Sunday, January 6, 2013

Moore Recommends Soldiers Punch the Lights Out of People Who Thank Them for Their Service!

NewsBusters ^

On New Year’s Eve, schlockumentary filmmaker Michael Moore made a resolution to stop saying he supports the troops.
On Thursday, Moore put an exclamation point on this anti-American insanity publishing a piece at the Huffington Post entitled “Those Who Say 'I Support the Troops' Really Don't.”
“I don't support the troops, America, and neither do you,” Moore began.
Moore then elaborated on six offenses either suffered by our troops or thrust upon them by Americans.
These included: being “sent off to wars that have NOTHING to do with defending America or saving our lives;” having their homes foreclosed on them while they’re overseas; regular citizens never visiting VA hospitals to see how people there are being treated; female soldiers being raped; no one helping homeless vets, and; suicide.
In Moore’s view, since he and most other Americans aren’t doing anything about these issues, we don’t really support the troops.

9 Strange New Laws for 2013

indecisionforever ^ | Jan 2, 2013 | Ilya Gerner

On January 1, 400 new federal laws took effect. Meanwhile, state legislatures passed 29,000 bills and resolutions, many of which came into force on the first of the year. Local government added thousands of new laws.

Ignorance is no excuse, so start cramming on all the weird new regulations you have to follow as of Tuesday:

1. In California, it's now unlawful to let a dog pursue a bear or bobcat at any time. Previously, exceptions had been made for hunting. Bad news for dogs, good news for bears and bobcats.
2. The new laws aren't just about banning things! Florida law revised the term "motor vehicle" to exclude swamp buggies, deregulating the primary mode of transportation in that state.
3. In an assault on the civil rights of crazy cat ladies, residents of Wellington, Kansas are now limited to no more than four cats per household. The hope is that restricting ownership will lower the town's burgeoning cat population.
4. Fun news: Illinoisans under 21 can drink alcohol now! Less fun: They have to be enrolled in a culinary program to do so.
5. Film producers in California must have permission from a pediatrician before filming a child under the age of one month. Suddenly, Real Infants of Newport Beach looks less likely to be green-lit.
6. In the category of "how the hell wasn't this illegal already," California prison workers will no longer be allowed to have sex with inmates.
7. Sex offenders in Illinois are banned from distributing candy on Halloween or playing Santa or the Easter Bunny.
8. No more "popping wheelies" on motorcycles in Illinois, but they can run a red light if the coast is clear.
9. Don't steal grease in North Carolina. Those who steal more than $1,000 worth of grease can be found guilty of a felony. It's the kind of overcompensation that happens when your state doesn't have mineral or gas deposits.
If all this sounds like things you did on New Year's Eve, I hope you had fun. No more such hijinks in 2013.

'They're Starting To Seriously Worry': Concern Growing About Low Turnout At Obama Inauguration!

UK Daily Mail ^ | 12:34 EST, 6 January 2013 | By Daily Mail Reporter and Associated Press

Hotel rooms remain unbooked ahead of January 21 inauguration ceremony Organizers expecting much lower turnout than 2009 ceremony, when nearly 2 million people flocked to the National Mall
Crowds may have flocked to the National Mall to see President Obama make history in 2009, but the team behind the president's 2013 inauguration bash later this month are bracing themselves for a ton of empty seats. The ceremony that Washington will stage in a few weeks won't be the historic affair it was in 2009, when nearly 2 million people flocked to the Capitol to watch Obama take the oath of office. This time, District of Columbia officials expect between 600,000 and 800,000 people for Obama's public swearing-in on the steps of the Capitol on Monday, January 21.
Two weeks before the big day, plenty of hotel rooms still haven't been booked. Four years ago, some hotels sold out months in advance. There will be just two official inaugural balls this year, both at the Washington Convention Center, rather than 10 official balls at multiple locations around town.
The pair of celebrations are the lowest number since 1953, according to the New York Post.
A political insider told the paper: 'Some on the presidential inaugural committee are starting to seriously worry.' His inaugural committee has also scaled the celebration back to three days of festivities, instead of four.
Some changes are on account of the slowly recovering economy and a desire by planners to ease the security burden on law enforcement.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...

Obama supporters shocked, angry at new tax increases!

