Friday, July 13, 2012


Now that the increasingly erratic and desperately sleazy Obama campaign has decided to cavalierly throw around the word "felony" when it comes to pushing a campaign of lies surrounding Mitt Romney and Bain Capital, this seems like a good time to jump in the wayback machine for a look at the actual convicted felons, criminals, and dubious characters that have always been associated with Barack Obama's political life.

What? What's that? You don’t want to talk about this?

Objection overruled, Corrupt Media!

The President opened this door, and now we're going to walk right on through it.

Starting with…

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Americans Will Work More than 6 Months to Pay Cost of Gov't in 2012 ^ | 12 July, 2012 | Sabrina Gladstone

"Cost of Government Day is the date of the calendar year on which the average American worker has earned enough gross income to pay off his or her share of the spending and regulatory burden imposed by government at the federal, state and local levels," reads the report.

The report shows that Americans will work 88 days to pay for federal spending; 40 days for state and local spending; and 69 days for total regulatory costs.

"From a different perspective, the cost of government makes up 54.0 percent ...........".

"What's more, the largest tax hike in the nation's history is scheduled to take place at the end of 2012 unless Congress acts to protect taxpayers.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Under Obama, More Lucrative For Single Mom To Earn $29K Than $69K

Brietbart ^ | 7-13-12 | William Bigelow

Remember Julia, the fictional woman created by the Obama campaign to illustrate the benefits of big government? Now there is hard evidence that Julia should probably stay home and pick up her government check rather than getting a good job.

A new chart put together by Gary Alexander, Pennsylvania’s Secretary of State, shows that Julia, as a single mom with two kids in daycare, would be better off remaining in her $29,000 per year job than she would be in a $69,000 per year job because of the benefits she would obtain from the government. In the lower paying job, Julia would net $57,327 after she received her government benefits, while in the higher paying job, she would net $57,045.

This situation, where someone doesn’t gain by advancing in their career because the government disincentivizes such behavior, is called the “welfare cliff.” So the government is actually paying people not to be upwardly mobile, discouraging them from achievement and transmitting the message that there is more value in remaining dependent on the government.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama's love for the middle class? Now, that's rich!

Cleveland Plain Dealer ^ | July 12, 2012 | Kevin O'Brien

View full sizeSusan Walsh, Associated PressOn Monday, President Barack Obama refined his class-warfare strategy a bit, separating the upper middle class from the middle class.
He announced that he would favor allowing the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts for the rich, whom he defines as individuals earning more than $200,000 a year and married couples earning more than $250,000 a year.

He would, however, favor retaining something he and other Democrats apparently just discovered: the Bush-era tax cuts for the middle class.

Who knew that such a thing existed? But yes, there they are, right there in that pile of stuff Congress passed while George W. Bush was in the White House. What a pleasant surprise after all these years of Democratic assurances that only the rich benefited.

It's important that voters understand that the health of the economy is not the driving factor behind the arbitrary presidential declaration of who is middle class and who isn't.
This is entirely about the health of Obama's re-election campaign.
In proposing that tax cuts be retained for anyone at all, Obama is violating a Democratic commandment: Thou shalt not admit the efficacy of lowering tax rates in promoting economic growth.
But if that's what it takes to put Republicans in a box by forcing them to explain why it makes sense not to raise taxes on "job creators" -- a phrase Obama utters with a smirk -- well, Paul Krugman will forgive him.
Republicans, meanwhile, should explain -- in detail. Unlike Obama, they'll be telling the truth and making excellent fiscal sense.
And speaking of details, let's look closely at a few of the other things President One-Note said during Monday's ramble.
"Many members of the other party believe that prosperity comes from the top down, so that if we spend trillions more on tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, then that will somehow unleash jobs and economic growth."
Many members of the other party believe that because it's true. "Trickle-down" isn't an economic theory; it's an inescapable economic fact. When the top of the economic heap experiences prosperity and growth, it doesn't hoard its capital. Everyone stands to benefit. Conversely, when the top of the economic heap experiences pain, as it has in Obama's economy and as it will to a greater extent in the higher-tax economy Obama proposes, everyone stands to suffer.
What was not true in Obama's statement was the reference to tax cuts as government spending. Tax cuts involve money that does not belong to the government. "We" don't "spend" anything when "we" grant a tax cut. "We" simply allow people to keep more of their own money and use it as they see fit in the private sector of the economy.
". . . We've got this huge deficit, and everybody agrees that we need to do something about these deficits and these debts. So the money we're spending on these tax cuts for the wealthy is a major driver of our deficit, a major contributor to our deficit, costing us a trillion dollars over the next decade."
The federal deficit is approaching $16 trillion. Obama's proposal, with its $250,000-a-year earnings cutoff, would raise $70 billion a year in revenue for the federal government. That's about half of what it will take to pay for the additional spending Obamacare will require, if it's allowed to stand. Anything Obama says about deficit reduction is a poorly delivered joke.
". . . Most people agree that we should not raise taxes on middle-class families or small businesses -- not when so many folks are just trying to get by. Not when so many folks are still digging themselves out of the hole that was created by this Great Recession that we had, and at a time when the recovery is still fragile."
What recovery?
And here's a news flash: A host of new and direct government-related costs, including but certainly not limited to Obamacare, are aimed straight at the middle class. They'll be followed by a slew of indirect costs, as businesses pass higher taxes, fees, etc., along to consumers.
Middle class, whoever you are, be warned: All Obama wants is the re-election that only you can give him.
He doesn't mind using you, but he's really not that into you. And if you give him what he wants, he's already planning to walk all over you.
Choose wisely.

