school districts where the teen pregnancy rate exceeds a certain rate. But before the new law, some districts brought in speakers and curriculum that included explicit depictions of sexual conduct.

            http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/school-retreats-spotlight-kinky-sex-plastic-genitals/              Men pretending to have homosexual intercourse, discussions of “kinky sex,” hats with plastic testicles and cross-dressing: It was all part of an official California public-school district retreat, a lawsuit says.





Economist John Lott points out: "Thirty-six months into the recovery and the private sector hasn't even made up half the jobs lost during the recession, let alone make up for the fact that there are about 7.6 million more working age people than when the recession started.

"What about the 4.2 million that were lost between when Obama became president and February 2010? The 'growth' just replaces what was lost during the first part of his administration. Let alone the 8.8 million private-sector jobs that were lost between when the recession started."

Do the math.  It takes 150,000 new jobs per month just to keep pace with population growth, those coming into the market from high school and college. Obama's 4.3 million jobs divided by 27 months comes to an average of about 159,000 jobs over that stretch. That is treading water, not even close to the number it takes to make a dent in the 8.2% unemployment. (which does not include the hopeless people who stopped looking for work which would make unemployment much higher adjusting for the participation rate.)

What about the supposedly suffering public sector?  According to Investors.com:  "Private-sector jobs are still down by 4.6 million, or 4%, from January 2008, when overall employment peaked. Meanwhile, government jobs are down just 407,000, or 1.8%. Federal employment actually is 225,000 jobs above its January 2008 level, an 11.4% increase. That's right, up 11.4%. ..."The recession was boom time for federal employment, especially after Obama took office.


http://visiontoamerica.com/10777/2004-obama-dismissed-310000-new-jobs-and-5-6-unemployment-rate/                              After the economy added 310,000 jobs in May 2004 and the unemployment rate was 5.6%, then-candidate Barack Obama used the Democrat weekly radio address to attack the Bush administration for citing good economic numbers.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/07/06/summer-bummer-june-jobs-report-disappoints-at-80k           The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported this morning that the economy added just 80k jobs in June. The economy needs to add around 150k jobs a month just to keep up with population growth. The big miss confirms that whatever economic recovery existed is gone and the economy remains stuck in a dangerous stall. 

Economists had been predicting a net gain of around 100k jobs. Payroll giant ADP yesterday suggested June job growth might even come in around 176k, blowing past expectations. For a while yesterday, the media and Wall Street wondered if today's report would surprise with a strong jobs number. Alas, as with most jobs reports in recent months, it wasn't to be. After three and a half years, one would think economists would be weary of always being surprised by "unexpected" bad economic news. 

These numbers will be very hard for Obama and the Democrats to spin. http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/tags/series?ob=pv



Hit hardest were the unemployed in the black community, where the unemployment rate increased from 13.6% in May to 14.4% in June. For black youths aged 16 to 19, the unemployment rate is now an astonishing 39.3%, up from 36.5%  last month.

After an increase from 10.3% to 11.0% in May, the unemployment rate among Hispanics remained stuck at 11.0% in June.




Pawnshops, Repo men, Bankruptcy lawyers, Foreclosure administrators, Food stamp card makers, Disability advocates, Unemployment office workers, Regulators







                       his relentless campaign to “fundamentally transform” – that means destroy – the American way of free enterprise and free people. Barack Obama, the man who lies as easily as breathing – a serial deceiver regarding his birth, his childhood, his education, his influences and associations, his religion, his accomplishments, his policies, his true beliefs and his plans for America’s future. Barack Obama, the man whose entire presidency has been a seamless fabric of deception and duplicity



Under a new federal law, all states must prevent the use of cash benefits in liquor stores, gambling establishments and adult entertainment businesses by 2014. States that fail to establish policies face cuts in federal support.

Welfare recipients use debit cards to buy things or get cash at ATMs. A report by the House Ways and Means committee cited news reports in eight states about people with welfare debit cards withdrawing thousands of dollars from ATMs in casinos, liquor stores and strip clubs.

Last year, 4.4 million people received cash benefits ranging from $200 to $1,000 a month, paid by federal and state governments. The federal government share was more than $16.5 billion.

Food stamps pay for food, and welfare cash is supposed to be for non-food necessities, but states find it difficult to police.

The laws are meaningless because they can't restrict how someone spends the cash once it is in hand, says Elizabeth Lower-Basch, a policy analyst for CLASP, an advocacy group for low-income people. "It's a way for legislators to look like they are on top of things," she says.

Last year, Massachusetts passed a law that prohibits spending cash assistance on alcohol, tobacco and lottery tickets. But it is "not possible to pinpoint what is being purchased, as many retail stores sell a variety of products including food, household items, alcohol and tobacco," says Alec Loftus, a spokesman for the Office of Health and Human Services.

In Massachusetts, clients must pay back misused money, and store owners who knowingly let welfare recipients spend the money on prohibited items can be fined up to $1,000 -- but Loftus says no one has turned in any violators.







Obama has never advocated doctrinaire socialism (which is based on government ownership of private property and the means of production). Certainly he has made good on his promise to “spread the wealth around” via unprecedented government intervention in the free market, but he cannot be called a socialist in the mold of Vladimir Lenin, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro or Kim Jong-Il.

“What President Obama has been pushing for, and moving toward, is more insidious: government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands,” columnist Thomas Sowell wrote recently. “That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector.”

Sound familiar? This is precisely what happened during the recent recession. For example, government-mandated loans aimed at boosting homeownership were clearly among the root causes of the economic downturn – but when the sub-prime bubble burst blame was placed exclusively on “corporate greed.” Of course at the same time politicians were absolving themselves of any responsibility, they were forcing taxpayers to subsidize massive bailouts of these “greedy” financial institutions.

So if Obama isn’t a socialist, what is he? Economically speaking it’s far more accurate to say that he is a fascist — a supporter of dirigisme, in which government manages the economy through central planning, not collective ownership. Fascism did not seek to stamp out the innovative, wealth-creating potential of profit-seeking investment and entrepreneurship – instead it sought to channel those innovations (and funnel that wealth) to the good of the state.

“In fascist Italy the state pays for the blunders of private enterprise,” Italian social critic Gaetano Salvemini wrote in the mid-1930s.  When business was good, “profit remained to private initiative.” However when downturns came (as they inevitably do), “the government added the loss to the taxpayer’s burden.”  “Profit is private and individual,” Salvemini wrote. “Loss is public and social.”

This is the basis of fascism’s “third way” between laissez-faire capitalism and Marxism. It’s also precisely the economic system we see at work in America today, a centralized bureaucratic oligarchy in which farm subsidies, investments in “green jobs,” Wall Street bailouts, Export-Import Bank subsidies and numerous other taxpayer-funded incentives manipulate the market to serve specific political purposes.

Also consider this: Is any property really “private” if the government can take it based on little more than a whim? And is any sector of the economy really “private” as long as government can swoop in and set its prices and production quotas? And finally, is any market truly “free” if government can compel citizens to make specific purchases?  Of course not — all of which makes Obama’s ideology dangerous no matter what label we slap on it.


Consumption Tax    The Bill: H.R. 25/S. 13, Fair Tax Act of 2011                replace the current income tax system with a national retail consumption tax. At every point of sale for all new products and services, a 23 percent tax (inclusive of the sales price) would be charged. Used goods could be purchased tax-free. All taxpayers would receive a monthly "prebate" so that no one would pay taxes for consumption up to the poverty line. The Fair Tax Act would also eliminate all other types of federal income-based taxes including withholding, estate, gift, personal, and capital gains taxes. H.R. 25 and S. 13 would eventually eliminate the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and replace it with a smaller agency that would oversee the prebate.

Flat Tax   The Bill: S. 820, Simplified, Manageable, and Responsible Tax (SMART) Act          replace the 6-bracket progressive income tax with a single 17 percent income tax. Like the Fair Tax, this plan would eliminate all income tax credits, the AMT, and the estate, gift, and generation-skipping transfer taxes. A standard exemption would also be established, similar to the current system, which would allow individuals making under $13,410 and households making under $17,120 to not pay an income tax.

One of the biggest lies being pushed by the liberal media regarding the deadly Fast and Furious scandal is the fairy tale that this was a program started by George W. Bush and ultimately ended by Eric Holder. 

This is a complete falsehood, and the media must be held accountable for lying to the American people in hopes of shielding the Obama Administration from criticism.

In an MRCTV exclusive interview with National Rifle Association President David Keene, Mr. Keene tears this ridiculous argument to shreds.  Please watch the brief video below to be armed with the facts about this horrible media/ White House distortion.  Click here to watch this incredible video.  The Obama Administration and their media cheerleaders are once again attempting to blame George Bush for problems created by the Obama Administration. And this time they’re blatantly lying. Watch this video to learn the truth about the media’s deceitful propaganda campaign and share it with all your friends and family. Let’s make sure the media don’t get away with misleading the American people.




  • I voted for a Democrat because I believe oil companies’ profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn’t.
  • I voted for a Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.
  • I voted for a Democrat because I’m way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers, rapists, thugs, and thieves.
  • I voted for a Democrat because I’m not concerned about millions of babies being aborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.
  • I voted for a Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits.
  • I voted for a Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrats see fit.
  • I voted for a Democrat because I think that it’s better to pay billions to people who hate us for their oil, but not drill for our own because it might upset some useless endangered beetle, gopher, or fish.
  • I voted for a Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution regularly to suit some fringe folks who would never get their agendas past the voters.




News Max) - Florida election officials will have access to a federal database to help purge its voter rolls of non-citizens under an agreement reached between state and federal officials and welcomed on Saturday by Florida's Republican governor.  The U.S. Department of Homeland Security will allow state officials to access the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database.
Florida and federal officials have been battling over access to the database for several weeks. Florida filed a lawsuit against the Homeland Security Department to gain access to the database. The state was hit by a lawsuit from the U.S. Justice Department seeking to stop the purge.
Now other states are expected to ask for access to the database so they too can check their rolls. Some state governments have sought access to the federal database for years. Federal officials told Washington state back in 2005 they saw no way to compare voters and the Homeland Security information.  Colorado has sought the federal data for a year. The Centennial State, which has a Democratic governor but a Republican secretary of state, Scott Gessler, has identified about 5,000 registered voters that it wants to check against the federal information.
Officials in the politically competitive states of Ohio, Michigan, New Mexico and Iowa — all led by GOP governors — are backing his efforts.
Gessler said 430 registered voters have acknowledged being ineligible, but an "unenforceable honor system does not build confidence in our elections."  Gessler also is seeking information from jails in 10 of the state's largest counties for persons held on "immigration detainers" since 2010, the Denver Post reported.  "We've already confirmed that non-citizens have voted in past elections here in Florida," Gov. Rick Scott, who has spearheaded the purge effort, said in a statement welcoming the agreement.
"Now that we have the cooperation of the Department of Homeland Security, our state can use the most accurate citizenship database in the nation to protect the integrity of Florida's election process.
Scott's attempts to purge the voters' list is popular in Florida. A Tampa Bay Times/Miami Herald/Bay News poll released on Saturday showed 54 percent of Floridians in favor with 35 percent against. Republicans supported the measure by 80 percent to 13 percent.  Florida state officials have said they are examining a list of nearly 180,000 possible non-citizens and have forwarded the names of nearly 2,700 registered voters to local election officials seeking confirmation of their citizenship status.

The agreement to grant Florida access comes just over two weeks after a federal judge, U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle in Tallahassee rejected a request by the Justice Department to prevent the state from proceeding with its voter purge.



January 19, 2012           Defects in the Constitutional Amendment Process and a Reform Proposal

The constitutional amendment procedure of Article V is defective because the national convention amendment method does not work.  Because no amendment can be enacted without Congress's approval, limitations on the federal government that Congress opposes are virtually impossible to pass.   This defect may have prevented the enactment of several constitutional amendments that would have constrained Congress, such as amendments establishing a balanced budget limitation, a line-item veto, or congressional term limits, says Michael B. Rappaport, a professor of law at the University of San Diego.

The increasingly nationalist character of our constitutional charter may not be the result of modern values or circumstances, but an artifact of a distorted amendment procedure.

Article V should be reformed to allow two-thirds of the state legislatures to propose a constitutional amendment which would then be ratified or rejected by the states, acting through state conventions or state ballot measures.

Such a return of power to the states would militate against our overly centralized government by helping to restore the federalist character of our Constitution.   Source: Michael B. Rappaport, "Renewing Federalism by Reforming Article V: Defects in the Constitutional Amendment Process and a Reform Proposal," Cato Institute, January 18, 2012. For text: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13992





During his first question regarding the crippled economic condition of America, Cain explained his "9-9-9" economic plan that would establish a 9 percent tax on personal income, a 9 percent tax on corporate income and a 9 percent tax on sales.

"If 10 percent is good enough for God, then 9 percent is good enough for government," Cain said.

The plan would also eliminate taxes on repatriated profits, payroll, estates and capital gains and their dividends. http://www.hermancain.com/wp-content/themes/hc/images/economicgrowth.pdf 

During his second question regarding the constitutionality of Obamacare's individual mandate, Cain outlined his role in the defeat of President Clinton's attempt at a government overhaul of the health care industry, also known as "Hillarycare." In 1994,
Newsweek named Cain the primary "saboteur" of the proposal after Cain challenged President Clinton on the effects on businesses and their employees should the legislation pass. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptrTa8C_Pl4&feature=youtu.be           

"The individual mandate is absolutely unconstitutional," Cain said, responding to both Obamacare and Governor Romney's health care law of Massachusetts.

Mr. Cain also discussed reforming Social Security to move from an "entitlement system to an empowerment system," as well as the need for immigration reform that secures our borders, enforces current laws, promotes the path to citizenship and empowers the states.

Now, more than ever, we need someone like Herman Cain: a leader who's balanced budgets, created jobs for 40 years and who understands the greatness of America. We might not have the war chests of career politicians, but we do have the integrity of ideas and the support of "we the people" to take back our government! Together, we can elect Herman Cain- a man with the values and vision to restore the American Dream for generations to come.



the Obama machine took over. Since then, the funding for his projects has frozen and his entire company is stalled.  As Feliks explained, his permits represent a project that would create 10 jobs. According to research he references, there are around 1,000,000 of these kinds of projects currently stalled. That same research suggest the average jobs-per-project is 3. This is 3,000,000 jobs stalled due to Obama policy and agendas.

To make matters worse, each of these projects represents hundreds of thousands of dollars that would flow into True Value, Menards, Home Depot, Lowes and other builder supply stores who work with tens of thousands of vendors. Think of the jobs THAT damages!

It’s amazing that Feliks, just one man, is so deeply tied to an entire economic engine that has been completely shut down due to over-reaching government regulation and financial red-tape.

I’ve always known Obama was aggressively acting malicious against the business environment of America. But this is the first time I’ve been given an insider’s glimpse of how badly it has damaged the construction industry.







http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html       After 2014, cash deficits are expected to grow rapidly as the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. Through 2022, the annual cash deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury.   http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/HistoricalTables[1].pdf 




Because these redemptions will be less than interest earnings, trust fund balances will continue to grow. After 2022, trust fund assets will be redeemed in amounts that exceed interest earnings until trust fund reserves are exhausted in 2036, one year earlier than was projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2085.


Relative to the combined Social Security Trust Funds, the Medicare HI Trust Fund faces a more immediate funding shortfall, though its longer term financial outlook is better under the assumptions employed in this report.


Projected long-run program costs for both Medicare and Social Security are not sustainable under currently scheduled financing, and will require legislative corrections if disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers are to be avoided.

The financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare should be addressed soon. If action is taken sooner rather than later, more options and more time will be available to phase in changes so that those affected can adequately prepare. Even in advance of these deliberations, we believe that the essential message conveyed by these reports is clear and will not change, absent legislation: that the vital Social Security and Medicare programs face real and substantial challenges, and that elected officials will best serve the interests of the public if financial corrections are enacted at the earliest practicable time.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2005-03-15-benefits-reform-galveston_x.htm       Our plan, put together by financial experts, was a "banking model" rather than an "investment model." To eliminate the risks of the up-and-down stock market, workers' contributions were put into conservative fixed-rate guaranteed annuities, rather than fluctuating stocks, bonds or mutual funds. Our results have been impressive: We've averaged about 6.5% annual rate of return over 24 years. And we've provided substantially better benefits in all three Social Security categories: retirement, survivorship, disability.


The 2011 annual report by the program's Board of Trustees noted the following: in 2010, 54 million people were receiving Social Security benefits, while 157 million people were paying into the fund; of those receiving benefits, 44 million were receiving retirement benefits and 10 million disability benefits. In 2011, there will be 56 million beneficiaries and 158 million workers paying in. In 2010, total income was $781.1 billion and expenditures were $712.5 billion, which meant a total net increase in assets of $68.6 billion. Assets in 2010 were $2.6 trillion, an amount that is expected to be adequate to cover the next 10 years. In 2023, total income and interest earned on assets are projected to no longer cover expenditures for Social Security, as demographic shifts burden the system. By 2035, the ratio of potential retirees to working age persons will be 37 percent — there will be less than three potential income earners for every retiree in the population. The trust fund would then be exhausted by 2036 without legislative action.[9]

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation ( vs. Social security which is forced and sanctioned by government)  that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering returns other investments cannot guarantee, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going.





http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011-10-11/federal-retirement-pension-benefits/50592474/1                    Retirement programs for former federal workers — civilian and military — are growing so fast they now face a multitrillion-dollar shortfall nearly as big as Social Security's, a USA TODAY analysis shows.  In all, the government committed more money to the 10 million former public servants last year than the $690 billion it paid to 54 million Social Security beneficiaries.

The retirement programs now have a $5.7 trillion unfunded liability, compared with a $6.5 trillion shortfall for Social Security. An unfunded liability is the difference between a program's projected costs and its projected revenues, both valued in today's dollars.

USA TODAY's analysis is the first comprehensive calculation of how much the government spends on benefits for retired federal workers.


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/BothSidesAllSides/Story?id=2773754&page=1    The Washington Post raises the pre-emptive question of the senator's direct confession (in his intimate memoir, "Dreams of My Father") that Obama used cocaine and marijuana in high school and college. Obama suggests in his books that Obama used marijuana and "blow" to ease the pain of his ongoing struggle to define his racial identity.  So far, everything about the 2008 race suggests that the American people powerfully crave new and different above more of the same.   ( Was this really what the voters were looking for?  How did he get 52 million people to vote for him???  God help us.)


Giving the federal government more money would be like giving a cocaine addict more cocaine.”
True. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/obama-deficit-2011.jpg


New Reports Show Lawmakers Pump Up Their Pensions - Demand Congress CUT Theirs!
Did you read the HUGE exposé this week in USA Today about legislative pensions? It showed how more than
4,100 legislators in 33 states are poised to benefit from laws to boost their pensions by up to $100,000 a year!   But don't think it's just the State legislators that are robbing you blind with their outrageous pension plans, that you and I could NEVER get in a million years... CONGRESS is pulling the same stunts with OUR taxpayer dollars!
CLICK HERE to send Blast Faxes to EVERY SINGLE U.S. SENATOR AND REPRESENTATIVE, to DEMAND that Congress TAKE THE LEAD in Sacrificing During These Hard Economic Times, and Put an END to Congressional Pensions NOW!

According to the article in USA Today, "Even as legislators cut basic state services and slash benefits for police, teachers and other workers, they have preserved pension laws that grant themselves perks unavailable to voters they serve or workers they direct."  
That article could have been written about the U.S. Congress. We ALL know how Congress makes sure their salaries go up automatically, and how they vote themselves all kinds of perks, like overseas "fact-finding" trips, their own healthcare program, a private state-of-the-art gym, a totally-sweet housing allowance, an outrageous office staff allowance, and so much more... But especially a retirement pension system that no one else gets!  Like one of the activists quoted in the USA Today article said regarding the State legislators: "Our Legislature has become an aristocracy... granting themselves benefits that are unavailable to others."



http://conservativebyte.com/2011/10/bet-founder-to-obama-you-dont-get-people-to-like-you-by-attacking-them-or-demeaning-their-success/    Obama wants jobs, but spreads the anti business rhetoric & policies on Job Creators??  I thought Obama was supposed to be so smart??  How smart can he possibly be, unless he wants us to have Greek style high unemployment, Greek style crushing debt and to have Greek style riots, hopelessness and discontent? 

            Robert Johnson, who founded the Black Entertainment Television network in 1980, said President Barack Obama needs to adjust his message to one that’s not “attacking” the wealthy for their success.  Johnson said. “You don’t get people to like you by attacking them or demeaning their success. I grew up in a family of 10 kids, first one to go to college, and I’ve earned my success. I’ve earned my right to fly private if I choose to do so. And by attacking me, is not going to convince me that I should take a bigger hit because I happen to be wealthy.”


http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/Lou-Pritchett-Letter-To-Obama.htm      Lou Pritchett is one of corporate America's true living legends - an acclaimed author, dynamic teacher and one of the world's highest rated speakers. Successful corporate executives everywhere recognize him as the foremost leader in change management.


Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me. You scare me because:

  •          you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.
  •          you have never run a company or met a payroll.
  •          you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.
  •          you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.
  •          for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.
  •          you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad.
  •          you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.
  •          you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.
  •          you prefer 'wind mills' vs. responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.
  •          you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.
  •          you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.
  •          your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.
  •          you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.




A hypothetical single mother of two lives in Virginia and brings home $20,000 a year after the government takes out Social Security and other state and federal deductions.  However, because of her low income she is able to collect Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), food stamps, Medicaid/SCHIP and Section 8 housing.

In another scenario a recent college graduate is fortunate enough to find a job and makes a starting salary of $39,900.  Who makes more money — the single mother or the recent college graduate?

If you guessed the single mom, you’re right.  With her income less taxes plus subsidies, she brings home just about $40,000, according to economist Clifford Thies.

When applying Thies research that the relationship of earned income and after-tax income plus subsidies is basically flat from $0 to $40,000, it paints a grim picture for today’s working class. During the fourth quarter of 2011 median weekly earnings for full time wage and salary workers in the U.S. was $764 — a yearly salary equal to $39,728.  This means those who make this median amount or less essentially have less spending power than those who make a much lower salary and live off the government’s myriad welfare programs.

