Friday, January 18, 2013

A Pro-Life Reminder for Planned Parenthood: Don’t Mess With Texas ^ | January 18, 2013 | Anna Higgins

In the days leading up to the 40th commemoration of Roe v. Wade, the pro-life cause is winning the legal war against America’s largest abortion provider. As reported recently in the Texas Tribune, the State of Texas has won round one in the battle to defund abortion providers.

In 2011, the Texas legislature passed what is called the “Affiliate Ban Rule,” which prohibits any health provider affiliated with abortion, including Planned Parenthood, from participating in the state’s Women’s Health Program. In April 2012, a Texas judge granted a preliminary injunction to Planned Parenthood TX, exempting them from the new rule; however, that ruling was overturned in August 2012 by the Fifth Circuit Court.

In response to the passage of this bill, the Obama Administration, champion of Planned Parenthood’s abortion agenda, threatened to rescind all federal aid Texas receives to help fund its outreach to poor women and children. Yet Texas, it appears, was not to be intimidated.

The State’s response was strong and proactive. In light of the imminent cancellation of its federally-funded Women’s Health Program, Texas created the state-funded Texas Women’s Health Program, which offers all the same family planning and health services without subsidizing abortion directly or indirectly.

Planned Parenthood filed another suit against the state of Texas, requesting an injunction from a state district court to delay the implementation of the Affiliate Ban Rule until the court can reach a decision on the merits of the lawsuit. The court refused to grant the injunction, meaning that the Affiliate Ban Rule could go into effect on January 1, as scheduled. On January 11 a hearing was held on another suit filed by Planned Parenthood patient, Marcela “Marcy” Balquinta, in which a Travis County Court judge denied another request for a temporary injunction on the rule.

In response to the first injunction denial, Planned Parenthood laid out a guilt trip worthy of an Oscar, attempting to manipulate the sympathies of the American public. The Texas Tribune reports that Ken S. Lambrecht, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas, said, “It is shocking that once again Texas officials are letting politics jeopardize health care access for women.” This statement may fool a few, but reality presents a much more optimistic picture. Health care providers available to serve poor women in Texas without violating the abortion affiliate rule are in ample supply.

The website devoted to the Texas Women’s Health Program is comprehensive and clear. A quick search on the website debunks Planned Parenthood’s claim that women will not have access to healthcare if abortion providers are eliminated from the program. Women will continue to have a wide range of options for free healthcare, in Texas cities large and small. According to the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, there are over 3,500 providers available under the new Texas Women’s Health Program, of which 1,000 were added since the spring of 2012. Thus, it appears that there are more than enough providers in all parts of the state to serve any woman in need. One is left to wonder if Planned Parenthood is just woefully uninformed regarding women’s access to free healthcare outside of their own facilities or if it has another agenda completely.

One thing is for sure, where the federal government has failed, the states have taken initiative. 2011 was a banner year for de-funding abortion providers on the state level, and this has Planned Parenthood running scared. Considering Planned Parenthood receives over one million dollars each day from taxpayers’ pockets, Planned Parenthood has demonstrated that it will consider all kinds of tactics to keep that money coming. And while the federal government is in the bag for the nation’s largest abortion provider, with states like Texas fighting them the pro-life movement can continue to win.

Background check obama

chrisnj | 1/18/2013 | Chrisnj

For gun appreciation day (1/19), the following sign will hit 2 birds with 1 stone -


How dare he demand background-check on us when his background was NEVER checked!
They don't want to background-check obama, then they cannot background check We the people!
In 1 sign we We challenge obama's legitimacy and his illegal moves to take away our right to bear arms!

Obama policies are pro-Islam, Terre Haute ^ | December 12, 2012 | Ramachandra B. Abhyankar

Obama has an anti-colonial, pro-Islam policy. He maintains deafening silence about Islamic imperialism (manifested as jihad and sharia doctrines of Islam, which have always caused and continue to cause havoc across the world), but apologizes at every opportunity for Western colonialism.
Whereas the Nazis killed six million Jews, Islamic Jihad has killed 120 million Africans, 60 million Christians, 80 million Hindus and 10 million Buddhists, according to the Center for the Study of Political Islam.
Whereas Colonialism brought science and technology to many parts of the world, Islamic Imperialism brought no benefits to those it oppressed. President Obama maintains silence about the persecution of non-Muslims and women in the Islamic world.
Obama and the left are endangering the freedom and security of America and the world by maintaining silence about the dangers of Jihad and Sharia. Sharia is a danger to freedom of expression, and the human rights of non-Muslims and women. Sharia supports slavery.
On Sept. 25, 2012, in a speech at the at the United Nations, President Obama said: “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.” However, he did not issue a call for the urgently needed Islamic reforms.
Is this what Americans expect from their president?

