Saturday, January 12, 2013

Pedigree of the Second Amendment

 by Jacquerie

Here are the State submitted gun rights/militia/standing army related amendments, declarations of rights, to the Constitution.

North Carolina – Declaration of Rights. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

That no soldier, in time of peace, ought to be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, and in time of war, in such manner only as the laws may direct.

That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted, upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead.

Amendments – That no standing army or regular troops shall be raised or kept up in time of peace, without the consent of two thirds of the members present in both houses.

New Hampshire – That no standing army shall be kept up in time of peace, unless with the consent of three fourths of the members of each branch of Congress; nor shall soldiers, in time of peace, be quartered upon private houses, without the consent of the owners.

New York – That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state. That the militia should not be subject to martial law, except in time of war, rebellion, insurrection.

That the militia of any state shall not be compelled to serve without the limits of the state, for a longer term than six weeks, without the consent of the legislature thereof.

Pennsylvania – That no standing army of regular troops shall be raised or kept up in time of peace, without the consent of two thirds of both houses in Congress.

That each state respectively, shall have power to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia thereof, whensoever Congress shall omit or neglect to provide for the same. That the militia shall not be subject to martial law, but when in actual service, in the time of war, invasion, or rebellion; and when not in the actual service of the United States, shall be subject to such fines, penalties, and punishment, only, as shall be directed or inflicted by the laws of its own state: nor shall the militia of any state be continued in actual service longer than two months, under any call of Congress, without the consent of the legislature of such state, or, in the recess, the executive authority thereof.

Rhode Island – That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that the militia shall not be subject to martial law, except in time of war rebellion, or insurrection; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in cases of necessity; and that at all times, the military should be under strict subordination to the civil power; that, in time of peace, no soldier ought to be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, and time of war, only by the civil magistrates, in such manner as the law directs.

That no person shall be compelled to do military duty otherwise than by voluntary enlistment, except in cases of general invasion; anything in the second paragraph of the sixth article of the Constitution, or any law made under the Constitution, to the contrary notwithstanding.

Virginia – Declaration of Rights. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

That no soldier in time of peace ought to be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, and in time of war in such manner only as the law directs.

That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted, upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead.

Amendments – That no standing army, or regular troops, shall be raised, or kept up, in time of peace, without the consent of two thirds of the members present, in both houses.

That no soldier shall be enlisted for any longer term than four years, except in time of war, and then for no longer than the continuance of the war.

That each state respectively shall have the power to provide or organizing, arming and disciplining its own militia, whensoever Congress shall omit or neglect to provide for the same. That the militia shall not be subject to martial law, except when in actual service, in time of war, invasion or rebellion; and when not in the actual service of the United States, shall be subject only to such fines, penalties, and punishment, as shall be directed or inflicted by the laws of its own state.

Source: The Rights Retained by the People, Edited by Randy Barnett.
Elliot’s Debates

Dismantling the Military– Obama style

Coach is Right ^ | January 12th, 2013 | Jim Emerson

The New York Times’ David Brooks opined that the nomination of Chuck Hagel to the position of Secretary of Defense (SOD) is in fact a cover for Barack Obama’s dismantling of the Military. The President must raid the Medicare and Pentagon budgets to pay for the domestic programs planned for his welfare state. By placing a likeminded traveler like Hagel in the top position at the Pentagon, Obama will have a yes man to dismantle the military and further the One’s socialist agenda. Since Hagel is a Republican (in name only) Obama will have the perfect political cover to raid the defense budget and give it to the low information voters who will blindly help Democrats destroy this nation.
Global Zero
Global Zero is an international movement demanding the elimination of all nuclear weapons. Sen. Hagel co-authored a report last may calling for severe cuts in the U.S, nuclear arsenal. As the Obama administration is planning to announce even more drastic cuts to the arsenal later this year, who could possibly be better suited than Hagel to be Obama’s SOD? The administration will gladly point to this report as a good plan to dismantle America’s most powerful deterrent force. No wonder Iran has endorsed Hagel. He’s their guy! Who else will work to disarm the United States while the Iranians are stepping up their own program! Hagel obviously has no problem with a terrorist nation with nukes. No wonder Obama likes this guy; he calls for the elimination of ICBMs and heavy bombers for the nuclear arsenal. Those cuts would provide more money for Obama’s friends in the Green Energy/DNC money laundering business.
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...

