Friday, February 22, 2013

Embrace the Sequester!

Townhall.com ^ | February 22, 2013 | Mark Davis

Something odd happened a few months ago as I weighed the various aspects of the dreaded Sequester Monster, a creature vilified across party lines.
It is often true that if enough people in government say something is bad, there is a strong chance of redeeming qualities.
So my journey began. The only element of the sequester that bothered me in the least was military cuts. But my friends at the Institute for Policy Innovation properly observe that defense spending will not fall below 2007 levels, which were 75% above pre-9/11Pentagon budgets.
High enough for me? Of course not. I actually want to continue fighting wars against jihadists who will most assuredly continue to wage war on us. But alas, Barack Obama is President, and even if we manage to derail Chuck Hagel for Defense Secretary, we are not going to get Dick Cheney or John Bolton policies from this White House.
Future Congresses, hopefully peppered with a lot more Republicans, will be able to join with Obama’s GOP successor to fill in any holes that might be dug in the near term.
The conservative overreaction to the defense spending cuts distracted from the overwhelming truth of the sequester: It is the only way we are going to take the first serious steps toward spending reductions.
Can there be any doubt about this?
Democrats are never serious about real spending cuts. Republicans say they are, but too rarely show real willingness to act accordingly.
So the feared sequester, hatched in the Obama White House itself, ironically becomes the only path to real cuts.
The administration is shell-shocked. Obama and the Democrats cannot believe they have not been able to further roll the GOP into agreeing to tax increases without any assurance of spending reductions.
But this rigid, do-nothing, obstructionist Republican Party has done exactly what it should do when outflanked by a Democrat White House and Senate: it has stood its ground and refused to buckle under the pressure of bad ideas.
As such, the sequester deadline ticks ever closer. The beads of sweat on Democrat foreheads are all you need to know that something wonderful is about to happen.
I do not universally follow a flow chart that says if Obama dislikes it, it must be a good thing. But on fiscal matters, that process rarely fails.
Witness the proud first responders gathered behind him Tuesday at a White House photo-op. They were brought in to scare the daylights out of Americans who are supposed to recoil at spending cuts because it will mean slashed police and fire personnel, as well as diminished food safety, airport security and a host of other hazards.
And make no mistake, if the sequester comes, with its thoroughly proper axe that forces politicians to do what they will not do on their own, this White House will punish us.
It will indeed cut things that protect Americans. Not because it has to, but because it wants to.
Barack Obama will tell the nation that the evil Republicans have done this to them. Those Republicans had better be ready, with examples of precise cuts that could have been made that would have endangered no one.
The administration’s craven tactics will have to be put right back into its face. We will need strong, energetic messengers to fan out across the media landscape to tell the nation just what this regime did to make voters think spending cuts cannot happen without danger or pain.
With respect, that means Mr. Boehner and Mr. McConnell will need to take a seat while Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan and others of similar energies grab the American people by the lapels to deliver the first clue millions of them will get about the depth of our fiscal crisis and what it takes to get out of it.
So, to summarize:
The sequester is not to be feared, it is to be embraced. In fact, after the cuts take effect from this one, it would be nice to engineer another one. And another after that.
I’m through waiting for compromises that will never happen. Even if they did, they would be even more watered-down than the sequester cuts.
This whole drama cries out for context.
The first year of sequester cuts are about one-tenth of the $850 billion we flushed down the infamous stimulus toilet. Casting that money to the wind didn’t seem to bring these levels of panic from the media culture that now dutifully echoes Obama’s distaste for the sequester.
And for even further clarity, the roughly one trillion dollars in “cuts” over the next decade are measured against spending levels boosted by inflation forecasts and after exempted spending is factored back in, at totals actually higher than a trillion.
Yes, the argument can be made that these “cuts,” condemned as “brutal” by President Obama, may not in fact be cuts at all over the ten years to come.
Which brings us to the silliness of all of this sequester-mania. No one knows what will be happening in our nation’s budgets four years from now, or eight years from now, much less ten. Today’s cuts, real or imagined, can be deepened or obliterated by future whims.
So we must focus on what we know today.
We know today’s Washington is genetically incapable of even starting down the road of the spending cuts we need.
We know we have the gift of the sequester, which will cut some things we may not want cut, but provides the only hope of cutting countless other types of spending that must be reduced if we are to fiscally survive.
We know the Obama administration has now decided it hates the sequester. We also know this administration is hell-bent on destroying private wealth in order to build a European-style, neo-socialist society driven by obscene government spending that will turn us into Greece.
Case closed. Reach out for that March 1 deadline with confidence. The sequester is not without challenges, but it represents our first, best hope to take a few baby steps down the long, long road toward responsibility.

Charles Krauthammer, Obamacare may not be the law of the land as you assert!

