Wednesday, December 5, 2012

Who Owns You? Dems or Unions? ^ | December 5, 2012 | John Ransom

While it’s a truism that for every finger you point at someone else you’ve got three pointed right back at you, for liberals it’s part of their laws of physics.
It would be impossible for the laws of liberals to govern without this binding hypocrisy that keeps them in orbit.
That’s why it shouldn’t surprise you that for all the leftist rhetoric about corporations and greed contributing the decline of the country, there’s one corporate outfit that’s really screwing up this country- and it’s a creation and a creature of the left.
Like most Big Left organizations it is a corporate body that is funded by you and I, but serves only the holy trinity of liberals, leftists and liars.
That corporation is, of course, Union, Inc.
Some call it Big Labor, but that’s an insult to the dignity of labor.
And if you want to see examples of corporate personhood gone bad you needn’t look to Wall Street. No; the stakes there are too high and the disclosures too transparent for mere corporation law to shield corporations from poor governance.
The laws of economics- the real laws, not the theories- usually take care of things in the private, corporate marketplace.
Instead- like many things in the country- you need to look farther left for real-life examples of rogue corporate personhood.
Union domination of the Democrat Party has become so entrenched- and so full of government money- that it’s impossible to tell if Union, Inc. is the parent corporation of the Democrats, or if the Democrats control the unions. And the symbiotic and sybaritic relationships between the unions and the Democrats have helped screw up corporations, municipalities and public policy in this country for too many decades.
Even as the so-called recovery notches another year, and state revenues begin to stabilize, municipalities and school districts are increasingly filing for bankruptcy in order to containing the rising cost of benefits demanded by unionized public workers.
In California, the greedy, union-benefits outfit working for public employees, called Calpers, is treated with kid gloves in both law and in practice. Law says that when municipalities file for bankruptcy, Calpers must be paid even if the benefits paid to Calpers are causing the bankruptcy. Police can be fired, private vendors stiffed, teachers laid off, investors in public debt can get zero pennies on the dollar, but union benefits must be paid.
The city of San Bernardino however is challenging union dominance over their balance sheet. The city is $5 million behind in pension payments, “the city simply says it's broke,” reports the San Francisco Chronicle. But “San Bernardino is treating CalPERS like any other creditor that's not getting paid.”
Of course the Chronicle is livid over union benefits being treated “like any other creditor that's not getting paid.”
“We urge San Bernardino to come to a solution with CalPERS that doesn't involve shorting the fund and its own retirees - or dumping its burdens on California's other taxpayers,” says the Chronicle.
But that’s exactly what Calpers already does.
Calpers is under-funded by anywhere from 55 percent to 75 percent in large part because Calpers uses math that would land private pension managers in jail. Calpers uses annualized growth rates of 7.5 percent when in fact the pension system only returned one percent last year. A 30-year Treasury right now only returns 2.79 percent. Last year the stock market returned zero percent and this year is up about 5 percent.
And really, under the law, a private pension manager would go to jail for using a 7.5 percent assumption to manage their pension fund.
That’s because someone will have to pay the difference between the assumption and the real rate of return. In both the Calpers and the private cases it will be the taxpayers who will pick up the tab.
Why should the city have to lay off workers because previously-elected officials entered into unsustainable retirement programs with unions who bankrolled their candidacies? Or because unions don’t have to use generally accepted accounting practices?
Cities -and states- shouldn’t have to choose between public safety and other necessities so that liberal council members and legislators can have an adequate supply of yard signs and bumpers stickers during an election year.
And taxpayers shouldn’t have to bailout union bad behavior again, just because they bought the Democrats with cash, credit and corruption.

The Blue-State Suicide Pact (Fiscal Cliff Tax Hikes Will Affect Blue-States the Most)

forbes ^ | 12/05/2012 | Joel Kotkin

With their enthusiastic backing of President Obama and the Democratic Party on Election Day, the bluest parts of America may have embraced a program utterly at odds with their economic self-interest. The almost uniform support of blue states’ congressional representatives for the administration’s campaign for tax “fairness” represents a kind of bizarre economic suicide pact.
Any move to raise taxes on the rich — defined as households making over $250,000 annually — strikes directly at the economies of these states, which depend heavily on the earnings of high-income professionals, entrepreneurs and technical workers. In fact, when you examine which states, and metropolitan areas, have the highest concentrations of such people, it turns out they are overwhelmingly located in the bluest states and regions.
Ironically the new taxes will have relatively little effect on the detested Romney uber-class, who derive most of their income from capital gains, taxed at a much lower rate. They also have access to all manner of offshore dodges. Nor will it have much impact on Silicon Valley millionaires and billionaires, or the Hollywood moguls and urban land speculators who constitute the Democratic Party’s “good rich,” and enjoy many of the same privileges as their wealthy conservative counterparts.
The people whose wallets will be drained in the new war on “the rich” are high-earning, but hardly plutocratic professionals like engineers, doctors, lawyers, small business owners and the like. Once seen as the bastion of the middle class, and exemplars of upward mobility, these people are emerging as the modern day “kulaks,” the affluent peasants ruthlessly targeted by Stalin in the early 1930s.
The ironic geography of the Democratic drive can be seen most clearly by examining the distribution of the classes now targeted by the coming purge.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Average Tax Increase From Expiration Of Bush Tax Cuts In 2013: $5,783
No. 2: New York State
Average Tax Increase From Expiration Of Bush Tax Cuts In 2013: $5,452
No. 3: New Jersey
Average Tax Increase From Loss Of Bush Tax Cuts In 2013: $5,030
No. 4: Massachusetts
Average Tax Increase From Loss Of Bush Tax Cuts In 2013: $4,272
No. 5: California
Average Tax Increase From Loss Of Bush Tax Cuts In 2013: $4,242


Only 16 Members Required to Unseat Boehner, Group Says ^ | 12/05/12 | Matthew Boyle

The president and CEO of conservative group American Majority Action (AMA) is demanding Republicans band together to fire House Speaker John Boehner.

“Speaker Boehner has been an abysmal failure as speaker, and his latest purge is the nail in the coffin for conservatives,” AMA’s Ned Ryun said in a statement. “Boehner has never won a negation battle with the White House or Senate—and he’s been nothing short of an embarrassing spokesman for the Conservative Movement. It’s time for him to go.”