ONE of my all-time heroes is Diogenes the Cynic,
who spent most of his life chilling in his barrel
outside the city-state of Corinth . He was the original
Cynic because he believed that men and women lived
a life dictated by rules and taboos and therefore no one
was really truthful or honest. Actually Diogenes is my hero
because he was witty, rude, and had little respect for authority.

Actor Danny Glover tells students 2nd Amendment was created to protect slavery! ^ | January 18, 2013 | Timothy Dionisopoulos

The Constitution's Second Amendment was created to bolster slavery and capture land from Native Americans, award winning actor Danny Glover told a group of students at a Texas A&M sponsored event on Thursday.
“I don’t know if you know the genesis of the right to bear arms,” he said. “The Second Amendment comes from the right to protect themselves from slave revolts, and from uprisings by Native Americans.”
“A revolt from people who were stolen from their land or revolt from people whose land was stolen from, that’s what the genesis of the second amendment is,” he continued.
Glover, best known for roles in the “Lethal Weapon” franchise and “Angels in the Outfield,” was addressing students at an event being held in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Director of Texas A&M’s Memorial Student Center, Luke Altendorf, told Campus Reform on Friday that the university was unaware of Glover’ talking points prior to his speech.
“I had no idea, we really didn’t know that topic was coming up,” he told Campus Reform. “Someone was asking a question about activism, I think that’s where some of that came from.”
Altendorf declined to say if, or how much the school had paid for Glover’s speech, but said student fees were not used.
WATCH: Danny Glover says the Second Amendment was crafted by America's founding fathers to protect slavery
Danny Glover at Texas A&M MLK Breakfast, 2nd Amendment
In the past, however, the university paid Angela Davis and Harry Belafonte $25,000 for their speeches at the same event.
Altendorf also defended the school’s decision to host those controversial speakers with university resources.
“We didn’t feel those speakers you are referring to are bad decisions on these topics because we want to foster discussion,” he said.
The video recording of the event was captured by members of a student group, the Texas Aggie Conservatives (TAC). That group has also created an online petition blasting Texas A&M for its speaker selections.
Eric Schroeder, chairman of the conservative group, called the event “outrageous.”
“It should be a time for real reflection and respect,” he said referring to the memorial breakfast for King. “Instead, the university pushes a political agenda.”
Schroeder also called on university President Bowen Loftin to make up for the event by inviting a conservative speaker of equal star power.
“We expect President Loftin to stand by his commitment to diversity and fully support our efforts to bring in a conservative speaker to provide an alternative to Mr. Glover’s far left message” said Schroeder.

The Six Things Americans Should Know About the Second Amendment.