Marco Rubio: Riding to the Immigration Rescue

WSJ ^ | Saturday Jaunary 12, 2013

Marco Rubio, Florida's GOP senator, unveils his reform ideas to 'modernize' the system and put illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship.
Marco Rubio—41-year-old son of working-class Cuban exiles—has lived the upwardly mobile immigrant experience. In his fast rise, the Florida Republican has also experienced the politics of immigration
[....]
"Here's how I envision it," he says. "They would have to come forward. They would have to undergo a background check." Anyone who committed a serious crime would be deported. "They would be fingerprinted," he continues. "They would have to pay a fine, pay back taxes, maybe even do community service. They would have to prove they've been here for an extended period of time. They understand some English and are assimilated. Then most of them would get legal status and be allowed to stay in this country."
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...

Latest Ed Schultz Whopper: 'We've Never Had a Civilian Stop a Shooting'

Newsbusters ^ | 01/12/2013 | Jack Coleman

The hits keep coming from libtalker Ed Schultz, who's kicking off the new year on a roll.

First week into 2013, Schultz insisted that Bill Clinton was never tried in the Senate after he was impeached by the House. Schultz followed with the laughable claim that gun laws in Chicago, a city with some of the nation's toughest restrictions on firearms, "don't even exist." (audio clip after page break)
Schultz is tripling down on his ignorance, making an egregiously false claim on his radio show yesterday while talking about whether schools should allow teachers to arm themselves (h/t for embedded audio clip, Brian Maloney at mrctv.org) --
Would it be a deterrent if, you know, say perpetrators know that there's guns in the schools? How do we know they wouldn't view that as a challenge? I mean, we got a goofy world out there. I'm just not convinced that packing a small firearm is the best defense or certainly not the best defense. You know, you want to make the best defense? Make the school a damn fortress. I mean, you could do that, I mean but, is that reasonable? Is that the right thing to do? Is it necessary? And so I'm just, is it nec-, haven't we had enough school shootings where this is necessary? We've never had a civilian stop a shooting.
Is it too much to expect that people who work in news will pay attention to it? (Correction: Schultz works at MSNBC and also has his own radio show.)

The scenario Schultz claims has "never" happened occurred at least twice in the last month, the most recent of many examples that can be cited.
Back on Dec. 11, a gunman shot two people to death at a mall in Clackamas, Ore., then took his own life when he saw a 22-year-old patron with a concealed carry permit draw his weapon.

"He was working his own gun," Nick Meli told KGW Channel 8, describing how he positioned himself behind a pillar when he heard gunfire. "He kept pulling the charging handle and hitting the side."

The Channel 8 report continues --
The break in gunfire allowed Meli to pull out his own gun, but he never took his eyes off the shooter.

"As I was going down to pull, I saw someone in the back of the Charlotte move, and I knew if I fired and missed, I could hit them," he said.

Meli took cover inside a nearby store. He never pulled the trigger. He stands by that decision.

"I'm not beating myself up 'cause I didn't shoot him," said Meli. "I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself."
Typical of Schultz, he cited no attribution for his dubious claim but it most likely originated with a report issued by Mother Jones magazine last month after the Sandy Hook massacre. Here is the bold claim made by Mother Jones --
In the wake of the slaughters this summer at a Colorado movie theater and a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, we set out to track mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years. We identified and analyzed 62 of them, and one striking pattern is this: In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun.
The assertion was quickly dismantled by Mark Hemingway at The Weekly Standard, who pointed out that "when armed civilians are present, they often stop mass shootings before they can become mass shootings." Hemingway also noted that Mother Jones' reseach was limited to incidents in which a shooter killed at least four people, a baseline which allowed the magazine to overlook numerous incidents in which armed civilians prevented shooting rampages from becoming far worse. Hemingway cited these six examples --
-- Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week (in December): Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack: Total dead: Zero.