Ryun pointed out, too, that if conservatives want to unseat Boehner, they’d only need 16 members to abstain from supporting him in January.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Night Of The Long Knives: 'Fake' Conservative John Boehner Purges The GOP

Zero Hedge ^ | 12-5-12 | "Tyler Durden"

Is this really the reason why markets are rallying today? (or is it front-running the potential 'cone of silence' from a long-weekend in DC) We suspect neither, but Mike Krieger, having written extensively on the two-party political sham, notes the issue is that both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are at their core the same on the big issues most affect these United States at this time. This past election should have been a wakeup call to the Republican establishment, but based on John Boehner’s recent actions, they have learned absolutely nothing. The Republican Party is imploding from within since its leaders don’t actually stand for anything. Here is how Mr. Boehner treats those within his party that do stand for something.
Via Mike Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,
I have written about the two-party political sham for many years now. At its root, the issue is that both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are at their core the same on the big issues most affect these United States at this time. These issues are:
The Federal Reserve scam and Wall Street theft. Civil liberties and the destruction of the Constitution. Our aggressive foreign policy and imperial wars abroad that help only the oligarchs and impoverish the masses.
Then they divide and conquer the masses using relatively irrelevant social issues like gay marriage, which are highly charged emotionally but will not affect your ability to put food on the table.
This past election should have been a wakeup call to the Republican establishment, but based on John Boehner’s recent actions, they have learned absolutely nothing. The Republican Party is imploding from within since its leaders don’t actually stand for anything. Here is how Mr. Boehner treats those within his party that do stand for something.
From the Huffington Post:
On Monday, the Republican Steering Committee, which is chaired by House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), voted to remove Reps. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) and Tim Huelskamp (R-Kansas) from the House Budget Commtitee. Reps. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.) and Walter Jones (R-N.C.) lost their positions on the Financial Services Committee.
The four members are known for occasionally bucking leadership and voting against Boehner’s wishes. Amash, Huelskamp and Schweikert are popular with the conservative movement, while Jones has made a name for himself by speaking out against U.S. involvement in Afghanistan.
Reuters notes that removing Amash and Huelskamp from the Budget Committee “could make it easier for the panel to advance a deal with Democrats to cut fiscal deficits” — which is exactly what many conservative groups are afraid of.
Huelskamp unloaded on GOP leadership Tuesday at a Heritage Foundation event in Washington, saying, “We were not notified about what might occur but it confirms in my mind the deepest suspicions that most Americans have about Washington D.C: it’s petty, it’s vindictive, and if you have conservative principles you will be punished.”
“It’s a slap in the face to all young people who are thinking about being Republicans, want to be a part of this party, and are being told, ‘Well, if you disagree with leadership just a couple times we’re going to send you home … you don’t get to participate,’” he said.
Jones said he hasn’t yet spoken to Boehner. In fact, he only found out he lost his spot on the committee when his staff read about it on the Internet.
Talk about classless. These guys apparently weren’t even notified of their demotions ahead of time and had to read about it in the press. The message to the citizenry is clear. We must move away from the two-party system and fast. That way we can elect candidates that actually vote the will of the people that elected them, rather than pander to some slimy political godfather in Washington.

Obama's Economic Lumps of Coal! ^ | December 5, 2012 | Donald Lambro

President Obama would have failed Negotiations 101, if there was such a course, the first rule being "do not insult" the people you're dealing with.
Hitting the road to campaign for his plan to raise taxes on small business employers, investors and people in the top two income brackets, he hurled some mean-spirited accusations and insults at House Republican leaders even before they got down to serious negotiations to avoid the dreaded "fiscal cliff."
House Speaker John Boehner and his leadership team, whom Obama likened to Charles Dickens' hard-hearted, skinflint Ebenezer Scrooge, were offering the American people nothing more than a "lump of coal" for a "Scrooge Christmas" this year.
It was, shall we say, an inauspicious opening gambit in a round of negotiations on which the economic well-being of the nation hangs in the balance. But it sent a very clear message that the president wasn't taking this seriously.
In a few weeks, our country could be pushed back into another recession if both sides cannot agree on a way to prevent everyone's taxes from rising sharply on Jan. 1.
Yet there was Obama pretending his political blood sport campaign wasn't over, going on the attack, and making a meaningless offer to Boehner that was nothing more than his original budget proposal, which Congress had rejected out of hand: $60 billion a year in spending reductions, a puny 1.6 percent out of a nearly $4 trillion annual budget.
On top of that, he wanted Congress to give him greater powers than he already has -- powers that the Constitution gives to Congress: control over raising the debt limit when and how he wishes.
Boehner responded with great restraint, telling reporters that the president clearly wasn't taking these negotiations seriously. Obama, he remarked, had made a "la-la-land offer."
"We could have responded in kind, but we decided not to do that," the Ohio congressman said. It was a class act versus a Chicago- style, former community organizer who thinks he is still in the 2012 campaign and that this is no time for leadership.
But the cruel irony is that it's Obama's policies that will be giving the Americans a "lump of coal" this Christmas -- in increased unemployment, a slowing economy and the threat of higher, punitive tax rates that have already begun rippling throughout a business community paralyzed by uncertainty.
And, it should be added, sitting on nearly $2 trillion in cash assets because they fear the future under the next four years of a persistently weak Obama economy that is not going to get any better anytime soon.
His administration has been putting out reports aimed at showing the economy is improving. And the compliant nightly network news duly trumpets the government's line, failing to dig into the numbers or in some cases ignoring reports that indicate the economy is slowing down.
Take, for example, last week's revised (July-through-September) third quarter report that the economy grew at a 2.7 percent annual rate. The revision was higher than an earlier 2 percent estimate.
But the devil is in the details and they weren't good. A big reason GDP rose was that business inventories were higher than was estimated earlier. In other words, they weren't moving and that could mean weaker growth to come as businesses delay any new purchases until their inventories fall.
Another big factor in the revised growth rate was higher government spending, shooting up at a 9.5 percent rate in the middle of the presidential campaign -- loaded with gifts for Obama's special interests.
That's not going to continue, particularly under the fiscal cliff up ahead. Though, if Obama ultimately gets his way, spending will continue to soar which will bury our country in debt.
The jump in the economic growth rate certainly wasn't due to increased business spending for equipment, either. That declined sharply in the third quarter, dropping at a 2.7 percent annual rate.
What this means, despite the ballyhooed report on the CBS Evening News, is that the economy is due for much slower growth ahead. "Macroeconomic Advisers expects GDP growth will be only 1.4 percent in the final three months of the year," reports the Washington Post's economics analyst Neil Irwin.
Monday night, CBS News anchor Scott Pelley ticked off some positive housing data to make the Obama economy look good, but he ignored that day's worst economic news: New orders at U.S. factories fell nearly 4 percent "which bodes ill for the future," Irwin said Tuesday.
At the same time, the Federal Reserve says factory output fell 0.9 percent between October and September, and factory jobs dropped to their lowest level since Sept. 2009.
Remember those campaign ads Obama ran this earlier this year, saying "factories are humming again"? In his dreams.
What all of this means to average Americans is that the economy will remain weak for the foreseeable future, full-time jobs will be in short-supply, and that in turn will mean weak federal tax revenues, persistent budget deficits and higher debt. Obama's spending binge is on course for another $1.1 trillion deficit in 2013.
Despite the $1 trillion in government stimulus spending Obama has dished out over the past four years, the U.S. economy's growth rate hasn't been able to creep much above 2 percent. In real economic output, that's "only 2 percent above what it was in the fourth quarter of 2007," Irwin says.
The November unemployment numbers come out this Friday, just 18 days before Christmas. Forecasters say the 7.9 percent jobless rate will rise, again. This time, over 8 percent.
This isn't "the economy is moving in the right direction" and "making progress" that Obama promised us in his re-election campaign. Economic growth isn't improving, it is slowing down. Unemployment and underemployment isn't on a downward slope, it is creeping upward.
This will be a bleak Christmas for millions of Americans trapped in a chronically weak, undernourished economy and Obama obviously doesn't have a clue about how to turn it around.