A policy brief by the Republican Study Committee states, since 1964, “Americans have spent $16 trillion on means-tested welfare.  All levels of government may spend another $10 trillion over the next decade based on recent projections.”

The brief also highlights the fact that no agency has the responsibility to figure out how all these welfare programs interact with each other and how, despite their original purpose, they often deter people from working altogether.

Since $40,000 has been labeled as the breakaway point for many of these government welfare programs, what exactly does $40,000 a year look like?  Breaking it down to an hourly rate, it’s a little less than $20 an hour.  That’s a far cry from today’s federal minimum wage requirement of $7.25 an hour. Of course this number also varies by state, but no state comes close to a $20-an-hour requirement.

when you have a system where people have to ask themselves if working more hours or accepting a raise will result in less money in their pocket then you know the system is the problem.

A low-income earner, a recent college graduate or an 18-year-old working his first job should never be better off living off the government than by their own abilities.

This country is at a crossroads. We can either reverse direction or nosedive into a cycle of dependency that is turning America into a welfare nation—a “government plantation” where the underclass are doomed to 21st-century servitude. Now, FreedomWorks Fellow Deneen Borelli, one of the most visible and outspoken black conservatives in the country, is fighting back—taking action, not just talking—and speaking up for those who can’t or are too afraid to do so









The Obama campaign sent out an email today asking supporters to urge Congress to at least vote on the president’s jobs bill almost immediately after Democratic majority leader Harry Reid blocked a vote on the bill in the Senate. On the Senate floor today, Republican leader Mitch McConnell asked for unanimous consent to proceed on voting on the bill. Reid, who has struggled to find enough votes for the bill in the Democratic caucus, objected to the motion and killed the opportunity for a vote.   Check out the C Span link and you will see Obama is lying to you once again about the Republicans as you can see Republican Mitch McConnell wants a vote.  Are there any Democrat cosponsors to Obama’s Stimulus II “Jobs” Act?  Why won’t the Democrats allow a vote?  Obama Bin Lying….



Understand how Washington works and WHO (Obama & Democrats) are standing in the way of JOBs.  Actions speak louder than rhetoric and lies. Obama says he wants jobs, but this is about the only thing he has done to help create private sector jobs.

WASHINGTON, Oct 5 (Reuters) – The DOW is up 131 points and A U.S. congressional committee on Wednesday strongly backed deals with South Korea, Colombia and Panama, setting them on course for expected final approval and ending a lengthy trade policy paralysis.  The three pacts are expected to boost U.S. exports by about $13 billion, which President Barack Obama's administration estimates will help create tens of thousands of jobs.

But congressional action follows years of delay during which the European Union, Canada and the three potential new U.S. free trade partners themselves have moved aggressively to strike new market-opening pacts.  The panel's chairman, Representative Dave Camp, said approval of the deals could not come at a better time.  "With zero jobs created last month and the unemployment rate hovering above nine percent, we must look at all opportunities to create American jobs. These agreements do just that," Camp said.

The three pacts must be approved by the full House and the Senate to become law. The panel backed the pacts on the following bipartisan votes: Colombia, 24-12; Panama, 32-3; and South Korea, 31-5.

Camp said he expected the full House to approve the trade deals as early as next week. Congressional leaders are still discussing the timing of Senate Finance Committee and full Senate action on the trade deals, he said.

The debate is taking place against concern in Congress about competition from China, which is propelling legislation in the Senate to crack down on Beijing's currency practices.  The deal with South Korea is the largest U.S. trade pact since the North American Free Trade Agreement went into force in 1994 and is expected to account for most of gains.

Obama submitted the pacts to Congress (finally) on Monday, after a final assurance from House Republicans that a separate income and retraining income assistance program for displaced workers would be put for a vote alongside the trade pacts.

Obama has touted the trade deals as a vital part of his effort to revitalize the stagnant U.S. recovery and generate new jobs, considered crucial to his 2012 re-election chances.

Camp put potential job gains at 250,000, while detractors predict they will cause job losses through increased imports and more factories moving abroad.

The White House is also negotiating a new trade agreement with eight other countries in the fast-growing Asia-Pacific, which could be completed next year.  The pacts would be the first trade deals passed since late 2007, when Congress approved a pact with Peru. They are the last of nearly a dozen agreements negotiated under President George W. Bush, a Republican. They hit a brick wall after Democrats won control of the House in November 2006 and union groups objected to the pacts fearing they would shift jobs overseas.


The deals remained stuck throughout the 2008 presidential campaign, when both Obama and Hillary Clinton bashed trade agreements as they fought for the Democratic Party nomination.

Obama came to embrace the pacts after taking office and has “worked” over the past 15 months to address Democratic concerns over auto provisions of the South Korean pact, labor and violence concerns in Colombia and tax haven laws in Panama. Efforts accelerated after Republicans won control of the House in the 2010 election and began pressing Obama to submit the trade deals for votes.


http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2011/oct/dems-want-law-keep-obama-records-secret                 If the Democrats’ proposed measure (Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2011) becomes law, former presidents will be allowed to assert a new “constitutionally based privilege” against disclosing records of their liking. Here is how it would work; the Archivist of the United States would be required to notify the former president, as well as the incumbent, of intentions to make records public. Anything that either the former or current president claims should be kept private won’t be released.

The veteran Brooklyn congressman (Edolphus Towns) who recently introduced the law in the U.S. House has yet to explain why it’s necessary. What’s certain is that Obama has failed miserably to keep his promise of running the most transparent administration in history. For examples read highlights from Judicial Watch’s testimony before Congress earlier this year. JW was invited to testify in separate House and Senate hearings during “Sunshine Week,” a national initiative by the news media, nonprofits and other organizations to promote government transparency and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).



http://conservativebyte.com/2011/10/obama-travels-to-st-louis-for-money-laundering-operation/    Tom Carnahan received millions of dollars in loan guarantees from Obama for a fake solar energy company. Think Solyndra. I don’t think it’s as much money, but this is the money laundering operation. Tom Carnahan gets money from Obama for a fake solar company and then hosts a fundraiser for Obama? So that’s taxpayer money that Tom Carnahan got — that’s your and my money that Obama’s giving away in loan guarantees — to a fake solar firm, then he heads into St. Louis for a $25,000-a-plate fundraiser. He’s getting the money back. So what Obama has done, and numerous times, is generate campaign contributions that are taxpayer dollars.




http://www.freedomworksforamerica.org/                        FreedomWorks for America believes individual liberty and the freedom to compete increases consumer choices and provides individuals with the greatest control over what they own and earn.  FreedomWorks for America will aggressively support candidates who will defend freedom, even in political primaries against establishment or incumbent Republicans.




all of the rhetoric about Class Warfare, the rift that is being created between economic middle and lower class and as the President said “those millionaires and billionaires.”  The real rift in philosophy though is do you want the Government to create jobs and stimulate the economy or do you want America’s small business to be the engine of growth?

Economic Success has somehow become the new boogie man; some in the Democratic party are now casting about for enemies and business leaders and anyone who has achieved success in terms of rank or fiscal success is being cast as a bad guy in a black hat. This is counter to the American Dream and is really turning off so many people that love American and basically carry our country on their back by paying taxes and by employing people and creating GDP.

This is a bad move all designed by some pollster who said this is the way to get votes during the re-election. It should be stopped. We should be healing and creating teams NOT dividing and pitting people against one another.

I know the President isn’t speaking to me specifically when he talks but many times I hear stuff and I cringe personally. As a friend told me the other day who lives in China, “Every time your President talks of late, it costs us billions in market cap and in confidence in your country and your economy.” Why do we devalue success in the US when the rest of the world is trying to emulate what we have created as an economic system?

With my investments and board seats and companies that I own, I am at a leadership position in concerns that employ more than 200,000 people. We do our best to be good corporate citizens. I know in the companies that I own personally or am the largest shareholder that we support now more than 500 charities. We care. Pick some business leaders that you work with and make them heroes. Don’t demonize them. Showcase them as great Americans that care and hire and employ people. Employment is the biggest issue you will face when re-election comes. If people aren’t working, they will blame you and your administration. And since you have never worked before in a real job for a real company, you need help from people who have been there. Don’t push them away!

I pay taxes. I voted for our President. I have maxed out on personal donations to his re-election campaign. I forgot his campaign wants to raise $1 billion. THAT is a lot of money–money–money–money! Money still talks. It blows my mind when I am asked for money as a donation at the same time I am getting blasted as being a bad guy!  Someone needs to talk our President down off of this rhetoric about good vs. evil; about two classes and math.

Our country was founded on the premise of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Is anyone happy right now with all of this?  Hit a reset button ASAP.

Rethink how to talk to businesses and sell business leaders on your plan to make America great!

Many of us want to be a part of the solution. We aren’t the problem.  Tags: Ted Leonsis, Ted's Take





The podcast, titled “The ABC’s of SNL,” was co-hosted by filmmaker Kevin Smith, and billed as being recorded “live from the Jon Lovitz Podcast Theatre.”

Lovitz said: “This whole thing with Obama saying the rich don’t pay their taxes is f—ing bullsh–. And I voted for the guy, and I’m a Democrat. What a f—ing a–hole. The rich don’t pay their taxes? Let me tell you something, right. First they say to you, you’re dead broke, ‘the United States of America, you can do anything you want, go for it.’ So then you go for it and then you make it, and everyone’s like ‘f— you.’”

He continued, “If I make a dollar and out of every dollar I’m taxed at 50, half, at 50 cents, I have to give, isn’t that like enough? It’s half. HALF!”  Lovitz’s co-host clowned that the government would be offended, and therefore shut down his podcast theatre.

“We heard that [in] the fourth f—kin’ episode, you won’t leave Obama alone,” said Smith. “This is an election year! They’re gonna come in and make an example of you, man. The government can come in and take your sh– away. Even your good memories.”

Lovitz isn’t the only comic from “SNL” who has problems with the president.

His fellow cast member, Victoria Jackson, who’s now a WND columnist, made national headlines in March 2010 when she released a song on YouTube titled, “There’s a Communist in the White House,” which has collected more than a half-million views.



http://www.libertynews.com/2012/04/18/breaking-senate-democrats-once-again-violate-federal-law-refuse-to-offer-budget/              Obama’s No-Plan, No-Budget Plan and his complete loss of reality. Today we find out he’s not alone. His fellow ilk in the Senate apparently feel no need to actually do what they were elected to do. Senate Democrats will not submit a budget before November of 2012Senate Budget Committee chairman Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) will not draft a Democratic budget before the 2012 election, he announced Tuesday.  Hope and Change?  Leadership?

this move is likely to create a significant problem for Democrats attempting to run on the idea of leadership in government. A refusal to draft a budget before the November election is a confession that Democrats refuse to address our spending crises with any meaningful plan. Or any plan at all for that matter.  Even worse, this is an open announcement that if Democrats are allowed to stay in power, the Democrats will continue spending us into bankruptcy as a nation when they do not face immediate elections.



Under such policy, known as quantitative easing, the Fed goes in and buys assets like Treasury instruments or mortgage-backed securities from the banks, crediting those banks' reserve accounts with the funds, in what critics says is basically money printing.  "The ability of the Fed to increase the amount of money in banks' reserve accounts; that's what most people mean when they talk about money printing and that's under the direction of the Fed," says Jim Bianco, president of Bianco Research, according to The Daily Ticker, a Yahoo! news venue. 

"If you or I did that it would be fraud, it would be counterfeiting and we'd go to jail," Bianco adds.   "But when the Fed does it, it's sophisticated monetary policy."  The Fed says quantitative easing was necessary to steer the country away from crippling deflation while doing the best it can to maximize the jobs situation.
              Critics say it will fuel inflationary pressures down the road, has cheapened the dollar and really hasn't done that much for price stability and jobs recovery anyway. 

As the dollar cheapens, it buys less in commodities and commodities priced in dollars go up.  Now you know why gas, food and other store products cost so much and will continue to cost more. 

Will you vote for the brilliant wizard Obama and his Democrats so we can have costs necessarily skyrocket???                            Read more: Jim Bianco: Fed Policy Is Really Just Counterfeiting



http://heritageaction.com/join/fight-for-freedom-2/?roi=echo3-11371984016-8060801-56cb24484702e3a9d0876fe2676efb5d&utm_source=heritageaction&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=fight-for-freedom1                            There is an awakening across the country, and the fight is on to return power to individuals and localities, empower individuals and unleash America’s entrepreneurial spirit. As Ronald Reagan said, “we’re not, as some would have us believe, doomed to an inevitable decline.”





President Obama has struggled to make a case for his big-government, high-tax vision for the economy. But his comments reveal just how bankrupt his vision is.

Bush, like Obama, entered office during a recession. Not only did he take over after the biggest stock market crash since the Depression, but the Fed had more than doubled interest rates, killing growth.  Worse, within eight months of entering office, the U.S. was hit with the 9/11 terrorist attacks — the first on the American homeland since World War II. Within the space of just 90 days, a million jobs were lost.  Obama's right. President Bush did cut tax rates. What was the result? We had 52 straight months of job growth, with 8 million new jobs over six years.  For Bush's entire presidency, the unemployment rate averaged 5.3%. Under Obama, it's not been below 8%. Real after-tax income per person rose more than 11% under Bush, while real GDP from 2000 to 2007 grew $2.1 trillion, or 17%. In 2007, the deficit fell to $162 billion — roughly 1% of GDP.

Does Obama really want to compare himself to that? Since he's entered office, we've lost 1.7 million jobs, and unemployment has averaged over 8%.  His deficits have averaged $1.4 trillion — about 8% of GDP, a record. On his watch, debt has soared from $10.7 trillion to $16 trillion. America now has more debt than the entire euro zone and Great Britain — combined.  Under Obama spending has surged. The federal government now accounts for 25% of the economy, vs. the long-term average of 20%. Through his big-government policies, Obama took a bad recession and made sure our recovery would be the worst ever — and then blamed it on everyone but himself. Our economy, in short, will never regain its old vitality until a new president is elected, and Obama's top-down, government-centered policies are laid to rest.





What saved the greenback after Nixon removed the U.S. dollar from the gold standard in 1971 — ending the post-war Bretton Woods international financial order — was the status of U.S. dollar as the reserve currency of the world.  This began with Saudi Arabia agreeing in 1973 to accept only U.S. dollars as payment for oil in exchange for U.S. protection of the Saudi monarchy and its oilfields. By 1975, the reserve currency status of the U.S. dollar was firmly established, with OPEC members agreeing to trade only in dollars. Trading of other commodities came to be priced in dollars, which reinforced the reserve currency status of the dollar.

Central banks around the world have maintained disproportionately large reserves of dollars to facilitate trade, which enabled the U.S. to print excessive amounts of its currency with seemingly little inflationary consequences.  The reserve currency status of the dollar has also allowed Americans to import more than they exported, to consume more than they produced and to spend more than they earned.  But all that is about to change. The U.S. dollar is already being abandoned by a number of countries in favor of the Chinese yuan.

In December 2011, Japan and China agreed to dump the dollar and trade in yen and yuan. China's trade with Vietnam, Thailand and Russia is now settled in yuan instead of dollars.  In January, the 10 nations of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) strengthened the linking of their economies with those of China, Hong Kong, Japan and South Korea with a $240 billion equivalent non-dollar credit agreement, thus moving further away from the dollar.

Elsewhere, while Iran's nuclear energy development program gets scrutinized, few realize that Iran is circumventing dollar-based trade sanctions. As of March 20, Iran started trading oil in currencies other than the dollar. India has agreed to settle 45% of payments for Iranian oil in rupees, with gold as an additional payment option.

On March 29, the China Development Bank agreed with its BRICS' counterparts to eschew dollar lending and extend credit to each other in their own respective currencies.

The erosion and loss of the use of the U.S. dollar as the reserve currency means less demand and more dollar selling by central banks around the world, which in turn causes inflation as the dollar weakens against other currencies.

Worse, the demise of the dollar's reserve currency status at the same time that federal debt compounds to new heights creates a perfect storm, making a collapse of the dollar closer than most Americans realizeLet's hope the anticipation of new leadership coming in November buys time for an orderly transition.






All In The Family was one of my favorite television shows to watch as a kid. The show ranked #1 in the yearly Nielsen ratings from 1971 to 1976, so I must have watched the reruns. Now you know how young (or old) I am.  Like most Americans, my favorite character was Archie Bunker. Played by Carroll O’Connor, Archie saw straight through the liberal non-sense spouted by his “meathead” son-in-law.

While producers Norman Lear and Bud Yorkin used the Archie Bunker character to mock conservatives and their ideas, they often times made Archie say some profoundly accurate statements. History has shown that many of his philosophies have been proven right — especially as it relates to the failures of socialism and the threat of terrorism exposed in the video clip below.

We’ve posted this hilarious video on our new web site, ConservativeVideos.com:




Will you stand with me and take back our country from the creeping advance of socialism

Just go here to chip in $10 to make your Tea Party friends jealous and get your Official Obama Barf Bag.




Boone’s willingness to question Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president and the legitimacy of the document the White House presented as Obama’s purported, long-form birth certificate.  Boone’s entertainment heyday was during the 1950s and early 1960s. In his long career, he has sold more than 45 million albums, had 38 Top 40 hits and appeared in more than 12 Hollywood movies.

Critics cites a 2008 Boone column in WND that she says “stepped outside the bounds of decency and morality” for “comparing LGBT activism with the terrorist attacks in Mumbai.”

Boone’s column specifically states that homosexual activists haven’t grown as violent as jihadi terrorists, but does point to “the anger, the vehemence, the total disregard for law and order … the hate seething in the words, faces and actions” of some of California’s Proposition 8 protesters, who took to the streets demanding the state’s voter-approved ballot initiative preserving marriage between one man and one woman be struck down.

“Hate is hate, no matter where it erupts,” Boone writes in the column’s pivotal paragraph. “And hate, unbridled, will eventually and inevitably boil into violence. How crazily ironic that the homosexual activists and sympathizers cry for ‘tolerance’ and ‘equal rights’ and understanding – while they spew vitriol and threats and hate at those who disagree with them on moral and societal grounds.”

“The original concept of a university was to create a venue in society where people with different points of view could come together to share and discuss them without fear of persecution,” Docking writes in a statement on the college’s website. “While Mr. Boone’s political views and social positions have raised healthy debate over the years, to suspend his commencement address based on arguments against his beliefs, opinions and ideology would be a form of intolerance that cannot be condoned.




Nugent had said in his address that “if Barack Obama becomes the president in November, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year.”

“If you can’t go home and get everybody in your lives to clean house in this vile, evil, America-hating administration, I don’t even know what you’re made of,” he said at the NRA.

Nugent’s words got even more descriptive at times, calling Obama a criminal and saying his administration is “wiping its a– with the Constitution.”

He also flayed four Supreme Court justices for what he says is their stance against Americans’ “right to keep and bear arms.”  He ended with a call to politically decapitate Democrats in November: “We need to ride into that battlefield and chop their heads off in November. Any questions?”

The Secret Service told ABC News it is aware of Nugent’s comments and conducting “the appropriate follow-up.”  “I spoke at the NRA and I will stand by my speech. It was 100 percent positive,” Nugent told the Dana Loesch radio show today. “It’s about we the people taking back our American dream from the corrupt monsters in the federal government under this administration and the communist czars he’s appointed.”





“Even guitar players qualify as ‘We the People’ where I come from. When I write, I write about the positive glow of productive America and why the Golden Rule, and the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights are guiding forces for the greatest quality of life in the history of humankind. And anyone that disagrees with me disagrees with that.”

Los Angeles Times editorial writer Jon Healey told Democrats to relax, that Nugent is just a rock ‘n’ roller.  “Nugent is no more a surrogate for Romney than the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. is for Obama,” Healey wrote. “Just because someone with a microphone urges people to vote for a candidate doesn’t make him or her a ‘surrogate’ for the campaign.”







Listen to Conservative Talk Shows Right From Your Browser - For Free! www.ConservativeTalkNow.com


The upcoming New York Times non-fiction bestseller list could foretell the outcome of the November presidential election by indicating how enthusiastic conservatives are to vote and participate in the campaign, according to talk radio host and author Michael Savage.

Savage told his audience today that the No. 1 position on the April 22 hard-cover non-fiction list of MSNBC host Rachel Maddow’s new book compared to the No. 3 position of his book, “Trickle Down Tyranny: Crushing Obama’s Dream Of The Socialist States Of America,” leads him to predict a narrow Obama victory.

“Trickle Down Tyranny” is Savage’s seventh New York Times bestseller. He made his fiction debut last fall with Abuse of Power,” which began at No. 4 on the Times list and became Amazon.com’s No. 1 bestselling hard-cover book.  Savage agreed with a caller today who said “liberals are way more motivated to change the country than conservatives.”

“They want to drag the country into a Marxist state,” Savage said. “Whether it’s Marxism light or Marxism heavy, we don’t know yet. But they are doing a very good job of destroying the way of life, and the conservatives are a big bunch of losers.”  His third-ranked national talk show, with more than 10 million listeners, airs live Monday through Friday from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. Eastern. It can be heard online through stations such as KSTE in Sacramento.







President Obama paid a total federal tax rate in 2011 on adjusted income of $789,674 that may be lower than that of his secretary, even though she earned substantially less.

Obama has spent the past week touting the Buffett Rule, which calls on those who make $1 million – just a little more than Obama made – to pay at federal tax rate of at least 30 percent. The rule was inspired by Buffett’s comment that he paid a lower tax rate than his secretary.

The most recent information about salary regarding Obama’s secretary is for his former secretary, Katie Johnson, who is listed by the White House as having made $90,000 in 2010.

According to Wikipedia, Johnson is 31 years old and now attends Harvard Law School. I don’t know about her personal life or what her deductions would be, so I can’t assume any children or extra deductions.  On a $90,000 salary, she would pay $16,578 in federal taxes, $3,780 to Social Security, and $1,305 in Medicare taxes.  That adds up to a total federal tax burden of $21,663 on $90,000 in adjusted gross income, or a tax rate of 24 percent.

Obama’s federal income tax rate was 20.5 percent. If you include the Medicare and Social Security taxes paid by Obama, his total federal tax liability is 21.8 percent, fully two percent less than that of his secretary even though his adjusted gross income was nearly nine times hers.