by Richard W. Stevens


A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

FIRST: The Second Amendment protects an individual right that existed before the creation of any government. The Declaration of Independence made clear that all human beings are endowed with certain unalienable rights, and that governments are created to protect those rights.
A. The unalienable right to freedom from violent harm, and the right to self-defense, both exist before and outside of secular government.
  • 1. Torah: Exodus 22:2.
  • 2. Talmud: Jewish law set forth in the Talmud states, “If someone comes to kill you, arise quickly and kill him.” (Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin. 1994,2, 72a; The Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Berakoth. 1990, 58a, 62b).
  • 3. Roman Catholic Doctrine: Christian doctrine has long asserted the right and duty of self defense. “Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow.” See Catechism of the Catholic Church 1994, sections 2263-65 (citing and quoting Thomas Aquinas).
  • 4. Protestant Doctrine: Individual has personal and unalienable right to self-defense, even against government. Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex [1644]1982, pp. 159-166, 183-185 (Sprinkle Publications edition.) Jesus advised his disciples to arm themselves in view of likely persecution. Luke 22:36.
B. John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government (1690) aimed at reforming Britain’s monarchy and parliamentary system and limiting the power of government, and profoundly influenced the Founders and all Western Civilization. John Locke explained that civil government properly exists to more effectively protect the rights that all individuals have in the “state of nature.” The individuals have the rights to life, liberty, and property. They give civil government the power over themselves only to the extent that it better protects those rights. Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, specifically declared that the ideas of John Locke’s Second Treatise were “generally approved by the citizens of the United States.”Jefferson mandated that Locke’s Second Treatise be taught in the University of Virginia.
C. Christian religious thinkers, such as Samuel Rutherford (in Lex, Rex, 1644) argued that man’s rights come from G-d. Using Biblical principles and examples, they argued against the notion that kings ruled by divine right. To be legitimate authorities, all governments must uphold man’s rights and do justice. Otherwise, the people owe a lawless and tyrannical ruler no allegiance at all.
D. Cicero, Rome’s leading orator, had early argued that the right to self-defense was natural and inborn, and not a creation of the government. The right to use weapons was a necessary part of the right to self-defense — any view to the contrary was silly nonsense. [Stephen P. Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of A Constitutional Right (1984), p. 17, fn 76-77.]
E. The right to keep and bear arms simply implements the unalienable right to individual self-defense against aggression of any kind. The Second Amendment refers to “the right of the people” (not the state) as a pre-existing right that government must respect.
F. The United States Supreme Court, in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, indicated that the word “people” in the Second Amendment referred to individuals, not to states. [494 U.S. 259 (1990)] (This was not a holding or ruling of law, but an observation by the Court).
SECOND: The language of the Second Amendment prohibits the federal government from “infringing” on this right of the people. There is nothing ambiguous about “shall not be infringed.” (See Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, 2d ed.1983, p. 941.) The language of the Second Amendment is about as clear as the First Amendment’s prohibiting Congress from infringing the right to freedom of speech, press, and religious expression. There is no logical reason to read the Second Amendment as a weak statement, while treating the First Amendment as a strong protector of rights.
A. The Second Amendment protects a fundamental right and should be read broadly because it implements the right of self-defense. Self-defense is the ultimate right of all individuals to preserve life. The rights to a free press, free speech, assembly, and religion are extremely important — but none of them matters very much if you can’t defend your own life against aggression. None of them matters very much when an evil government is fully armed and its citizens are disarmed.
B. Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 and 16 of the U.S. Constitution refer to Congress’s powers concerning the state militias. Clause 15 empowers Congress to “call forth” the state militias into national service for specific purposes. Clause 16 empowers Congress to organize, arm and discipline the state militias, and to govern the militias while they are in national service. The Second Amendment confines Congress’s power by guaranteeing that the Congress cannot “govern” the militias right out of existence and thereby disarm “the people.”
THIRD: The Second Amendment refers to “a well-regulated militia.”The right of the people to form citizen militias was unquestioned by the Founders.
A. The Federalist Papers, No. 28: Alexander Hamilton expressed that when a government betrays the people by amassing too much power and becoming tyrannical, the people have no choice but to exercise their original right of self-defense — to fight the government.[Halbrook, p. 67]
B. The Federalist Papers, No. 29: Alexander Hamilton explained that an armed citizenry was the best and only real defense against a standing army becoming large and oppressive. [Halbrook, p. 67]
C. The Federalist Papers, No. 46: James Madison contended that ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms. [Halbrook, p. 67]
D. There was no National Guard, and the Founders opposed anything but a very small national military. The phrase “well-regulated” means well-trained and disciplined — not “regulated” as we understand that term in the modern sense of bureaucratic regulation. [This meaning still can be found in the unabridged Oxford English Dictionary, 2d ed. 1989, Vol 13, p. 524, and Vol 20. p. 138.]
E. The Federalists promised that state governments and citizen militias would exist to make sure the federal military never became large or oppressive. To say that the National Guard replaces the notion of the militia runs contrary to what the Founders said and wrote.