Obama Plays Chicken

National Review ^ | 12/5/2012 | Thomas Sowell

His priority is to increase government, and he’ll sacrifice the economy for it.

One of the big advantages that President Obama has, as he plays “chicken” with congressional Republicans along the “fiscal cliff,” is that he is a master of the plausible lie, which will never be exposed by the mainstream media — nor, apparently, by the Republicans.

A key lie that has been repeated over and over, largely unanswered, is that President Bush’s “tax cuts for the rich” cost the government so much tax revenue that this added to the budget deficit — so that the government cannot afford to allow the cost of letting the Bush tax rates continue for “the rich.”

It sounds very plausible, and constant repetition without a challenge may well be enough to convince the voting public that, if the Republican-controlled House of Representatives does not go along with Barack Obama’s demands for more spending and higher tax rates on the top 2 percent, it just shows that they care more for “the rich” than for the other 98 percent.

What is remarkable is how easy it is to show how completely false Obama’s argument is. That also makes it completely inexplicable why the Republicans have not done so.

The official statistics that show plainly how wrong Barack Obama is can be found in his own “Economic Report of the President” for 2012, on page 411. You can look it up.

You may be able to find a copy of the “Economic Report of the President” for 2012 at your local public library. Or you can buy a hard copy from the Government Printing Office or download an electronic version from the Internet.

Those who find that “a picture is worth a thousand words” need only see the graphs published in the November 30 issue of Investor’s Business Daily.

What both the statistical tables in the “Economic Report of the President” and the graphs in Investor’s Business Daily show is that: (1) Tax revenues went up — not down — after tax rates were cut during the Bush administration, and (2) the budget deficit declined, year after year, after the cuts in tax rates that have been blamed by Obama for increasing the deficit.

Indeed, the New York Times reported in 2006: “An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year.”

While the New York Times may not have expected this, there is nothing unprecedented about lower tax rates’ leading to higher tax revenues, despite assumptions by many in the media and elsewhere that tax rates and tax revenues automatically move in the same direction. They do not.

The Congressional Budget Office has been embarrassed repeatedly by making projections based on the assumption that tax revenues and tax rates move in the same direction.

This has happened as recently as the George W. Bush administration and as far back as the Reagan administration. Moreover, tax revenues went up when tax rates went down as far back as the Coolidge administration, before there was a Congressional Budget Office to make false predictions.

The bottom line is that Barack Obama’s blaming increased budget deficits on the Bush tax cuts is demonstrably false. What caused the decreasing budget deficits after the Bush tax cuts to suddenly reverse and start increasing was the mortgage crisis. The deficit increased in 2008, followed by a huge increase in 2009.

So it is sheer hogwash that “tax cuts for the rich” caused the government to lose tax revenues. The government gained tax revenues; it did not lose them. Moreover, “the rich” paid a larger amount of taxes, and a larger share of all taxes, after the tax rates were cut.

That is because people change their economic behavior when tax rates are changed, contrary to what the Congressional Budget Office and others seem to assume, and this can stimulate the economy more than a government “stimulus” has done under either Bush or Obama.

Yet there is no need to assume that Barack Obama is mistaken about the way to get the economy out of the doldrums. His top priority has always been increasing the size and scope of government. If that means sacrificing the economy or the truth, it’s no deterrent to Obama. That is why he is willing to play chicken with Republicans along the fiscal cliff.

"A key lie that has been repeated over and over, largely unanswered, is that President Bush’s “tax cuts for the rich” cost the government so much tax revenue that this added to the budget deficit — so that the government cannot afford to allow the cost of letting the Bush tax rates continue for “the rich.”""What is remarkable is how easy it is to show how completely false Obama’s argument is. That also makes it completely inexplicable why the Republicans have not done so."

The only logical conclusion is that Boehner needs to be replaced.