Fairness??  Leading by example??? Or just More BS???

http://cowboybyte.com/6528/buffett-rule-doesnt-apply-to-obama-oh-really/          the Obama’s raked in less than $1 million this year. Therefore, in a “Buffett Rule” world, they wouldn’t have to pay their “fair share.” President Obama earned $789,674 in 2011, the White House announced on Friday. However, with this income, he does not even qualify for the so-called Buffett Rule that he has promoted relentlessly and the Senate will take up on Monday.  The Buffett Rule calls for those making over $1 million a year to pay a minimum tax rate, named after billionaire Warren Buffett.

The president did earn over $1 million in previous years–$1.7 million in 2010 and $5.5 million in 2009. 








“No one is questioning his need to travel on Air Force One or have security. The questions being raised are the first family taking so many vacations, when and where, at taxpayer expense.”  That issue again made headlines temporary just days ago when one of Obama’s daughters took a trip to Mexico, accompanied by dozens of security officers. The White House reportedly asked news outlets not to report on the trip.

Before that, according to the Washington Examiner, the Obamas had taken 16 vacations at taxpayer expense.  They include a President’s Day 2012 ski trip to Colorado, an extended stay in Hawaii at Christmas 2011, a Martha’s Vineyard, Mass., vacation during summer of 2011, a trip to Africa and Botswana in June 2011, another Colorado ski vacation on President’s Day 2011, Christmas 2011 for an extended trip to Hawaii.  Before that it was Florida, Chicago, Spain, Martha’s Vineyard again, Mount Desert Island, Maine, Chicago, New York City, Hawaii, Yellowstone National Park, Grand Canyon and Martha’s Vineyard again.

The report defended the Obama trips, citing 30 visits President Bush made to his own personal Texas ranch (over how many years?).  “But Obama’s have become more controversial because of the costs associated with moving the first family to a public vacation spot, unlike the Bushes to their own remote ranch in Crawford, Texas. For example, the Hawaii Reporter said the first family’s 2011 Christmas vacation in Hawaii would exceed $1.5 million.”  The report continued, “Critics and even some in his own party say the vacations present a bad image at a time when many Americans are struggling to get by during the recession.”

            How many vacations have you taken in the last 4 years?  Did you pay for them out of your own pocket?  How about the golf outings and parties at the White House etc.?





Every year National Taxpayers Union (NTU) rates U.S. Representatives and Senators on their actual votes--every vote that affects taxes, spending, and debt. Unlike most organizations that publish ratings, we refuse to play the "rating game" of focusing on only a handful of congressional votes on selected issues. The NTU voting study is the fairest and most accurate guide available on congressional spending. It is a completely unbiased accounting of votes.  NTU assigned weights to the votes, reflecting the importance of each vote's effect on federal spending.  NTU has no partisan axe to grind. All members of Congress are treated the same regardless of political affiliation. Our only constituency is the overburdened American taxpayer. Grades are given impartially, based on the Taxpayer Score.





The group's CEO Economic Outlook index dropped for a second consecutive quarter to 77.6, its lowest reading since the fourth quarter of 2009. It remained above 50 -- which separates forecasts of growth from decline -- and a bit below the index's average of 79.2 over its near-decade history.

"This past quarter was a challenging one for our economy," said Boeing Co <BA.N> CEO Jim McNerney, who chairs the Roundtable. "It brought high oil prices, continuing European sovereign debt crisis, our own debt-ceiling debate and the S&P downgrade in the U.S., which in sum added to an already uncertain economic and business environment."   A quarterly survey by the Business Roundtable found that 24 percent of CEOs expected to cut jobs in the U.S. over the next six months.

(For a related graphic, click: http://link.reuters.com/zeg24s)



http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list/category/Bank  With the exception of bailouts of Bank of America and Citigroup, all of the Treasury Department’s investments via LOANS in the nation's banks have been made through the Capital Purchase Program, described as a plan to bolster "healthy" banks.Both Bank of America and Citigroup have required special government aid far beyond other banks. That aid has come mostly in the form of large capital investments, but also through government guarantees to limit losses from troubled assets. See our complete list of recipients.    EXAMPLE of these LOANS:

Wells Fargo                      Wells Fargo returned its  LOAN funds on Dec. 23, 2009






Profit/Revenue to Gov't







The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) http://ccagwratings.org/?mode=state has just released our annual Congressional Ratings <http://membership.cagw.org/site/R?i=19KatTv9SEYlA4YE2UCy2g> !  After analyzing 62 votes in the Senate and 46 votes in the House of Representatives on fiscal issues in 2010, CCAGW is ready to tell you how your elected officials stack up.

Every year, CCAGW releases our Congressional Ratings to let you, Congress, and the public at large know who is standing up for taxpayers and who is letting them down.  CCAGW rates members on a 0 to 100 percent scale and categorizes them as follows:  0-19 percent Hostile; 20-39 percent Unfriendly; 40-59 percent Lukewarm; 60-79 percent Friendly; 80-99 percent Taxpayer Hero; 100 percent Taxpayer Super Hero.

The average vote rating for the entire House of Representatives during the second session of the 111th Congress was 40 percent, while the average for the Senate was 42 percent.  In the House, six Representatives achieved “Taxpayer Super Hero” status, while 144 House members earned the moniker “Taxpayer Hero.”  However, 30 Representatives – all Democrats – posted a perfectly abysmal score of zero.  In the Senate, there were four “Taxpayer Super Heroes” and 35 “Taxpayer Heroes.”  Nineteen Senators scored zero.           

I urge you to visit our NEW Ratings website, http://www.ccagwratings.org <http://membership.cagw.org/site/R?i=SwgNU43Mfl_TcjkqCbRXHg> , to see how your U.S. Representative and Senators are performing.  And when you do, I also encourage you to take advantage of the feature that allows you to e-mail your members of Congress directly from the site – congratulating or condemning them for their ratings.  telling your congressional delegation <http://membership.cagw.org/site/R?i=gVPVfbyfnmVJzWP8KOq84w>  that you are paying attention to how they vote on issues that affect your wallet is the best way to hold them accountable.   Please visit our Congressional Ratings website and write to your members of Congress today.



http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/congpowers.htm          The United States is a government of enumerated powers.  Congress, and the other two branches of the federal government, can only exercise those powers given in the Constitution.   The powers of Congress are enumerated in several places in the Constitution.  The most important listing of congressional powers appears in Article I, Section 8 (see left) which identifies in seventeen paragraphs many important powers of Congress.  



October 18, 2011  Uncertainty Hurts American Economy

            Policy uncertainty isn't the only economic problem facing America or hurting business sentiment.  But it's likely a significant one.  Here are five reasons why, says James Pethokoukis, the money and politics columnist for U.S. News & World Report.

            First, the uncertainty Index.

University of Chicago business professor Steven Davis has constructed a "policy uncertainty" index based on a) the frequency of newspaper references to economic policy uncertainty, b) the number of federal tax code provisions set to expire in future years, and c) the extent of forecaster disagreement over future inflation and federal government purchases.

Looking at a variety of events including the stimulus and debt ceiling debates, Davis concludes "policy-related uncertainty played a role in the slow growth and fitful recovery" of the past few years.

            Second, gloomy entrepreneurs.

Uncertainty may be costing the United States some 2.5 million jobs, according to Davis.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce recently conducted a survey of small businesses and found that while 53 percent said economic uncertainty was the most pressing concern, 39 percent also suffer from uncertainty about what Washington will do next.

Drilling down further, 79 percent said they would rather Washington "get out of the way" than offer a "helping hand," and 83 percent said the growing U.S. national debt is making them anxious.

            Third, subpar business investment.

            Fourth, worries about regulation.

            Fifth, uncertainty matters.  A 2001 review of economic literature found most academic papers produced evidence "in favor of the hypothesis that volatility, uncertainty or political instability hurts growth."  And after examining these analyses, the author also agreed that "uncertainty related to volatility can lead to lower growth."

Source: James Pethokoukis, "Five Reasons Why Obama Really Is Freaking Out Business," Enterprise Blog, October 13, 2011. For text:  http://blog.american.com/2011/10/5-reasons-why-obama-really-is-freaking-out-business/





An analysis by USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-12-10-federal-pay-salaries_N.htm      revealed particularly fast wage growth at the top end of the federal workforce in recent years.6 By 2009, there were 383,000 federal civilian workers with salaries of more than $100,000, 66,000 with salaries of more than $150,000, and 22,000 with salaries of more than $170,000. Between late 2007 and mid-2009, the number of federal workers earning more than $150,000 more than doubled, even as the economy fell into a deep recession during that period.  Federal pay should be reasonable, and we certainly need competent workers in federal jobs, assuming that they are jobs that are really required. But the government industry shouldn't be one of the highest-paid industries in the nation. Indeed, an advantage of reducing federal pay would be to encourage more turnover in the currently very static federal workforce. That would get more young and energetic people in government, which would be a good thing.

Another way to help solve the federal pay problem would be to privatize federal jobs where possible. For example, a study found that the average annual compensation of federal air traffic controllers was $166,000 in 2005.21 Is that too much? Let's find out by privatizing air traffic control—as Canada has done—and let the market decide. Does the government pay postal workers too much? Let's privatize postal services—as Germany has done—and let the market decide.

With regard to immediate policy reforms, Congress should freeze or cut federal wages and then start overhauling federal benefits to reduce costs. It should, for example, phase-out defined-benefit pension plans, as most private-sector employers have. To deal with today's large budget deficits, we need to restrain all areas of spending, and so it is reasonable to cut federal pay packages and better align them with private-sector practices.



http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/78xx/doc7874/03-15-Federal_Personnel.pdf Total Number of Federal Civilian Employees, Selected Years, 1990 to 2005



http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/337889/       Sen. Curtis Olafson, R-Edinburg, has been featured on talk shows in Texas and Maryland, mentioned in Forbes and asked to participate in a panel at Harvard through his work with Texas-based Restoring  http://www.freedom.org/       

The group is trying to get legislatures across the nation to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that states an increase in the federal debt requires approval from a majority of the nation’s state legislatures.  Congress isn’t limiting its ability to borrow or spend money, so supporters of the National Debt Relief Amendment are focused on a bipartisan state-initiated effort, Olafson said.

At $14.8 trillion, the debt amounts to more than $47,000 per man, woman and child, he said.

“You don’t have to have a Ph.D. in economics to understand that we are on a course that is completely unsustainable,” Olafson said.

Through Olafson’s efforts, North Dakota became the first state to approve a resolution stating that the state favors a convention to be called for the federal debt constitutional amendment.

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution when ratified by three-fourths, or 38, of the state legislatures, according to Article V. Congress may also allow ratification by conventions in three-fourths of states.

So far, North Dakota and Louisiana are on board, with 32 more states needed to request an amendment convention. There are committed sponsors in 12 states and serious interest in another 12, Olafson said. 






October 21, 2011   Unemployment Insurance Taxes   Where did you think this money comes from??  Money still doesn’t grow on trees…

Record high levels of unemployment and record low reserve funds have placed great pressure on the federal-state unemployment insurance (UI) tax and benefit system, says Joseph Henchman, vice president of legal & state projects at the Tax Foundation.  Between 2008 and 2011, $174 billion was paid in unemployment taxes while $450 billion was paid out in benefits, a gap of $276 billion.   In 2011 alone, employers and employees are projected to pay $51.8 billion in taxes, while $131.4 billion is projected to be paid out in benefits for workers recently unemployed.

Benefits are drawn for an average of 18 weeks, with many claimants receiving the maximum 99 weeks of benefits.   Over the past two years, 34 states and the U.S. Virgin Islands exhausted their unemployment insurance trust funds and have had to borrow from the federal government to pay unemployment benefits; 27 states have outstanding balances.  While some states have repaid their balances and others are no longer borrowing additional amounts, the current outstanding balance of loans is $37.3 billion.

Beginning on September 30, 2011, states must pay approximately $1.3 billion in interest on those outstanding balances; in many cases, businesses and employees in those states will also face increases in federal unemployment insurance tax rates as a result of those federal loan balances.  These unemployment insurance fiscal policies may exacerbate negative job growth and tax trends, instead of operating countercyclically as the program was intended.

Consequently, this may be an appropriate time for the federal government and the states to contemplate significant changes to the structure of unemployment insurance taxation and benefits.  Program design alternatives could offer more innovative and more sustainable methods to find jobs for the short-term and long-term unemployed while preserving benefits to support them in the meantime.

These options include eliminating the firewall between administrative costs and benefits, reducing cross-subsidies through greater use of experience ratings, relying more on face-to-face training and advising, adopting elements of state workers' compensation programs, and experimenting with individual accounts to encourage saving, says Henchman.

Source: Joseph Henchman, "Unemployment Insurance Taxes: Options for Program Design and Insolvent Trust Funds," Tax Foundation, October 17, 2011. 

For text:http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/27673.html

Should these be very low rate loans that have to be paid back for anything longer than the first 18 weeks??  Should the ones receiving this benefit have to do volunteer work somewhere while getting this welfare??


http://w3.newsmax.com/fir/money_mischief/?promo_code=DC50-1                                Bernanke June 7, 2009: “It’s not tax money [ . . . .] we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money than it is to borrowing.”

The 1970s was a time when two economic devils — inflation and unemployment — ransacked our nation, leaving poverty and despair in their wake.

‘Money Mischief’ Outlines Obama and Bernanke’s Plans for the Coming Years in Shocking Detail . . . Because It’s All Happened Before!  Because of dangerous economic policies, Carter’s presidency created both a national skid row that spread from coast to coast and runaway inflation that peaked at 14.76%. Carter’s choices caused the Misery Index to reach the highest level ever recorded — a startling 21.98%.

But isn’t it better to prepare for the worst? Ignoring the problem will not keep you safe. It is important that you see just how bad it could get so you can make smart decisions on the next steps to take. They’ve gone to great lengths to promote a message that we have nothing to worry about. But a simple trip to the grocery store, gas station, or mall will tell you otherwise.




http://www.wfpl.org/2011/12/14/boehner-clock-urges-democrats-to-pass-gop-payroll-tax-plan/       The House approved the legislation by a 234-to-193 vote last night, despite a veto threat from President Obama and a pledge by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nv., that the bill will be rejected due to certain GOP add-on provisions.

House Republicans are taking decisive action to create jobs. Since January, we have passed 27 bipartisan jobs bills that are awaiting action in the Democrat-controlled Senate. And this week, the House will consider H.R. 3630 which will extend the Payroll Tax Holiday for another year while requiring no new government spending.

http://visiontoamerica.org/6286/voters-finally-blame-obama-not-bush-for-failing-economy/                                For years, Barack Obama has diverted attention from his own economic decisions by blaming his predecessor, George W. Bush, for the nation’s financial woes, from deficits to debt to taxes to Medicare and Medicaid spending.  But that strategy has reached the end of its effectiveness, according to a new poll that reveals more people blame Obama for the failed state of the economy.  This is his disaster, he owns it along w/ the Democrats that controlled the Senate and the House.



With President Obama ready to sign away the freedoms of Americans by inking his name to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, opponents are already going after the lawmakers that made the legislation possible.  The act, abbreviated as NDAA FY2012, managed to make its way through Congress with overwhelming support in recent days, despite legislation that allows for Americans to be detained indefinitely and tortured by authorities for the mere suspicion of committing "a belligerent act." The Obama administration originally decreed that they would veto the bill, only for the White House to announce a change of heart on Wednesday this week. 

The next lawmaker to receive anywhere near as much as Sen. Portman is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat from Nevada and third-ranked official in Congress, who pulled in more than $100,000 less than his Ohio counterpart with $172,635.

Among the supporters of NDAA are California-based manufacturer Surefire, L.L.C., who won a $23 million contract from the Department of Defense three months ago. Also contributing to the cause (and the lawmakers who voted 'yes') are Honeywell (who secured a $93 million deal with the Pentagon last May and a $24 million contract this year) and Bluewater Defense, a longtime DoD-ally that produces, among other garments, fire resistant combat uniforms. When the military storms down your door for suspicion of "belligerent" acts, you can thank Bluewater, Senator Portman & Harry Reid for the lovely flame-proof attire the soldiers will be donned in as they haul you off to Gitmo.




Obama sees real effects of Socialism in North Korea

“It is like you are in a time warp,” Obama said Sunday, after he toured a rocky border post in the demilitarised buffer zone that has split the Korean peninsular for longer than he has been alive.

“It is like you are looking across 50 years into a country that has missed 40 years or 50 years of progress,” Obama marvelled later, after taking a helicopter back to teeming, prosperous Seoul, just 25 miles (40 kilometres) away.

This point is best illustrated by the classic picture of North and South Korea taken at night: the South is vibrant with energy and electricity; the North is in complete darkness. (click on link, the picture is telling!)  What do you want America to be more like, North Korea, if so vote Democrat OR  South Korea and if so vote Republican.



http://culturaloffering.com/2008/10/27/wealth-redistribution--the-grades-example.aspx           imagine your teacher or professor announcing that those students getting A's will have two grade points deducted so that the students getting F's and D's can have their grades lifted to a C.  The individuals getting B's will have one grade point deducted and used for the same purpose.  After all, isn't it FAIR that those students getting A's and B's should help out students who aren't as fortunate?  Make sense?" I asked. 

            "No.  The reason we get A's and B's is that we are working harder or maybe we are smarter.  It isn't our fault that some kids are getting D's and F's," he answered.  "Well, you'll still do okay.  Getting a C is still passing, and you will have helped out the other students," I argued.

             "If you do that, there is no reason for me to study hard," he reasoned.  "I'll take it easy."  "But if you take it easy, where will we get the grade points to help those D and F students?" I asked.  "We have to get the points somewhere."  "I don't know," he said.  He now understands the economic effect of redistribution through taxation.  

            (The College Republicans at the University of California-Merced ask fellow students, who support raising taxes on the rich, if they would be willing to redistribute their GPAs. They don’t think it’s a good idea because they earned their grades.) Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/20/students-not-eager-to-redistribute-gpa-scores/#ixzz1KAckeFqh


An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class.  That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
          The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan"..
All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A....
          After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.  The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.  As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
          The second test average was a D!  No one was happy.  When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.  As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
          All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because
when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.  Could not be any simpler than that. (Please pass this on)                 Remember, there is a test coming up.  The 2012 elections.



http://www.lazymaths.com/more-math/the-us-tax-system-explained%e2%80%93with-beer/#more-3454   In this taxing times, take a sip of beer and read through this brilliant explanation of the US tax system using actual percentages, the impact of a tax cut, and the public reaction that even Obama should be able to understand.  The wealthy or the rich are productive, talented, ambitious, job creators, business owners and investors who fund businesses that create jobs.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this (Federal, state, real estate, payroll, estate taxes etc.):


Drinkers 1-4 (the poorest) pay - $0 or 0% of the tab
Drinker #5 pays - $1 or 1% of the tab
Drinker #6 pays - $3 or 3% of the tab
Drinker #7 pays - $7 or 7% of the tab
Drinker #8 pays - $12 or 12% of the tab
Drinker #9 pays - $18 or 18% of the tab
Drinker #10 (the richest) pays - $59 or 59% of the tab


So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. “Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

            The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’

            They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.


If the drinkers would have stuck to their original plan, as they devised for apportioning the bill, the split would have been easy with a 20% reduction across the boards:

Drinkers 1-4 paid $0 get $0 back final amount paid = $00.00
Drinker #5 paid $1 gets $0.20 back, final amount paid = $00.80
Drinker #6 paid $3 gets $0.60 back, final amount paid = $2.40
Drinker #7 paid $7 gets $1.40 back, final amount paid = $5.60
Drinker #8 paid $12 gets $2.40 back, final amount paid = $9.60
Drinker #9 paid $18 gets $3.60 back, final amount paid = $14.40
Drinker #10 paid $59 gets $11.80 back, final amount paid = $47.20  (Look at how much the rich pay)
Original Tab $100 minus $20/20% rebate = final tab $80.00


            Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.  “I only got 60 cents out of the $20,”declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,” but he got $11.80!”  “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved 20 cents. It’s unfair that he got 11.80!”  “That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $11.80 back when I got only 1.40? The wealthy get all the breaks!”  “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”
            The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

            And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The  people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.  Readers, Visitors, Math Enthusiasts…, if you have a better way to explain the Tax system, share it with us and our readers, and even if you don’t go ahead and share this with your friends and family…If government run itself efficiently, effectively and productively like a business such as this bar, then people could keep more of their money and do other things with that money, providing for family, investing, charity etc.


I guess there are people who still don’t get it as here are some typical responses to this and if this doesn’t help you can’t fix stupid:

  •          The rich men have become rich in part because they have talent, but also because they had access to the poor men’s labor and the middle class’ purchasing power.

        { Go get a job from a poor man then.  Don’t buy the product or service then.  The product or       service provider/businessperson takes the risk in using their time, talent and treasure to make a      profit from their product or service.  You take that risk.} 

  •          The rich men, by definition, make more use of public resources. Their activities require more land, more energy, more natural resources, more public infrastructure. They monopolize more government workers, require more military resources, and generate more environmental damages and so forth.  

        {So they pay more for the real estate & taxes that are used to pay for these services, permits,     water and sewer bills etc.  Where does the government get the money it has?  From   businesspeople who generate income, sales, jobs who employ others that generate income etc.            Think about it a little more!}

  •          The poor men don’t pay taxes because they are dirt poor. All of their disposable income go towards getting a roof and feeding their family and dealing with the stress of being poor. Were they to pay more taxes they would become a burden for society which would be good for no one. 

        { look at your social security and job income history, do you stay at minimum wage or as you     work hard, learn skills and become more valuable, you get paid more?  This is the typical cycle              for everyone starting at the bottom of the ladder/totem pole and working their way up and with              new crops of teenagers every year the gap will remain, but usually not the same people remain       at the bottom.  You want to have the opportunity to work your way up the ladder, so you don’t                 remain poor.  Learn more needed skills, keep learning, get an education, work hard, take on         another job or two to increase your income, don’t have premarital sex, if you find love-get          married, spend less, live below your means,  and you will be better off.}


The Center for Marriage Policy is launching the science of Marriage Values socioeconomic policy. Our policy establishes a pillar of “monetaristic socioeconomics” to complement settled conservative economic policy. “Marriage Values” policy naturally builds marriage, actively deflates social problems driving deficit spending, naturally balances federal and state budgets, reduces poverty, and uplifts the poor. http://marriagepolicy.org/          


November 16, 2011  Celebrities Received Federal Funds

Wealthy celebrities including Bruce Springsteen and Jon Bon Jovi have received federal subsidies, according to "Subsidies of the Rich and Famous," a new report from the office of Oklahoma Republican Senator Tom Coburn, reports the Daily Caller.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) identified several individuals receiving farm payments "whose professions had nothing to do with farming or agricultur[e]," says the report.