The Washington Times online ^ | Sunday, January 6, 2013 | Joseph Curl

Sometimes, watching a Democrat learn something is wonderful, like seeing the family dog finally sit and stay at your command.
With President Obama back in office and his life-saving “fiscal cliff” bill jammed through Congress, the new year has brought a surprising turn of events for his sycophantic supporters.
“What happened that my Social Security withholding’s in my paycheck just went up?” a poster wrote on the liberal site DemocraticUnderground.com. “My paycheck just went down by an amount that I don’t feel comfortable with. I guarantee this decrease is gonna’ hurt me more than the increase in income taxes will hurt those making over 400 grand. What happened?”
Shocker. Democrats who supported the president’s re-election just had NO idea that his steadfast pledge to raise taxes meant that he was really going to raise taxes. They thought he planned to just hit those filthy “1 percenters,” you know, the ones who earned fortunes through their inventiveness and hard work. They thought the free ride would continue forever.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/6/obama-supporters-shocked-angry-new-tax-increases/#ixzz2HFCXe3pO
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...

Crony capitalism: Obama going for gun control with tactic used to pass Obamacare!

The Washington Examiner ^ | January 5, 2013 | Joel Gehrke

President Obama plans to ally himself with big business once again by using crony capitalist tactics to pass gun control just as he used them to pass Obamacare. In this case, Obama reportedly plans to make sure that the new gun control law benefits big businesses that sell weapons.
“[T]he White House is developing strategies to work around the National Rifle Association that one source said could include rallying support from Wal-Mart and other gun retailers for measures that would benefit their businesses,” The Washington Post reports.
“Wal-Mart and other major gun retailers may have an incentive to support closing a loophole that allows people to bypass background checks if they purchase firearms at gun shows or through other types of private sales,” the Post explained, citing a source who works with the Obama administration on gun issues.
Obama used the same tactic when passing his health care law, when Jim Messina (the White House deputy chief of staff, at the time, who went on to manage the 2012 presidential campaign) negotiated with the drug industry to get them to pay for pro-Obamacare television ads.
In exchange, “drug lobbyists and White House officials crafted the legislation,” as The Washington Examiner’s Tim Carney recalled. “Obama abandoned his campaign promises and pledged to protect the drug industry’s government-granted privileges. The industry also secured subsidies and lengthy government-protected monopolies on biotech drugs.”

Do You Live in a “Death Spiral” State?

Townhall.com ^ | January 6, 2013 | Daniel J. Mitchell

Three years ago, I put together a “Moocher Index” that measured the degree to which non-poor people in a state were benefiting from redistribution programs.
As you can see if you click on the nearby table, Vermont was the worst state, followed by Mississippi, Maine, New York, and Massachusetts.
I confessed that my Moocher Index was a crude and imprecise tool, but it was one of my most popular posts in the early days of this blog. Probably because it was a way of measuring the degree to which people were being lured to ride in the wagon of government dependency (a very disturbing trend put in visual form by these two cartoons).
So I was very interested when I found that somebody at Forbes did something vaguely similar and came up with a list of “death spiral” states.
Death Spiral States
Eleven states make our list of danger spots for investors. They can look forward to a rising tax burden, deteriorating state finances and an exodus of employers. The list includes California, New York, Illinois and Ohio, along with some smaller states like New Mexico and Hawaii. …Two factors determine whether a state makes this elite list of fiscal hellholes. The first is whether it has more takers than makers. A taker is someone who draws money from the government, as an employee, pensioner or welfare recipient. A maker is someone gainfully employed in the private sector. …what happens when these needy types outnumber the providers? Taxes get too high. Prosperous citizens decamp. Employers decamp. That just makes matters worse for the taxpayers left behind. Let’s say you are a software entrepreneur with 100 on your payroll. If you stay in San Francisco, your crew will support 139 takers. In Texas, they would support only 82. Austin looks very attractive. Ranked on the taker/maker ratio, our 11 death spiral states range from New Mexico, with 1.53 takers for every maker, down to Ohio, with a 1-to-1 ratio. …The second element in the death spiral list is a scorecard of state credit-worthiness done by Conning & Co., a money manager… Its formula downgrades states for large debts, an uncompetitive business climate, weak home prices and bad trends in employment. …A state qualifies for the Forbes death spiral list if its taker/maker ratio exceeds 1.0 and it resides in the bottom half of Conning’s ranking. It’s easy to see how California got on our list. It has pampered a large army of civil servants while using every imaginable trick to chase private-sector jobs away, the latest being a quixotic scheme to reduce the globe’s atmospheric carbon.
Not surprisingly, there is considerable overlap between the top states in the Moocher Index and the death-spiral states.
So be forewarned. If you live in California, Hawaii, Maine, Mississippi, or New York, it’s quite likely that you are surrounded by people who want you to work harder and pay higher taxes so they can get more handouts.
Heck, that’s true in most states, so you should worry regardless of where you live. Click here to see a very depressing chart about the nationwide increase in dependency.
So what lessons can we learn? Well, if you look at this map, you’ll notice that none of the states without an income tax are death-spiral states.
And if you look at this map, you’ll see that there’s no overlap between death-spiral states and states with the lowest tax burdens.
Hmmm…sort of makes one think that maybe higher taxes aren’t the right way to solve a fiscal mess. Maybe somebody should inform the President.
Last but not least, here’s a map showing the state-by-state generosity of welfare benefits. I don’t detect any correlation with death-spiral states – except for New York and California.
If you live in either of those two states, you may want to escape before it’s too late.