2-22-13 | johnwk

On Thursday, February 21, 2013 while appearing on FoxNews Special Report, hosted by Bret Baier, Charles Krauthammer asserted that Obamacare was duly passed by Congress and is the law of the land. But our founding fathers were very careful to stipulate in our Constitution, and in crystal clear language, that our Constitution, and only those laws which shall be made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land. And so, since Mr. Krauthammer asserts Obamacare is ``the law of the land``, I would imagine he is capable of explaining why the following stated reasons are insufficient to establish that Obamacare has not been made in pursuance of our Constitution, and is therefore not the ``law of the land``.
Let us start with Justice Roberts’ opinion and determine what specific taxing power granted to Congress has been pointed to which will be levied in the enforcement of the “shared responsibility payment“. On page 41 of Roberts’ opinion he eliminates Congress’ direct taxing power and inadvertently goes on to also exclude a tax which may be laid upon incomes without apportionment. He writes: “A tax on going without health insurance does not fall within any recognized category of direct tax. It is not a capitation. Capitations are taxes paid by every person, "without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance." Hylton, supra, at 175 (opinion of Chase, J.) (emphasis altered). The whole point of the shared responsibility payment is that it is triggered by specific circumstances—earning a certain amount of income but not obtaining health insurance. The payment is also plainly not a tax on the ownership of land or personal property. The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States.”

According to Roberts, the shared responsibility payment is “triggered“ by a realization of “a certain amount of income”. But in fact, the subject of taxation under the individual mandate is not a realization of “a certain amount of income”. The subject matter being taxed under the individual mandate is a failure to have federally approved health insurance which triggers the tax, while a calculation of one’s “income” is then used to discriminate among citizens in the payment of the “shared responsibility payment”, and under such circumstances would not be “shared“ uniformly or equally among the citizens of the united States as required by our Constitution.
And in reference to the power to lay and collect excise taxes, excise taxes are those levied upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of goods, or upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, or upon a privilege granted by government such as a corporate granted charter.
Finally, we can exclude imposts and duties as being the taxing power resorted to for the “shared responsibility payment” because imposts and duties are taxes imposed on the import or export of goods.
Perhaps the above observations explain why Roberts never identified the specific taxing power [imposts, duties, excises, a direct tax, or a tax upon incomes without apportionment] which may be levied upon individuals for not having federally approved health insurance. Roberts merely indicated the shared responsibility payment is to be collected along with taxes on incomes, not that it is an “income tax”.
So tell us Mr. Krauthammer, of the specific taxing powers granted to Congress, which specific tax may be levied to collect the “shared responsibility payment” from individuals for not having federal approved health insurance, and be within the limitations of the taxing power selected?
The next reason why Obamacare appears to have no constitutional basis is because the people have never debated granting power to Congress to enter the various united States and regulate the people’s medical needs and health care choices. And the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were adopted with the specific intention “to prevent misconstruction or abuse of” of the new governments “powers”. And this fact is documented in the Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added .
Note that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are among those “declaratory and restrictive clauses”, and in crystal clear language they reserves all powers not delegated to Congress to the people of the united States or the respective united States!
The irrefutable fact is, no such power can be pointed to under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 __ which enumerates the specific powers for which Congress was granted power to lay and collect taxes __ that allows Congress to enter the various united States and mandate what the people‘s medical and health care decisions shall be. And, the only lawful manner by which to delegate such power to Congress is under Article V of our Constitution. But Article V requires consent of the governed via the approval of the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof and this has not happened! So how has Obamacare been lawfully enacted into law? Is Congress clothed with authority to assume powers not granted?
Tell us Mr. Krauthammer. When have the people knowingly and willingly delegated to Congress the extraordinary power to meddle in their inalienable right to make their own medical and health care decisions and choices? Is this not exactly what Obamacare does? Is it not settled law that an act of government which impinges upon a fundamental right, is “presumptively unconstitutional”?
“It is of course true that a law that impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution is presumptively unconstitutional.”___ City of Mobile v. Bolden, 466 U.S. 55, 76, 100 S.Ct. 1490, 64 L.Ed.2d 47 (1980)
So tell us Mr. Krauthammer, would you not agree that it is a fundamental inalienable right of mankind to be free to make one’s own medical and health care decisions and choices? And if you do agree, and then consider the various above stated objections to Obamacare, how can you conclude that Obamacare is a “law” made in pursuance of our Constitution or be “the law of the land“?
JWK
If the people of the united States do not rise up and defend the constitution they have given their consent to, who is left to do so but the very people who it was designed to control and regulate?

Obama placing fellow America-haters in the U.S. Military

Coach is Right ^ | 2/22/13 | George Spelvin

Will you Fire on American Citizens if the Commander in Chief gives the order? This is the question being asked of America’s top generals by the Obama administration. “I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new litmus test in determining who will stay and who must go [among] his military leaders,” begins the post of Nobel Prize nominee Dr. Jim Garrow, originator of the Pink Pagoda project that rescues baby girls from “gendercide” shortly after their birth in China. (1)
Garrow goes on to say, “The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not. Those who will not are...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...