Why Dick Armey resigned from his tea party organization

The Daily Caller ^ | 12-5-2012 | Alex Pappas

WASHINGTON — Dick Armey’s resignation as chairman of FreedomWorks follows months of turmoil, accusations of unethical behavior, top officials being put on administrative leave and a wave of staff departures inside the tea party-affiliated organization.
Multiple sources inside FreedomWorks told The Daily Caller that Armey’s resignation — made public this week but in the works for months – came about after the former House Majority Leader became angry with how FreedomWorks CEO and president Matt Kibbe was operating the organization.
“We had serious differences of opinion about the process of how you do business and I wanted to move on,” Armey told TheDC in a Tuesday phone interview.
FreedomWorks, formed in 2004, has established itself as a prominent player in campaign politics. It is known for organizing large tea party rallies and in backing conservative candidates in races across the country.
The tension between Armey and Kibbe boiled over in August, according to sources, when Armey found out about the details surrounding Kibbe’s new book, “Hostile Takeover: Resisting Centralized Government’s Stranglehold on America.”
Armey, who in September accepted a $8 million consulting contract in return for leaving FreedomWorks after the election, was outraged that Kibbe — and not FreedomWorks – would earn money from the book. The royalties from a previous book co-authored by Kibbe and Armey went directly to the organization.
Despite a request from Kibbe, Armey refused to sign a document for the book deal. In September, Kibbe and Adam Brandon, a top official who helped Kibbe secure the book deal, were temporarily put on administrative leave as the organization’s board of trustees looked into the matter and hoped to keep it quiet before the elections, sources said.
Armey wasn’t the only one at FreedomWorks uncomfortable with Kibbe’s actions. Some questioned why Kibbe was on a book tour ahead of the election instead of devoting resources to the election.
“There’s unethical behavior going on at the top and there are a bunch of people leaving,” one knowledgeable source told TheDC.
Said another source: “There is a feeling by a lot of folks that FreedomWorks is shifting over to become a promotion vehicle for Matt Kibbe more than an organization that focuses on public policy and elections and being a service center to the grassroots.”
As many as 10 other people – including longtime staffers Brendan Steinhauser and Max Pappas — have left or are also leaving FreedomWorks, the sources said.
In an interview on Tuesday, Kibbe argued the book helps the organization more than it helps him and the organization is stronger than it has ever been.
“We really set out to tell what I consider the FreedomWorks story, the philosophy and decentralized strategy and some of the policy issues that matter,” he said of the book.
Kibbe, whose contract with Harper Collins is worth $50,000, said the book is “incredibly valuable to FreedomWorks to promoting our agenda, to raising money.”
“A lot of our most successful high dollar fundraising piece was in fact lifted directly from the book,” he said. “And I’ve used this book to educate both donors and activists.”
“It was always designed as something that would help FreedomWorks, because that’s what I do and that’s what I want to accomplish,” he said.
Kibbe disputed that Armey resigned over the book.
“That had virtually nothing to do with it,” Kibbe told TheDC. “I think there were just two very different visions about where FreedomWorks was headed.”
He also denied that staffers were leaving because of “this dispute over the direction of FreedomWorks.”
“We also have over 50 people on our staff and you’re bound to get a certain percentage of turnover at any given time,” he said. “That’s how this town works and we’re no exception to that.”
According to sources, Armey’s tension with Kibbe reached an all-time high over the book. But Armey had other complaints as well: he suspected that FreedomWorks press staffers were bumping him from TV appearances so they could book Kibbe instead. He also thought staff were having to choose between being loyal to Kibbe or loyal to FreedomWorks, and those choosing Kibbe were given preferential treatment.
When it became clear that Armey wanted out of FreedomWorks, Dick Stephenson, one of Armey’s longtime friends who is also on the FreedomWorks board – stepped in to convince him to wait until after the election to call it quits.
It was feared that the press would have a field day with his resignation, potentially hurting tea party prospects at the polls, sources said.
Armey then secretly signed a consulting contract with Stephenson — the Associated Press revealed on Tuesday — worth $8 million in $400,000 annual installments, under the condition he wouldn’t leave FreedomWorks until after the election.
“The question of the timeline was a matter of anxiety over the election, not wanting to upset the applecart before the elections,” Armey told TheDC on Tuesday.
Referencing news reports suggesting otherwise, Armey emphasized that the money isn’t coming from the FreedomWorks coffers.
“I can tell you that any agreement I had with Dick Stephenson in no way was an agreement between me and FreedomWorks,” he said.
Armey resigned in an email to Kibbe on Friday. It stayed quiet until Mother Jones, a liberal outfit known for being critical of conservatives and tea partiers, broke the news.
On Monday, hours before the story broke, there were no signs of turmoil as Kibbe held a press availability for 100 local tea partiers that convened at the group’s Capitol Hill offices for a weekend conference.
Standing on a platform and surrounded by the activists, Kibbe declared: “I think there’s more energy in this movement today than there was Nov. 6.”
Several feet away from the platform was a box of books titled, “Hostile Takeover.”

How the Republicans Can Shut-down the Senate (after Reid ends filibuster)

WaPo ^ | 11/27/12 | Plumer

...Alternatively, the GOP could threaten to shut down the Senate entirely. This is technically doable.

”Keep in mind that a lot of what Senate leaders do day to day is done by unanimous consent,” explains Binder. If a single senator started objecting to every little motion and maneuver, it would become impossible to conduct any legislative business at all.

Some examples:

– A 500-page amendment is brought to the floor, and the bill manager wants to dispense with the reading of the amendment? All a senator has to say is, “I object,” and it’s time to start reading all 500 pages out loud.
– The Senate leader wants to waive the rule that prevents committees from meeting while the Senate is in session? A single senator can object, and, suddenly, committees can’t meet.
– Reid wants to adjourn the Senate until Jan. 3? “I object.”

Any senator can do this at any time, if he or she is so inclined. Indeed, as Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute explains, this is basically what happens when a senator places a “hold” on a White House nominee. The senator is threatening to deny unanimous consent if the nomination goes forward.

There are a few precedents in the past for lawmakers bogging down the Senate. Back in 2010, then-Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) managed to deny unanimous consent for days on end in order to prevent the Senate from passing an unemployment benefits package that he thought needed to be paid for. His maneuvers earned him plenty of negative press. Other senators pleaded with him. Bunning simply shrugged and replied, “Tough shit.”

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Samuel Adams is Spinning in his Grave!