Pelosi: "Not enough" revenue in "fiscal cliff" deal!

cbsnews.com ^

By Jake Miller

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., argued that additional revenue must be included in upcoming deficit reduction deals, calling the revenue secured by the "fiscal cliff" deal "significant" but "not enough."
"The President had originally said he wanted $1.6 trillion in revenue," she said on "Face the Nation." "He took it down to 1.2 as a compromise in this legislation. We get $620 billion dollars, very significant, high-end tax, changing the high-end tax rate to 39.6 percent, but that is not enough on the revenue side."
Pelosi declined to go into particulars, saying she was "fairly agnostic" about how to secure more revenue, but implied that closing loopholes and deductions was more likely than revisiting tax rates.
"Put it all on the table and see what is working," she said, identifying the carried interest loophole and oil subsidies as two examples of dubious tax expenditures that may be targeted.
Asked if Democrats are ready to significantly reform entitlement programs to address the deficit, Pelosi said, "We already have," pointing to the Affordable Care Act's $716 billion in Medicare provider cuts.
She replied with a quick "no" when asked whether she supports raising the Medicare eligibility age but signaled that she would be open to additional means testing to reduce Medicare payments to wealthy beneficiaries.
She also seemed disinclined to consider any cost of living adjustment that could reduce Social Security benefit payments, saying, "I do not think we should do anything to Social Security that reduces benefits to the beneficiaries." Tossed around during the "fiscal cliff" negotiations was the idea of "chained" CPI, which would have tied the cost of living adjustment for Social Security to the inflation rate. It ultimately was not included in the final deal.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...

Barack Obama’s $7 million Hawaii vacation is an insult to America’s struggling middle class!

The Telegraph ^ | 01/06/2013 | Nile Gardiner

$16.4 trillion – that’s the latest figure for America’s massive national debt. Nearly $6 trillion of this debt was racked up in the first term of the Obama presidency – a 50 percent increase. It is horrifying to imagine what the debt will be when Obama leaves the White House in 2016, unless Congress has the willpower to stand in the way.
Meanwhile, as the world’s superpower is literally drowning in debt, President Obama is basking in the warmth of the beaches of Hawaii, at an exclusive resort way beyond the financial reach of most Americans. The president pays the cost of his own family’s accommodations, but there are a large number of associated costs which are paid from the public purse.
What is the actual cost of Obama’s lavish vacation to the American taxpayer? A staggering $7 million, according to veteran White House reporter Keith Koffler, who wrote in his blog earlier this week:
In a move that is rich in irony, President Obama agreed Tuesday night to sign an emergency deficit reduction bill that does almost nothing to rein in spending and then jetted out to Hawaii to resume his vacation at an extra cost of more than $3 million to taxpayers.
The price tag is in addition to more than $4 million that is already being spent on the Obamas’ Hawaii idyll, bringing the total cost of the excursion to well over $7 million.
The added cost was incurred because by the time the Obamas return from Hawaii – whenever that is – the president will have used Air Force One to travel to Honolulu and back twice.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ...