-- Winnemuccas, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I'm excluding the shooters' deaths in these examples.)

-- Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.

-- Santee, Calif. 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates -- as well as the "trained campus supervisor"; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.

-- Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman's head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.

-- Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.
"These are just a few examples of mass shootings being prevented," Hemingway writes. "I'm sure there are many more that meet this criteria. But, as you can see, in every incident, the would-be shooters were stopped short of killing four people because an armed civilian -- or in some cases, an off-duty cop -- was present."

In John R. Lott Jr.'s meticulously researched "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws," he cites an incident from 1984 described by Israeli criminologist Abraham Tennenbaum --
Three terrorists who attempted to machine-gun the throng (at a crowded venue in Jerusalem) managed to kill only one victim before being shot by handgun-carrying Israelis. Presented to the press the next day, the surviving terrorist complained that his group had not realized that Israeli civilians were armed. The terrorists had planned to machine-gun a succession of crowd spots, thinking that they would be able to escape before the police or army could arrive to deal with them.
It would be more accurate of Schultz to say we haven't had a "civilian" stop a shooting -- in a "gun-free zone." That's because law-abiding citizens, seeing a sign outside a movie theater or shopping mall or elementary school informing them that the site is a "gun-free zone," won't enter the property if they are armed. Criminals, especially those intent on murder, do the opposite.

The result? Disarmed law-abiding citizens in an allegedly safe "gun-free zone" unable to stop a shooting and left entirely to the mercy of the most deranged among us. Here's how it works -- goo-goo liberals create "gun-free zones" in an attempt to do something, anything to protect the public, then sneer after disarmed, law-abiding citizens aren't able to defend themselves when a predator goes on a rampage.
The very term "gun-free zone," which I refuse to cite without quotation marks, is destined for eternal derision, so complete is its folly. I'm still waiting for it to appear on lawn signs -- gun-free home! -- though not holding my breath. Liberals are clueless, but usually not willing to extend invitations to those who would do them harm.

IRS Threatens Employers on Obamacare

Semi-News/Semi-Satire ^ | 11 Jan 2013 | John Semmens

The Internal Revenue Service warned employers in a new regulatory edict that “scrupulous adherence to the rules will not be tolerated if the intent is merely to minimize costs.” The IRS issued the edict amidst reports that many business owners were limiting employee hours or hiring temps in order to avoid Obamacare’s health insurance mandates.
“While the law may say that only full time employees must be covered, the President’s intent is to see that everyone has health insurance,” the IRS wrote. “Replacing full-time employees with part-timers or outsourcing jobs to temp agencies as a means of lowering costs will not be allowed.”
The IRS promised to “make whatever statistical adjustments we deem necessary to thwart efforts to evade the President’s objective. Those wishing to challenge our rulings can take us to court.”
Taking the government to court over its Obamacare rulings may be financially risky. Hobby Lobby is facing daily fines in excess of one million dollars for each day if fails to comply with a ruling that it must provide coverage for birth control and abortions in the insurance it offers to its employees.
“The IRS doesn’t have the resources to closely monitor every action taken by every business or person subject to its authority,” complained Commissioner Steven Miller. “Fear of the potential consequences of noncompliance—whether that be financial ruin or imprisonment—is our first line of defense for protecting the government’s interests against recalcitrant and disobedient members of society.”

What does the Republican Party Want?