These individuals include real estate developer Maurice Wilder, a "part-owner of a professional sports franchise [who] received total of more than $200,000 in farm program payments in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006."

The report says millionaires Jon Bon Jovi and Bruce Springsteen have collected farm subsidies, noting that Bon Jovi paid property taxes of just $100 last year on his real estate holdings in New Jersey that he uses to raise bees.   Springsteen also received farm subsidies "because he leases his property to an organic farmer," the report explains.

Source: Nicholas Ballasy, "Coburn Report: Bon Jovi, Springsteen, Quincy Jones, Ted Turner Received Federal Funds," Daily Caller, November 14, 2011.  U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn, "Subsidies of the Rich and Famous," U.S. Senate, November 2011.

For text:  http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/14/coburn-report-bon-jovi-springsteen-quincy-jones-ted-turner-received-federal-funds/

For study:  http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=bb1c90bc-660c-477e-91e6-91c970fbee1f




The decision today came in the case of the Sackett family of Priest Lake, Idaho. Mike and Chantell Sackett bought a piece of land in a residential subdivision that was about two-thirds of an acre, purchased the appropriate building permits and started work on their dream home.

The government did not contest the recitation when Alito summarized what had happened:  You buy property to build a house. You think maybe there is a little drainage problem in part of your lot, so you start to build the house and then you get an order from the EPA which says you have filled in wetlands, so you can’t build your house. Remove the fill. Put in all kinds of plants. and now you have to let us on your premises whenever we want to … you have to turn over to us all sorts of documents, and for every day that you don’t do all this you are accumulating a potential fine of $75,000 and by the way, there is no way you can go to court to challenge our determination that this is a wetlands until such time as we choose to sue you. Further, the EPA, in collusion with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, told the couple they could not even challenge the decision unless they went through that expensive process.

Lesson:  Be very careful who you vote for as they get to pick EPA bureaucrats, other govt appointees, judges, especially Supreme Court Judges.


The Swedish Model Reassessed

Amongst those who advocate for a larger government presence in the free market, the example presented by Sweden has long provided a reliable talking point.  Its economic success, combined with positive social indicators such as low crime rates, high life expectancy and a high degree of social cohesion, suggest to many foreign onlookers that the big government route might not be as negative and inefficient as detractors have suggested.  However, in analyzing the Swedish success story, it becomes apparent that the welfare state does not deserve the credit that it receives for advancing Sweden beyond others, says Nima Sanandaji, president of the Swedish think tank Captus.

The lack of a correlation between a welfare state structure and positive socioeconomic outcomes is apparent for two crucial reasons. First, the timelines within Sweden provide little evidence that one causes the other. The era of Social Democrat rule began in 1936, yet Sweden's growth as a country was relatively substantial well before that time. Furthermore, since the 1990s, the modern, center-right administrations in the country have gradually scaled back the welfare state, and these policies have been accompanied by growth that the country had not seen in decades. In fact, the period in which welfare economics were most strongly implemented (the 1970s and 1980s) saw low rates of growth.

The second reason that compels the conclusion that the welfare state cannot be credited with the growth of Sweden's economy is provided by the performance of Swedish immigrants to the United States.

Despite having left Sweden and moving to a new country, this population has historically outperformed expectations and obtained socioeconomic standards far above par, characterized by a low poverty rate and high employment.

This fact substantiates the original claim because it suggests that there is something idiosyncratic about the Swedish people as a whole that brings about their success, such that they are able to thrive despite the absence of a welfare state structure.

While some suggest that a traditional Lutheran work ethic is the confounding variable in this case, the point stands that any number of cultural and ethnic factors could be collaborating to bring about Sweden's exceptional standards of living.  Source: Nima Sanandaji, "The Swedish Model Reassessed: Affluence Despite the Welfare State," Libera Foundation, October 2011.

For text: http://www.libera.fi/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Libera_The-Swedish-model.pdf




A cutting-edge series, set in small-town America, where the plotline revolves around stopping this nation's destruction by out-of-control government and a godless culture. Here's a direct link to the first episode: <http://alerts.worldnetdaily.com/HS?a=ENX7CqgvfC4i8SA9MKJcXjznGHxKLTJBqfcStGb5lw8W0bBhOG5mpqVsje_Hhe-ud1Ox>


Starting today, WND is featuring a new online dramatic series that does precisely that, called "Red Elephants Café."   Each weekly episode, just two to three minutes long, is a potent and moving dramatization of the wrenching issues facing most Americans right now. From the government's destruction of the economy, to "social" issues like abortion, Americans' most urgent hot-button political and cultural conflicts are explored with remarkable realism in this episodic drama set to culminate next November with the 2012 election.  "Red Elephants Café" is the brainchild of Craig Myers, president of the Concerned Oregonians political action committee trying to capture the critical moral political and economic issues that impact Main Street America today."


The unfolding dramatic series, explains Myers, "strives to subtly illustrate that all human rights – economic, religious, civil and political – originate from the same source, according to our founding documents. Unalienable rights are granted only by God, which is why most conservatives defend the Constitution as written. Alienable rights are granted by men, and can be revoked by tyrants," he adds.

Liberty under siege.  The story unfolds in the fictional town of Liberty, where the historic Taft sawmill has just closed, causing a depression for half the town and a recession for the other half.


Jake O'Donnell has asked his uncle, Mike Taft, to join him in starting the community's first computer business. As now-former millwright and mill office manager, they know the basics, and decide to open a computer service and website design business, complete with Liberty's first Internet café – something to suit local tastes that could help their neighbors start their own businesses. Mike is impressed by Africa's majestic and fiercely independent red elephants, thus the name for the café.  Despite the "elephant" reference, Myers says the show is not meant to be a "propaganda wing of the GOP, like Organizing for America is for the Democrats." In fact," he says, "we are painfully nonpartisan and refuse to use the words Democrat or Republican in our scripts."






October 21, 2011  Stop Funding College Sports

Though the economic crisis has taken a striking, media-grabbing toll on the federal government, state governments are also scrambling to address budgetary issues.  Many states are implementing across-the-board spending cuts, while others are targeting those programs that they believe are most expendable.  Whatever their strategy, lawmakers are ripping through budgets, looking for excess fat that can be eliminated to trim down expenditures.  Given this political and budgetary climate, it seems remarkable that state lawmakers continue funneling taxpayer dollars toward college and university athletic departments, says A. Barton Hinkle, a columnist at the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

A Bloomberg study found that 46 of the 53 schools examined subsidize their sports programs, supporting a statement by the NCAA that most athletic departments operate in the red.

According to a story in USA Today, six Virginia schools charged each of their students more than $1,000 as an athletics fee for the 2008-2009 school year, constituting between 10 percent and 23 percent of the total tuition and mandatory-fee charges for in-state students.

Using the University of Florida as an example, while the school gained $44 million and $2 million from its profitable football and basketball teams, respectively, it lost $2.8 million on women's basketball, $5.3 million on other men's sports, $10 million on other women's sports, $17.4 million on coaches' salaries, $7.5 million in aid to student athletes and $1.4 million in recruiting.

Given that most athletic departments are net losses for funds, it is time that state lawmakers ask themselves a more fundamental question: how does athletic entertainment further the purpose of universities?  While some claim that university athletics programs help to produce better-rounded students, this is only true for those few students who actively participate -- it is difficult to accept the argument that merely watching the game molds character.

This underlines the crux of the issue: universities and the lawmakers who fund them need to revisit the purpose of higher education, and rededicate themselves to attaining it.  In a time of budget cuts and belt-fastening, wasteful and unproductive spending should not be allowed to continue.

Source: A. Barton Hinkle, "Stop Funding College Sports," Reason Magazine, October 14, 2011.

For text: http://reason.com/archives/2011/10/14/stop-funding-college-sports



Apprentice-Based Education

Given academia's current failures and inefficiencies it is time to revisit the fundamental assumptions about the optimal method for educating students.  Drawing more from the past than unrealistic future expectations, one method that could augment the education experience and address many criticisms of higher education in America would be to implement a system of apprenticeships across campuses nationwide.  Valuing practical engagement over stuffy and inapplicable theory, apprentice-based education offers a viable alternative to the status quo that could greatly improve the higher education experience, says Jay Schalin of the Pope Center for Higher Education Policy.

The apprenticeship would function in a manner that is mutually beneficial to both the student-worker and the instructor-employer.  Students could enroll for part-time or full-time work at an organization within their field of interest.   While there, they would receive instruction from various employees in the organization and spend the rest of their time working on whatever tasks they are assigned.

In this way, the student gains hands-on knowledge and know-how and simultaneously becomes accustomed to the modern work environment, while the employer gains a productive and responsible worker. Furthermore, the student need not pay tuition for their instruction -- they would simply forgo a wage, trading labor output for their education.

It is possible to go a step further and do away with the traditional, four-year institution altogether.  In such a system, the private company would be allowed to grant a degree upon completion of the program.  This would maximize the student's real-world experience, making him or her a valuable commodity in the market and able to adjust quickly to non-educational full-time work.

Detractors argue first that universities help to create more well-rounded individuals by requiring interdisciplinary study, but this same end could be accomplished by partnerships between private firms and local community colleges.  Regardless, the benefits of such a system clearly outweigh the costs.  The burden of funding public universities could be largely lifted from state governments and it best prepares students to become productive workers, allowing them to fulfill the overall purpose of higher education.  Source: Jay Schalin, "The Apprentice," Pope Center for Higher Education Policy, October 18, 2011.  For text:  http://www.popecenter.org/commentaries/article.html?id=2594



Eating healthy is too expensive.

A survey by the USDA found that, by weight, bottled water is cheaper than soda, low-fat milk is cheaper than high-fat, and whole fruit is cheaper than processed sweet snacks.

Making junk food comparatively pricier by tacking on taxes -- a popular policy option -- mostly means that people will pay more taxes, not eat more kale.

Myth Four: People need more information about what they eat.  A recent study from Ghent University in Belgium found that labels made no difference in the consumption patterns of students there, backing up a 2009 New York University study that found no improvement in poor New Yorkers' eating habits after the introduction of mandatory menu labeling.

Source: Katherine Mangu-Ward, "Five Myths about Healthy Eating," Washington Post, October 14, 2011.

For text:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-healthy-eating/2011/10/10/gIQAK9uZkL_story.html







http://www.palau.org/about/mission        We engage in social action and community service, ministering to families and entire communities, recognizing that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is itself the greatest agent for positive social change (Acts 4:33-35).















http://godfatherpolitics.com/1481/california-telling-12-year-olds-its-okay-to-have-sex-without-parents-knowledge/   President of SaveCalifornia.com, Randy Thomasson said, “[Governor] Brown has no excuse to deny patients essential information and trample parents’ consent for their children, who lack the brain development to make big decisions like this. 

It’s one thing for a state like Texas to mandate that all girls 12 years of age and older be given an HPV vaccination as at least parents know about it.  In all of these other states that are making it available without parental knowledge are literally trampling on the legal rights of parents. ( The FDA has judged Gardasil to be 100 percent effective. According to the CDC, there have been 35 million doses of the vaccine, with 0.05 percent of them causing any side effects. )  http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/277093/gardasil-and-gop-henry-i-miller


Perry reiterated that he now believes he shouldn't have used an executive order, but noted that parents could opt out and his main goal was to stop cervical cancer. Perry has admitted that issuing an EO was a mistake and said he should have left it up to the legislature, as other states have done. To see what other states have done pertaining to Gardasil:


This story is a non-starter. A hubbub started by Michelle Bachmann, who has never answered why she never tried to block the mandatory vaccination for Hepititus B required by her own state, and research of her time, and legislation, while in the state house shows no effort on Bachmann’s part to overturn that ruling. HPV not only can cause cervical cancer, it is a primary cause of genital warts, a problem that has become almost epidemic in young adults.  Shall we stop vaccinating our children again lock jaw, another disease that is not communicable? Or polio? Not all vaccinations deal with diseases that are contracted like mumps and measels.






DEPARTMENT OF INJUSTICE: Inside one of the most brazenly corrupt federal agencies in American history   Obamacare. Sky-high deficits. Crazy regulations. Even crazier White House "czars."

"Under Obama and Holder, the Department of Justice has been transformed from the world's preeminent law enforcement agency into one of the most corrupt federal bureaucracies in modern history," says WND Managing Editor David Kupelian. "It has become, literally, a Department of Injustice."


“The Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —    Ronald Reagan  (especially if Democrats, Big Government Statists can buy votes.)




IndoctriNation is a 90-minute documentary film that takes the audience on a panoramic exploration of one of the most important and controversial issues in the history of mankind: education.
              Nearly 90% of Christian children attend public school. Their families have a vested interest in all that happens there.   Traveling all over America with his family in a big yellow school bus and conducting a series of candid conversational interviews, Colin Gunn, Scottish filmmaker, actor, and father, is on a quest to discover the origins of our modern educational system.
             What he discovers is a masterful design that sought to replace God’s recipe for training up the next generation with a humanistic, man-centered program that fragmented the family and undermined the influence of the Church and its Great Commission



The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) held its "Pulpit Freedom Sunday" this week. The annual event encourages pastors to "preach from their pulpits … about the moral qualifications of candidates seeking political office."   The ADF event is part of its Pulpit Initiative, a larger legal strategy to change tax law—not the way the IRS implements it. This strategy, ironically, needs the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to start punishing pastors so that the ADF can sue to have the IRS stop punishing pastors.

As non-profits, churches cannot participate in political campaigns for or against a candidate for office. The so-called Johnson Amendment limits nonprofits' involvement in electoral politics. The ADF considers the Johnson Amendment to be unconstitutional.

            But in the U.S., it is not enough to believe that something is unconstitutional; one needs a victim.

The ADF is conducting a classic test case strategy. The ADF cannot sue to change tax regulations unless it represents a client who has been harmed by the law.

            This is the reason for Pulpit Freedom Sunday: to find a victim whose case can be used to change the law.  The ADF is not looking for just any case. Pulpit Freedom Sunday does not promote actual campaign activity—it is a time for pastors to speak about the morality of candidates. According to the ADF, the event is "only related to what a pastor says from his pulpit." It is "not about voter guides, candidate appearances, or other 'political' activities." If the IRS starts punishing pastors for mere words, then there would be a very strong case on both freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

            ADF senior legal counsel Erik Stanley said that only churches should decide if it is inappropriate for pastors to speak from the pulpit about candidates. "ADF is not trying to get politics into the pulpit. Churches can decide for themselves that they either do or don't want their pastors to speak about electoral candidates. The point of the Pulpit Initiative is very simple: the IRS should not be the one making the decision by threatening to revoke a church's tax-exempt status. We need to get the government out of the pulpit," said Stanley.

            According to the ADF, "The goal of the Pulpit Initiative is simple: have the Johnson Amendment declared unconstitutional—and once and for all remove the ability of the IRS to censor what a pastor says from the pulpit. ADF is actively seeking to represent churches or pastors who are under investigation by the IRS for violating the Johnson Amendment by preaching biblical Truth in a way that expresses support for—or opposition to—political candidates."

            n other words, the ADF is goading the IRS into the church speech regulation business. If the IRS takes the bait and begins punishing pastors, then the ADF can use a resulting case to try to overturn the Johnson Amendment.







http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/house-raises-salary-cap-for-doma-lawyer-to-15-million/2011/10/04/gIQAL8biLL_blog.html               According to a new contract dated Sept. 30, a revised salary cap of $1.5 million has been set for Paul D. Clement, the former Bush administration solicitor general who was tapped in April by House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to lead the House’s defense of DOMA in court. A copy of the new contract was provided by a House Democratic aide.

The original contract stated that Clement would be paid at a rate of $520 per hour with a salary cap of $500,000, although that amount could be “raised by written agreement between the parties with the approval of the [Committee on House Administration].”

Boehner announced in March that the House’s Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group — a five-member panel comprising the chamber’s top three Republicans and top two Democrats — had voted to instruct the House General Counsel to defend DOMA, the federal law banning recognition of same-sex marriage.  The move came one month after President Obama instructed the Justice Department to no longer defend the constitutionality of the law. The executive branch is supposed to enforce the laws even ones they don’t like until they are repealed.  This is another example of an impeachable event.  Pro Life, Pro God, Christian Voters especially take notice of these Democrats as they need to be voted out with an all out effort. (James 2:29 19 You say you have faith, for you believe that there is one God.[a] Good for you! Even the demons believe this, and they tremble in terror. 20 How foolish! Can’t you see that faith without good deeds is useless? )

On Tuesday, Democrats pounced on the news of Clement’s revised salary cap. “It is absolutely unconscionable that Speaker Boehner is tripling the cost for his legal boondoggle to defend the indefensible Defense of Marriage Act,” Drew Hammill, a spokesman for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), said in a statement. “At a time when Americans are hurting and job creation should be the top priority, it just shows how out of touch House Republicans have become that they would spend up to $1.5 million dollars to defend discrimination in our country.”

House Administration Committee Democrats said that they were “disappointed” by the news and argued that “further spending to defend DOMA is simply unconscionable.”  “This ongoing expense is a complete waste of taxpayer money,” Reps. Bob Brady (D-Pa.), Charlie Gonzales (D-Texas) and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) said in a statement. “We call on the Republican Leadership to explain why they will invest in protecting discrimination and how any of this can put Americans back to work.”

“The cost of this litigation should and will be borne by the Department of Justice — which is shirking its responsibility to defend the law,” Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said.

Why should all 50 states be homosexualized, forced to pervert the definition of marriage, when federal law clearly says marriage is ONLY between one man +one woman?  Let's continue to demand Congress DEFEND THE 1996 DOMA LAW, which is under attack by Senate Democrats who are now demanding hearings to REPEAL good law...

Please select here to SIGN URGENT PETITION to PASS THE FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT defining marriage between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN.  Vote against S.598 that would repeal DOMA, and protect DOMA in court, and we will auto-fax your petition to all 100 Senators and 435 Congressmen (saving you much time!) <http://news.dienerconsultants.com/ct/6846486:10021017960:m:1:198485169:84A992AE8F07B7E1DF574D5F8C8AC330:r>

Presidential Candidate Rick Perry (R-TX) joined Michelle Bachman (R-MN), Rick Santorum (R-PA), and Mitt Romney (R-MA) when he signed a pledge to defend traditional marriage between one man and one woman, created by the conservative National Organization for Marriage (NOM).  See if others have been added and where they stand.




Fellow American,
They're in charge now--of the government & the media and they want to keep it that way.
What's worse, they don't want you to know the truth. The fact is, there are millions of concerned, patriotic Americans who
aren't satisfied with the way our great country is being run nor with what they’re spewing over the airwaves, in the newspapers and at the movies. It's time to for us to take back control.You can do your part right now. Your subscription is FREE. By clicking here and simply entering your email address to receive RedState Morning Briefing.

More important, every issue connects you with the politicians, journalists and great thinkers in Washington and in your own state who, like you, are conservative, confident in their positions, and concerned about America's future.  Click here and get it all in your inbox — every weekday morning by 5 a.m. — with your FREE RedState
Morning Briefing.

How you can get the facts to debunk the liberals--free each morning---Did you know you can sign up free for the Morning Bell, The Heritage Foundation’s daily e-mail newsletter?   The subscription is free.  Click here to sign up to get the Morning Bell each weekday. <http://links.heritage.org/ct/6579511:9684932837:m:1:210381240:7B91C91FC89D0D0D9A1A3897BB5DC6EA:r>



http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/rep_bios.php?rep_id=98516477&category=views&id=20110509144427        On May 1, 2011 Herman Cain spoke at the NRA American Values Leadership Conference. He stated during the speech that the second amendment should not be infringed upon in any way.




Click here to watch a free preview of ‘9/11 and The War on Terror’ from http://learnourhistory.com/go.cfm?do=Page.View&pid=4 Learn Our History






http://actformining.org/                              I urge you to vote in support of H.R. 2401, the “Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation Act” introduced by Representatives John Sullivan (R-Okla.) and Jim Matheson (D-Utah) that would require a federal interagency committee to analyze the cumulative impacts of a number of major regulations recently issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), including two of EPA’s most costly new rules targeting coal-fueled power plants - the Utility MACT rule and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (or “Transport Rule”).  What will this cost and how many jobs will it destroy, we need to know the cost/benefit analysis.


       Florida Gov. Rick Scott signed the drug testing bill into law in July. Under the law, welfare applicants must pay for the drug tests. If they pass, they'll get reimbursed. If they fail, they can't get benefits for at least a year, and could face child abuse charges.


http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/08/union-members-could-cost-obama-pennsylvania-in-2012/            These union numbers mirror overall polling data from overwhelmingly blue-collar, Democratic areas of the state such as the Pittsburgh area, where 58 percent of all voters say it’s time for a change. Only 31 percent from that region said Obama should be re-elected.


http://www.paulzanepilzer.com/gwytbr.htm          Paul Zane Pilzer, the author of Other People’s Money and Unlimited Wealth , explains how and why God wants each of us to be rich, in every possible way--in health, love and peace of mind, as well as material possessions.  An individual’s success is good for all of society, argues Pilzer




 favorite parable about economic growth. We borrow it from Paul Zane Pilzer.

Imagine 10 people live on an island. Each person catches two fish every day, which is subsistence living. There are no savings. Children, or immigrants who do not know how to fish, would be hard to absorb. The people would be desperate to increase production.

But then, a miracle happens. Two of these people figure out how to make a boat and a net. They fish 200 yards offshore. The two of them catch 20 fish each day with this new technology, which replicates the daily GDP created by all 10 using the old technology.

At this point, eight people no longer need to fish and the island has a choice. The eight could grow corn, pick coconuts, fix the boat and the net, or trade some other good or service to their more productive neighbors. Living standards would rise. Abundance and plenty would be created. Children and immigrants could be absorbed.

Or…the eight without a boat could become envious and complain that a 10 fish-to-2 fish income ratio is unfair and that the rich fishermen should pay taxes. So, the island votes to institute an 80% tax on anyone that uses a net.