F. The Third Amendment: Expressly restrains the federal government from building a standing army and infiltrating it among the people ...and at the people’s expense ... in times of peace. The Third Amendment runs against the idea of a permanent standing army or federalized National Guard in principle, if not by its words.
FOURTH: The Second Amendment begins with the phrase “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State.” Some people argue that this phrase limits the right to keep and bear arms to militias only ... which they say means the National Guard. Very recent research shows, however, that it was the style of writing legal documents in the late 1700’s to include a preamble. The Constitution has a preamble, the Bill of Rights has a preamble — yet people don’t argue that the Constitution is limited by the preamble. Professor Eugene Volokh at the UCLA Law School has examined numerous other state constitutions of the same general time period, and observed this kind of preamble language in many of them. (The Commonplace Second Amendment, 73 N.Y. Univ. Law Rev. 793-821 (1998)). The preamble states a purpose, not a limitation on the language in these government charters.
A. Examples:
  • New Hampshire’s Constitution in 1784 contained a preamble for the freedom of the press: “The Liberty of the Press is essential to the security of freedom in a state; it ought, therefore, to be inviolably preserved.”
  • Rhode Island’s 1842 state constitution recited a preamble before its declaration of the right of free speech and press: “The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty...”
  • New Hampshire’s Constitution in 1784 also contained a detailed preamble and explanation of purpose for its right to a criminal trial in the vicinity where the crime occurred.
  • The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, the 1784 New Hampshire Constitution and the 1786 Vermont Constitution, all contained preambles or explanations of the right of freedom of speech and debate in the state legislatures.
  • The New Hampshire Constitution also gave an explanation, right in the text, for why there should be no ex post facto laws.
B. The Second Amendment falls right within the style of legal drafting of the late 1700’s. The “militia” clause emphasizes the individual right to keep and bear arms by explaining one of its most important purposes. The militia clause does not limit the right.
FIFTH: Before the Civil War and the Fourteenth Amendment, many states enacted laws that made it illegal for slaves and for free black people to possess firearms (unless they had their master’s permission or a government approval). [See list, with sources in law reviews, in Gran’pa Jack No. 4 ]
A. The Second Amendment did not protect black people then, because(1) it was understood to limit the federal government’s power only and (2) black people were not considered citizens whose rights deserved to be protected. [Dred Scott decision, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Judge Taney observed that if blacks had the privileges and immunities of citizenship, then they would be able to freely possess and carry arms ... unthinkable to Southern slave owners.)][Halbrook, pp. 98, 114-15]
B. The Second Amendment was designed by people who did not want to become slaves to their government, but they were unfortunately and tragically willing to permit private slavery in some states. Now that slavery is abolished, however, all citizens of all races should enjoy the Second Amendment’s legal protection against despotic government.
SIXTH: Several Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal have held that the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right, but only a collective right of states to form a militia. The federal court decisions cite United States v. Miller as precedent. The 1939 Supreme Court case, United States v. Miller, did not make that ruling. Even in Miller, where only the prosecution filed a brief and the defendant’s position was not even briefed or argued to the Court, the Supreme Court held that the federal government could only regulate firearms that had no military purpose. [307 U.S. 174 (1939)] [See JPFO special report about Miller case]
  • A. Nowadays, gun prohibitionists want to illegalize firearms unless they have a “sporting purpose.” The “sporting purpose” idea was part of the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938. JPFO has shown that the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968 imported much of its organization, content, and phrasing, from the Nazi Weapons Law. [See ... Zelman, Gateway to Tyranny]
  • B. In contrast, even under the U.S. v. Miller case, the Second Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear military firearms. Learn how the federal courts deceptively and misleadingly employed the Miller decision to deny the individual right to keep and bear arms in Barnett, Can the Simple Cite Be Trusted?: Lower Court Interpretations of United States v. Miller and the Second Amendment, 26 Cumberland Law Review 961-1004 (1996).
  • C. A federal judge recently struck down a federal “gun control” statute as unconstitutional in United States v. Emerson, 46 F. Supp. 2d 598 (N.D. Tex. 1999). In his scholarly written opinion, District Judge Cummings exten-sively reviewed the law and historical foundations of the Second Amendment to conclude that the right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment is an individual right. The Emerson decision remains pending an appeal in the Fifth Circuit as of this date.
Before a government can become a full-blown tyranny, the government must first disarm its citizens. The Founders of this nation, from their own experience, knew that when government goes bad, liberty evaporates and people die ... unless the people are armed.
As you read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights:
  • (1) Look at the enumerated powers of the federal government;
  • (2) Look at the express limitations on federal power as set forth in the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments;
  • (3) Ask yourself, where does the federal government get any power at all to regulate firearms?
  • (4) Ask yourself, why don’t the high school and college textbooks devote any time to the history, philosophical basis and practical meaning of the Second Amendment?
And then consider that law students and future lawyers likewise have received precious little education about the Second Amendment.
Realize, too, that the judges know just about as little. Then imagine how little the average American knows — based on the average public school coverage of the Constitution.
The protection of our sacred right of self-defense against both petty criminals and oppressive government — the right of civilians to keep and bear arms — is in your hands.