Tea Party Tribune ^ | 2012-12-05 07:15:42 | mrcurmudgeon

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

"I will walk in freedom, for I have sought out your precepts."
- Psalms 119:45

In December of 1773, hotheaded revolutionary Samuel Adams attended a meeting of 7,000 American colonials at the Old South Church in Boston. They were angry over the Tea Act passed by the British Parliament. The tea tax raised revenue used to pay colonial governors and judges, which London viewed as the best means to control them. When Massachusetts Governor Thomas Hutchinson issued a statement making clear his support for king and country, Samuel Adams announced, "This meeting can do nothing further to save the country."
According to legend, Adams' statement was a prearranged signal for the Sons of Liberty to don their Mohawk Indian costumes and head to Boston Harbor - into which they dumped a sizable quantity of Tea. The Tea Party was a harbinger of things to come.
Coincidently, Old South Church possesses two copies of the first book published in America - 1640 editions of the Old Testament's book of Psalms. According to the Boston Globe, one copy will be auctioned to "help the church pay for needed repairs to its building and set the congregation on firmer financial ground as it pursues plans to grow its membership and mission." The Globe estimates the sale will fetch between $10 million and $20 million.
The decay of the Old South Church, sadly, is more than physical. Today's United Church of Christ (UCC), its clergy and congregation, have little in common with Samuel Adams or the 7,000 Bostonians outraged that Britain would bribe colonial officials with their own tax dollars.
The following are positions taken by the UCC:
ObamaCare: "... We believe that the law itself and the expansion of Medicaid included in the Affordable Care Act both speak to the moral and justice imperatives of equal access for all."
Economic Justice: "Our laws and public policy are the blueprints by which we set up the institutions that allocate people's chances in life."
Nuclear disarmament: "Local churches are encouraged to offer prayers and times of reflection on the significance of the past sixty years, and to pray and offer witness for peace in the world and the elimination of all stockpiles of nuclear weapons. Another world is possible. It must be possible - a world void of nuclear weapons with their devastating and long lasting effects on the peoples of this world, and on the earth."
Abortion: "After the Supreme Court decision in 1972, Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion in the U.S., the UCC has joined with other faith groups to protect women's equal and fair access to abortion and family planning which have been under attack consistently."
"What is man, that thou art mindful of him?" asks Psalms 8 "... For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honor. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet ..."
The clear implication in that statement is that Mankind is unique among the pantheon of creatures populating the Earth, and Man's God-given uniqueness, his nature, makes him equal with his fellow man.
"The state of nature has a law ... to govern it, which obliges every one," wrote John Locke in 1690, "... being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions ..."
Thomas Jefferson obviously loved Locke. He fashioned his epic Declaration on Locke's ideals, stating that the people of America should "assume among the powers of the Earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them," that the highest, God-given qualities bound to Man's nature are expressed through Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Preserving these spiritual endowments, Jefferson declared, is the only legitimate purpose governments serve.
The Old South Church has changed ... as has Boston ... Massachusetts ... and the nation.
The doctrines of today's Old South Church (supporting dictatorial ObamaCare, wealth redistribution, disarming America and abortion) sound familiar because they are ideological and not theological. Their "faith-based" politics elevates government a little above the angels and demotes free men to the status of single-cell ameba.
It's therefore understandable that a church which dehumanizes Mankind as mere servants of the state would willingly sell a treasured book that cautions the reader, "Put not your trust in princes."
I can almost hear Sam Adams shout, "This meeting can do nothing further to save the country!"
Article shared using the Free Republish tool on Tea Party Tribune.

Obama Confers With Progressive Wing-Nuts Over Tea In His Rabbit Hole!

Michelle Obama's Mirror ^ | 12-5-2012 | MOTUS

Did you hear about the tea party that Big Guy held yesterday afternoon?

Oddly enough, only Kool-Aid drinkers were invited for tea: Arianna Huffington, Eddie Schultz, Al Sharpton, Rachael Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnell.

Chris Matthews was invited butt he and Howard Fineman were apparently off slaying vampires, or hunting Nazis, or something.

This is all very confusing because I still remember when “the Bush tax-cuts” were characterized by Big Guy and Big Media as simply “tax cuts for the rich.”

...In other words, if the Bush cuts actually were just “tax cuts for the rich,” then their expiration couldn’t hurt the middle class. On the other hand, if their expiration would hurt the middle class, then characterizing them as “tax cuts for the rich” was a false message all along.

Well, as I mentioned, it was a tea party!

Why, you ask, is it always Tax today butt cut spending tomorrow?

Because, my dear, it’s never “any other-day,” it’s always today.

It’s very good jam, said the Queen.

Well, I don’t want and TO-DAY, at any rate.

You couldn’t have it if you DID want it, the Queen said. The rule is, jam to-morrow and jam yesterday – but never jam to-day.

It MUST come sometimes to “jam to-day,” Alice objected.

No, it can’t, said the Queen. It’s jam every OTHER day: to-day isn’t any OTHER day, you know.

Although I understand there was once…Continued
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Hobby Lobby CEO Letter Everybody’s Talking About


David Green is the founder and CEO of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., which is challenging the Obamacare contraceptive mandate. This letter is an excellent illustration of how stupid one-size-fits-all federal policies trample individual freedom.

When my family and I started our company 40 years ago, we were working out of a garage on a $600 bank loan, assembling miniature picture frames. Our first retail store wasn't much bigger than most people's living rooms, but we had faith that we would succeed if we lived and worked according to God's word. From there, Hobby Lobby has become one of the nation's largest arts and crafts retailers, with more than 500 locations in 41 states. Our children grew up into fine business leaders, and today we run Hobby Lobby together, as a family.
We're Christians, and we run our business on Christian principles. I've always said that the first two goals of our business are (1) to run our business in harmony with God's laws, and (2) to focus on people more than money. And that's what we've tried to do. We close early so our employees can see their families at night. We keep our stores closed on Sundays, one of the week's biggest shopping days, so that our workers and their families can enjoy a day of rest. We believe that it is by God's grace that Hobby Lobby has endured, and he has blessed us and our employees. We've not only added jobs in a weak economy, we've raised wages for the past four years in a row. Our full-time employees start at 80% above minimum wage.
But now, our government threatens to change all of that. A new government health care mandate says that our family business MUST provide what I believe are abortion-causing drugs as part of our health insurance. Being Christians, we don't pay for drugs that might cause abortions, which means that we don't cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill. We believe doing so might end a life after the moment of conception, something that is contrary to our most important beliefs. It goes against the Biblical principles on which we have run this company since day one. If we refuse to comply, we could face $1.3 million PER DAY in government fines.
Our government threatens to fine job creators in a bad economy. Our government threatens to fine a company that's raised wages four years running. Our government threatens to fine a family for running its business according to its beliefs. It's not right. I know people will say we ought to follow the rules; that it's the same for everybody. But that's not true. The government has exempted thousands of companies from this mandate, for reasons of convenience or cost. But it won't exempt them for reasons of religious belief.
So, Hobby Lobby - and my family - are forced to make a choice. With great reluctance, we filed a lawsuit today, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, asking a federal court to stop this mandate before it hurts our business. We don't like to go running into court, but we no longer have a choice. We believe people are more important than the bottom line and that honoring God is more important than turning a profit.
My family has lived the American dream. We want to continue growing our company and providing great jobs for thousands of employees, but the government is going to make that much more difficult. The government is forcing us to choose between following our faith and following the law. I say that's a choice no American - and no American business - should have to make.

The government cannot force you to follow laws that go against your fundamental religious belief. They have exempted thousands of companies but will not except Christian organizations including the Catholic church.
Since you will not see this covered in any of the liberal media, pass this on to all your contacts.
David Green, CEO and Founder of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

Read more: Family Security Matters
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

"Republican Plan Fails the Fairness Test"

ObamaCare could be finished thanks to strong-arm tactics of its authors!

Coach is Right ^ | 12/5/2012 | Doug Book

In an effort to intimidate states (that is, Republican governors) into setting up state-run ObamaCare exchanges, the leftist authors of the Affordable Care Act have opened the door to lawsuits which could prevent the federal government selling health plans at affordable rates.