Let’s assume that the fishermen with a boat continue to catch 20 fish a day. If so, the other eight would stop fishing and divide up the 16-fish tax between them. Everyone would still get two fish a day. Living standards would not rise. Kids and immigrants who did not know how to fish would be a burden. The benefits of the new technology would go to waste.

This is the problem with attempts by the government to be fair and socially just. This is also the problem with trying to spend our way out of economic pain. It doesn’t work.

And even if we decide not to tax the fishermen, but instead borrow the fish and give them away, the same thing happens. Borrowing the fish, and then consuming them, does not create new wealth. It only puts a burden on the less productive that they will never be able to repay. This is what has happened in Greece and many other European countries. Government spending, whether paid for with debt or with taxes, undermines job growth and wealth creation.

Excluding defense, the US federal government is spending more today as a share of GDP than it ever has in history. It is also re-distributing more income than it ever has in history. We understand the impetus for this…we care about people too.

But, the desire to help people does not always mean that what we are doing is really helping. In fact, the massive increase in government spending the US has instituted in the past few years (under Obama and the Democrats) is backfiring.




http://godfatherpolitics.com/916/the-hidden-history-of-social-security/     In William L. Shirer’s book The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich we learn the origin of Social Security policies and the effect they had on the German people. Social Security was engineered by German Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck in the 19th century. His policies gradually made the German people “value security over political freedom and caused them to see in the State, however conservative, a benefactor and a protector.”[1] Between 1883 and 1889 Bismarck put through a program for social security far beyond anything known in other countries at the time. It included compulsory insurance for workers against old age, sickness, accident and incapacity, and though it was organized by the State it was financed by employers and employees. Sound familiar?

Adolf Hitler took full advantage of the German state of mind and Bismarck’s early progress in turning the nation into a model of socialist reform. Hitler remarks in Mein Kampf, “I studied Bismarck’s socialist legislation in its intention, struggle and success.”[2] It was Hitler’s social security policies and promises that helped get him elected.

Hitler was not alone in his admiration of Bismarck and what he was able to accomplish. FDR borrowed Bismarck’s socialist agenda and created what is now known as the Social Security System. Bismarck said that “the State must take the matter in hand, since the State can most easily supply the requisite funds. It must provide them not as alms but in fulfillment of the workers’ right to look to the State where their own good will can achieve nothing more.”[3] Roosevelt and his admirers agreed.

According to the Social Security board of trustees, there were 42 “covered workers” per Social Security beneficiary in 1945. For every person receiving benefits, 42 people paid for that single recipient. Seemed like magic, except that few people anticipated the “birth dearth,” a decline in family size, legalized abortion, increased SS benefits, a larger recipient pool, and that taking money from people to pay other people is immoral. But we’re talking about “government funding.” Immoral is its middle name.

Since 1945, the number paying into the system has changed dramatically:

There were only 1.75 full-time private-sector workers in the United States last year [2010] for each person receiving benefits from Social Security, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Social Security board of trustees. That means that for each husband and wife who worked full-time in the private sector last year there was a Social Security recipient somewhere in the country taking benefits from the federal government.




http://conservativebyte.com/2011/09/obamanomics-a-ponzi-scheme/       Rick Perry has come under fire for calling Social Security a Ponzi Scheme. It would be a safe bet that most people do not understand the definition of a Ponzi Scheme OR don’t want to hear the truth and face the facts. According to Investopedia “a Ponzi Scheme is a fraudulent investing scam that promises high rates of return at little risk to investors. The scheme generates returns for older investors by acquiring new investors. This scam actually yields the promised returns to earlier investors, as long as there are more new investors. The Ponzi scam is named after Charles Ponzi, a clerk in Boston who first orchestrated such a scheme in 1919. A Ponzi scheme is similar to a pyramid scheme in that both are based on using new investors’ funds to pay the earlier backers. One difference between the two schemes is that the Ponzi mastermind gathers all relevant funds from new investors and then distributes them. Pyramid schemes, on the other hand, allow each investor to directly benefit depending on how many new investors are recruited. In this case, the person on the top of the pyramid does not at any point have access to all the money in the system. For both schemes, however, eventually there isn’t enough money to go around and the schemes unravel.” So think about this for a bit. What does social security do? Takes money from new workers and promises payments to retired workers. And guess what, just like the Ponzi Scheme, Social Security is running out of money and the scheme is about to unravel. If a private company would try to do something similar to Social Security they would be taken to court.

Obamanomics seems to be the same sort of plan. We spend Trillion$now at a record pace to supposed promises of greatness down the road. Somehow generations from now we’re supposed to be able to pay for current spending, but that of course is always left out of the plan. Obama’s supposed jobs speech will be filled with more “stimulus” spending with buzz words like investments or infrastructure spending. Increased taxes on the supposed rich will be where Obama claims to get this money. (If you voted for Obama, then only you should be on the hook to pay for his spending, how about that?  Maybe on the ballot you should have to put your credit card on it and split his bill?)  Further taxing on an already overtaxed nation will do nothing but stifle any possible job creation as investors and entrepreneurs either save their money or use it elsewhere. Just like the Ponzi Scheme it is doomed to fail.


http://patriotupdate.com/11933/chris-matthews-admits-social-security-is-a-ponzi-scheme              It’s a great anti-poverty program. But then people started to live past 65.  “Today, lots of people fortunately make it past 65,” he said. “They live into their 80s and 90s. They’re still getting checks. The system doesn’t work that way anymore. It’s not as healthy as it once was. So, how does a Republican deal with the fact it is a Ponzi scheme in the sense that the money that’s paid out every day is coming from people who have paid in that day. It’s not being made somewhere.”






AFP (Americans For Prosperity) just crossed the 1.8 million grassroots activist mark. And during the debt limit battle, we ran a television ad detailing President Obama's failure of leadership. AFP's aggressive online messaging efforts resulted in us being one of the most watched non-profit groups on YouTube.com.  Our sister organization, AFP Foundation just completed its Running on Empty Tour, crisscrossing the nation (from Kalispell, Montana to Sarasota, Florida and from Roanoke, Virginia to Lincoln, Nebraska) and educating citizens about Obama's regulations and red tape that are driving up gas prices and utility bills while making every product we buy more expensive -- all to support the Left's agenda including global warming.

Take Action
Help Save American Jobs!
The NLRB is trying to shut down Boeing’s new plant in South Carolina, because they don’t like that South Carolina is a Right to Work state. This dispute serves as a prime example of the kind of regulatory overreach that is costing America jobs.

Thankfully, Representative Tim Scott has introduced H.R. 2587, which would stop the NLRB’s actions. Click here to urge your Member of Congress to support the bill.

Stop the EPA's Attack on Property Rights!
President Obama wants to control all the land and water in the United States. He is attempting to have his EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers ignore the Courts and the American people by having them claim jurisdiction over every drop of moisture in the United States.
Click here to tell Congress to step in and stop this egregious power grab!

Sign up to receive additional policy updates from AFP.
Want to receive regular emails with more in depth policy analysis and strategic updates? 
Click here to become one of our most engaged activists.


What's Wrong with Government Funding of the Arts?

People who oppose Soviet-style collective farms, government subsidies to agriculture or public ownership of grocery stores because they want the provision of food to be a private matter in the marketplace are generally not dismissed as uncivilized or uncaring.  But people who oppose government funding of the arts are frequently accused of being heartless or uncultured, says Lawrence Reed, president of the Foundation for Economic Education.

            The fact that the arts are wildly buffeted by political winds is actually a powerful case against government funding.  Art is too important to depend on politicians, too critical to be undermined by politicization.  Furthermore, expecting government to pay the bill for it is a cop-out, a serious erosion of personal responsibility and respect for private property.

            Virtually every interest group with a claim on the treasury argues that spending for its projects produces some magical "multiplier" effect. Routing other people's money through the government alchemy machine is supposed to somehow magnify national wealth and income, while leaving it in the pockets of those who earned it is somehow a drag.

            Those "studies" that purport to show X return on Y amount of government investment in the arts are generally a laughingstock among economists -- the numbers are often cooked and are almost never put alongside competing uses of public money for comparison.

            Those of us who wish to nurture the arts privately stress other, far more important values.

Money that comes voluntarily from the heart is much more meaningful than money that comes at gunpoint. What's important. Art is just about everything to some people, especially those whose living derives from it.

            But as adults we have to resist the temptation to think that what we are individually doing is somehow the greatest thing since sliced bread and that therefore it must receive more than what people willingly give it.   Source: Lawrence Reed, "What's Wrong with Government Funding of the Arts," Freeman Online, September 2011. For text:

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/ideas-and-consequences/what percente2 percent80 percent99s-wrong-with-government-funding-of-the-arts















http://patriotupdate.com/12114/dems-lose-ny-seat-held-since-1923          The district is overwhelmingly Democratic -- by a ratio of three to one -- yet Weprin, a state Assemblyman, trailed by six percent in two polls prior to the election.  Polls in the district also showed that a majority of voters have an unfavorable view of Obama. 

Turner worked hard to nationalize -- and internationalize -- the race. Turner had argued voters in the heavily Jewish district should choose him over Weprin as a way to send a message to Obama of their displeasure that he isn't more friendly to Israel. Turner is a Roman Catholic while Weprin is an Orthodox Jew.  And some conservative Jewish groups attacked Weprin, a state legislator, over his vote earlier this year in favor of gay marriage.

Koch, one of the city's most popular and influential Democrats, played a pivotal role in the race by embracing Turner.  In late July, Koch urged Democratic voters to back Turner to send a message to Obama, as well as the two parties.  Koch wrote that the special election should serve as a "a referendum that will allow the voters of this district, the largest Jewish district in the country, to register a protest against the positions of President Barack Obama and the Republican leadership on a number of key issues."  Koch also has been dismayed with Obama's Mideast policies that demonstrated "open hostility to the State of Israel."  Read more on Newsmax.com: GOP Win in NY Is 'Stunning Rebuke' to Obama






http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sejqVmG5ZcQ           The late Charlton Heston talks about his support of the Right to Work principle - that no worker should be forced to pay union dues to get or keep a job.    Charlton Heston, R.I.P.   http://www.nrtw.org/   


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_mwjaEI_hM&feature=player_embedded       Ford’s Honest,  Anti-Bailout Commercial





Hans von Spakovsky with the Heritage Foundation writes: "When President Obama was inaugurated, he swore an oath to 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.' Article II, Section 3 directs the President to 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.' Unfortunately, in what has become an all too common occurrence in this administration, Obama is once again bending that oath to the breaking point by specifically not taking care that immigration laws passed by Congress are faithfully executed."   How about DOMA?  Libya?  Fast & Furious?

     John Stahl, the chairman of the Tea Party Immigration Coalition goes even further: "No president should have the ability to circumvent law. In fact, the law says anyone giving aid and comfort to illegal aliens is in serious violation of law. People have been prosecuted under that particular law."

     Stahl went so far as to call Obama's actions an "impeachable offense."






http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-07-28-Obama-debt-limit-14th-amendment-constitution_n.htm       If Congress is unable to agree on a plan to raise the nation's $14.3 trillion debt ceiling, Obama will have to decide which government bills to pay and which not to pay.  Obama has questioned his ability to raise the debt ceiling on his own.  In response to a questioner at a town hall meeting, he said his lawyers "are not persuaded that that is a winning argument."

Ratified in 1868, shortly after the Civil War, part of the 14th Amendment states: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

Shane, who specializes in separation of powers at Ohio State, echoed other legal analysts in saying that clause only obligates Congress to fund the repayment of federal debts, a key issue after the Civil War.

If Obama raised the debt ceiling on his own, "he would effectively be a dictator," Rep. Michele Bachmann R-Minn., a presidential candidate, said on CNN.  Rep. Tim Scott, R-S.C., said unilateral action could be grounds for impeachment.

The United States will have about $306.7billion in expenses next month, but is due to take in only $172.4billion in revenue, according to a recent analysis by the non-profit Bipartisan Policy Center. That leaves the fate of the roughly 80 million checks the government sends out each month in the hands of the Obama administration officials, led by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

But the prolonged debt crisis and uncertainty about who gets paid first has caused jitters among people relying on government checks. The biggest bill due Wednesday: $23 billion in Social Security payments.  Defense Department vendors alone are due to receive more than $31 billion in August, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center.

Donald J. Boudreaux, a professor of economics at George Mason University cautions us: "If President Obama follows through on his threat to withhold paying August’s Social Security obligations, it will be because Obama CHOSE NOT to send out Social Security checks. But the federal government can pay in full its Social Security obligations and its $28.6 billion in Medicare obligations — in addition to paying all of its creditors — and still have $10 billion remaining." [Emphasis Ours]

"The problem is that $10 billion in August isn’t sufficient to pay for all of the other programs. An un-raised debt ceiling, therefore, will oblige Washington politicians to do what they’ve refused to do for generations: make tough choices instead of shifting the costs of today’s spending onto tomorrow’s taxpayers and continuing to spend wildly."


http://blogs.forbes.com/jerrybowyer/2011/07/20/four-questions-for-obamas-14th-amendment-courtiers/       This idea is the latest mutation of the outbreak of Presidential Gigantism that has afflicted the American left. The vaccine is found in Article 1 of the Constitution. 


Article 1, Section 8.  “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States…”

If the decision to add something to the budget in order to “provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States” automatically includes borrowing money to do it, then why are they separate in the text of the constitution? Why is spending in section 7, but borrowing and taxing in section 8? For that matter why is borrowing separated from taxing power if it’s all automatically included? Why does the text of the Constitution explicitly distinguish between taxes imposed “to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare”?

Mr. Former President, does it depend on what your definition of “and” is?

The constitutional deliberations handled spending and borrowing as distinct topics. The Federalist papers written to promote ratification also made that distinction. Neither of those facts make any sense if Clinton is right and spending and borrowing and taxing all amount to one congressional power.

Appropriations and borrowing are separate powers, require separate votes, and the reason no president before asserted that he had the right to borrow as much as he wanted against the explicit legal limit of congress is because both powers, appropriations and borrowing, are explicitly given to the Congress, not to the president.

Why not use asset sales to service the nation’s debt?

When developing countries run into debt crises, we in the developed world advise them, sometimes directly and sometimes through international agencies such as the IMF, to sell assets. Now that we’re acting like a developing country why don’t we follow our own advice?

It’s hard enough to argue with a straight face that the Constitution not only requires us to pay our debts (which it does), but that it further compels us to pay old debts with new debts. It’s even harder to argue that point when we are sitting on trillions of dollars in assets.

Bruce Bartlett suggests a complex and deceitful financial transaction in which the Treasury department “sells” its $300 billion gold reserve to the Fed for a specified period of time to raise money, with the understanding that when the debt ceiling is raised, the Treasury will buy it back from the Fed. How is this not a loan from the Fed the Treasury? If it’s a loan it violates the debt ceiling law. But hey, it reminds us all that the government is sitting on $300 billion in gold. Forget the Enron-type non-debt-but-really-debt transaction — just sell the Gold!

Do we really need to be gold and oil investors? Which reminds me, what about the roughly one trillion dollars worth of oil we have in reserve? Instead of using it to manipulate energy prices, why don’t we just get out of the oil storage business and use the proceeds to service the debt for a couple of years?

There is a huge, unspoken and inaccurate assumption behind the 14er case, namely that the constitutional mandate to pay our debts implies doing it with additional debt.  Yes, the Constitution says we have to pay it. But the Constitution does not say to pay it with further borrowing. It leaves the decision whether to use further borrowing, cost-cutting or new taxes to pay it clearly in the hands of the legislative branch.

If the 14th Amendment transfers debt power from the congress to the president, then why doesn’t it mention the president, and why does it explicitly mention congress?

The locus classicus of Congressional jurisdiction over public debt is in Article 1, Section 8.  But is that jurisdiction rescinded in the 14th Amendment? No way. In fact it is even reiterated in the 14th Amendment – twice! If the presidential sycophants had bothered to read the section immediately following the section which they have been quoting, they would have seen this:

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

Obama’s knee-pad brigade never seems to quote that section. But even the section which they do quote makes the same point clear.

“The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law …shall not be questioned.”

In other words, the only debt protected by the 14th Amendment is the debt authorized by law, that is by the legislative branch.

If the framers of the 14th amendment somehow meant it to transfer borrowing authority from Congress to the President, why didn’t they say so in the ratification debates?

We have extensive records of the framing of the 13th and 14th Amendments (Raoul Berger’s book Government by Judiciary is the best treatment). But neither advocates of the amendment, nor opponents, said anything about a transfer of borrowing power to the executive branch. Given the fact that there was a very great concern about the growth of executive powers, especially among the confederates, the lack of evidence of any objections along these lines is very conspicuous.

If the framers of the 14th Amendment intended to amend Article 1, which gave that power to the congress, why did they not in the official text of the Constitution show it as an amendment to article 1?

The official text of the constitution notes the places in which amendments to the original text supersede it.  For example, the 13th Amendment abolishes slavery and the framers of that amendment went back to the sections that were amended and inserted parenthetical notices of the change.

They did so with all of the other sections of the 13th and 14th amendments, adding parenthetical statements to whichever earlier section of the constitution was being amended, but they made no such change to the Article 1 borrowing powers of the Congress. The reason they did not change the text is because they did not change the powers.

If the framers of the 14th amendment intended for it to imply further borrowing to pay the debt service, than why did they do the opposite in their own budgeting process?

The civil war deficits were proportionately roughly the same as ours are now, but instead of further borrowing, they cut spending drastically. Are the Huffington and Washington Posts better interpreters of this amendment than the men and women who wrote it? That generation dealt with a deficit which was roughly 10% of GDP, the same as ours.

But they dealt with the problem through extensive cost cutting, not through credit expansion. If we believe that they understood the intent of the law which they wrote better than we do, then we cannot seriously argue that they thought the 14th amendment specifically mandated debt expansion rather than other means such as cost reduction to deal with excessive debt.

If the liberal establishment continues to promote this line of reasoning, and, God forbid, the Obama administration acts on it, the promulgators will be exposed for what they are: worshippers of power, abusers of liberty, oppressors of future generations.



The federal government is spending your tax dollars to upgrade bureaucrats to business class when they fly and even to add sand to America's beaches. And they are wasting your money on many other outrageous projects.

Find out more about this wasteful spending and other dirty spending secrets here.

I have been fighting for fiscal responsibility my entire adult life and I have seen a lot of infuriating pork-barrel spending over the years. But I have never seen federal expenses as ludicrous as the ones I'm sharing with you.

I hope you will take a couple of minutes to read how President Obama and his liberal allies in Congress are spending your tax dollars. I know that you will be as outraged as I am.



<http://www.nomoreredink.com> The president is acting like a tough guy who is going to personally withhold the Social Security checks of widows and orphans if Republicans in Congress don't raise the limit on his credit card by trillions of dollars.


He's threatening to invoke economic chaos and havoc by presumably ordering his treasury secretary to default on loan obligations if he doesn't get his way.


In short, he's acting like a spoiled child who has been misbehaving. If his reckless and abominable behavior is corrected or challenged, he promises to be really bad.


Here's how we are going to stop him in his tracks: We're continuing the full-court press of the "No More Red Ink" campaign through this evening. <http://www.nomoreredink.com>


Let me simplify this debt-limit debate: Obama is already destroying the economy with unprecedented levels of spending borrowed money. If he is permitted to continue, there will be no money in short order for widows and orphans, and default on debt will be an inevitability. We can say no to him now, or we can allow him to continue to wreck the economy and roll up more debt at higher interest rates for two more years – with the possibility of America reaching a fiscal point of no return.




For months now, you and I have known about the serious nature of our country's debt crisis.  We have known we would hit the debt ceiling in early August.  Republicans have put forward a plan entitled, "Cut, Cap and Balance."  The plan cuts government spending immediately, caps the growth of government spending and finally requires a constitutional amendment for the federal government to have a balanced budget.  Essentially, it requires the federal government to live within its means...much like you and I do.  We can't spend what we don't have!

With a fragile economy and high unemployment...we certainly don't need to raise taxes to solve this problem! 
We need to cut the size and scope of government.

However, President Obama has shown a severe lack of leadership.  In fact, when Republicans refused to raise taxes, this President angrily walked out of the meetings.  His behavior reminded me of a young child who threw a temper tantrum when he did not get his own way.

Is this leadership? No...this is a leadership crisis! It is time to put a real leader and problem solver in the White House.

When I took over as President of Godfather's Pizza, the company was staring bankruptcy straight in the face.  We couldn't raise prices...yet we turned the company around by cutting the size and scope of our overhead operations.  We cut our budgets across the board.  We streamlined our operations.  We eliminated duplicate services.

We can do the same thing in Washington!

But I need your help.

I hope you will please take a moment and contribute $5, $10, $20, $50, $100 or any amount (up to $2500) you can afford.

Thanks to you and your support, momentum is on our side.  We continue to climb in every poll.  New volunteers and supporters across Iowa and the United States are stepping forward every day.  We have even captured the attention of the main-stream-media.

We cannot stop.  We cannot turn back. 
I hope you will take a moment and donate whatever amount you can for our cause.
Thank you for all your support and generosity.
Herman Cain

P.S. In 1986, I was able to turn a struggling pizza franchise around with common sense problem solving skills and courageous leadership.  Your donation of $19.86 today will send a message that it's time we take those same common sense, problem solving leadership skills to Washington, DC, to solve the debt crisis. The time is now.  Please help us today.




August 12, 2011    Are Taxpayers Getting Their Money's Worth?

Citizens across the country are struggling to make ends meet.  They are frustrated with the failure of their elected representatives in Congress to address pressing national problems to make things better for all Americans.  Compounding their frustration is the fact that members of Congress receive pay and benefits far in excess of what average working Americans receive, says the Taxpayers Protection Alliance.

In addition to a salary of $174,000 per year, which by itself puts members of Congress among the highest-paid 5 percent of American workers, Congressmen and women receive more generous fringe benefits than typical American employees.

In fact, congressional compensation including benefits totals around $285,000 per year.

In a time when unemployment rates are at unacceptably high levels and those who are working are often subject to "pay for performance" standards, it is galling to many to hear of the generous pay and benefits Congress has provided for itself.

Members of Congress should be adequately compensated for their efforts.  However, the salaries and benefits make them among the best compensated employees in the American workforce.  Given record budget deficits and Congress' seeming inability to agree on plans to address the shortfall, many Americans are skeptical of what they receive in return for what they are paying their elected representatives.  Immediate steps need to be taken to cut Congressional salaries and benefits and reassure Americans that sacrifices made during this economic downturn are being widely shared.