Dan Miller's Blog ^ | January 12, 2013 | Dan Miller

Reelection of its incumbents and power of course, but what else matters? Anything?
An article by Scott Rasmussen published yesterday contends that

Just a few days after reaching [the fiscal cliff] agreement, an inside-the-Beltway publication reported another area of bipartisan agreement. Politico explained that while Washington Democrats have always viewed GOP voters as a problem, Washington Republicans "in many a post-election soul-searching session" have come to agree. More precisely, the article said the party's Election 2012 failures have "brought forth one principal conclusion from establishment Republicans: They have a primary problem." As seen from the halls of power, the problem is that Republican voters think it's OK to replace incumbent senators and congressman who don't represent the views of their constituents. In 2012, for example, Republican voters in Indiana dumped longtime Sen. Richard Lugar in a primary battle.
. . . .
So, according to Politico, the Washington team is gearing up a new effort to protect incumbents and limit the ability of Republican voters to successfully challenge establishment candidates. (Emphasis added.)
That makes sense to those whose sole goal is winning a majority in Congress rather than changing the course of government policy. Seen from the outside, though, it sounds like the professional politicians are saying that the only way to win is to pick more candidates like the insiders. Hearing that message, the reaction of many Republican and conservative voters is, "Why bother?" (Emphasis added.)
That's why more than two-thirds of Republican voters believe GOP officials in Washington have lost touch with the party's base.
The Republican establishment has two choices. They can act as mature party leaders of a national political party, or they can protect their own self-interest.
There are good reasons for conservative voters to "bother." If we don't, who will? Party leaders won't; they seem comfortable with things as they are. When the time comes to vote, most "honorable members" leave their consciences if not their brains outside and do as their party leaders tell them to. Those who reject party control can be stripped of committee assignments and otherwise disciplined. Hence, few reject party control.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B55YgD1gr0c?feature=player_detailpage]
Video link
Here's another video. Relevant? Substitute "U.S. Senate" for "House of Peers" and it makes a bit of contextual sense. The Senate was, after all, modeled on the House of Peers as the House was modeled on the House of Commons.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeUAWXUw_iI?feature=player_detailpage]
Video link
Should the Senate emulate the House of Peers by doing nothing -- and doing it very well? The Senate has been doing a lot of that. However, since no legislation can pass without approval by both houses, doing nothing can be good or bad depending on what one wants done. Doing nothing well -- as in doing everything badly -- is a bit different; both houses do much of that.
More seriously, the Republican Party is evidently trying to appear "moderate" to appeal to more voters and thereby ensure the reelection of its favored incumbents. That requires it to move ever leftward in tandem with the Democrat Party. Former House Speaker Pelosi seems to like their strategy.

When fiscal cliff legislation passed with mainly Democratic votes, Republicans griped, “Who’s the Speaker?” It was humiliating for the GOP majority to play the handmaiden to minority leader Nancy Pelosi. Asked if the lopsided vote makes her the de facto Speaker of the House, Pelosi demurred, coyly saying “not quite,” and reveling in her renewed clout. After the Democrats failed to regain control of the House in last year’s election, Pelosi appeared headed for a largely symbolic role as leader of the minority party in a chamber where the majority rules with an iron hand. Republican infighting turned that assumption on its head with Pelosi suddenly looking stronger and more relevant than anybody anticipated, and not just because of Democratic votes that avoided the fiscal cliff. Unlike her counterpart on the Republican side, Pelosi is a leader with a firm lock on her caucus.
BoehnerJohnCrying1Does Speaker Boehner want President Obama to kiss him too? Sometimes it seems as though he does.
obama kisses pelosi
It can probably be arranged. For a price -- if we are willing to pay it and if we fail to be as effective in purging librul Republicans as Speaker Boehner has been in purging conservative Republicans.
Does Speaker Boehner want the Republican Party to move further and further leftward in tandem with the Democrat Party? If so, a strategy of appealing to the largest and most diverse audience possible makes sense, just as it would if the party were peddling soap or breakfast cereal. That may be its marketing strategy, but if conservatives are to have a strong voice in Government it leaves us with little choice beyond going elsewhere.
What should be the Republican Party's job?
As a minority party, its job should be to prevent the majority party from injuring America beyond restoration, using every lawful substantive and procedural ploy in its arsenal. That it can't do so perfectly is no excuse for not trying or for backing off when it becomes inconvenient to continue. As a majority party (should that ever happen again) its job will be to rectify mistakes made by the previous majority party, to make as few more of them as possible and to move the nation bit by bit to the right. Is the Republican Party as presently constituted capable of doing that?
Beyond that, its most important job, whether in or out of power, is to demand rigorous adherence to the Constitution -- the charter upon which our Federal Government was uniquely founded. It must do that not only when it is popular but also when it is unpopular. That's one of the reasons why we have a Federal Republic, rather than a democracy based on popular vote -- something modern technology has made it easy to have if we wanted it. We don't and shouldn't.
To the extent that the Constitution is diminished so is the nation. It was intentionally made very difficult to amend. It can be amended if necessary, but in no event should it be evaded, avoided, ignored or otherwise treated as optional. We have seen the results when that happens. Want an example?
Venezuela -- a model democracy?
Anyone who hasn't been paying attention to the situation in Venezuela might want to go here and read a dozen or so recent articles. Need more? Here's an article I wrote in May of last year. Here's another.