‘specious, frivolous’ as Issa ethics charge is filed against Holder!

Gun Rights Examiner ^ | 13 July, 2012 | David Codrea

A spokesperson for the Department of Justice “downplayed” a complaint filed with the District of Columbia Bar asking for Attorney General Eric Holder to be investigated following being found in contempt of Congress, Fox News reported yesterday.
“These are specious claims that ignore the facts and can only be described as frivolous,” Tracy Schmaler asserted. “It appears to be a desperate attempt by some factions to drag out the destructive, political games that Americans are rightly fed up with."
Legal reaction to the complaint was mixed, with Brian Darling of The Heritage Foundation “suggest[ing] the complaint is on solid ground,” and Georgetown Law School Professor Michael Frisch opining “Because this particular complaint is written as if the attorney general had already been convicted of a crime, I think it will likely be rejected on its face.” Sipsey Street Irregulars Blog author Mike Vanderboegh and’s David Codrea on the complaint they filed to disbar Attorney General Eric Holder. Video: 'Stay dangerous.' Eric Holder Faces Call to be Disbarred
“There are political games Americans are rightly fed up with,” responded Mike Vanderboegh, one of the co-signers of the Holder ethics complaint. “They’re coming from those who place shielding their positions of privilege above finding out the truth, and who are doing everything in their power to discourage an open investigation.”
“As for rejecting the complaint because of assumptions it makes, its unarguable that the Attorney General has been found in contempt of Congress. On that basis alone, the DC Bar has not just the authority, but the responsibility to conduct an investigation,” he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Socialists & Communists: We Operate Through the Democrat Party!

The Red Side of Life Conservative Musings from New York ^ | 7/13/12 | RedInNewYork

The Socialists and Communists in America operate through the Democrat Party. This is no secret - the Democratic Socialist of America (DSA) openly state this fact, here, and the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) states it here. If you can stomach their websites, you will find this fact reiterated throughout.

There is a movement in the media underway, led by the New York Times, to whitewash Socialism - and to disabuse the public of the notion that Barack Obama is a socialist. This must be countered, and could not be further from the truth.

In fact, Obama's program is more in line with the Communist movement than the Socialist movement! Consider the bullet-points set forth by the CPUSA:

  • The building of a mass peoples party capable of contending for governmental power, a party free of domination by any monopoly interests;
  • Removal from the electoral system of the financial contributions of monopolies, to be replaced by public funding and guarantees of honest elections where each vote counts and all votes are counted;
  • Replacing the foreign policy of preemptive strikes and dictating to the world in the interests of U.S.-based transnationals with a policy of international cooperation to solve problems of war and aggression, poverty, education, environment, health, and development;
  • Full restoration and expansion of the Bill of Rights and all democratic rights; the complete separation of church and state;
  • Full legal protection from hate crimes and racial profiling, and the outlawing of oral and written racist propaganda;
  • Implementation of affirmative action and compensatory programs to achieve actual equality for the racially and nationally oppressed and women;
  • Prevention of the freedom of monopolies to move assets in ways that harm workers and communities without full compensation; the guaranteed right to a job at living wages or full income through public works and public service jobs; the growth of public ownership of industries;
  • Elimination of management prerogatives coupled with the expansion of workers and union rights to prevent socially harmful management decisions;
  • Full funding for education, affordable housing programs, day care, Social Security, a universal health care program, youth job training and recreation programs, and cultural programs;
  • Creation of a social fund starting at $200 billion to make up for past and continuing wrongs and to help achieve equality in facilities and infrastructure for communities of the racially and nationally oppressed;
  • No taxes for workers and low and middle income people; progressive taxation of the wealthy and private corporations;
  • Military budget slashed to a fraction of current spending; and,
  • All media to be free of monopoly ownership.

Sound familiar? This is the Obama program to the T.

Removing Obama is just a start towards thwarting their sinister ends, which they also term fundamental change. Their agents in, and running for, Congress must be exposed and removed/defeated. We know who they are... see here. This information must be publicized as much as possible.

However, there is another way... get them on the record supporting (or not opposing) Socialism prior to the election. I already have a proposal that does just this, here. Normally such Resolutions are merely symbolic, but here it would serve a critical function.

Thus, I urge you to help and contact sympathetic and understanding Representatives, particularly Allen West, to sponsor this resolution, or one like it, and bring it to the floor. There is too much at stake not to.

Romney should heed Palin’s 'Light Our Hair on Fire' rally cry!