Source: "Are Taxpayers Getting Their Money's Worth?" Taxpayers Protection Alliance, July 2011.

For text: http://www.protectingtaxpayers.org/assets/files/Congressional_Compensation.pdf

For more on Tax and Spending Issues: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_Category=25


The High Cost of Public Employee Health Benefits

In light of budget deficits and the need to identify ways to reduce spending in states across the United States, public discussion has increasingly focused on health care costs for public employees.  Much of that discussion has focused on the relatively low share of insurance premiums paid by government workers when compared with their private-sector counterparts.  Although this is a real phenomenon, it is not the only, or even the most important, reason for high health insurance costs, says Josh Barro, the Walter B. Wriston Fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

Among the reasons identified for the cost differences are:

Public employees contribute less to their premiums -- an average of about 15 percent of the overall premium, compared with about 25 percent in the private sector.

Public employee plans offer more generous benefits, including lower deductibles and lower copayments.

Governments require shorter enrollment waiting periods for new employees than in the private sector.

Public employees have higher opt-in rates for employer-provided coverage: 26 percent of private-sector workers choose not to participate in available employer health plans, while just 16 percent of government workers chose not to.

Realigning government-employee contributions to match those of the private sector could save taxpayers millions of dollars a year as a start.  However, this simple approach does not bend the cost curve over time -- benefits will still continue to grow astronomically -- and further, it will understandably upset workers by reducing their take-home pay.  Barro recommends instead that governments work more broadly to reduce their spending on health benefits -- including by reducing the overall cost of plans offered to employees. 

Source: Josh Barro, "Cadillac Coverage: The High Cost of Public Employee Health Benefits," Manhattan Institute, August 2011.For text: http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/cr_65.pdf



http://www.theusreport.com/the-us-report/2010/11/22/tax-lover-warren-buffett-can-pay-more-taxes-voluntarily.html  Mr. Buffett and his fellow tax lovers should just refrain from taking any deductions or credits on their own income taxes. He could certainly save some of the money he more than likely pays accountants to whittle his tax liability down. That would be a passive, non-invasive voluntary tax increase.

Same goes for President Barack Obama, members of Congress and others. Any Democrat supporter should do the same. You like taxes? Pay taxes on the gross amount you earn. Simple.

Ask yourself a question. If Democrats do get their tax increase do you honestly believe they will spend less? Or do you agree they’ll simply use the boosted revenue to spend more?

Ask yourself another question. Do you honestly believe the super rich are going to pay more in taxes? I don’t. That tax increase will hit self-employed professionals and small business owners who can’t afford to hire Buffett-level accountants.

Ask yourself a few questions about Buffett’s consistency. Right now he’s praising the bailouts. He should be. CSNBC said, “Buffett's portfolio was heavily dependent on the government's decision to save the financial industry. At the time of the crisis and today, the Berkshire portfolio includes a number of financial firms. “

But if you do a little time travel, here’s what PolitiFact said. Buffett criticized Obama’s “handling of the bank crisis.” Buffett’s theory: “a bank that's going to go broke should be allowed to go broke.”

Now Vice-President Joe Biden would call Buffett, who backed the Democrat ticket in 2008, a patriot. Because according to Biden’s campaign rhetoric, you’re a patriot if you like to pay taxes. Funny thing is I never heard Biden call Treasury Sec. Tim Geithner or Rep. Charlie Rangel traitors for the muddy waters flowing across their tax returns.

Bottom line on Buffet: you tax lovers can pay more. Just pay the top rate on your total income. There are certainly enough of you, particularly in the hedge fund and alternative energy sectors, that you could probably have a sizable impact on the deficit.

And Democrats could keep on doing what they do best—growing and fattening up government, spending money, buying votes and passing tax increases.



Warren Buffett believes that the super-rich should pay more taxes. Buffett is a great investor, but he’s a lousy judge of government. Do you think that he would ever invest in a company that was run like the federal government? If there’s one thing businessmen know, is that when money is spent, it’s their money, and there’s no easy way to get more money if they run out. They can’t steal it; they can’t force people to give it to them; it’s expensive to borrow, and they have to pay it back with interest; and they can’t raise their debt ceiling when financial times get rough.  Buffett is super-rich. He’s not going to have to pay taxes on the money he’s already made and already paid taxes on. It’s only on any new money he makes that he’ll have to shell out more in taxes. This means that the up-and-coming super rich are at a disadvantage. Calling for higher taxes on these newcomers is going to put people like Buffett, Bill Gates, and other guilt-ridden rich people at an advantage.

            It’s typical of the rich, whether individuals or corporations, to use the power of government to put regulatory roadblocks in front of late-to-the game competitors.   The federal government will just piss it away. Congress and the president will use it to buy votes. What do they care? It’s not their money. If they need more, they can tax the less than super-rich.  Please explain to me how anyone should have to pay millions of dollars in taxes, no matter how much they earn? They certainly aren’t getting millions of dollars of services in return. It’s obvious that their confiscated money will go to other people who did nothing to earn the windfall.

            While most Americans would agree that stealing is wrong, they don’t seem to have a problem if some other entity steals for them. Consider this example. If John has a financial need, would it be right for him to rob his neighbors to supply that need? Most people would say no. Would it be right for John to get some of his friends to steal for him? Again, most people would say no. What if John convinces enough people to create a civil government that takes money from his neighbors to pay for things John and others need? Now the picture has changed, and I suspect that a lot of people would not call it theft because elected government officials are doing the taking.

            I have a better idea for Mr. Buffett. Take the extra tax money you want to pay and set up a venture capital institute. People who have new business ideas or products that need investment capital would present their ideas to a board of experienced entrepreneurs who would evaluate the business plans. If accepted, the business would be capitalized. Existing business enterprises that needed additional capital for expansion could also participate. Four billion would go a long way.

            Another Buffett-funded enterprise could be a school for entrepreneurs where students could learn how to run a business and pick up the basis in accounting, marketing, and advertising.

            Buffett and other high income earners will be able to assuage their guilt for being rich, raise up a generation of new business leaders, increase employment, curtail rising economic dependency, and even expand the tax base all without raising anybody’s taxes. So Warren, don’t dump your money down a rat hole. Do something productive and lasting with it. Invest in Americans, not in the federal government.
Read more:
Hey, Warren, No One’s Stopping You from Paying More Taxes | Godfather Politics http://godfatherpolitics.com/529/hey-warren-no-ones-stopping-you-from-paying-more-taxes/#ixzz1VOlHRRql


Not only are Buffett’s claims hypocritical, they’re factually incorrect. 

First of all, nine-tenths of the small businesses and individuals who would be hit by the tax increases advocated by Obama and his minions don’t even qualify as “millionaires or billionaires.”  As pointed out by The Wall Street Journal in response to Mr. Buffett’s column, 90% of them are merely “thousandaires”: 

“In 2009, 237,000 taxpayers reported income above $1 million and they paid $178 billion in taxes.  A mere 8,274 filers reported income above $10 million, and they paid only $54 billion in taxes.  But 3.92 million filers reported income above $200,000 in 2009, and they paid $434 billion in taxes.  To put it another way, roughly 90% of the tax filers who would pay more under Mr. Obama’s plan aren’t millionaires, and 99.99% aren’t billionaires.” 

Second, as Stephen Moore pointed out in his commentary, “Warren Buffet Is Wrong on Taxes,” millionaires and billionaires actually pay a higher portion of their income in taxes than the middle class, not lower. 

“According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), middle-class families in 2007 (earning between $34,000 and $50,000) paid an effective 14.3% of their income in all federal taxes.  The top 5% of income earners paid 27.9% and the top 1% paid 29.5%.  And what about the highest earners?  Americans with annual incomes above $2 million paid an average of 32% of their income in federal taxes (the most recent year for which data are available).” 

It’s bad enough that Buffett is incorrect and providing ammunition for those who spread his toxic message of higher taxes.  But he’s a hypocrite as well. After all, nothing is stopping him from simply paying taxes at the rate he advocates.  People are perfectly entitled to send additional tax payments to the IRS if they wish.  So if Mr. Buffett truly regrets that he paid only 17.4% of his income to the federal government, he could have paid the 36% rate that he claims is his office staff’s average. 

The same is true of Obama, who did not file his 2010 income tax return at the rate he prescribes.   Why not? 

Additionally, the higher tax rate that Obama and liberals advocate would disproportionately penalize small businesses, which create most new jobs in America.  How’s that for a jobs program?  Nor will higher taxes alleviate the federal deficit or growing debt.  History shows time and again that the federal government simply spends new revenues, rather than pay off accumulated debt.

Those who advocate higher taxes should get their facts correct before advocating policies that will harm our economy and kill jobs.  They also have an obligation to practice what they preach. 

The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, or AFL-CIO, sponsored a poll showing union members supported Obama by a 68-30 margin and strongly influenced their family members. According to the survey, Obama won among white men who are union members by 18 points. Union gun-owners backed Obama by 12 points, while union veterans voted for Obama by a 25-point margin. In the general population, Obama lost these groups by significant margins.

Political Affairs, the Community Party USA's magazine, quoted AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, a longtime member of the Boston chapter of the Democrat Socialists for America, expressing hope labor unions can continue working with Obama.


In an article last week at People's Weekly World, the official newspaper of the Communist Party USA, Webb discussed the need for a third party consisting of the so-called working class and labor as well as "racially and nationally oppressed people, women, youth, immigrants, seniors, gay and straight."

Webb, however, recognized that such a party is not likely to emerge by next year.

"Millions who have to be at the core of this party still operate under the umbrella of the Democratic Party, albeit increasingly in an independent fashion," he noted.

Webb said that for communists there are major differences between Democrats and Republicans. He urged his supported to continue to back the Democrats.


When the people surveyed were told how much is actually spent in our schools -- $12,922 per student annually, according to the most recent government report -- then only 49 percent said they want to pony up more dollars.

            Later in the same survey, Peterson et al. asked, "Do you think that taxes to fund public schools around the nation should increase, decrease or stay about the same?"  When asked about spending in this way, which addresses the tax issue frankly, Peterson et al. found that only 35 percent support an increase.

            Sixty-five percent oppose the idea, saying instead that spending should either decrease or stay about the same.

            So there is the nation's debt crisis in a nutshell.  If people aren't told that nearly $13,000 is currently being spent per pupil, or if they aren't reminded that there is no such thing as a free lunch, they can be persuaded to think schools should be spending still more, says Peterson.

Source: Paul E. Peterson, "Do We Really Need to Spend More on Schools?" Wall Street Journal, August 5, 2011.  William Howell, Martin West and Paul E. Peterson, "The 2011 Education Next-PEPG Survey," EducationNext, Fall 2011.

For text:




View Enlarged Image        Obama's Gulf Oil Disaster Timeline as Obama "votes present" .  More On The Job Training for this inexperienced politician.



Delayed Response

 Posted 06/30/2010 06:59 PM ET

Deepwater Disaster: Washington is finally accepting international help for dealing with the crude spill in the Gulf. It took only 70 days of gushing for the White House to agree to the aid. The delay is inexcusable.

On Day 3 of the Katrina wreckage, the Bush administration waived coastal laws, including the Jones Act, to keep oil production and shipping moving.

The White House, widely condemned for its handling of the hurricane's aftermath, didn't go begging for a waiver, wring its hands or consult with union leaders.

Michael Chertoff simply said "I am exercising my discretion and authority to waive the coastwise laws" because "such waivers are necessary in the interest of national defense."

As director of Homeland Security, Chertoff had the authority — and the backing of an executive office that was hustling to prevent the Katrina problems from spreading.

On Wednesday, after as much as 137 million gallons have flowed from the broken BP well, the plodding Obama White House announced it was accepting help from 12 countries — of the 27 that offered — in cleaning up the mess. What took so long?

This White House has been scolded for refusing to waive the Jones Act, a union-backed protectionist law that says the vessels that carry merchandise between U.S. ports must be built and owned by U.S. citizens, and flagged in this country.

But apparently it didn't even need to formally waive the law, at least if Tuesday's events are any indication. All it needed to do was say "yes" to the many offers of assistance.

Three weeks ago, President Obama told Louisiana residents that he couldn't "suck" up the spilled crude "with a straw." No one ever said he should. But he could have used the services of those who, in effect, are able to do just that. The Dutch, masters at handling maritime crises, offered help a mere three days after the spill. Their ships, which are far more advanced than the American vessels, would clean the water while their experts would build sand dikes to protect the land from whatever crude wasn't sopped up.

Even better: The Dutch wouldn't charge for the use of their ships.

Didn't matter. Neither did BP's wishes to have the Dutch brought in. Geert Visser, consul general in Houston for the Netherlands, told the Financial Post that Washington's response to the offer was "Thanks, but no thanks."

Other offers were similarly rejected. Why? Did the White House believe that accepting foreign help would have forced it to waive the Jones Act and fear that the unions that it owes for its 2008 election would be outraged? http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/539049/201006301859/Delayed-Response.aspx


                      It was the failure of this administration to implement a 1994 plan that made the situation far worse.  The Mobile (Ala.) Press-Register has reported that an "In-Situ Burn" plan produced by federal agencies in 1994 called for responding to a major oil spill in the Gulf with the immediate use of what are called fire booms. The water-cooled booms contain surface oil in the early stages of a spill and burn it at the site far from shore

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/537282/201006141903/The-Last-Straw.aspx           Has anyone seen the FEMA director in the Gulf or on the side of a milk carton? Where is Energy Secretary Chu? Off polishing a solar panel somewhere perhaps? You'd think the administration could have found out there is a company in Maine able to produce 90,000 feet of containment boom a day. Why was the incident commander, Adm. Thad Allen, unaware of that fact until ABC's Jake Tapper made him aware of it in an interview? lack of leadership. Now we have perhaps hundreds of thousands of feet of containment boom sitting idle in a Maine warehouse. On May 2 — six weeks ago — Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal requested that federal authorities and BP provide 3 million feet of absorbent boom, 5 million feet of hard boom and 30 "jack-up" barges. Couldn't someone not attending a fundraiser or party at the White House have used Google to find a supplier? Louisiana authorities also asked the Army Corps of Engineers for an emergency permit for a specific plan to dredge and build new barrier islands to keep the oil from shore and wetlands. How hard are those tasks to perform, Mr. President? Put away the teleprompter and pick up the phone.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/535719/201005271857/Slick-Real-Slick.aspx                George W. Bush was blamed for the federal response to Katrina, even though the state of Louisiana and the city of New Orleans, both governed by Democrats at the time, dropped the ball as first and primary responders.  (Look at other states like Florida that deal with hurricanes and see how it's supposed to be handled if local governments are run by people who are competent and responsible)

It wasn't Bush who ordered people into the Superdome instead of out of the city. It wasn't Bush who left school buses to sit empty in a flooded parking lot. But this spill is on Obama's watch.

Unlike Katrina, where disputes and confusion quickly arose between federal, state and local authorities over who should have done what and when, the handling of this accident in federal waters was a clear federal responsibility. It was the failure of this administration to implement contingency plans in place since 1994 to contain and burn the oil that made the situation far worse. It's not Bush's fault.

President Obama has just made his second trip to the Gulf in a nearly 40-day span. Bush made something like seven in the same time span while supervising, among other things, the Coast Guard plucking something like 30,000 people off their rooftops to safety.  While the oil washed up in Louisiana marshes, Obama took time out to raise money for the re-election of Barbara "Call Me Senator" Boxer in California.

As the St. Petersburg Times editorialized on the first Friday of the BP blowout: "President Obama met U2's Bono in the Oval Office on Friday when he should have been headed to the Gulf Coast."  While the Gulf Coast faced an ecological disaster, President Obama yukked it up at the White House Correspondent's Dinner. His following Saturday radio address didn't even mention the oil rig explosion in which 11 workers died.














 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110519/us_ac/8500377_lottery_winner_on_food_stamps_might_be_a_good_thing_1          The story of a Michigan lottery winner who is collecting the equivalent of food stamps is an interesting tale. On some levels, it is easy to appreciate the frugality of someone, who even with $2 million in lottery winnings, continued to qualify and receive state funds to purchase food. However, those levels are very few. The man in question, Leroy Fick, even goes so far as to deny that he feels bad for taking advantage of a loophole in the system, which is of course, something that businesses do every single day. The fact he that this man got away with collecting for eleven months is just as staggering.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/572492/201105171845/Reform-That-Works.aspx          Social Security, according to a just-released Trustee report, is now "permanently cash negative." But for any who  think saving citizens' retirements is impossible, take a look at what's been done in Galveston, Texas.

Thirty years ago, tiny Galveston opted out of the entire Social Security system for its county employees and introduced private accounts.  It was the brainchild of a county judge, Ray Holbrook, and a few other officials, who took a good look at the parlous state of Social Security in the late 1970s and came up with an "Alternate Plan" of privately managed personal accounts they believed would outperform the public model. An opt-out clause in the original 1935 law (since shut) let them try something different.

How did they do? Three decades later, Galveston County employees take home pensions with nearly a 7% average annual return compounded over 30 years.  By contrast, Social Security recipients get a 1% to 2% return and newer workers will get even less. So Galveston's retirement checks are about four times the size of Social Security and come with life insurance, too.

It was good old American common sense, using a conservatively managed fund that couldn't be raided by politicians — which is why today the Social Security trust fund is loaded with nonrecourse IOUs, not real assets.

Like Chile's more sophisticated private system, which offered more worker choices and managed transition costs, Galveston's system shows that private systems outperform public ones, and workers willingly choose private systems when placed to a vote — 66% of Galveston's employees voted "yes."

Now that the Social Security Trustees report shows the Trust Fund will go broke by 2036 — a year earlier than last year's report — and holds a 75-year unfunded liability of $6.5 trillion, some, like Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee, say Social Security as we know it must end.

Yet even with the successes of Galveston and two other Texas counties — Matagorda and Brazoria — it's no longer possible to opt out of Social Security.  In 1983, Rep. Jack Brooks, D-Texas, saw the threat the Galveston system posed to politicians' use of the Social Security trust fund as their slush fund after 50 Texas counties lined up to join Galveston.

"It was more a political issue than an economic issue," said Judge Holbrook last year on Fox News.  With the bad news just getting worse, it's time to recognize that private social security can indeed work and ought to be available for everyone who wants it.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=573038&p=1            Most Americans living below the official poverty line own a car or truck — and government entitlement programs seldom provide cars and trucks. Most people living below the official poverty line also have air conditioning, color television and a microwave oven — and these too are not usually handed out by government entitlement programs.

Cell phones and other electronic devices are by no means unheard of in low-income neighborhoods, where children would supposedly go hungry if there were no school lunch programs. In reality, low-income people are overweight even more often than other Americans

As for the elderly, 80% are homeowners whose monthly housing costs are less than $400, including property taxes, utilities and maintenance.

The desperately poor elderly conjured up in political and media rhetoric are — in the world of reality — the wealthiest segment of the American population. The average wealth of older households is nearly three times the wealth of households headed by people in the 35- to 44-year-old bracket, and more than 15 times the wealth of households headed by someone under 35 years of age.  If the wealthiest segment of the population cannot pay their own medical bills, who can?

As for the rest of the poor, Professor Walter Williams of George Mason University long ago showed that you could give the poor enough money to lift them all above the official poverty line for a fraction of what it costs to support a massive welfare state bureaucracy.

We don't need to send the country into bankruptcy, in the name of the poor, by spending trillions of dollars on people who are not poor, and who could take care of themselves. The poor have been used as human shields behind which the expanding welfare state can advance.

The goal is not to keep the poor from starving but to create dependency, because dependency translates into votes for politicians who play Santa Claus.

We have all heard the old saying about how giving a man a fish feeds him for a day, while teaching him to fish feeds him for a lifetime. Independence makes for a healthier society, but dependency is what gets votes for politicians.  For politicians, giving a man a fish every day of his life is the way to keep getting his vote. "Entitlement" is just a fancy word for dependency


http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/544404/201008191856/Support-Your-Border-Sheriff.aspx              Legislators in 22 states — Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas and Utah — have introduced or are considering introducing similar legislation. Are the feds going to sue them all?













 "Arizona, Michigan and every other state have the authority to enforce immigration laws, and it is appalling to see President Obama use taxpayer dollars to stop a state's efforts to protect its own borders," says Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox.   The first would be to drop the lawsuit against Arizona that blocks its full enforcement of SB1070. The law allows local police, who already receive the necessary training under the federal 287(g) program, to essentially enforce a clone federal immigration law — just as they enforce federal speed limits.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/558016/201012281843/Fresno-Zimbabwe.aspx      Local newspapers and Fresno County officials are trying to rally Facebook users to vote for Fresno in a corporate contest sponsored by Wal-Mart for $1 million in charity food donations for the hungry. Fresno, a city of 505,000, has taken the national lead because 24.1% of Fresno's families are going hungry.

Civic spirit is good, but something big is wrong here. Fresno is the agricultural capital of America. More food per acre in more variety can be grown in the fertile Central Valley surrounding this community than on any other land in America — perhaps in the world.

Yet far from being a paradise, Fresno is starting to resemble Zimbabwe or 1930s Ukraine, a victim of a famine machine that is entirely man-made, not by red communists this time, but by greens.

State and federal officials, driven by the agenda of environmental extremists, have made it extremely difficult for the valley's farms  It's high time the greens who did this to the richest farmland in the country be held accountable.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/534728/201005201852/Water-Sanity-For-Central-California.aspx                       Based on a judicial ruling, some of the most prized and productive agricultural land in the country was turned into a wasteland after its water was shut off.

The ruling was derived from an 800-page "biological opinion" put out by regulators enforcing the National Environmental Policy Act, ostensibly to protect a finger-sized fish called the delta smelt and some other wildlife. Regulators complained that smelt were getting ground up in pumping stations that brought river water from California's north to its south, so the water had to stop.

Even the judge was appalled at being forced into the ruling but had no choice, given the law, and tried to cushion the impact.  Tuesday, that same judge, District Judge Oliver Wanger declared to federal regulators that they must consider the impact of their "draconian" actions on human communities, something they've never done up until now.  "Federal defendants completely abdicated their responsibility to consider alternative remedies," Wanger wrote.