When el Presidente Chávez took office in 1999, he began only slowly to implement his “reforms.” To a casual observer, few changes were apparent in Venezuela between 1997 when my wife and I first arrived and late 2001 when we left, probably never to return. We had a few concerns about the future of the country under Chávez but they were low on our list of reasons not to buy land and build our home in the state of Merida, up in the Andes. Mainly, we wanted to continue sailing and Merida is inconveniently far from an ocean. Chávez’ initiatives increased dramatically in number and in magnitude only when he was well into his seemingly endless terms in office. Maybe he had heard the story of the frog put into a pleasantly warm but slowly heating pot of water. The frog failed to realize until too late that he was being boiled for dinner. By then the frog had become unable to jump out of the pot.
Boiled Frogs New
Now in his second (and, one hopes, final term) President Obama has flexibility not dramatically less than did el Presidente Chávez once his power was well on the way to becoming firmly established. Perhaps the frogs are beginning to feel the heat; perhaps that will come later.
As Chávez steps into history, should Venezuela be our nation's role model?
h/t Devil's Excrement
h/t Devil's Excrement
Where are we going?
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBqjZ0KZCa0?feature=player_detailpage]
Video link
Even leaving the Constitution aside, how many others like this are there now? Somebody has to be held accountable and pay. But gosh darn! Who should it be? As they and others in comparable circumstances continue to multiply, how many more will there be as their children mature sufficiently to reproduce and for little else? And reproduce. And reproduce. Here's a longer version if anyone is interested.
How frequently is that pitiful scene repeated across the nation now? If spending on the welfare state continues to grow, how often will the scene be repeated over the next decade or two?
free stuff
Personal responsibility? What's that? Who should take care of her children and other consequences of personal irresponsibility funded by a "compassionate" Government at the expense of us all? Should we ask el Commandante Chávez? As long as his now uncertain ability to care for his people continues, support for him can remain a viable substitute for personal responsibility. Should we ask El Commandante President Obama? He has many other important priorities.
Obama bring a gun
Freedom cannot exist without personal responsibility. Illusions of freedom can but should be unacceptable.
An illusion of freedom can be seen as real no less than can a 3D motion picture; when the movie bad guy throws a knife into the audience, some may duck but even then they understand that the knife illusion can't hurt them. In that sense, the knife illusion is preferable to a real knife. Most who prefer the illusion of freedom to actual freedom are probably aware of the differences between a real knife and the illusion of one in a 3D motion picture. Do they prefer an illusion of freedom to its reality because reality includes the freedom to fail -- and to suffer the consequences -- as well as the freedom to succeed? The illusion of freedom increasingly causes the consequences of failure to be imposed on others. Some probably like that. Others perhaps prefer the illusion without thinking; or maybe they enjoy the illusion that they are thinking about it.
Recognition of the possibility of failure is an impetus to do the work needed to succeed. The chances of success for those who do not recognize the possibility of failure -- and hence the need to pay attention to what they have to do avoid it -- are slim.
A "compassionate" Government seeks to prevent the failure of its favorites or at least to cushion their landings. The leadership of the Republican Party should realize that it is fully capable of failure and that, unlike Democrat Party supporters, the consequences of their failures are unlikely to be cushioned by a "compassionate" Democrat Government. If the Republican Party has not already failed its chances of doing so are high and increasing. If it does not take remedial action, starting now, the rest of us need to prepare for its demise by birthing its replacement. That kid had better mature and take responsibility fast, because if he doesn't it will probably be too late.