The HHS Mandate and Judicial Theocracy

The Public Discourse ^ | 1/3/13 | Melissa Moschella

If we are to preserve our First Amendment rights, judges must refrain from telling plaintiffs challenging the HHS mandate that they’ve got their theology wrong.

Are judges more competent to determine what a particular religion requires or forbids than that religion’s own leaders or adherents? Most would think not. Yet that’s what two of the recent rulings related to the Health and Human Services contraception, sterilization, and abortion-drug mandate seem to claim.
Recently, in Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, federal district judge Joe Heaton of the western district of Oklahoma ruled against the Greens, the devout Christian owners of Hobby Lobby arts and crafts stores. The Greens strive to operate their company in accordance with Christian principles, paying generous wages, closing earlier than most other stores so that employees can spend time with their families, and not opening on Sundays.
Like many Christians, the Greens object to the HHS mandate’s requirement to offer coverage for certain “emergency contraceptives,” such as Ella and Plan B, which they believe cause early abortions. These drugs can sometimes work by preventing or interfering with the embryo’s implantation, thus triggering a miscarriage.
The Greens claim that they cannot comply with the mandate because their religion forbids them to facilitate access to abortion. The mandate went into effect January 1, and since the Supreme Court denied the Greens' subsequent request for emergency injunctive relief, remaining faithful to their religious beliefs may cost them up to 1.3 million dollars per day in fines. It is worth noting that Judge Sotomayor's denial of Hobby Lobby's appeal is no indication of how the Supreme Court will ultimately rule on the HHS mandate cases, because the standard for granting emergency relief is more stringent than the standard for granting a religious exemption under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
(Excerpt) Read more at thepublicdiscourse.com ...

Tragic Letter from The Hobby Lobby CEO

The Brenner Brief ^ | January 3, 2012 | Posted by The Brenner Brief

This letter is a very sad example of what happens when our personal freedoms and liberties are taken away. America wasn’t built on this, readers, and we absolutely must share this to show people the impact the Obama administration is having on every-day Americans.


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.

Sincerely,
David Green, CEO and Founder of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

Democratic Rep: Debt-ceiling blank check is like Emancipation Proclamation

daily callr ^ | 1-5-13 | Nicholas Ballasy

Democratic Illinois Rep. Danny K. Davis told The Daily Caller that President Obama should have the power to raise the nation’s debt ceiling without congressional approval, citing the example of President Abraham Lincoln issuing the Emancipation Proclamation as a good use of presidential authority.

“Sometimes when we’ve gotten great answers is when presidents have had enough authority to take some actions,” Davis told TheDC on Capitol Hill Friday. “I mean, remember that we just celebrate the 150th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation, and if Abraham Lincoln had not had the power, authority and the will to make that decision, we may have gone on with the war that was going to last several additional years and much longer, and thousands and thousands of people could have and would have, in all probability, lost their lives.”

(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...

Obamacare Layoffs, Hiring Freezes Begin!

Breitbart's Big Government ^ | January 5, 2013 | Wynton Hall

Obamacare opponents warned that forcing companies employing 50 or more full-time workers to buy healthcare would prompt employers to slash jobs and worker hours. And that’s exactly what’s happening, says one of President Barack Obama’s favorite economists, Mark Zandi of Moody’s Analytics.
“It will have a negative impact on job creation” this year, says Mr. Zandi.
The Obamacare employer mandate doesn’t go into effect until January 1, 2014, but the government requires businesses to track worker schedules for three to 12 months in advance. That means many employers plan to get a jump start on avoiding Obamacare’s $2,000 per-worker fine by firing workers now, reducing employee hours, or replacing full-time employees with part-time workers.
A survey by the International Franchise Association finds that 31% of franchisees say they plan to cut staff to duck under Obamacare’s 50-employer mandate. And another study by Mercer consulting firm found that half of businesses who don’t presently offer health insurance plan to reduce employee hours to avert triggering Obamacare’s penalties.
As Breitbart News has reported, Pennsylvania Community College of Allegheny County has already slashed the hours of 400 adjunct instructors, support staff, and part-time teachers to sidestep the Obamacare fines. Doing so will save the already cash-strapped college an estimated $6 million.
Other Obamacare provisions, like the medical devise excise tax, have forced Stryker medical supply to cut 1,170 positions, despite the fact that the founder of the company’s grandson was among Mr. Obama’s biggest campaign donors....
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...