Examiner ^ | July 13, 2012 | Kevin Fobbs

Sarah Palin is smart, decisive and she understands the needs and the dreams and aspirations of the heartland of America. So when she urges Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney to “Light our hair on fire”, it would behoove the presidential aspirant to listen.

Throughout Romney’s political career, it is safe to say that no one would ever accuse him of possessing rousing oratory or that he has ever lit an audience on fire with flame and inner passion. But, that is probably not as essential in this race, as having the ability to connect in a personal way with each one of the millions of voters who walk into that voting booth to cast their vote. Each voter needs to feel, Romney is right for their family’s needs, and that his administration will build a better tomorrow for their family, sooner rather than later.

Sarah Palin has bottled that formula for inspiring the conservative and independent American electorate, because she not only speaks from her heart, but Palin speaks to the heart of an America that Americans remember, full of grandeur and bristling with vibrant spirit and tenacious ability to protect the family, and rebuild from an inner spiritual strength endowed by God. Mitt Romney should seriously consider using Palin’s suggested playbook and truly demonstrate from within his will to defend and protect America’s families and their future. He must jettison the image of being perceived as a candidate who is walking a politically safe tightrope to the RNC Convention and the fall campaign.
The first step actually may have been taken at the recent NAACP National Convention in Houston, Texas, where Romney did not attempt to placate the audience. Instead, he told the audience what would truly benefit....
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

U.S. Olympic Uniforms: Made in China by Democratic Donor’s company (Ralph Lauren)!

Skip to comments.

Washington Free Beacon ^ | July 13, 2012 | Washington Free Beacon Staff

Lawmakers were livid to discover that the United States’ Olympic team uniforms were made in China. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) even suggested “they should take all the uniforms, put them in a big pile and burn them and start all over again.”

The company who designed the uniforms, Ralph Lauren, has received less scrutiny. Few outlets have noted that Ralph Lauren himself is a prominent contributor to President Obama and the Democratic Party.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Lauren has given $7,300 to Obama since 2008, and more than $35,000 to the Democratic National Committee.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Thousands Believe Hoax That Obama Will Pay Their Utility Bills!

CNSNews ^

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — As much as President Barack Obama wants your vote, he's not actually offering to pay your monthly bills.

But thousands of Americans have been persuaded otherwise, falling victim to a fast-moving scam that claims to be part of an Obama administration program to help pay utility bills in the midst of a scorching summer.

The scheme spread quickly across the nation in recent weeks with help from victims who unwittingly shared it on social media sites before realizing they had been conned out of personal information such as Social Security, credit card and checking account numbers.
"No one knows who is behind this," said Katherine Hutt, spokeswoman for the Council of Better Business Bureaus in Arlington, Va. "We're pretty concerned. It seems to have really taken off."
People from all corners of the country report being duped, from New Jersey to California, Wisconsin to Florida and all parts in between.
The scam benefits from being cleverly executed and comes at a time when air conditioners in much of the country are running around the clock to tame record-high temperatures.
Here's how it works: Victims typically receive an automated phone call informing them of the nonexistent utility program that will supposedly pay up to $1,000. There have also been reports of the hoax spreading by text message, flyers left at homes and even personal visits.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Romney’s Condoleezza Rice head fake ^ | July 13, 2012 | Kevin "Coach" Collins

Mitt Romney is not going to put Condoleeza Rice on his ticket. This is a head fake that many people have fallen for. Coming on the heels of his successful appearance before the NAACP, Mitt Romney has flipped the political script.
By mentioning Rice he has put Barack Obama on defense on the issue of race, something nobody, least of all Obama, ever expected.
By floating the possibility that he could pick former George W. Bush Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, an African American female, as his Vice President, Romney has slammed the Left into a Hobson’s choice that will require them to either praise the choice or attack the idea of having Rice on Romney’s ticket.
This is a “heads I win, tails you lose” situation for Romney. But it’s not real.
The Drudge factor
To help stoke this Rice “fire” Matt Drudge who has been in the tank for Romney from day one, has put a poll on his opening page. With 300,000 votes the Yes vote is running 2 to 1 ahead.
Romney’s plan relies on the “experts” on both sides playing their parts – and they will.
Immediately the conservatives started to howl that they hated the choice – rightly so I do as well- Condoleeza Rice would be a terrible choice. Rice is not a conservative and is on record as being a “mild supporter” of abortion.
As a member of Bush’s inner circle, Rice would be an invitation to the Left to change the subject of the campaign from Obama to Bush whom they have been running against for four years.
Van Jones a Communist who served as Obama’s Green Jobs Czar commented on a possible Rice selection. He said, “… if you want to do something shocking,… Condoleezza Rice….”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Axelrod: “There’s this reign of terror going on in the Republican Party”