A centerpiece of the ACA involves the offering of federal subsidies “…designed to help low and middle-income individuals purchase health insurance.” However, as the Act clearly states, “…subsidies may only be applied to insurance exchanges set up by individual states, not exchanges implemented by the federal government.” Congress also denied federal exchanges the authority to provide tax credits to employers who offer federally approved insurance plans to their employees. (1)
ObamaCare revolves around the state-financed implementation of...

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Teacher’s Union VP Calls Questions About His Involvement W Marxist Conference To Be McCarthyism!

Flopping Aces ^ | 12-05-12 | Skookum

During a WLS radio interview, Jesse Sharkey Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) Vice President had a difficult time explaining his participation in the Midwest Marxist Conference. He refused to answer questions pertaining to why he was there and how the Chicago teachers are involved with the conference and the sponsor, the International Socialists Organization.
Bruce Dan and Dan Proft interviewed Sharkey on their show to discuss the school closing controversy being waged between the CTU and Chicago Public Schools. Sharkey was addressing the Chicago Teachers Union's coalitions that had supported the teachers' strike this fall, until Proft asked about the teachers union ties to "revolutionary movements."
Using the classic first defense of the cornered Leftist, Sharkey accused Proft of McCarthyism.

Sharkey: What our union has done, is work very hard to build a coalition between people who work in the schools and depend on the public schools and the people who go to school, the students and community …And, uhm, I think the fact that we’re dedicated to that is reflected in the fact that there’s been broad support for the things we're trying to do. Proft: Where do the revolutionary movements fit into that coalition? I understand that a couple weeks ago that you appeared at the Midwest Marxist Conference at Northwestern University to talk about the important support that Chicago teachers get from revolutionary movements’ use of the strike weapon. What’s the alignment with Marxist organizations and revolutionary movements?
Sharkey: Ha, ha, ha, look guys, I mean, thanks...
Proft: That’s a legitimate question. That’s actually just happened. That’s actually true. That’s not McCarthyism.
Sharkey: Thanks for the 1950s McCarthyism.
Proft: It’s not McCarthyism.
Sharkey: Uh, uh, well look it, the, the, the um—every time that unions or social movements have raised issues about what’s fair and what isn’t in base and equality, people have branded them as communist. I, I know…
Proft: Wait a second. You spoke? Did you, or did you not, speak at the Midwest Marxist Conference?
Sharkey: I… [pause] No I did not speak at the Midwest Marxism Conference.
Wolf: You were there though.
Proft: You didn’t?
Wolf: You were there.
Sharkey: Uh.
Wolf: You were there. We’ve got you on video there. Why were you there? Sharkey: Uh. I’m allowed to attend a Marxist conference, like I’m allowed to [inaudible]…
Wolf: Do you subscribe to their beliefs Mr. Sharkey?
Sharkey: Eh. Look, look guys, I mean, if you want to have me on as part of a, uh, uh, witch-hunt…
Wolf: It’s not a witch-hunt. What do you believe?
Proft: You attended this conference, I’m just asking you what value you derive from this conference and how you see revolutionary movements as so described to connect to the teachers unions, that’s all. It’s not a witch-hunt. It’s something you did.
Sharkey: Ah, uh, look gentlemen; I’m not sure where you’re going with…
Sharkey was at the conference and his participation was recorded by a Breitbart reporter in a breakout session discussing relationships between revolutionary organizations including the International Socialists Oorganization's involvement in the teachers' strike. Sharkey contributed by discussing his views on what he termed an interesting dilemma:
(excerpt)

EATING OUT IS OUT...The Most Reliable Economic Indicators!

TBI ^ | 12-5-2012 | Sam Ro

When the official headline economic indicators don't work, savvy investors turn to the unconventional economic indicators.
In his latest Breakfast With Dave note, David Rosenberg visits a signal being sent by the restaurant sector:
Our hedge fund desk has always told me that among the most reliable cyclical indicators for the American consumers is the restaurant sector. Traffic is slowing down precipitously and the companies are issuing negative guidance.
I took a look at the monthly details from the latest PCE data and saw that in nominal dollars, consumer spending on eating out sagged 0.4% in October and has contracted now in three of the past four months. The YoY trend peaked at +5.7% in July and has since slowed to +4.4% which is the softest pace in eight months (the three-month trend which a year ago was running at 7.5% at an annual rate is now close to stall-speed of 2%).
As a sign that families are becoming more cautious in their spending and eating habits, grocery shopping is up in two of the past three months and at double the trend (at4%) of the restaurant industry.
ECRI's Lakshman Achuthan has argued that the economy went into recession in mid-2012. This evidence seems to support that thesis.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Friendly reminder from GAO: You’re about to hit the entitlement iceberg, people!