He also ripped into the environmental regulators for their junk science "guesstimates," stating that their shut-off "lacked factual and scientific justification, while effectively ignoring the irreparable harm (their regulations) have inflicted on humans and the human environment," according to the San Francisco Chronicle.  It's a landmark ruling that makes a superb use of checks and balances on power, given that up until now, these bureaucrats have never been held accountable for their actions.

Adding insult to injury, water has increasingly been turned into a bargaining chit, with Washington using access to it as political leverage to force local congressmen to vote for unpopular bills like health care reform.




http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/the_purposeful_flooding_of_americas_heartland.html     Another gov’t caused disaster from the creators of the Post Office, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, EPA, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.  How you vote matters.  Some sixty years ago, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) began the process of taming the Missouri by constructing a series of six dams.  The idea was simple: massive dams at the top moderating flow to the smaller dams below, generating electricity while providing desperately needed control of the river's devastating floods.

The stable flow of water allowed for the construction of the concrete and earthen levees that protect more than 10 million people who reside and work within the river's reach.  It allowed millions of acres of floodplain to become useful for farming and development.  In fact, these uses were encouraged by our government, which took credit for the resulting economic boom.  By nearly all measures, the project was a great success.

But after about thirty years of operation, as the environmentalist movement gained strength throughout the seventies and eighties, the Corps received a great deal of pressure to include some specific environmental concerns into their MWCM (Master Water Control Manual, the "bible" for the operation of the dam system).  Preservation of habitat for at-risk bird and fish populations soon became a hot issue among the burgeoning environmental lobby.  The pressure to satisfy the demands of these groups grew exponentially as politicians eagerly traded their common sense for "green" political support.

Things turned absurd from there.  An idea to restore the nation's rivers to a natural (pre-dam) state swept through the environmental movement and their allies.  Adherents enlisted the aid of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), asking for an updated "Biological Opinion" from the FWS that would make ecosystem restoration an "authorized purpose" of the dam system.  The Clinton administration threw its support behind the change, officially shifting the priorities of the Missouri River dam system from flood control, facilitation of commercial traffic, and recreation to habitat restoration, wetlands preservation, and culturally sensitive and sustainable biodiversity.

Congress created a committee to advise the Corps on how best to balance these competing priorities.  The Missouri River Recovery and Implementation Committee has seventy members.  Only four represent interests other than environmentalism.  The recommendations of the committee, as one might expect, have been somewhat less than evenhanded.

The Corps began to utilize the dam system to mimic the previous flow cycles of the original river, holding back large amounts of water upstream during the winter and early spring in order to release them rapidly as a "spring pulse."  The water flows would then be restricted to facilitate a summer drawdown of stream levels.  This new policy was highly disruptive to barge traffic and caused frequent localized flooding, but a multi-year drought masked the full impact of the dangerous risks the Corps was taking.

This year, despite more than double the usual amount of mountain and high plains snowpack (and the ever-present risk of strong spring storms), the true believers in the Corps have persisted in following the revised MWCM, recklessly endangering millions of residents downstream. 

Missouri Senator Roy Blunt agrees, calling the management plan "flawed" and "poorly thought out."  Sen. Blunt characterized the current flooding as "entirely preventable" and told reporters that he intends to force changes to the plan.















 http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/559836/201101131834/Haiti-Without-Tears.aspx  After billions in foreign aid, it's obvious the problem is not lack of resources, but bad governance.












Ordinary citizens across the world were moved by the suffering of Haitians in the wake of the 6.8 quake that struck Haiti's capital last Jan. 12. The disaster left a tenth of Haiti's population, 213,000 people, dead, and nearly 2 million homeless.

Major infrastructure, and even the presidential palace, lay in ruins. The specter of that prompted private citizens everywhere to donate $2.4 billion to help the nation rebuild, while foreign governments pledged $4 billion. It was an unprecedented global effort to help a badly stricken nation in an extraordinary circumstance.

One year on, it doesn't seem to have done much good. A mere 5% of the rubble has been cleared, for one. More than 800,000 of the homeless remain in squalid tent camps plagued by predators. Cholera has broken out, and the economy is in the dumps.

Amid all that cash and goodwill, the problem is not a lack of resources, but a lack of good government. Fact is, corruption and red tape are proving more destructive than even an earthquake.  In every case the root of the problem is government red tape, the same costs and obstructions that hit Haiti's private sector and ultimately impede outside investment.  For starters, it seems logical that aid from nongovernment groups would be allowed to enter the country duty-free. It's not.  Under Haitian law, aid groups face the exact same sea of tariffs, barriers, regulations and taxes that normal businesses do. Any aid group that wants an exemption must apply for it, filling out a year's worth of paperwork, something only groups there before the earthquake might have had.

Anyone else, meaning most of the 900 aid groups there now to help, pays the same 40% tariff businesses pay on goods entering the country — whether vehicles, hospital beds, medicine, or food.  Taxes and fees aren't all. According to the 2011 Index of Economic Freedom, http://www.heritage.org/index/  Ranking where Haiti ranks 133 out of 179 nations surveyed

                It shows that the ultimate problem in Haiti is not how much cash is pledged, but how much freedom is permitted. Plenty of money has been given. Haiti's government must change, or all that aid will be for naught — and future private investors will ask, why bother?


http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2011/02/16/self-inflicted_poverty/page/full/                      Why is it that Egyptians do well in the U.S. but not Egypt? Let's look at Egypt. According to various reports, about 40 percent of Egypt's 80 million people live on or below the $2 per-day poverty line set by the World Bank. Unemployment is estimated to be twice the official rate pegged at 10 percent.

Much of Egypt's economic problems are directly related to government interference and control that have resulted in weak institutions vital to prosperity.   More than 90 percent of Egyptians hold their property without legal title.

De Soto says, "Without clear legal title to their assets and real estate, in short, these entrepreneurs own what I have called 'dead capital' -- property that cannot be leveraged as collateral for loans, to obtain investment capital, or as security for long-term contractual deals. And so the majority of these Egyptian enterprises remain small and relatively poor."

"To open a small bakery, our investigators found, would take more than 500 days. To get legal title to a vacant piece of land would take more than 10 years of dealing with red tape. To do business in Egypt, an aspiring poor entrepreneur would have to deal with 56 government agencies and repetitive government inspections."

Those countries with greater economic liberty and private property rights tend also to have stronger protections of human rights. And as an important side benefit of that greater economic liberty and human rights protections, their people are wealthier. We need to persuade our fellow man around the globe that liberty is a necessary ingredient for prosperity.


http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/522587/201003011837/Chile-Vs-Haiti.aspx                             Yet unlike Haiti, which lost upwards of 250,000 people in its 7.0 quake Jan. 12, Chile's death toll as of Monday was 725, fewer than even the 1,800 who died in New Orleans' 2005 Katrina.  

Unlike poverty-stricken Haiti, Chile has embraced capitalism. Because of this profound reshaping of Chile's economy, a foundation was laid for the creation of wealth in the private sector. Private savings, investment and incomes have all skyrocketed, leading to a larger tax base for government.

That tax base made it possible for government to build infrastructure like highways, high-tech communications and schools. It also helped them afford better earthquake preparation in building codes and disaster education for the public. All of this is possible because of the invisible architecture of the free market — and because Chile's government is honest, accountable and transparent.

Haiti had none of those advantages. Its property rights and legal system in particular rank as the worst in the hemisphere. According to the 2010 Index of Economic Freedom, Haiti ties with Cuba for last place on property rights and ranks below it on corruption.

Chile, meanwhile, ranks among the global top 10.  With no exaggeration, Saturday's earthquake shows that Chile's choice to unabashedly embrace capitalism, made decades ago, has saved thousands of lives.

We hope Haiti's rebuilding will now encourage that country to do the same — however tough it may be.



http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/570407/201104271854/Egyptian-Fairy-Tale.htm                     Pew's poll — based on 1,000 face-to-face interviews with Egyptian adults in April — merely confirms a similar one last spring. As we noted during the riots, Pew found that 84% favor the death penalty for people who leave the Muslim faith; 82% support stoning adulterers; and 77% think thieves should have their hands cut off.

what Egyptians thought of the U.S. and Israel. Despite the Obama administration's support for their uprising and the media's glorification of it (while enduring beatings and even gang rapes), nearly 8 in 10 Egyptians still hate us.

Egyptian views on Israel are starker: A solid majority wants to return to war footing against the Jewish nation. By 54% to 36%, Egyptians say a new government should tear up the peace treaty with Israel.

So who do they like? Fully 75% of Egyptians expressed a favorable view of the radical Muslim Brotherhood.

Running under the newly formed "Freedom and Justice" party, the Brotherhood seeks to replace the old regime in this September's elections and instate Islamic law. Its platform bars women and Christians from the presidency. It also establishes a board of Muslim clerics (read: mullahs) to oversee the government.




 News column: Obama a 'living and breathing nightmare' http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=337173#ixzz1WcxGjP3o     An Israeli news columnist is scorching Barack Obama as possibly the worst U.S. president in history, calling him "a living and breathing nightmare."

Yigal Walt of Ynetnews says Obama is solidifying his status as the worst president in American history. The leader who promised us a bright future of peace and fraternity is leading the American empire – and the rest of the world with it – into a dark abyss."    "Ever since he settled into the Oval Office, Obama has been hopping from one disaster to the next, making every possible mistake, boosting enemies and disregarding allies while ruining everything he touches in the process," Walt writes.

"The Return of the Great Depression" warns everyone "it is not over. It has only begun" ...





How about an Amendment to the Constitution that limits the right to vote with the ability to be so Patriotic in paying income taxes. If you pay income taxes you can vote. Since around 51% of Americans don’t pay an income tax, our electorate will be cut in half. Why should that be a bad thing, Mr. Liberal. After all, they aren’t Patriotic.  Those who participate in the ability of our government to function in their most Patriotic act of working to fund it get to participate in electing its leaders who run the government they fund.  Read more: Requirement to Vote: Pay Income Taxes | Godfather Politics http://godfatherpolitics.com/262/requirement-to-vote-pay-taxes/#ixzz1WdJEYzQJ




http://patriotupdate.com/6115/obama-the-tax-hypocrite   In 2010 the Obama household–after every loophole, donation, and tax exempt charitable donation had been deducted –recorded earnings of $1,700,000 and change. To repeat, this wasn’t gross earnings, this was adjusted earnings. This is the amount that he the president had a responsibility to pay taxes on.

From reports concerning the president’s tax returns, however, it looks like he paid roughly $454,000 and change in federal taxes. Sounds like a lot doesn’t it?  But on taxable income of $1,700,000 that only works out to be just a tad more than 26 percent. Whoa! Wait a minute… The president–who had a taxable income of $1,700,000–paid how much?  Had President Obama voluntarily paid his taxes at the rate he believes everyone else in his income bracket ought to pay (39%) in federal taxes, he SHOULD have paid $663,000.  But wait there’s more… To put the cherry on top of the sundae, President Obama even received a tax refund back from the government of $12,000.






Few of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence and drafted the U.S. Constitution had ever seen a public school, and yet they benefitted from a free system of education vastly superior to the imagined benefits of today’s state-controlled schooling.   What happened over the course of the last two and a half centuries?  Why did Americans surrender the educational freedom that produced such widespread academic excellence to embrace a state of functional illiteracy under complete government control?  In his seminal book Is Public Education Necessary?, Samuel Blumenfeld unpacks two centuries of source material to present an accurate history of the religious and philosophical transformations that gave birth to the educational statism controlling America’s children today.

From the New England Puritan experiments in compulsory schooling to the Unitarian crusades to perfect man with the “strong arm of government,” Blumenfeld shows that public education in America has always been more about religion than literacy.  A colorful history full of fascinating characters and incisive commentary,
Is Public Education Necessary? challenges American parents to discard the common wisdom concerning public schools—to reshoulder the responsibilities that are rightfully theirs, to fight to keep the liberties they inherited, and to teach their children to do the same.






http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2011-08-30/Editorial-How-Australia-got-its-triple-A-credit-rating-back/50196816/1           Its unemployment rate is just 5.1%, compared with 9.1% here. But a good bit of Australia's success derives from its commitment to budgetary discipline.

What is most immediately pertinent about Australia is that it lost its AAA credit rating in 1986, suffered a further downgrade in 1989 — and then got back to triple-A in 2003. (Canada, Denmark, Finland and Sweden have also lost and regained AAA status.)

The story of how Australia got its fiscal groove back explains why it has fared so much better in recent years than other major industrialized nations. In 1986, it had been running deficits for decades. Many of its industries were heavily regulated.  The government immediately began offering much more austere budgets, notwithstanding the fact that it was controlled by the left-of-center Australian Labor Party

Australia has shifted most current workers out of a state-run pension plan like Social Security and into a compulsory 401(k)-type savings plan. It also, quite fortuitously, steered clear of the types of housing policies prevalent in the USA, where the federal government subsidizes mortgage debt with generous tax breaks and exposes taxpayers to risk through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Its liberals do not engage in a denial of the facts, as many Democrats do when they insist that unsustainable spending on entitlement programs must go on unchanged. And its conservatives do not box themselves in with rigid positions and pledges that make it impossible to raise new revenue, the way Republicans here do.





http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2010-10-26-emp_N.htm     the threat of an electromagnetic pulse triggered by either a supersized solar storm or terrorist A-bomb, both capable of disabling the electric grid that powers modern life.

Electromagnetic pulses (EMP) are oversized outbursts of atmospheric electricity. Whether powered by geomagnetic storms or by nuclear blasts, their resultant intense magnetic fields can induce ground currents strong enough to burn out power lines and electrical equipment across state lines.

Meanwhile, in Congress, a "Grid Act" bill aimed at the threat awaits Senate action, having passed in the House of Representatives.

Fear is evident. With the sun's 11-year solar cycle ramping up for its stormy maximum in 2012, and nuclear concerns swirling about Iran and North Korea, a drumbeat of reports and blue-ribbon panels center on electromagnetic pulse scenarios.

"We're taking this seriously," says Ed Legge of the Edison Electric Institute in Washington, which represents utilities. He points to a North American Electric Reliability Corp. (NERC) report in June, conducted with the Energy Department, that found pulse threats to the grid "may be much greater than anticipated."

There are "some important reasons for concern," says physicist Yousaf Butt of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass.








Tax revenues come in each month that can be prioritized to pay bills, so there would be no default as you can see, BUT there would be hard choices on spending prioritization that only Tea party and conservatives have been willing to face and tackle that await us as we see in Europe.  They will not go away, only becoming bigger, more painful and harder to deal with.  Big free spending politicians have to be voted out in favor of  Tea party or the like candidates willing to tackle unpopular spending cuts ala Greece, Wisconsin et al.



http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/yearrev2011_0.html            \







http://netrightdaily.com/2011/08/constitutional-convention-could-be-called-to-pass-national-debt-relief-amendment/            By Kevin Mooney — Do not sit back and wait for the federal government to reform itself.

Instead, allow the states to take the lead in getting the federal debt under control; this is the central message of the National Debt Relief Amendment, which reads as follows: “An increase in the federal debt requires approval from a majority of the legislatures of the separate states.”

            Put simply, the amendment requires Congress to seek approval from the state legislative bodies, those that are closest to the people, before it can once again hike the national debt.

Sen. Curtis Olafson, a North Dakota Republican and Nick Dranias, director of constitutional studies at the Goldwater Institute, make a strong case for the amendment in a recent report.

            “Unlike other fiscal reforms that would rely on the courts to enforce them, the National Debt Relief Amendment is uniquely powerful in that it would enforce itself,” they argue. “This is because the financial markets will reject or significantly discount the value of any new federal bonds issued without support from a majority of state legislatures. This would give the federal government a strong financial incentive to seek out prior legislative approval of any new debt without anyone having to resort to a lawsuit.”

With the national debt now approaching $15 trillion, recent polls show that Americans with differing ideologies and party affiliations are united on the need to curtail spending in Washington D.C. and alleviate the flow of red ink. A new Reuters poll, for example, shows 71 percent of Americans oppose increasing the national debt.

            Under Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution, states do have the authority to direct Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments. The move would not be unprecedented. So far, there have been at least 12. Critics charge that the process could become too open-ended and open the Constitution up to damaging changes. Robert Natelson, a retired law professor, has addressed these objections in a series of reports for the Goldwater Institute. He argues that the status quo in Washington D.C. is far more dangerous to American interests than the convention process.



http://godfatherpolitics.com/724/is-it-too-late-to-impeach-obama/                        President Barack Obama has openly and defiantly announced to America and the rest of the world that he refuses to uphold the US immigration laws. This is goes against his sworn oath of office when he swore to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

            At least one politician has decided to call for a congressional investigation into the legality of Obama’s action. Republican Iowa Rep. Steve King, who also happens to be vice chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee on immigration and policy enforcement, called for the hearing.  In an interview, Rep. King said “The President is on the verge of being lawless himself.   Add to this not defending DOMA-the Defense of Marriage, Obama’s war in Libya, appointing countless Czars etc.





According to Media Research Center founder Brent Bozell, the FCC “deserves one-handed applause” for the move. Before striking the politically volatile “Fairness Doctrine,” the FCC implemented rules of “localism,” “media diversity,” and a nebulous requirement to “serve the public interest.” All designed to empower the FCC to limit speech they don’t like.  As Brent points out, “the path to censor radio airwaves has been long paved through the back door.”


Generations of American soldiers, sailors and marines didn’t battle so that the First Amendment could be repealed by leftist government employees at the FCC. These regulations don’t exist for their stated purpose. However, they are an underhanded means for leftists in the permanent federal bureaucracy to control what the American people can hear.


Despite what the liberal media may report, threats of government control and censorship are alive and well and even thriving in the U.S. -- not just affecting the fate of political free speech on radio airwaves, but threatening EVERY American!  Liberals know that silencing us will help them to advance their socialist agenda -- unchallenged and under the radar. 


ACTION:  That’s why the MRC proactively launched a national grassroots petition to protect and preserve the free speech rights of Americans. Through this petition, Americans from all walks of life have the unique opportunity to answer back to the Obama Administration’s backdoor efforts to silence and suppress dissent! Click here to read Brent’s statement and to take action with the MRC. <http://www.grassrootsaction.com/r.asp?U=49373&CID=7&RID=32315509>




http://patriotupdate.com/articles/an-unusual-economy     Government intervention may look good to the media but its actual track record — both today and in the 1930s — is far worse than the track record of letting the economy recover on its own.

            Americans today are alarmed that unemployment has stayed around 9 percent for so long. But such unemployment rates have been common for years in Western European welfare states that have followed policies similar to policies being followed currently by the Obama administration.

            Those European welfare states have not only used the taxpayers’ money to hand out “free” benefits to particular groups, they have mandated that employers do the same. Faced with higher labor costs, employers have hired less labor.  www.tsowell.com          



The Heartbeat Bill will reverse the pro-life slogan, "abortion stops a beating heart," and ensure that: "A BEATING HEART STOPS ABORTION!"   Babies with beating hearts are about to be protected. Roe vs. Wade is about to come crashing down. Not only do you get to live to see it, you can be a part of it! Just go to www.HeartBeatBill.com http://alerts.worldnetdaily.com/HS?a=ENX7CqgvfC4i8SA9MKJAMUbnGHxKLczmJPcStGb5lw8W0bBhOG5mpqVsje_Hhe-ud1OY> !



Dr. Michael Brown tells the story of the pro-gay sea change in American culture almost entirely with reference to sources that no pro-gay activist could dispute.   He tells the story in their own words.


"A Queer Thing Happened To America" <http://superstore.wnd.com/books/Current-Affairs/A-Queer-Thing-Happened-to-America-Hardcover?promocode=110830>  is a work of history, but it is also an almanac of sorts, extensively footnoted with the vast majority of citations being neutral or pro-gay publications. It is the truth; it is told in a reasonable, caring manner - and therefore it is dangerous.   Much more than a compendium, "A Queer Thing Happened To America" also explains the "gay agenda" and reveals why issues related to gender have become so hard to discuss for traditional-minded Americans.


Dr. Brown notes: "A full recognition of 'gay rights' means limited recognition of the rights of others."

Among the many inconvenient truths uncovered by Dr. Brown are observations on the maxim that gays are "born that way":


The scientific argument for a biological basis for sexual orientation remains weak. The political argument that it will bolster gay pride or prevent homophobic bigotry runs counter to experience. The lesbian, gay, and bisexual community does not need to have its “deviance” tolerated because its members were born “that way” and “cannot help it.” Rather, society must recognize the validity of lesbian and gay lifestyles. We need an end to discrimination, an acceptance of all human beings, and a celebration of diversity, whatever its origins.   - Council for Genetic Research


Dr. Brown blows the lid off the carefully scripted effort to redefine free speech as hate speech.

"Hate" means: "To hold to Judeo-Christian principles and values; to stand for biblical morality; and to take issue with homosexual practice."


The pro-alternate lifestyle tactic is to "make the person with whom you differ into a small-minded, mean-spirited bigot. The playing field becomes unequal, and you ideological opponent becomes a monster whose ideas are unworthy of serious discussion... "Things have shifted so dramatically - they have literally been turned upside down - that it now appears that no matter what you say and no matter how carefully and graciously you say it, if you dare to differ with the GLBT agenda, if you believe that it is immoral for a man to have sex with another man, if you do not support same-sex marriage, then you are an extremist, a bigot, a Nazi and a jihadist."


Here is an overview of topics covered in "A Queer Thing Happened To America"

*           The supposedly nonexistent “gay agenda”

*           Jewish Hitlers, Christian jihadists, and the magical effects of pushing the “hate” button

*           Boys will be girls will be boys: undoing gender and teaching “gay is good” in our children’s          schools

*           Something queer on our campuses: from traditional academics and the arts to GLBTQ and “ze”

*           Brokeback Mountain, the fab five, and Hollywood’s celebration of queer

*           Is gay the new black? Analyzing the argument that “I was born that way”

*           Speaking about the unspeakable: pro-pedophilia parallels to pro-gay arguments

*           Diversity or perversity? Corporate America’s embrace of gay pride at its worst

*           Lavender language, gender speak, and queer semantics: toward an omnisexual society?

*           Queer theology, a gay/lesbian bible, and a homoerotic Christ

*           It’s not about sex? The attempt to separate behavior from identity

*           The ex-gay movement: fact or fiction?