Hot ^ | July 13, 2012 | ED MORRISSEY

New tone? David Axelrod spoke with National Journal’s Beth Reinhard in a phone interview, excerpts of which were posted a few minutes ago. In the interview, Axelrod decried the “politics of obstruction” — and then compared Republicans to Robespierre:
NJ President Obama has been vague about what he would accomplish in his second term.
AXELROD The president believes you build a strong, sustainable economy by building a strong, viable growing middle class. You have to continue to upgrade our educational system and improve access to higher education and technical training. We have to invest in research and development and the kinds of things that will create high-end, advanced manufacturing jobs. We have to continue to open up markets all over the world for American products. We need to continue with an all-of-the-above energy policy and really push for the development of all sources of energy. Immigration reform is an unfinished piece of business. But the principal thing we need to be pursuing is a very aggressive strategy of putting people back to work.
NJ How would the president accomplish those goals with a Republican-controlled House and possibly Senate?
AXELROD They have had a policy of obstruction from the day the president arrived. When the president is reelected, it will be a rejection of the politics of obstruction. There’s this reign of terror going on in the Republican Party.
I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised to hear this kind of rhetoric from the flailing and failing Obama campaign. Axelrod and his cohorts have gotten outfought, outraised, and outclassed in two short months after having the field all to themselves for over a year. Yesterday, the campaign accused Mitt Romney of being a felon, which prompted a demand for an apology that will not be coming forthwith, almost assuredly.
Axelrod is not just a cheap demagogue, he’s also a cheap small-d democrat. Voters sent a Republican-controlled House to Washington specifically to force a change in policy, a message that Axelrod and Barack Obama ignored. The House, by the way, has passed budgets and more than a dozen jobs bills. It’s the Democratic-controlled Senate that has been the obstruction, refusing to pass budgets so that conference committees can resolve issues, and ignoring the House jobs bills altogether. Obama has shown zero leadership on this issue, griping about Republican dissent while ignoring completely that his own party has yet to cast one single supporting vote in three tries on his own budget proposals, and won’t even attempt to hold a vote on Obama’s tax proposals.
The actual “reign of terror,” for the sake of those as historically illiterate as Axelrod, took place during the French Revolution, when it turned bloody. The revolutionaries became as despotic as the monarchy they deposed, executing thousands for dissent and purported betrayal of the revolution. It’s actually the opposite of what Republicans are doing in Congress by opposing Obama’s agenda and attempting to push forward their own. That’s as ignorant an analogy as one might see in American politics.
The real terror for Axelrod is that he’s about to lose an election, and his campaign still hasn’t figured out what its theme is yet. The strong stench of desperation is in the air, as well as the even more pungent stench of demagoguery. Axelrod should be ashamed, but won’t be.

Another Fine Mess

Romney slams Obama welfare waiver move!

the washington times ^ | July 13, 2012 | David Hill

The Romney campaign is chastising the Obama administration for announcing that it may allow states to waive a federal requirement that welfare recipients engage in “work activities.”

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced Thursday that it will consider requests from states wishing to waive the requirement, which were at the heart of the welfare reform law negotiated between congressional Republicans and President Bill Clinton in 1996.
In a memo to states, the department said the change will spur state-level welfare innovation and provide the increased flexibility in enforcement that many states want.
The new policy would allow states to embark on their own welfare reform projects, during which they would be able to waive enforcement of the work mandate. Such projects would last no longer than five years. But Republicans are slamming the decision as an executive overreach and a major step toward undoing bipartisan reforms achieved during the Clinton administration.
“The president’s action is completely misdirected,” Mr. Romney said in a statement. “Work is a dignified endeavor, and the linkage of work and welfare is essential to prevent welfare from becoming a way of life.”

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Truth

The Speech That Landed Condi On Romney's List (Storm DC)

Buzz Feed ^ | 7/13/12 | McKay Coppins

With The Drudge Report driving speculation that Condoleezza Rice is now a leading contender in the Republican veepstakes, campaign surrogates and supporters say Rice electrified Mitt Romney's circle last month with a speech she delivered at the candidate's closed-door June fundraising retreat in Park City.

Rice's forceful and surprisingly partisan 13-minute address — audio of which has been obtained by BuzzFeed — won her two standing ovations from the gathering of big-money donors and GOP elite. It was widely considered the highlight of the weekend, several people present told BuzzFeed.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Senate Dems Kill Obama’s Tax Plan (yes, democrats!)

Breitbart ^ | 7-12-12 | Ben Shapiro

In a shocking repudiation of President Obama’s “soak the rich” economic plans, Senate Democrats today blocked a vote on President Obama’s proposal to raise taxes on those earning more than $250,000 per year.

Senate Republicans had proposed an immediate vote on the measure. In fact, they proposed two votes: one to extend the Bush tax cuts in their totality, the other to raise taxes as per Obama’s plan. “My recommendation is we give the president what he asked for,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

The strategy for McConnell and Republicans is simple: they want to show Americans that even Democrats recognize that the Bush tax cuts ought to be extended for all Americans. And Democrats want to avoid that vote, so they can continue posturing and conducting class warfare.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Constitution’s Limits Threaten in an Obama Second Term!

Townhall. com ^ | July 13, 2012 | Ken Blackwell

Public officials and pundits are still digesting the Supreme Court’s Obamacare decision in NFIB v. Sebelius. Not yet discussed are the extraordinary implications for the size and role of government in a second Obama term in light of President Obama’s new stump speech, as it is clear there is not a reliable majority on the Court to restrain government power by enforcing the limits imposed by the Constitution.