Forget discouraged, 3 million workers hopelessly unemployed

CNN Money ^ | 01/04/2013 | By Annalyn Kurtz

Employers may be hiring, but there's another big problem with the job market that isn't being tracked as closely: the hopelessly unemployed.
An often overlooked number calculated by the Labor Department shows millions of Americans want a job but haven't searched for one in at least a year. They've simply given up hope.
They're not counted as part of the labor force, the official unemployment rate, or the category the Labor Department refers to as "discouraged workers" -- those who haven't bothered to look for work in the last four weeks.
These hopelessly unemployed workers have just been jobless so long, they've fallen off the main government measures altogether.
"The way we're measuring the long-term unemployed has a lot of holes in it," said Stephen Bronars, senior economist for Welch Consulting. "A person can be discouraged for a while, but then gets bumped over into this other category."
The Labor Department started tracking this group in 1994, but it doesn't get much attention. Recently, it has started growing more rapidly than usual, even as other job measures have shown improvement.
Five years ago, before the recession began, about 2.5 million people said they wanted a job but hadn't searched for one in at least a year. Now, that number is around 3.25 million.
"We have always had a set of people who want a job but for whatever reason are not looking," said Heidi Shierholz, economist with the Economic Policy Institute. "But this recession was so severe and job opportunities are still so weak, this group is growing because of that."
Who are the hopelessly unemployed?
"It's hard to say exactly who these people might be," Bronars said. That's because they say they want to work, but also say they aren't looking. The questioning doesn't go much deeper than that.
(Excerpt) Read more at money.cnn.com ...

Obama Gives GOP a Bailout

Townhall.com ^ | January 12, 2013 | John Ransom

While fellow conservatives bash the president for telling Speaker of the House John Boehner that the country doesn’t have a spending problem, I offer Barack Obama another thank-you.