The Bill of Rights Sentinel, Fall 2001, pp. 31-33

Join JPFO America's Most Aggressive Defender of Firearms Ownership

Poll Shows NRA More Popular Than President Obama; As Usual, Media Ignores ^ | January 18, 2013 | Randy Hall

Despite constant hammering by the national news media, the National Rifle Association has a favorability rating of 54 percent in the latest Gallup survey, slightly higher than President Obama's rating of 53 percent.

While those figures are within the poll's margin of error, they show that the NRA's popularity is in the same range as that of the Democratic president who issued 23 executive orders to accomplish goals the gun-rights group has promised to combat in “the fight of the century.”
According to an article by Frank Newport, the Gallup poll -- which was conducted Dec. 19-22 -- showed that only 38 percent of those surveyed have an unfavorable opinion of the NRA, while Obama's disapproval rating is three points higher at 41 percent.

The survey, which was taken after the Sandy Hook murders on Dec. 14 and NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre's anti-gun control press conference on Dec. 22, also indicates that 21 percent of Americans have a very favorable opinion of the NRA, while 18 percent have a very unfavorable opinion.

As you might expect, favorable opinions of the NRA are much higher than average among the 45 percent of Americans who report having a gun in the household -- although one in four view the NRA unfavorably. At the same time, four in 10 of those without a gun in the household have a favorable opinion of the NRA.
Newport also stated that the poll reinforces the common belief that Republicans are more likely to own guns and are less in favor of gun control than Democrats.

These relationships no doubt contribute to the finding that more than eight in 10 Republicans have a favorable opinion of the NRA, contrasted with less than four in 10 Democrats. A slight majority of independents have a favorable opinion of the NRA.
Although more than seven in 10 Americans with a gun in the household have a favorable opinion of the NRA, a much smaller group -- 50 percent -- say the organization reflects their views on guns always or most of the time.

On the other hand, 22 percent of those without a gun in the household say that the NRA reflects their views about guns always or most of the time.

Results for the poll are based on telephone interviews with a random sample of 1,038 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

The public's ratings of the NRA have fluctuated since first being measured by Gallup in 1993 -- from a low of 42 percent favorable in 1995 to a high of 60 percent in 2005.

As NewsBusters previously reported, recent surveys conducted on behalf of CNN and Time magazine have shown that the public's support for stricter gun legislation is dropping.
John Nolte of commented that these polls are part of the reason “the White House, Democrats and the corrupt media are losing their battle to marginalize and destroy the political power of the NRA.”

Right now, the media is manufacturing a reality that says the American people consider the NRA a bunch of freaks who put on a freak show during that press conference with their freaky ideas about putting armed guards in schools.
Judging from all this polling data, Obama and the Democrats in Congress will have a difficult time passing gun-control legislation. Nevertheless, the president and his allies will certainly give it their best shot.

Obama’s Psycho Job Phobia ^ | January 18, 2013 | John Ransom

Good news everyone: Jobless claims on a weekly basis fell to a five-year low according to the Labor Department.
Bad news everyone: Yet still more people remain jobless.
And why is that? Because Obama doesn’t care about jobs.
When you reckon out the newest jobless figures using the Obama’s best calculus, the weekly decline doesn’t mean that fewer people are unemployed.
That would be asking way too much from an administration that seems phobic about private-sector job creation.
“Applications for jobless benefits decreased by 37,000 to 335,000 in the week ended Jan. 12, the lowest level since the period ended Jan. 19, 2008, Labor Department figures showed today,” reports Bloomberg. “Economists forecast 369,000 claims, according to the median estimate in a Bloomberg survey. A spokesman for the agency said the drop may reflect the difficulty the government has in adjusting the data after the holidays when seasonal workers are let go.” [Ransom’s emphasis]
And I bet you wanted jobless figure to reflect actual joblessness.
Ha! Fat chance.
You obviously know nothing about good government.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Wake Up, Socially Liberal Fiscal Conservatives ^ | January 18, 2013 | Jonah Goldberg