Hotair ^ | 12/05/2012 | MARY KATHARINE HAM

While we meddle on the margins and stay safely ballparks away from anything that might actually tackle our deficit and debt problems:
The Government Accountability Office warned in a report Monday that if cuts are not made to mandatory spending — including Social Security and Medicare — there will be a fundamental gap between spending and revenue as more baby boomers retire.
“Significant actions to change the long-term fiscal path must be taken,” the GAO warned.
Strangely, the Government Accountability Office does not headline this report with the $800 billion we can raise over 10 years from tax hikes on those making over $250K as a killer solution to our “unsustainable long-term fiscal path.” Odd, that. What it does headline is huge debts caused by entitlement spending— that’d be the spending Republicans have signaled a willingness to tackle while Democrats have insisted we stop up our ears and get to the tax hikin’. The whole paper is here.
As Jim Pethokoukis puts it, “Another day, another government agency, another scary US debt chart.”
Holy Schnikeys
The Alternative baseline — the non-magic unicorn baseline — is the one you should pay attention to. The real difference between Baseline Extended and Alternative is that the latter assumes an unreformed entitlement system.
And the longer we wait to deal with the entitlement debt problem, the bigger the problem becomes and the more dramatic action will be needed to wrangle it.
For example, to keep debt held by the public as a share of GDP in 2086 from exceeding its level at the beginning of 2012 (roughly 68% of GDP) in our Alternative simulation, the fiscal gap is 8.3% of GDP. This means that revenue would have to increase by 46% or noninterest spending would have to be reduced by about 32% (or some combination of the two) on average over the 75-year period. Even more significant changes would be needed to reduce debt to lower levels. …
However, the longer action is delayed the greater the risk that the eventual changes will be disruptive and destabilizing. Under our Alternative simulation, waiting 10 years would increase the fiscal gap to nearly 10% of GDP— meaning a revenue increase of more than 54% or a noninterest spending cut of about 37% or some combination of the two would be required to bring debt held by the public back to its level in 2012 by 2086.
He has plenty more on why even those forecasts are likely too rosey.
Meanwhile, we have one party in Washington utterly unwilling to touch entitlements (aside from this weird peep from Hoyer today), which rejects even Simpson-Bowles-inspired plans to address them out of hand, yet is lauded in the press as the reasonable and adult of the two parties. We have another party that put the guy who risked his entire political career on a good-faith effort to reform entitlements on its national ticket (and by the way, still won senior citizens) being scolded for offering too few details by the party that hasn’t passed a budget in three years. Any guess which party the naked protesters and hecklers belong to? Adult! I don’t claim that Republicans don’t play their share of smoke-and-mirrors games on cuts, but let’s not pretend Democrats are paragons of putting pen to paper when the most talked-about papers were coming from Paul Ryan, who of course was roundly punished in the press for his work.
Oh, but the White House proposal boasts $600 billion in entitlement program cuts, you say? No, not so much:
But a good chunk of this “mandatory” money is not what would be considered entitlement spending — or at least aimed at health-care entitlements. The most up-to-date summary is in the administration’s mid-session review, in which Table S-3 shows $326 billion in health-care savings and $254 billion in “other mandatory savings.” (We had explored how Democrats sometimes mistout the health-care savings in a previous column.)
The “mandatory” side of the budget means the changes are permanent and not subject to annual congressional appropriations. That’s why Geithner could call them “mandatory programs,” though at one point he also called them “entitlement programs.” But they are not “spending cuts” in the traditional sense.
What are some of these “mandatory savings?” The administration lists them in the original 2013 budget, and they include:
■$61.3 billion from “impose a financial crisis responsibility fee”
■$43.7 billion from “implement Internal Revenue Service program integrity cap”
■$27.4 billion from “increase employee contribution” to federal retirement programs.
■$44 billion from “adjust payment timing”
In fact, some $100 billion of these “cuts”come from Geithner’s department. But are these cuts in the Treasury Department? No, the numbers represent additional fees and better IRS enforcement — not what an ordinary person would consider a spending cut. (We realize that Republicans and Democrats may count these as cuts, looking through the prism of the federal budget, but it still not the same thing as an entitlement cut.)
The $44 billion from adjusting the timing in payments is especially dubious — a one-time savings that takes place in 2022, the last year of the budget window. Presumably, those dollars are just transferred to the next 10-year budget window.
Chris Cillizza and David Gergen finally noticed yesterday that Democrats and liberals seem pretty keen on slipping over the cliff, despite possible economic damage. Yes, that’s because they can be nearly 100 percent sure the press will never punish Democrats for not making a deal. They haven’t punished them for breaking the law by not passing budgets for three years, even though they admit they simply don’t want to put their ideas on paper because of political considerations. There was hardly a price to pay for any failure of Obama’s first four years in office because there was a Republican in office before him, so why wouldn’t they assume they can successfully pin the blame on Republicans still actually in office? The calculus has to change for them if anyone expects them to do anything that might avert debt disaster, ever. The press does us all a disservice by not dissecting President Obama’s current plan and four years of utter abdication on budget and debt issues with the same gusto and skepticism it reserves for Mitt Romney’s CostCo shopping cart contents.
All that being said, Republicans can’t ignore the fact that the public is placing blame on them, fairly or unfairly. Counting on the press to be fair enough to change the dynamic is a fool’s errand. It’s therefore the responsibility of Republican leadership to present its ideas with some kind of understanding of the unfriendly ground on which it’s playing. For instance, at least holding a press conference for what it hopes will be a game-changing counter-offer instead of sending a letter that’s quickly ignored in time to get back to Obama’s talking points. Oh, and doing this on the same day. When given a choice between Republican infighting and a letter about a Simpson-Bowles-like proposal by Republicans, which did Boehner think the press would choose? Guy Benson explains how that roll-out could have looked, here. Read the whole thing. We will all have our criticisms of what the team’s game plan should look like, but it’d be nice to have some assurance they’re at least gonna get off the bus.
And, again, as the GAO points out again today, we’re all playing a borderline criminal game of small ball when compared to the challenges ahead. No worries, though. This Dream Team is about to fix everything.

The Budget Baseline Con: How Washington fools the public about spending 'cuts.'

Wall Street Journal ^ | 12/05/2012

If the fiscal cliff talks make Lindsay Lohan look like a productive member of society, perhaps it's because President Obama and John Boehner are playing by the dysfunctional Beltway rules. The rules work if you like bigger government, but Republicans need a new strategy, which starts by exposing the rigged game of "baseline budgeting."
Both the White House and House Republicans are pretending that their goal is "reducing the deficit," which they suggest means making real spending choices. They are talking about a "$4 trillion plan," or something, regardless of how that number is reached.
Here's the reality: Those numbers have no real meaning because they are conjured in the wilderness of mirrors that is the federal budget process. Since 1974, Capitol Hill's "baseline" has automatically increased spending every year according to Congressional Budget Office projections, which means before anyone has submitted a budget or cast a single vote. Tax and spending changes are then measured off that inflated baseline, not in absolute terms.
The most absurd current example is Mr. Obama's claim that his "$4 trillion" plan reduces the deficit by about $800 billion over 10 years by ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But those "savings," as he calls them, are measured against a White House budget office spending baseline that is fictional. Those wars are already being unwound and everyone knows the money will never be spent. But they are called "savings" to gull the public and make the deficit reduction add up to a large-sounding $4 trillion.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

GOP strategy is to figure out how to surrender!

WND ^ | December 04, 2012 | Taylor Rose

WASHINGTON – Just one day after tax activist Grover Norquist warned Democrats are coming after the middle class for $3 trillion in tax hikes, another conservative leader says it appears the big GOP strategy is to figure out how to surrender.
Bozell, founder of the Media Research Center, told WND today that the Republican leadership is lacking vision, resents its own conservative base and needs to refocus.
“If the Republicans continue a campaign of presenting themselves as Democrat-lite, they are going to see the losses increase. It will not be long before the Democrats are in complete control,” he told WND in an interview.
The issue isn’t that Republicans are losing but that Republicans are not being Republican – and that’s why they’re losing.
“Whenever a Republican distinguishes himself from a Democrat, he wins,” he said. “Whenever he acts like a Democrat, he loses. … You cannot out-Democrat a Democrat.”
He cited GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney as an example.
Romney was ill-prepared to tackle Barack Obama, as the former venture capitalist epitomized the stereotypical rich, elitist Republican that does not connect with the average person, he said.
And he didn’t make sure voters knew he was different. Bozell said the way Republicans win is when they don’t campaign like Democrats.
That, after all, Bozell said, is what Ronald Reagan did. Romney did it only once, he said.
“There was one day in the entire general election when he distinguished himself from Obama, and that was the first debate,” he said.
At that point, the GOP base was active and enthused. But it wasn’t sustained, he said.
He said the Republican Party also must reach out to its own base again.
“The left has a record of failure that they are doubling
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Young Guns: Future of the GOP delivers message of hope!