Debt Ceiling Hooey

Tea Party Tribune ^ | 2013-01-05 15:24:20 | mrcurmudgeon

debtCeiling
By Mr. Curmudgeon:
Conservative columnists are spilling a lot of ink concerning the "leverage" House Republicans have in the debt ceiling battle coming this February. It's all a load of hooey.
It's more likely House Speaker John Boehner and President Obama will hammer out a "grand bargain" that heaps trillions more debt on future generations of indentured state servants with a promise to cut, say, $1 trillion over the next two centuries, while spending hundreds of trillions within the same time-frame. What makes conservative pundits think the debt-ceiling result will differ from that of the fiscal cliff?
I'm quite sure Republican talk radio will herald the debt ceiling result, whatever it may be, as a triumph for the GOP, while Karl Rovian compassionate conservatives bleat that it is the best of achievable outcomes.
To say modern American conservatism is against the ropes is an understatement. Jonah Goldberg of National Review asks in a Commentary magazine article, "Will enough Americans remain committed, or at least open, to the bundle of principles that define modern American conservatism to sustain the movement and the Republican Party, which imperfectly carries its banner? My short answer is an equivocal yes."
Goldberg credits his equivocation to America's shifting "demographics" and the "changing nature of the economy." In other words, America's entitlement-addicted middle class, coupled with an army of unskilled illegal immigrants raising politically powerful generations dependent on government services from birth, create a center of political gravity nothing can escape. And that grip becomes tighter as government stimulus spending and the manipulation of monetary policy becomes the primary engine of the U.S. economy.
From Main Street and the poorest neighborhoods in East Los Angeles - to the boardrooms on Wall Street - government is the primary financial lifeline.
America's Founders designed a constitutional government restrained by "enumerated powers" to prevent the national government from ever attaining such authoritarian reach. Many congressional actions and Supreme Court rulings later, these restraints are no more.
Goldberg offers a powerful insight, "... What allows the Democrats to seem more libertarian isn't just cultural marketing, but a widespread acceptance of the idea that positive liberty is more important than negative liberty. The former, an idea near to Franklin Delano Roosevelt's heart, is that you can't be free unless the state gives you the material aid necessary to enjoy life to its fullest. This was the point of his 'economic bill of rights.' Negative liberty, an idea dear to the Founders, defines freedom as independence from government intrusion and meddling."
And with that, Goldberg confronts the insoluble problem confronting modern conservatism: Progressives shower "free" goodies on their constituents by rifling the incomes of successful Americans, while conservatives tinker with marginal tax rates so the successful may keep a little more of what they earn. In short, the debate is limited to money and stays within the bounds set by the Progressive tax system, which allows an all-powerful government to serve as final arbiter and banker. Both arguments are wrong. The reason? They are materialistic and not moral.
And that's where "negative liberty" comes in.
"Thou shalt not ..." precedes most of the Old Testament's Ten Commandments. These negative injunctions are moral laws intended to protect the individual from harming his fellow man. He is prevented not only from taking his neighbor's possessions, but from coveting them. He may not deprive his neighbor of life nor threaten his liberty by "bearing false witness against him."
If this sounds a bit familiar, that's because its variant is found in Thomas Jefferson's Declaration on behalf of the individual's right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Freedom is not an economic right, but the moral right of Americans to "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."
Only after Jefferson declares on behalf of moral order does he define legitimate government: "... that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
The immoral Progressive system has robbed America of much more than money. It's robbed us of our freedom by centralizing power in Washington. A free people cannot "consent" to be governed when, as Jonah Goldberg observed, "... You can't be free unless the state gives you the material aid necessary to enjoy life to its fullest." And when in all of human history has government achieved that end? Soviet Russia, North Korea, Cuba ... Greece?
If conservatism is to survive as an idea, it needs to abandon the Progressive-Lite nonsense of "compassionate conservatism." That turn of phrase was invented to legitimize the immoral strain running through the GOP's Progressive establishment.
The Revolution of 1776 was not economic but moral. Defeating materialistic Progressives with materialistic arguments is a complete waste of time. The fight is not between Right and Left ... it's between Right and Wrong. And the Wrong has the nation's financial resources at its authoritarian command ... until, like Greece, it has spent it all.

My Language

I wonder...