Dear Socially Liberal Fiscal Conservative Friend,
That's pretty toothy, so I'm going to call you Bob.
But whatever specific name you go by, Bob, you know who you are. You're the sort of person who says to his conservative friends or co-workers something like, "I would totally vote for Republicans if they could just give up on these crazy social issues."
When you explain your votes for Barack Obama, you talk about how Republicans used to be much more moderate and focused on important things such as low taxes, fiscal discipline and balanced budgets.
When Colin Powell was on "Meet the Press" the other day, you nodded along as he lamented how the GOP has lost its way since the days when it was all about fiscal responsibility.
And, Bob, you think Republicans are acting crazy-pants on the debt ceiling. You don't really follow all of the details, but you can just tell that the GOP is being "extreme," thanks to those wacky tea partiers.
So, Bob, as a "fiscal conservative," what was so outrageous about trying to cut pork -- Fisheries in Alaska! Massive subsidies for Amtrak! -- From the Sandy disaster-relief bill? What was so nuts about looking for offsets to pay for it?
Bob, I'm going to be straight with you. I never had much respect for your political acumen before, but you're a sucker.
You're still spouting this nonsense about being fiscally conservative while insisting the GOP is the problem. You buy into media's anti-Republican hysteria no matter what the facts are. Heck, you even believe it when Obama suggests he's like an Eisenhower Republican.
Well, let's talk about Eisenhower, your kind of Republican. Did you know that in his famous farewell address he warned about the debt? "We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage," he said. "We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow."
Bob, we are that insolvent phantom, you feckless, gormless clod. The year Eisenhower delivered that speech, U.S. debt was roughly half our GDP. But that was when we were still paying off WWII (not to mention things like the Marshall Plan), and the defense budget comprised more than half the U.S. budget (today it's a fifth and falling). Now, the debt is bigger than our GDP. Gross Domestic Product is barely $15 trillion. The national debt is over $16 trillion and climbing -- fast. The country isn't going broke Bob, it is broke.
When George W. Bush added nearly $5 trillion in national debt in two terms you were scandalized. When Obama added more than that in one term, you yawned. When, in 2006, then-Sen. Obama condemned Bush's failure of leadership and vowed to vote against raising the debt ceiling, you thought him a statesman. Obama, who wants to borrow trillions more, now admits that was purely a "political vote."
Yet when Republicans actually have the courage of Obama's own convictions you condemn them.
You nodded sagely when Obama said we needed a "balanced approach" to cut the deficit. He said he couldn't rein in entitlements without also raising taxes on "millionaires and billionaires." Well, he won that fight. We raised taxes on millionaires and billionaires exactly as much as he wanted. We also raised the payroll tax on everyone.
Obama's response to getting the tax hikes he wanted? He says we still need a "balanced approach" -- i.e., even more tax hikes.
Anyone who calls himself a fiscal conservative understands we have a spending problem. Do the math. A two-earner couple that retired in 2011 after making $89,000 per year will pay about $114,000 into Medicare over their lifetimes but will receive $355,000. When will it dawn on you that Obama doesn't think we have a spending problem? I ask because when he said "we don't have a spending problem," it seemed to have no effect on you.
And yet you still think Paul Ryan's budget was "extreme." Do you know when it balanced the budget? 2040. What's a non-extreme date to balance the budget, Bob? 2113?
Look, Bob, I don't want to go spelunking in that cranium of yours. I don't know why you think you're a fiscal conservative. The simple fact is you're not. The green-eye-shaded Republicans you claim to miss would be scandalized by the mess we're in, largely thanks to voters like you, Bob. Eisenhower would take a flamethrower to today's Washington.
I don't expect you to vote Republican, never mind admit you're simply a liberal. But please stop preening about your fiscal conservatism particularly as you condemn the GOP for not being fiscal conservatives, even when they are the only fiscal conservatives in town.

New Jersey Democrats Vote to Exclude Non-Union Construction Workers for Hurricane Sandy Work!

FoxNation ^ | 1/18/13 | Labor Union Report

A bill that was authored by an Ironworkers’ union organizer to expand union-only Project Labor Agreements–to include Hurricane Sandy cleanup and reconstruction–passed the New Jersey Senate on Monday along party lines 23-13.

The Ironworkers’ union organizer who drafted the pro-union bill, Steven Sweeney, also happens to be the president of the New Jersey Senate and recently accused New Jersey Governor Chris Christie of “praying” for Hurricane Sandy to hit New Jersey.