Just when I thought that the GOP’s own ineptitude was going to sink the party, the man-who-would-be-president proved once again that when it comes to being out of touch, you can’t get any better than the First Community Organizer.
Led by Barack Obama and the Democrats, Congress passed a budget plan that doesn’t even do what they said it would- keep taxes lower for anyone not a millionaire or billionaire.
So, now we can add “fiscal cliff’ to the notable failures of Congress, the president and political elites since the turn of the century, including but in no way limited to other failures such as: “Obamacare,” which helps healthcare costs go up, not down; “Pelosi-care,” which funds “green” companies with taxpayer dollars so people with connections to anyone named Pelosi, Reid or Obama can benefit; “Cap ‘N Tax,” which, if given a chance, would have seen Al Gore transferring US coal reserves to the OPEC states and Al Jazeera before a tax deadline- and I’m not kidding on that; or any one of several “jobs” bills, where the only job created was the jobbing of taxpayers for the benefit of mobbed-up highway contractors.
While Obama told everyone his fiscal cliff solution meant that taxes were “only” going up for millionaires and billionaires, he forgot to mention that he was reckoning those figures in Japanese Yen- a million Yen equals only $11,433.80 reckoned in US Dollars.
So…anywho…taxes are going up on EVERYONE, even lowly community organizers.
The budget won’t be cut ANYWHERE, not even in the Defense Department.
Actually, we should all stand-by for more dumb spending proposals, and the taxes that go along with them.
Because the Dems wasted no time in turning the political victory they waged on the GOP into Pyrrhic victory they wage on taxpayers.
Not content to have raised taxes again, the Democrats have turned into a caricature of the caricature that the GOP said they were all along, greedy for money, not satisfied even though government spending will account for 41 percent of GDP in 2012.
Swaziland, Albania and Vietnam spend less on government as a percentage of GDP.
Back in the USA, Liberals are already demanding- this before the new tax receipts have even hit the US Treasury’s bank account- that taxes go up again.
And other liberals are whining that they didn’t know that the newest taxes applied to them.
What can I tell you? Prepare for more fairness everyone.
Because politicians, liberals will argue, don’t cause tax increases, it’s the dirty, rotten dollars that cause tax increases. And the only way liberals know how to deal with anything, including dollars, is by regulating, confiscating and rationing.
In short, they need to institute “dollar control” to remedy the problem of tax increases.
If liberals could make sure that only the government had access to dollars, then everyone would be safe from high taxation.
The first step in this plan is banning high capacity bank accounts that millionaires and billionaires use to keep the rest of us down. These high-capacity bank accounts hold millions and billions of dollars, and, if in the wrong hands- see Bush, Geo. - have the potential of creating massive jobs, profits and mass prosperity.
In short, a liberal genocide.
Because while Bush spent money, he kept unemployment down; while Bush waged war poorly, the economy was better off. And even if Bush created a deficit, the red ink was more incidental than it was intentional.
You can’t argue that Obama’s had anything but a negative result on: 1) unemployment; 2) national security; or 3) taming the federal budget.
And that’s not incidental, it’s intentional.
For your intentions Mr. Obama, thank you.
They’ve helped saved the GOP once again from their own failure.

25 People, Places, And Things Liberals Love To Hate (Great List)

Townhall.com ^ | January 12, 2013 | John Hawkins

1) Guns for making all those poor innocent criminals break the law.
2) The old, dead white guys who founded America and their ridiculous, outdated Constitution that doesn't mention global warming or limits on soda size even once.
3) Nosy voters who ask questions like, "What kind of change?" and "Forward to where?"
4) Adorable little kids who want to run lemonade stands...WITHOUT A PERMIT!
5) The fact that Sarah Palin is the single best feminist role model in a generation while the Left's #1 feminist role model, Hillary Clinton, built her whole career around marrying the right guy.
6) Deciding issues based on the merits as opposed to going with whatever makes you sound "nice."
7) Informed voters.
8) Those “deceptive” “negative” campaign ads that take liberals “completely out of context” by quoting them when they take unpopular positions.
9) Minorities who actually expect Democrats to make their life better in return for their vote.
10) People who define patriotism as actually loving your country.
11) Black men who don't take orders from white liberals.
12) That no government program exists that can force Fox News to make Chris Matthews the head of its network.
13) Judging from Barack Obama's presidency so far -- jobs.
14) People who think anyone responsible enough to have sex is responsible enough to buy their own birth control.
15) All those dirty polluters who put a higher value on having electricity 24 hours a day at a reasonable cost with oil rather than using extremely expensive alternative energy sources that are only a few decades away from being almost as good.
16) Debt limits, budgets and anything else that makes it harder for liberals to spend other people’s money.
17) People who want to hear from conservatives what they believe instead of just accepting what liberals say conservatives believe.
18) Expecting liberals to live up to the same standards they want to impose on everyone else as opposed to tactfully ignoring their staggering hypocrisy because they "mean well."
19) The South.
20) People who believe they should be allowed to choose what lightbulbs they want to use in their own house.
21) Crazy radicals who believe our country should live within its means even if it means the guy who plays Big Bird won't be able to afford to have a butler.
22) The idea that everyone should be judged by the content of his character, not the color of his skin.
23) Voters who expect liberals to keep the campaign promises they made when they were pretending to be moderates in order to get elected.
24) All these Christians who actually insist on trying to stick to the Bible instead of Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi's interpretation of what God really meant to say.
25) People who live in America and actually like America, even when a Democrat isn't in charge.