Most provisions in the Constitution fall into two categories. The first are authority provisions, explaining the structure and powers of government. The second are liberty provisions, declaring certain rights of the people.

The original Constitution had only the former, because the latter were regarded as superfluous. If something was not found in a specific authority clause, it was automatically illegal and beyond the purview of the federal government. Political backlash from the Anti-Federalists and others led to some states threatening to withhold ratification unless a Bill of Rights was promptly added. Likely our fourth president James Madison would have lost his first congressional race to our fifth president James Monroe had Mr. Madison not joined Mr. Monroe’s call to add the Bill of Rights to the nascent Supreme Law.
Perhaps the most revolutionary aspect of our Constitution is that it is a written document. It is written so that all can see what the powers of the national government are, and guaranteeing in the Tenth Amendment that all powers not specifically granted to the Constitution are reserved to the states or the people. This doctrine of enumerated powers is the cornerstone of our constitutional order and the federal system.
We wrote in our second book that if President Obama won a second term, Americans’ liberties would only be as secure as the courts were faithful to properly exercise their power of judicial review to invalidate actions that violate the Constitution. Whether invalidating unconstitutional legislation passed by Congress or unconstitutional executive actions, the courts must not flinch when cases are properly brought to them.
Mr. Madison explained that “ambition must be made to counteract ambition” for checks and balances to work. Each branch must boldly discharge its constitutional duty. Part of the tragedy of the Obamacare decision is realizing that the current membership of the Supreme Court will not exercise robust judicial review.
It appears clear that Chief Justice John Roberts conducts judicial review rigorously only when the liberty clauses of the Constitution are implicated. For example, he invalidated government action when it violated the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause in Citizens United (campaign finance) and Religion Clauses in Hosanna-Tabor (the ministerial exception), invalidated a federal gun ban under the Second Amendment, and extended that right against state and local gun bans through the Fourteenth Amendment.
But Chief Justice Roberts shows extraordinary deference to the federal government when the actions of the president or Congress are challenged for exceeding federal powers under the authority clauses. First came U.S. v. Comstock (2010), where Justice Kennedy chided the liberal justices and Chief Justice Roberts in giving an exceedingly-broad reading to the Necessary and Proper Clause.
Part of the consternation from the Obamacare decision was seeing Chief Justice Roberts engage in linguistic gymnastics to ignore Congress’ word choice in writing the statute and the president’s televised vows, upholding the individual mandate as a tax despite 200 years of precedent that penalties are not taxes. He also saved half of a Medicaid expansion that coerces the states, and insisted on severing it to save the rest of what was now a misbegotten mutation of Congress’ statute.
This reluctance to unapologetically apply judicial review when authority clauses—rather than liberty clauses—are implicated bodes ill for many current court challenges. There might not be five votes to succeed in challenges to Dodd-Frank, EPA’s cap-and-trade rules, the FCC’s internet-control rules, the recess-appointment challenges, and other power grabs.
Mr. Obama announced on July 6 in Ohio that this election is about a “clash of visions” about the role of government in our lives, arguing for massive entitlements and regulatory controls. If he wins, he will claim a mandate and take federal power to heights we’ve never seen. We can no longer be confident that the Supreme Court will stop him.
Liberty endures only when each branch fully and fearlessly checks and balances the other two branches. Abdicating judicial review empowers President Obama to subvert the Constitution with an imperial presidency, and fundamentally transform the United States to the detriment of future generations.

Salad Days of the Public Sector Are Over! ^ | July 13, 2012 | Pat Buchanan

San Bernardino, Calif., has now followed Stockton into bankruptcy.

Harrisburg and Scranton, Pa., and Jefferson County, Ala., home to Birmingham, are already there to welcome them.

Detroit has been taken into receivership by Michigan. A plan under discussion is to level a fourth of the city and reconvert it into the pasture and farmland it used to be a century ago.