As it turns out, though, unions must be counting their blessing with the New Jersey’s Senate passage of S. 2425 which adds to an already-existing discriminatory PLA laws in New Jersey:

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Electric and Hybrid Vehicles Take Back Seat At This Year's Detroit Auto Show

Michigan Capitol Confidential ^ | 1/16/2013 | Manny Lopez

DETROIT — Government bureaucrats who think they know best what people should buy and drive need to spend some time at the Detroit auto show.
If they did, they’d see that people spend about as much time looking at hybrid and electric cars as they do flossing.
That was evident again Monday when the international media descended upon Cobo Center to kick off the North American International Auto Show. They flocked to the new Corvette Stingray and kicked a lot of truck tires.
Ram Power Wagon Occasionally, someone stopped to see what was plugged in.
Therein lies the state of the automotive industry in America. Despite what environmental activists and some members of Congress want, consumers are king and they’re still mostly interested in sedans, SUVs and trucks.
“Ultimately, it’s the market that matters,” said David Cole, chairman emeritus of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor and chairman and co-founder of AutoHarvest Foundation. “The consumer is the voter.”
The numbers back that up. Ford Motor Co., for example, sold more F-150 trucks last year than any other vehicle in its portfolio and the truck has been the nation’s No. 1 selling vehicle for almost every month of the last 30-plus years. For 2012, three of the top five best-selling vehicles were pickups.
Ford sold more than 645,000 F-150 pickups last year, and in the month of December alone sold more than 2,200 a day. By comparison, Ford sold 245,922 Focuses last year.
Auto executives I talked with Monday said they expect most consumers will continue buying big, with a move among first-time buyers to smaller vehicles. But even those buyers trade up to bigger vehicles as they get older and earn more.
However, to a person, the executives I spoke with said that if the government’s long-term fuel restrictions are not adjusted, consumers will see the price of cars and trucks increase by far more than the $2,500 the government estimates the standards will cost.
By 2025, vehicles will have to meet an average of 54.5 miles per gallon, double the current standard. That will add $5,000 or more to the price of new cars and trucks, depending on the make and model, executives said.
Automakers are working to meet fuel rules that were designed without regard to market or consumer demands, and they'll continue to do so. But the industry and the economy will be much better served if government gets out of the way and quits driving blind.

Holder Begs Court to Stop Document Release on Fast and Furious

Breitbart ^ | January 17, 2013 | Matthew Boyle

Attorney General Eric Holder and his Department of Justice have (asked) a federal court to indefinitely delay a lawsuit brought by watchdog group Judicial Watch. The lawsuit seeks the enforcement of open records requests relating to Operation Fast and Furious, as required by law.

[snip] The administration has refused to comply with Judicial Watch’s FOIA request, and in mid-September the group (filed a lawsuit) challenging Holder’s denial. That lawsuit remains ongoing but within the past week President Barack Obama’s administration filed what’s called a “motion to stay” the suit. Such a motion is something that if granted would delay the lawsuit indefinitely.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said that Holder’s and Obama’s desire to continually hide these Fast and Furious documents is “ironic” now that they’re so gung-ho on gun control. “It is beyond ironic that the Obama administration has initiated an anti-gun violence push as it seeking to keep secret key documents about its very own Fast and Furious gun walking scandal,”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

West Point center cites dangers of ‘far right’ in U.S.

The Washington Times ^ | Thursday, January 17, 2013 | Rowan Scarborough

A West Point think tank has issued a paper warning America about “far right” groups such as the “anti-federalist” movement, which supports “civil activism, individual freedoms and self-government.”
The report issued this week by the Combating Terrorism Center at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., is titled “Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right.”
The report also draws a link between the mainstream conservative movement and the violent “far right,” and describes liberals as “future oriented” and conservatives as living in the past.