Washington Free Beacon ^ | 12-5 | Andrew Stiles

Two of the Republican Party’s most promising presidential prospects on Tuesday outlined their vision of a renewed GOP that represents 100 percent of Americans, in an apparent effort to distance themselves from some of the blunders of the party’s most recent presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) and House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) both delivered speeches before an audience of influential conservative leaders at the Jack Kemp Foundation’s Leadership Award Dinner. Rubio received this year’s award, while Ryan was last year’s winner.
Both lawmakers recalled the economic philosophy championed by Ryan’s mentor Kemp, the late NFL quarterback and GOP politician known for his outreach efforts to improve the lives of the inner-city poor.
Republicans, they argued, must do a better job articulating a vision of conservatism and free-market economics aimed at helping people rise out of poverty.
“We have a compassionate vision based on ideas that work, but sometimes we don’t do a good job of laying out that vision,” Ryan said. “We need to do better.”
“Both parties tend to divide Americans into ‘our voters’ and ‘their voters,’” Ryan said, in a not-so-subtle reference to his former running mate’s remarks about “47 percent” of the country being unwilling to vote for him. “Republicans must steer far clear of that trap. We must speak to the aspirations and anxieties of every American.”
Ryan’s speech, titled “A Renewed Commitment to Opportunity For All,” echoed the one he gave at Cleveland State University on Oct. 25 as the GOP vice presidential nominee.
Ryan had asked to make the argument more frequently on the campaign trail but was rebuffed by skeptical Romney aides, according to Politico.
He spoke Tuesday of the need to alleviate poverty by strengthening civil society, reforming the public education system, and redesigning bloated welfare programs to ensure that the millions of Americans born into poverty are given every opportunity to rise out of it.
That would require “new thinking and renewed efforts from all Americans,” and dismissing the notion that “a nation should measure compassion by how much it spends.”
Republicans should continue to promote conservative economic principles, Ryan said, while also acknowledging that government can play a constructive role.
“There has to be a balance,” he said. “Government must act for the common good, while leaving private groups free to do the work that only they can do.”
Rubio’s remarks, though broader, touched on similar themes.
“One of the fundamental challenges before us is to find an appropriate and sustainable role for government in closing this gap between the dreams of millions of Americans and the opportunities for them to actually realize them,” he said. Rubio also called on lawmakers to be “creative, innovative and daring” in pursuit of that goal.
However, bigger government is not the solution.
“The promise of more government as the answer to all our problems is easy to sell,” Rubio said. “But when it is put in practice, it fails every time.”
Safety net programs should be protected and strengthened, “not as a way of life, but as a way to help those who have failed to stand up and try again, and of course, as always, to help those who cannot help themselves.”
Rubio also appeared to pushback against Romney’s “47 percent” comments, as well as the former candidate’s contention that President Barack Obama won reelection by giving “gifts” to certain segments of the voting population.
“I’ve heard it suggested that the problem is that the American people have changed. That too many people want things from government,” he said. “But I am still convinced that the overwhelming majority of our people just want what my parents had, a chance. A real chance to earn a good living, and provide even better opportunities for their children.”
Rubio recalled the experience of his parents, who were able to provide a better future for him and his sister despite being working-class immigrants from Cuba.
“Because of where I was raised, and who I was raised by, I know that what we have here is special,” he said. “And if we lose it, there is nothing to replace it. If America declines, so will the world.”
Both Rubio and Ryan said the GOP must remain engaged following their defeat at the polls to ensure these values remain in place.
“The Republican Party can’t make excuses,” Ryan said. “We can’t spend the next four years on the sidelines.”
Given Ryan and Rubio’s standing as frontrunners for the GOP nomination in 2016, neither will likely be on the sidelines for long.
Ryan even joked that Rubio join him for a Kemp leadership award reunion dinner, asking if anyone knew “of any good diners New Hampshire or Iowa,” sites of the first presidential primaries.
“I’m sure the press won’t read too much into that,” he said.

BREAKING: Subpoena Granted for Obama’s Occidental College Records!

InvestWatch ^ | December 4, 2012 | n/a

Dr. Orly Taitz, Esquire has secured a subpoena, from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, to obtain the following from the Records Custodian at Occidental College:

1) All records related to Barack Hussein Obama, II, also known as Barack Hussein Obama, including, without limitation, application for admission and transcripts.
2) All records related to Barry Soetoro including, without limitation, application for admission and transcripts.

House GOP Not Consulted on Boehner's Budget Proposal (Boehner Acting Like Pelosi)

Breitbart Big Government ^ | December 4, 2012 | Larry O'Connor

The controversial budget proposal submitted by House Republican leadership, and summarily rejected by the White House, was never presented to the GOP caucus in the house, according to Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX).
"The caucus was not consulted on the proposal, I wish we had been," Gohmert told Breitbart News on Capitol Hill this morning. "The Republican members were not consulted on the offer made. We are having the legislation being formulated among the Speaker, Senate Majority Leader Reid, and the President. Republicans in Congress have some great ideas and principles, but those are not being utilized in the proposals."
Speaker John Boehner's proposal, which included $800B in new tax revenues, was openly criticized today by Sen. Jim Demint as an "800B tax hike [that would] destroy American jobs and allow politicians in Washington to spend even more." With the latest revelation that the unpopular proposal was delivered without the GOP caucus even knowing what was being presented in their name, pressure is sure to mount on the speaker as the fiscal cliff negotiations continue.
Breitbart News reached out to the Speaker's office for comment and as of the time of this writing they have not responded.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Pell Grants

Posted Image

A Wonderful Awful Idea

Posted Image

Oreo Entitlements

Posted Image

Had Enough Yet?

Posted Image

Free Stuff

Posted Image


Posted Image

Work Sucks?

Posted Image

Wish List

Posted Image

Height Limits

Posted Image

Janet's Special VW

Posted Image

Hard Times

Posted Image

A New Doll!

Posted Image

I support ObamaCare!

Posted Image

Back of the bus!

Posted Image

One More Vote!

Posted Image

Row faster!

Posted Image


Posted Image

My way or highway!

Posted Image

Don't Worry!

Posted Image

Explain this

Posted Image