*           Stifling of scientific debate

*           Big brother is watching, and he really is gay

*           GLBT and beyond: reflections on our current trajectory

http://www.traditionalvalues.us/MandMsurvey2.aspx?pid=0827p              Sign this American Petition on Marriage and Morality and give if possible.  Homosexual “marriage” passed in New York; judges in Iowa threw out two hundred years of law and declared for homosexual marriage by fiat; a judge in California denies the vote of the people and declares homosexual marriage a “right”; and every day the drumbeat from the media and Hollywood culture is how good and normal homosexual sex is ... and how you and I are bigoted fools blinded by a false religion.

            They insist they have the votes to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, and Obama will sign it.  They even hint they plan to introduce legislation mandating homosexual marriage in every state. We need this petition to show these men and women in Congress -- many of them Christians and long-time defenders of the family -- that it is NOT too late, that Americans like you have not given up, that it can still be good politics (as it is good policy) to stand up for marriage and morality.
            Your petition and hundreds of thousands of petitions from other faithful, brave Americans is what it will take to turn this situation around. 
That’s why I hope you will respond today.

http://disciplesforpurity.wordpress.com/     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_DRP4Y3eMs&feature=player_embedded         

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45853                     The new Virginia rules will “apply to any facility in which five or more first trimester abortions per month are performed, and that such facilities shall be classified as a category of hospital for the purposes of such requirements.” 
            Adhering to hospital-level standards will require a dramatic increase the cost of abortion facilities, and like other highly regulated businesses, will force them to make a decision about their future economic viability.  Virginia clinics will also be required to obtain licenses proving that they have adhered to the new restrictions. 
            The new rules and regulations were also justified because of the need for higher health standards in facilities that provide what can be a relatively dangerous procedure.  The “
House of Horrors” in Philadelphia was one example of an abortion clinic out of control, in which there was virtually no health standard or governmental oversight at all.  The poor standards led to the death of several patients.

            The impact of the regulations on Planned Parenthood has yet to be seen, but given the track record in other states and stiff resistance from its defenders, they are likely to lead to the shutdown of more than a few clinics.  This of course also shows the power of regulatory policies.  Regulations raise costs and decrease the effectiveness of any business, and Planned Parenthood will soon feel the entire effect of that in Virginia.


Darwin's book on evolution admitted that "intermediate links" were perhaps the most obvious and serious objection to the theory of evolution.  Darwin recognized that the fossils collected by scientists prior to 1859 did NOT correspond with his theory of evolution, but he predicted that his theory would be confirmed as more and more fossils were found.  One hundred and fifty years later, "Evolution: The Grand Experiment" <http://superstore.wnd.com/books/Evolution-The-Grand-Experiment-Volume-1-The-Quest-for-an-Answer-Hardcover?promocode=110811>  critically examines the viability of Darwin's theory.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."– Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

A confession of creating an intermediate evolutionary link, by a prominent scientist, exposes a recurrent problem for the theory of evolution in a most dramatic way: With video tapes rolling, the story unfolds before the television audience, with the most uncomfortable feeling imaginable. This honest scientist's mistake is one of many examples of scientists creating evidence to support the theory of evolution. Some mistakes are honest, some are fraudulant, but all involve evolution scientists and artists manufacturing evidence for the theory of evolution.

            For years, scientists claimed that they had compelling fossil proof of evolution in Rodhocetus, a four-legged animal with a whale's tail. This "missing link" was considered by many evolution experts to be one of the best proofs of evolution. When biologist, physician and television producer Dr. Carl Werner went to check it out, he was in for a big surprise: There were no fossils of the tail of Rodhocetus. They were missing. When he questioned the scientist who had added the whale's tail, the scientist admitted this "best proof" did not have a whale's tail or flippers as he had suggested in museum diagrams.  This was just the first of many fossil improprieties that Dr. Werner found when he set out to evaluate evolution. Other problems included a scientist attaching a dinosaur tail to a bird to make a "flying dinosaur," and another other scientist covering up the fraud. One large metropolitan museum attached feathers to a dinosaur to make a "feathered dinosaur," even though feathers were not found. Another museum attached human hands to Lucy, even though the fossils were not human.

There were other problems too: Evolution THEORY charts at museums suggested that evolution was true, but these diagrams lacked corroborating evidence.

Cover-ups, name changes, adding scales or feathers compelled Dr. Werner to ask the most basic question: Is evolution even true?  Show us the evidence and prove it.  He does not answer the question in the documentary "Evolution: The Grand Experiment", rather he presents the problems and allows the audience to decide.

"It's revealing how often evolution's adherents so readily seek to shut down any questioning of it," said Joseph Farah, founder and CEO of WorldNetDaily.com "This rigid stance makes a mockery of the human inclination toward curiosity and also the process of inquiry that's necessary for any sound scientific formulation.




http://patriotupdate.com/articles/enough-with-irene-what-about-the-missouri-river-floods    East Coast newspapers and TV shows have saturated the media with stories about Irene, few even know about the Southern states that have been devastated by floods and fires with little to no coverage the past year—and even less help from the Obama administration.

            Texas Governor Rick Perry continually asked Washington for help with their wildfires and Tennessee did the same when many of their Nashville neighborhoods were flooded.  Both states got little to no response—but put a hurricane anywhere near Democrat-populated areas and watch them jump!

Hopefully more attention will be given to our neglected Southern states.

Did you know the lower Missouri River valley has been flooded for the past 5 months?  They are still flooded, bluff to bluff and thousands of homes have been ruined.  Thousands of acres of farmland, destroyed.  People’s ability to make a living has been destroyed.  Small towns along the Missouri, which depend on agriculture, are going to fail.

 Small towns along the Missouri, which depend on agriculture, are going to fail.  We have been ignored by the national media, except for the brief blurb about our nuclear power plants. FEMA has denied claims.  The Army Corp of Engineers refuses to accept any responsibility even though their policy has caused most of it.  

 President Obama and Janet Napolitano has been on the big wind/rain storm along the East Coast like flies on cow manure.   And we just sit here and take it.

 To top it off some rather wealthy people are buying destroyed farmland for pennies on the dollar, taking advantage of our crisis.

 Unfortunately, you know what they say in DC these days about never letting a crisis go to waste…



http://www.therightscoop.com/dr-simon-atkins-hurricane-irene-is-being-way-over-hyped/    listen to Dr. Atkins explain the global warming scam artists link Irene to their cause and how environmentalist’s good deeds punish people with flooding by the Missouri River.

No Evidence Global Warming Is Making Hurricanes Worse

Hurricane Irene has prompted the usual rhetoric from the usual suspects about global warming making these storms worse.  Too bad there is no evidence for this whatsoever on a global scale, says Patrick J. Michaels, a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute.

Ryan Maue, at Florida State University, tracks global tropical cyclone energy back to 1970, which is the time at which adequate data on hurricane winds became available.

His "Accumulated Cyclone Energy" index peaked in the mid-1990s and in recent years has been at or near the lowest point ever recorded.

Indeed, his most recent refereed paper, in press at Geophysical Research Letters, is called "Recent Historically Low Global Tropical Cyclone Activity."

However, there is an interesting trend in Atlantic hurricane activity.

The Department of Commerce's National Hurricane Center (NHC) is naming tropical storms that they clearly would have ignored in previous years.   At the time of this writing, we have had 10; Michaels doubts that seven of these would have made the grade years ago.  In fact NHC's Chris Landsea agrees that NHC is naming systems that they would have previously ignored or missed. A recent paper in Journal of Geophysical Research, by Princeton's Gabriele Villarini, noted the contamination of the Atlantic hurricane data by what he called "shorties." For text: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/irene-wasnt-all-that/






http://cfif.org/v/index.php/commentary/54-state-of-affairs/1110-10-big-lies-from-the-obama-administration            Obama has asked to be judged on results. As dutiful citizens, we owe it to him to hold him to that standard. Consider these 10 statements, all of which proved to be untrue:
1. Claim: "When there is a bill that ends up on my desk as the president, you the public will have five days to look online and find out what's in it before I sign it." – June 22, 2007

Reality: Frequently broken, this pledge was ignored in a particularly egregious fashion with ObamaCare. There, Congress passed a massive, 2,000 plus-page piece of legislation late in the evening on Sunday, March 21, 2010. The bill was signed into law on the morning of Tuesday, March 23, 2010.

2. Claim: “Muammar Gaddafi has lost the legitimacy to lead and he must leave; those who perpetrate violence against the Libyan people will be held accountable; and the aspirations of the Libyan people for freedom, democracy and dignity must be met.” – March 3, 2011

Reality: Nearly six months later, Gaddafi remains in power in Libya, with no resolution to the standoff – nor hope for the Libyan people – in sight.

3. Claim: “Today, I'm pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office.” – February 23, 2009

Reality: Average annual budget deficits during Obama’s first term have been about four times larger than the annual deficits “inherited” from George W. Bush, usually running between 1.2 and 1.4 trillion dollars annually. 
4. Claim: “We’ve got a philosophical difference, which we’ve debated repeatedly, and that is that Senator Clinton believes the only way to achieve universal health care is to force everybody to purchase it. And my belief is, the reason that people don’t have it is not because they don’t want it but because they can’t afford it.” – February 21, 2008
Reality: Obama signed health care reform into law on March 23, 2010. The bill included a provision for an “individual mandate” in health care insurance – in other words, a design to “force everybody to purchase it.”
5. Claim: “Yesterday, Jim [Owens], the head of Caterpillar, said that if Congress passes our [stimulus] plan, this company will be able to rehire some of the folks who were just laid off, and that's a story I'm confident will be repeated at companies across the country.” – February 12, 2009
Reality: "I think realistically no. The truth is we're going to have more layoffs before we start hiring again" – Jim Owens, later in the day on February 12, 2009
6. Claim: "I'm going to have all the [health care] negotiations around a big table. We'll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies -- they'll get a seat at the table, they just won't be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process." – August 21, 2008
Reality: Not only did the health care horse-trading never make it to C-SPAN, the entire process was notable for its lack of transparency, a criticism that almost sank the health care bill’s prospects for passage when sweetheart deals like the so-called “Cornhusker Kickback” and “Louisiana Purchase” were revealed.
7. Claim: [On illegal immigration] – “They wanted a fence. Well, that fence now is basically complete” – May 10, 2011
Reality: According to the Department of Homeland Security, the double-layer fencing on the U.S.-Mexico border is only five percent complete. 
8. Claim: " Between 2001 and 2009 [...] a very specific philosophy reigned in Washington: You cut taxes, especially for millionaires and billionaires; you cut regulations for special interests; you cut back on investments in education and clean energy, in research and technology.” – September 22, 2010
Reality: During the Bush years, high-cost federal regulations increased by 70 percent, while federal expenditures on education increased by 58 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars.
9. Claim: "No system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.” – June 4, 2009
Reality: While the ‘should’ question is a different matter, the ‘can’ is historically illiterate. Systems of government have been imposed on foreign nations throughout recorded human civilization. Perhaps Obama would like to spend some time on the history of Germany and Japan after World War II?
10. Claim: “We are five days from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” – October 30, 2008.
Reality: All that changed on Election Day 2008 was the leadership in Washington. Now, after two and half years, it’s become clear that the United States of America is the same way it’s always been – good-natured, freedom-loving and skeptical of too much power in Washington. Washington still spends way beyond its means, represses jobs & increases energy costs with more red tape & regulations.  Inept & inexperienced politicians make legislation that buys them votes and other favors.  Politicians don’t fundamentally change democracies, Mr. Obama. The voters who elect them do. But you’ll probably discover that soon enough.


You Lie!  How true.





 Bethlehem, like other small towns, was overflowing with people who were forced to return to their ancestral homes for the census - ordered by the Romans for the purpose of levying a tax.

If there was a problem, it was caused by the unintended consequences of this government policy. But this source of the problem has been ignored in favor of a more palatable complaint, that capitalism and capitalists are greedy, uncaring, and maybe even evil.

But a different narrative makes even more sense. The innkeeper was generous to a fault – a hero even. He was over-booked, but he charitably offered his stable, a facility he built with unknowing foresight. A facility he was able to offer, while the government officials who ordered the census slept in their own beds with little care for the well-being of those who had to travel regardless of their difficult life circumstances.


Why Are Finland's Schools Successful?

The transformation of Finland's education system began some 40 years ago as a key part of the country's economic recovery plan.  Educators had little idea it was so successful until 2000, when the first results from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), a standardized test given to 15-year-olds in more than 40 global venues, revealed Finnish youth to be the best young readers in the world.  Three years later, they led in math, says Smithsonian Magazine.  

By 2006, Finland was first out of 57 countries (and a few cities) in science.   In the 2009 PISAscores released last year, the nation came in second in science, third in reading and sixth in math among nearly half a million students worldwide.

By contrast, the United States has muddled along in the middle for the past decade.

Finland's schools were not always a wonder.  Until the late 1960s, most children left public school after six years and only the privileged or lucky got a quality education.

In 1963, the Finnish Parliament decided public schools would be organized into one system of comprehensive schools for ages 7 through 16.   Teachers from all over the nation contributed to a national curriculum that provided guidelines, not prescriptions, and resources were distributed equally.  

The second critical decision came in 1979, when reformers required that every teacher earn a fifth-year master's degree in theory and practice at one of eight state universities.   From then on, teachers were effectively granted equal status with doctors and lawyers.  

By the mid-1980s, a final set of initiatives shook the classrooms free from the last vestiges of top-down regulation and control over policies shifted to town councils.

There are no mandated standardized tests in Finland, apart from one exam at the end of students' senior year in high school.  There are no rankings, no comparisons or competition between students, schools or regions.

Ninety-three percent of Finns graduate from academic or vocational high schools, 17.5 percentage points higher than the United States, and 66 percent go on to higher education, the highest rate in the European Union.

Yet Finland spends about 30 percent less than the United States. Teachers in Finland also spend fewer hours at school each day and spend less time in classrooms than American teachers.

Source: Lynnell Hancock, "Why Are Finland's Schools Successful?" Smithsonian Magazine, September 2011.For text:http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/Why-Are-Finlands-Schools-Successful.html


Low Standards for Education Majors

American schools of education have often been spotlighted as the weak link between K-12 schooling and college preparedness.  In his recent paper, "Grade Inflation for Education Majors and Low Standards for Teachers: When Everyone Makes the Grade," University of Missouri economics professor Cory Koedel shows that education school courses typically have very low grading standards.  In many courses, A grades are heavily predominant; in some, every student gets an A, says George Leef, director of research for the John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy.

            Why do the education schools operate this way?  One reason, Koedel observes, is that in the field of education, which is "notoriously ineffective at identifying high- and low-quality workers," there is no penalty for easy grading.   Another reason, one Koedel doesn't mention, is that easy grading is a case of practicing what you preach -- one of the reigning ideas among education theorists is that students must have high self-esteem so they will want to keep learning.

            As a partial solution, Koedel suggests that college administrators step in and impose stringent grading standards on education departments.  But it's pointless to insist on rigorous grading of courses that revolve around the inculcation of sociopolitical belief systems.  Giving every student an A is not the problem.  The course itself is the problem, says Leef.  It doesn't have to be that way.

            Japan, a country that regularly outpaces the United States in international comparisons of student knowledge, doesn't have education schools at all. There, students must first earn an undergraduate degree in an academic field and then those who wish to enter teaching apply to become apprentices -- only a small fraction are accepted. The apprentice works with a master teacher for several years.

America's system for training teachers needs dramatic change, far deeper than making A grades less plentiful, says Leef. Source: George Leef, "Yes, Mostly 'A's but that's Not the Worst of It," Pope Center for Higher Education, August 28, 2011.  Cory Koedel, "Grade Inflation for Education Majors and Low Standards for Teachers," American Enterprise Institute, August 2011.

For text:  http://www.popecenter.org/commentaries/article.html?id=2571


Indiana Voucher Program Draws Cheers and Jeers

In April, the Indiana Legislature provided another option for parents seeking quality education -- vouchers that allow low-and middle-income families to use public funds to help pay private school tuition, says USA Today.

            The Indiana school voucher program -- the nation's second statewide program -- has been a boon to parents and to more than 240 religious schools now eligible to receive public funds.

But the law, which allows families to redirect money from the school district in which their children reside to private schools, is being contested and sharply criticized by public school officials and the state teachers' union, which contends that vouchers offer a stealth subsidy for religious schools and drain critical funds from already cash-poor public schools.

            Opponents have filed a lawsuit alleging it violates the Indiana constitution's required separation of church and state -- all but six of the 242 non-public schools so far approved for the voucher program have religious affiliations. State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Bennett said the initial voucher numbers simply reflect the fact that the vast majority of Indiana private schools are religious and the intent is not to subsidize religious schools.

            State officials report 3,259 students have enrolled so far, which eclipses the first-year enrollment in Ohio, home of the United States' only other statewide voucher system.  Ohio's program attracted 2,713 students its first year in 2007, according to the Ohio Department of Education website.

            Indiana has a cap of 7,500 vouchers this year and no more than 15,000 next year.  The cap will be lifted in 2013 and there will be no limit on the number of students who can obtain vouchers, according to the Indiana Department of Education.  The financial impact on Indiana Public Schools so far been is relatively small -- $2.5 million to $3 million, or about 1 percent of its $290 million budget.

Source: Scott Elliott, "Ind. School Voucher Program Cheered, Criticized," USA Today, August 29, 2011.

For text:  http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/story/2011-08-28/Ind-school-voucher-program-cheered-criticized/50169064/1




Whoever Controls the Schools Rules the World shows how education can be used as a vehicle for social change from Karl Marx and Adolf Hitler to secular humanism and radical Islam. Our worldview opponents understand that education is where the war of ideas is fought.

If we're are serious about securing the future for our children, we must understand the nature of the war we are fighting.  If you have children, want children, or know someone who has children -- you need to get this book and read it before it becomes too late to save the generation to follow us from the ruins.
For decades, Secular America and Christian America have been engaged in a bitter battle over the minds of our school-age children.  The classroom is the mine-field of our century.

Humanism, secularism, atheism, rampant sexual perversion and historical revisionism are just a few of the missiles launched daily at our children. For years, our children have been robbed of a moral society that is engrained with spiritual doctrine, biblical principles and Christian directives.

Secular organizations have rabidly gnawed at the foundations of our country's Christian beginnings, leaving in its place a society bent on being devoid of the God who rules and reigns in the hearts of man.
In the first presentation, "Whoever Controls the School Controls the World," dynamic speaker Dr. Voddie Baucham knows what most parents are too quick to dismiss: whoever is teaching our children is also disciplining them.

Dr. Baucham persuasively argues that Christian parents need to take the initiative in their children's education and stop turning them over to the anti-God environment of the government school.

Using Scripture, statistics, and sound reasoning, Dr. Baucham powerfully makes the case that whoever controls the schools does indeed control the world.   In the second presentation, "Getting Your House In Order," Dr. Baucham turns his attention to the Christian home and explains what an orderly home should look like. Expounding on the Old Testament text of Deuteronomy 6, Dr. Baucham highlights six characteristics of a properly ordered home. Through personal testimony and biblical instruction, Dr. Baucham educates and motivates Christian parents to rise to the challenge of changing the world ...
one household at a time.  Retail $39.95 • Through 9/30 purchase both for the price of one!
Order now for just $24.95!





http://conservativebyte.com/2011/11/rnc-launches-new-web-video-marking-one-year-until-barack-obama-is-a-one-term-president/                     GOP Ad Destroys Obama with His Own Words

the American people will hold President Obama accountable for his abysmal record in the White House


http://marriageada.org/about/             The Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance is dedicated to one, simple, and profound idea: No American should be afraid to exercise core civil rights: to speak, to donate, to organize, to sign petitions, or to vote for marriage as the union of husband and wife.


http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-598         Pro Homosexual Huffington Post reports the U.S. Senate is trying to repeal DOMA legislatively.  "In Congress, the Senate Judiciary Committee will begin debate over DOMA repeal on Nov. 3.  The proposed S.598 [Dis]Respect for Marriage Act, introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and co-sponsored by 30 others (names shown on above link..THESE politicians MUST be VOTED OUT), seeks to overturn federal restrictions on recognizing same-sex marriages."  How will your Senators weigh in this Thursday?  Call them both at 202-225-3121. Then let's petition all 100 Senators instantly by fax... 
Please select here to SIGN URGENT PETITION to PASS THE FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT defining marriage between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN.  Vote against S.598 that would repeal DOMA, and protect DOMA in court, and we will auto-fax your petition to all 100 Senators and 435 Congressmen (saving you much time!)




new curriculum from Saddleback Resources: Raising Your Kids without Raising Your Blood Pressure



CNN’s Soledad O’Brien is not a journalist, she is an advocate. But we already knew that. After all, it’s CNN. Nevertheless, she let her true colors show this week after Breitbart’s organization released the first of a series of Obama videos vetting the president’s radical racial and socialist agenda. (Class Warefare, Alinsky Agitation)

Chief editor Joel Pollock appeared on CNN to discuss the video which features Obama introducing and embracing racist Harvard Law professor Derrick Bell. It also contained a clip of a black leader showing the video to a small group and laughing at how “we hid this throughout the 2008 campaign.”

Mr. Pollock calming shot down every one of their attacks and fallacies and exposed the truth bit by bit. He also assured us there is much more to come.

She also tried to hide the allegation of white supremacy at the heart of Bell’s “critical race theory.” The clip below disproves this, as does the relationship between Bell, Obama, and Jeremiah Wright.

See the full 5-minute interview on Breitbart’s website here.

Here is brief segment with the addition of a remarkable clip from Prof. Bell himself. This edit proves that a critique of “white supremacy” was indeed a part of Bell’s message. Great stuff.

http://visiontoamerica.org/8641/obamas-favorite-professor-i-lives-to-harass-white-folks/    a young Barack Obama said, “Open your hearts and open your minds to the words of Prof. Derrick Bell,” claimed as his own motto, “I lives to harass white folks.”


In November 1985, the Harvard Law Review published an article by Derrick Bell that was a "classic" in the development of Critical Race Theory. The article was edited by then-student Elena Kagan, and was cited by Prof. Charles Ogletree in support of her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Barack Obama in 2010. The article makes clear that Critical Race Theory sees the U.S. Constitution as a form of "original sin"--a view later embraced by Obama as a state legislator, and reflected in his actions and appointments. The following is an excerpt from the non-fiction portion of the article; much of what follows is a fictional story that Bell intended as a parable of racial "fantasy." (99 Harv. L. Rev. 4)



Website Builder