On the Web, one may find a pictorial tale of two cities: Hiroshima, a smoking flattened ruin in 1945, now a beautiful gleaming metropolis. And Detroit, forge and furnace of democracy in 1945, today resembling Dresden after Bomber Command paid its visit.
Other American cities are exploring bankruptcy to escape from under the mountain of debt they have amassed or to get out of contracts that an earlier generation of politicians negotiated.
No longer shameful, bankruptcy is now seen as an option for U.S. cities. The crisis of the public sector has come to River City.
What happened to us?
In the Reagan-Clinton prosperity, officials earned popularity by making commitments that could be met only if the good times lasted forever. They added new beneficiaries to old programs and launched new ones. They hired more bureaucrats, aides, teachers, firemen, cops.
Government's share of the labor force soared to 22.5 million. This is almost three times the number in the public sector when JFK took the oath of office. These employees were guaranteed job security and high salaries, given subsidized health care, and promised early retirement and pensions that the private sector could not match.
The balance between the private and public sectors shifted. As a share of the U.S. population, the number of taxpayers fell, as tax consumers -- the beneficiaries of government programs and government employees who run those programs -- rose.
The top 1 percent now pays 40 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pays 70 percent. The bottom half, scores of millions of workers, pay nothing. They ride free.
This could not go on forever. And when something cannot go on forever it will, by Stein's Law, stop. The Great Recession brought it to a stop. We have come to the end of the line.
U.S. cities depend on property and sales taxes. But property tax revenue has fallen with the collapse of the housing market. Sales tax revenue has fallen as a result of the recession that has kept the consumers out of the malls.
Revenues down, cities and counties face a choice. Raise taxes, or cut payrolls and services. But if taxes rise or workers are laid off and services decline, Americans in our mobile society move across city and state lines, as they are moving from California to Colorado, Nevada and Arizona.
This does not end the crisis, it exacerbates it.
Bankruptcy not only offers cities relief from paying interest to bondholders, it enables mayors to break contracts with public service unions. Since the recession began, 650,000 government workers, almost all city, county or state employees, have lost their jobs. Millions have seen pay and benefits cut.
The salad days of the public sector are over. From San Joaquin Valley to Spain, its numbers have begun to shrink and its benefits to be cut.
A declaration of bankruptcy by a few cities, however, has an impact upon all -- for it usually involves a default on debts. This terrifies investors, who then demand a higher rate of interest for the increased risk they take when they buy the new municipal bonds that fund the educational and infrastructure projects of the solvent cities.
Cities and counties have no way out of the vicious cycle. Rising deficits and debts force new tax hikes and new cuts in schools, cops and firemen. Residents see the town going down, and pack and leave.
This further reduces the tax base and further enlarges the deficit.
Then the process begins anew.
This is what is happening in Spain and Greece, which have reached the early 1930s stage of rioting and the rise of radical parties.
Since the New Deal, Keynesianism has been our answer to recession. As the private sector shrinks, the public sector expands to fill the void until the private sector returns to health. Only Keynesianism is not working.
Obama gave us an $800 billion stimulus and four deficits totaling $5 trillion. The Fed tripled the money supply and put interest rates at near zero. The banks are flush with cash. But the engine will not turn over.
What about supply-side tax cuts? But with the Bush tax cuts still in place, taxes are generating the smallest share of gross domestic product in decades.
How much bigger a deficit should we run?
Liberal economists are saying, deficits be damned, print money and spend. With Republicans blocking tax hikes and Democrats resisting cuts in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, all eyes turn to the Fed.
As Milton Friedman said, "Inflation is the one form of taxation that can be imposed without legislation."

The ‘Tax Cuts for the Wealthiest’ Lie

National Review ^ | 07/13/2012 | Thomas Sowell

Anyone who wants to study the tricks of propaganda has a rich source of examples in the statements of President Barack Obama. On Monday, July 9, for example, he said that Republicans “believe that prosperity comes from the top down, so that if we spend trillions more on tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, that that will somehow unleash jobs and economic growth.”

Let us begin with the word “spend.” Is the government “spending” money on people whenever it does not tax them as much as it can? Such convoluted reasoning would never pass muster if the mainstream media were not so determined to see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil when it comes to Barack Obama.

Ironically, actual spending by the Obama administration for the benefit of its political allies, such as the teachers’ unions, is called not spending but “investment.” You can say anything if you have your own private language.
But let’s go back to the notion of “spending” money on “the wealthiest Americans.” The people he is talking about are not the wealthiest Americans. Income is not wealth — and the whole tax controversy is about income taxes. Wealth is what you have accumulated, and wealth is not taxed, except when you die and the government collects an inheritance tax from your heirs.
People over 65 years of age have far more wealth — but lower incomes — than people in their thirties and forties. If Obama wants to talk about raising income taxes, let him talk about it, but claiming that he wants to tax “the wealthiest Americans” is a lie and an emotional distraction for propaganda purposes.
The really big lie — and one that no amount of hard evidence or logic seems to make a dent in — is that those who oppose raising taxes on higher incomes simply want people with higher incomes to have more money, in hopes that some of their prosperity will “trickle down” to the rest of the people.
Some years ago, a challenge was issued in this column to name any economist, outside of an insane asylum, who had ever said any such thing. Not one example has yet been received, whether from economists or anyone else. Someone is always claiming that somebody else said it, but no one has ever been able to name and quote that somebody else.
Once we have put aside the lies and the convoluted use of words, what are we left with? Not much.
Obama is claiming that the government can get more tax revenue by raising the tax rate on people with higher incomes. It sounds plausible, and that may be enough for some people, but the hard facts make it a very iffy proposition.
This issue has been fought out in the United States in several administrations — both Democratic and Republican. It has also been fought out in other countries.
What is the real argument of those who want to prevent taxes from rising above a certain percentage, even for people with high incomes? It has nothing to do with making them more prosperous so that their prosperity will “trickle down.”
A Democratic president — John F. Kennedy — stated the issue plainly. Under the existing tax rates, he explained, investors’ “efforts to avoid tax liabilities” made them put their money in tax shelters, because existing tax laws made “certain types of less productive activity more profitable than other more valuable undertakings” for the country.
Ironically, the Obama campaign’s attacks on Mitt Romney for putting his money in the Cayman Islands substantiate the point that President Kennedy and others have made, that higher tax rates can drive money into tax shelters, whether tax-exempt municipal bonds or investments in other countries.
In other words, raising tax rates does not automatically raise tax revenues for the government. Higher tax rates have often led to lower tax revenues for states, the federal government, and other countries. Conversely, lower tax rates have often led to higher tax revenues. It all depends on the circumstances.
But none of this matters to Barack Obama. If class-warfare rhetoric about taxes leads to more votes for him, that is his bottom line, whether the government gets a dime more revenue or not. So long as his lies go unchallenged, a second term will be the end result for him and a lasting calamity for the country.
— Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Poll: Obamacare Ruling Makes Voters ‘Less Likely’ to Vote for Obama (By a 15-point margin)