Read more: Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

CBO Says Electric Vehicle Subsidies to Cost $7.5 Billion With Little Benefit

National Legal & Policy Center ^ | January 18, 2013 | Mark Modica

Akerson and Volt
I recently came across a report written by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) which estimated the cost to taxpayers for "federal policies to promote (aka subsidize) the manufacture and purchase of electric vehicles (EVs)." The piece also predicts the short-term benefits of the subsidies and includes the effects of rising federal requirements for fuel economy (known as CAFE) standards. The outlook is that federal subsidies will cost taxpayers $7.5 billion over the next few years for little or no benefit (even when including the impact of CAFE) to total gas consumption or emissions.
The CBO is a non-partisan federal agency that is relied upon by Congress to provide unbiased economic data. Unfortunately, Congress does not seem to listen to what the statistics are telling them. In the case of green subsidies, it seems that no logical data on how little the country benefits from the politically-popular handouts and how many billions of dollars are spent, few members of Congress are willing to appear to be anti-green by suggesting limiting the subsidies. Congressman Mike Kelly once introduced a bill to cut back on the wasteful EV subsidies, but seemed to receive little support; even from fellow Republicans.
Regarding federal tax credits for electric vehicles, the CBO report analyzes the short term effects stating they "Will have little or no impact on the total gasoline use and greenhouse gas emissions of the nation's vehicle fleet over the next several years." Longer term they "Can affect gasoline consumption and emissions if future revisions to the CAFE standards are influenced by current sales of electric vehicles and expectations about future sales." The longer term scenario seems to be predicting an improvement in overall gas consumption and emissions only if CAFE standards are raised even further, thus requiring motorists to buy more expensive, more fuel-efficient vehicles.
The cost to Americans for the government's green madness that has put an all-in focus on plug-in vehicles at any cost goes far beyond the $7.5 billion estimated by the CBO. There are state subsidies that are not included as well as ancillary subsidies, such as for EV chargers and battery development. Then there is the rising cost of all vehicles as a result of auto manufacturers having to spend more as a result of higher federal fuel efficiency standards.
The most egregious aspect of the wasteful policies is that the manufacturers are being forced to build cars (like the Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf) that help them to meet CAFE standards, but that consumers do not actually seem to want to buy ! The overall result is that, by offering plug-in cars that few want, manufacturers can build lower-efficiency vehicles that are offset by cars like the Volt. The non-partisan CBO confirms this by stating, "However, the tax credits have other, indirect effects: Increased sales of electric vehicles allow automakers to sell more low-fuel-economy vehicles and still comply with the federal standards that govern the average fuel economy of the vehicles they sell (known as CAFE standards)."
Plug-in EVs remain more expensive to own than conventionally-powered vehicles, thus limiting consumer acceptance. The CBO report also states another fact that I have long known, which is that standard hybrids or gas-powered vehicles offer better value, even when taking into consideration subsidies. From the report:
At current vehicle and energy prices, the lifetime costs to consumers of an electric vehicle are generally higher than those of a conventional vehicle or traditional hybrid vehicle of similar size and performance, even with the tax credits, which can be as much as $7,500 per vehicle. That conclusion takes into account both the higher purchase price of an electric vehicle and the lower fuel costs over the vehicle's life. For example, an average plug-in hybrid vehicle with a battery capacity of 16 kilowatt-hours would be eligible for the maximum tax credit. However, that vehicle would require a tax credit of more than $12,000 to have roughly the same lifetime costs as a comparable conventional or traditional hybrid vehicle. Assuming that everything else is equal, the larger an electric vehicle's battery capacity, the greater its cost disadvantage relative to conventional vehicles-and thus the larger the tax credit needed to make it cost-competitive.
I find fault with one part of the CBO statement; raising the tax credit to $12,000 (please don't give President Obama any ideas!) does NOT lower the cost of EVs; it only transfers those costs to taxpayers.
The CBO report also breaks down the cost to government (they should say cost to taxpayers) for every gallon of gas saved by buyers of electric cars. The cost estimate is $3 to $7 for every gallon of gas saved. I don't see that this cost includes lost tax revenue from gas taxes, nor would it include state subsidies. I have previously calculated that the cost per gallon of gas saved would increase to about $10 per gallon for short term leases , like the subsidized 2 year leases that have helped manufacture demand for the Chevy Volt. Ponder that logic, taxpayers pay $10 for every gallon of gas that the lessees of those Chevy Volts save. We would be far better off having these people drive gas-powered cars for two years and paying for the extra gas in full!
We have learned from the recent "fiscal cliff" drama and subsequent agreement that our government is not really serious about making a dent in our budget deficit. A politically-driven token effort was made to increase taxes on the wealthy while wasteful spending and useless subsidies remain untouched. I'm sure that companies that manufacture wind mills and charging stations are doing their part to lobby politicians to continue the pork. Green energy subsidies are a prime example of how logic and facts are overruled by ideology and cronyism when it comes to our government's fiscal responsibility. The CBO report confirms that.
Mark Modica is an NLPC Associate Fellow.