Weekly Standard ^ | JUL 12, 2012 | JEFFREY H. ANDERSON

The latest Quinnipiac poll shows that — by a 15-point margin — the Supreme Court’s Obamacare ruling makes voters less likely, rather than more likely, to cast their vote for President Obama. Twenty-seven percent of registered voters say that the ruling makes them “less likely” to vote for Obama, while only 12 percent say that it makes them “more likely” to do so. Only 9 percent of independents say that they are “more likely” to vote for Obama because of the ruling, compared to 27 percent who are “less likely.”

Among Catholics — a large percentage of whom are historically swing voters — 35 percent say that the ruling makes them “less likely” to vote for Obama, while only 10 percent say it makes them “more likely” to vote for him.

Most voters (55 percent) say that the candidates’ positions on Obamacare will be “extremely” or “very” important in influencing their vote for president.

The poll shows that, by a 6-point margin (49 to 43 percent), registered voters want to see Obamacare repealed. Independents favor repeal by an 8-point margin (49 to 41 percent). Catholics favor repeal by a 22-point margin (58 to 36 percent). Repeal is supported by men, women, those between the ages of 18 and 34, those between the ages of 35 and 54, those who are 55 or over, those who make less than $30,000 annually, those who make between $30,000 and $50,000, those who make between $50,000 and $100,000, and those who make over $100,000.
This poll — and the past 100 repeal polls from Rasmussen Reports — shows that the House of Representatives was doing the people’s bidding when it voted yesterday to repeal Obamacare — by a 59-vote margin (244 to 185). Conversely, the House was not doing the people’s bidding when (then under Democratic control) it voted to pass Obamacare in 2010 — by a mere 7-vote margin (219 to 212).

NOW, & other feminist groups endorse Obama, expect more in second term!

Daily Caller ^ | July 11, 2012 | Caroline May

In an endorsement that surprised few, five of the nation’s leading left-leaning feminist organizations endorsed President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign Wednesday morning, but said more should be expected of him in a second term.

Standing behind a large sign reading “Stop the War on Women,” the heads of the National Organization for Women, Feminist Majority, the National Congress of Black Women, the Women’s Information Network and US Women Connect made their case for Obama, largely focusing on their opposition to Republicans and GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

65 Outrageous Lies by President Obama

65 Outrageous Lies by President Obama

7 Lies In Under 2 Minutes

M.A.S.H. Star (BJ Hunnicut) Partners with Castro's Spy Agency ^ | July 13, 2012 | Humberto Fontova

Though a consistently good show, few conservatives mistook M.A.S.H for anything but pinko propaganda. Last week long-time M.A.S.H star Mike Farrell (Capt. B.J. Hunnicut) took the last few baby-steps and started spouting outright Communist propaganda.

In a letter to President Obama, Farrell officially partners with Castro’s KGB-trained DGI urging the release of five of their agents and officers who were convicted in 2001 of conspiracy to commit espionage against the U.S. and conspiracy to murder Americans. The Supreme Court has twice upheld the convictions of these Communist terrorists and accessories to murder. In 1933, Stalin’s propaganda chief, Willi Munzenberg, re-monikered the Soviet Comintern as the "International Aid Committee for the Victims of Fascism." The Soviet’s Cuban satraps and their celebrity propaganda auxiliaries have one-upped even Munzenberg.

These convicted Castroite terrorists-- we’re now given to understand by the former M.A.S.H star-- are actually peace-loving anti-terrorists, flower-children of sorts. Here’s the heart of Farrell’s letter:

Dear President Obama,

“Release them because they came here only to monitor the activities of violent Cuban exiles who, operating from bases in Miami of which our government is well aware, were planning violent actions against innocent people in Cuba. Release them because they were trying to prevent more brutal acts against their country and save innocent lives.”
But according to the FBI’s affidavit, the convicted Castro-agents who Farrell champions were engaged in, among other acts:
• Gathering intelligence against the Boca Chica Air Naval Station in Key West, the McDill Air Force Base in Tampa and the headquarters of the U.S. Southern Command in Homestead, Fla.
• Compiling the names, home addresses and medical files of the U.S. Southern Command’s top officers, along with those of hundreds of officers stationed at Boca Chica.
• Infiltrating the headquarters of the U.S. Southern Command.
• Sending letter bombs to Cuban-Americans.
• Spying on McDill Air Force Base, the U.S. armed forces’ worldwide headquarters for fighting “low-intensity” conflicts.
• Locating entry points into Florida for smuggling explosives.
Farrell’s poster-boys also infiltrated the Cuban-exile group Brothers to the Rescue, who flew unarmed planes to rescue Cuban rafters in the Florida straits, also known as “the cemetery without crosses.” The estimates of the number of Cubans dying horribly in the “cemetery without crosses,” run from 50,000-85,000. Brothers to The Rescue risked their lives almost daily, flying over the straits, alerting and guiding the Coast Guard to any balseros, and saving thousands of these desperate people from joining that terrible tally.
Prior to Castroism, by the way, Cuba was swamped with more immigrants per-capita than the U.S., mostly from Europe. People from nearby Haiti jumped on rafts desperate to enter Cuba, which enjoyed a higher standard of living than much of Europe. Also, during the 1950’s when all Cubans were perfectly free to emigrate with all family, property, etc., and U.S. visas were issued to them for the asking, about the same number of Americans lived in Cuba as Cubans in the U.S. In 1953 more Cubans vacationed (then voluntarily went home) from the U.S. than Americans vacationed in Cuba. Alas none of this features in The Godfather II. So it’s mostly unknown.
By February 1996, Brothers to The Rescue had flown 1,800 of these humanitarian missions and helped rescue 4,200 men, women and children. That month Mike Farrell’s current cause célèbre’ passed to Castro the flight plan for one of the Brothers’ humanitarian flights over the “cemetery without crosses.”
With this info in hand, Castro’s Top Guns, saluted and sprang to action. They jumped into their MIGs, took off and valiantly blasted apart (in international air space) the lumbering and utterly defenseless Cessnas. Four members of the humanitarian flights were murdered in cold blood.
Three of these men were U.S. citizens, the other a legal U.S. resident. Among the murdered was Armando Alejandre Jr., who came to the U.S. at age ten in 1960. His first order of business upon reaching the age of 18 was fulfilling his dream of becoming a U.S. citizen. His next was joining the United States Marine Corps and volunteering for service in Vietnam. He returned with several decorations.
As a member of Brothers to the Rescue, Alejandre often dropped flowers over the sea, in memory of the thousands they were unable to rescue in time. So Castro waited for Armando Alejandre Jr and his Brothers to be carrying these flowers—and made his move, murdering them in cold blood. MIGs against Cessnas. Cannon and rockets against flowers. Details of the atrocity are provided in a book by Matt Lawrence, one of Alejandre’s colleagues in rescue.
The “violence and brutality” Farrell parrots about the rescuers actually involved dropping flowers over the Florida Straits and saving thousands of innocent lives, including thousands of women and children whose only crime was attempting to flee—at enormous risk to their lives-- a nation formerly swamped with immigrants.
The premeditated atrocity against Alejandre and his brothers is what added the “manslaughter” and “conspiracy to commit murder” charges (on top of the ones listed above, 26 charges total) against Mike Farrell’s recent propaganda assignment from Castro.
But why pick on Farrell, some might ask?
After all, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter also pleas for these terrorists’ freedom. Worse, he made the plea while they served an honored quest of the Stalinist regime. "I had the opportunity to meet the families of the five Cuban patriots," (the terrorists convicted by a U.S. jury), boasted Carter to Castro’s media last year. “I'm well aware of the shortcomings of the U.S. judicial system.”
Consider the scene: the former U.S. President known as the “Elder Statesman” of the U.S.’ majority political party, while an official guest of a State Sponsor of Terrorism, saw fit to denounce convictions of foreign terrorists twice upheld by the U.S. Supreme court. Carter’s denunciation of his nation’s judicial system was openly broadcast into the microphones of a regime whose legal code was adopted from Cheka chief Felix Dzerzhinsky. “Do not search for evidence,” Dzerzhinsky’s top lieutenant Martin Latsis instructed his hangmen in the Ukraine. “Simply ask him to what class he belongs, what are his origins, education, and profession. Those are the questions that should decide the fate of the accused.”
Upon entering Havana in January 1959 Dzerzhinsky disciple and Castro’s chief hangman Che Guevara adopted the Cheka code almost word for word: “Judicial evidence is an archaic bourgeois detail,” he instructed his “prosecutors.” “We execute and jail from revolutionary conviction.” These executions would ultimately surpass Hitler’s during the Night of the Long Knives and the rate of jailings would exceed Stalin’s during his Great Terror.
While denouncing the U.S. judicial system from cue cards provided by the regime responsible for all the above and that curses the country that elected him as “The Great Enemy of Mankind!”, (and came within an unapologetic hair of nuking it), Jimmy Carter also hailed Fidel Castro as “an old friend.”
And we’re up in arms over Jane Fonda?