The homosexual collective's unholy agenda(Know thy enemy-Warning: Language/Imagery)

renewamerica.com ^ | July 21, 2006 | Matt C. Abbott

An Anti-Culture of Sexual Deviancy

One of the unique hallmarks of contemporary society has been the successful organization and politicalization of sexually deviant behaviors. Heretofore, sexual outlaws accepted the prevailing definition of their behavior as "deviant" and remained hidden in the shadows of the criminal underworld. Today they "organize collectively and sound the trumpet of liberation."
The Homosexual Collective is one such movement that has constructed a significant "anti-culture" built on sexual deviancy. This "anti-culture" is inclusive and embraces all forms of sexual perversion including homosexuality, autoeroticism, transvestitism, fetishism, sadomasochism and criminal pedophilia and pederasty.
*snip*
A Revolutionary Ideology and Agenda
Like World Communism, the Homosexual Collective desires to create a New Reality and a New Man, akin to the Bolshevik animal/man. Like Communism, the implementation of the Collective's agenda will require a complete transformation of Society.
Among the movement's primary objectives are the complete de-regulation of sex and the dissolution of the nuclear family structure along Marxist lines. "One cannot lift the ban on perversions without first engaging in a 'concomitant radical social transformation,'" Ronald Bayer, an Associate for Policy Studies at the Hastings Institute in New York, explained when commenting on Herbert Marcuse's 1960 theories on sexual revolution.
(Excerpt) Read more at renewamerica.com ...

Is Obama overplaying sequester hand?

politico ^ | 2/22/13 | CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN and JAKE SHERMAN

...Obama’s greatest adversary in the latest budget battle isn’t the Republican leadership in Congress — it’s his confidence in his own ability to force a win.
He has been so certain of his campaign skills that he didn’t open a line of communication with House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell until Thursday, a week before the spending ax hits. And when they did finally hear from Obama, the calls were perfunctory, with no request to step up negotiations or invitations to the White House.
...In the last two days alone, he’s courted local TV anchors, called in a select group of White House correspondents to talk off-the-record, chatted up black broadcasters, and announced plans to stump next week at Virginia’s Newport News Shipyard. Throughout, he’s talked in tough terms that signal little interest in compromise — or suggestion of backing down.
He’s navigating a thin line. Obama is convinced he’s got the upper hand on Republicans. Yet he can go only so long before he risks being perceived as a main actor in Washington’s dysfunction, threatening a core element of his political brand — and the fragile economic recovery he’s struggled to maintain.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...

Economic Pain

Posted Image

Sex Change?

Posted Image

Briar Patch

Posted Image

Theft

Posted Image

Monster?

Posted Image

QUEERS

Posted Image

Healthcare

Posted Image

Retirement Age!

Posted Image

Questionable Character

Posted Image

The Downside

Posted Image

Tilting Again?

Posted Image

These things

Posted Image

Well... Dumb-Ass

Posted Image

Gas Prices

Posted Image

Progressive Theology

Posted Image

Nuck'n Futs

Posted Image

Naked

Posted Image

FREE

Posted Image

Whistle

Posted Image

We don't have a spending problem!

Posted Image

Golf

Posted Image

Skeet

Posted Image

Why Do Democrats Hate American Manufacturers?

Townhall.com ^ | February 22, 2013 | Michelle Malkin

Here's the latest example of head-splitting cognitive dissonance in Washington: President Obama used his State of the Union address to crusade for a revitalized U.S. manufacturing sector. But while he pays lip service to supporting businesses that build their products on American soil, Obama and his left-wing operatives are hell-bent on driving a key sector of the U.S. manufacturing industry six feet under: the American firearms and ammunition industry.
The White House is pushing new government spending to "spur economic growth," protect manufacturing plants and "create good-paying jobs" to help America's middle class. Yet across the country, with aggressive lobbying by the White House itself, Democrats are working to destroy tens of thousands of good-paying jobs and the firms that created them. Assault rhetoric has lasting real-world consequences.
In New York, Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo imposed radical, ineffectual gun-grabbing measures that are backfiring in more ways than one. Nearly half a dozen gun companies have now announced that they will no longer sell their products to police in the Empire State. In protest of Cuomo's gun-control regime banning citizens from owning semi-automatic rifles or shotguns because of cosmetic features deemed "military-style," Washington-based Olympic Arms "will no longer be doing business with the State of New York or any governmental entity or employee of such governmental entity within the State of New York."
According to USA Today, other companies including "LaRue Tactical, York Arms, Templar Custom and EFI, as well as sporting-goods retailer Cheaper Than Dirt" have also joined the sales boycott of New York.
Worse news for New York citizens: At least one local manufacturer, the storied Remington Arms Company founded in Ilion, N.Y., in 1816, is in dire financial danger as a result of Cuomo's draconian regulations. The company's innovations in weaponry and ammunition have been used in sporting, self-defense, law enforcement and warfare for two centuries.
Now, as a result of hysteria-induced government pandering, nearly 40 percent of Remington's weapons can no longer be sold to citizens legally. Its small-town plant employs more than 1,300 people in a town of 8,000 and generates revenue of an estimated $400 million from sales in the U.S. and 55 other countries. As an Ilion local official noted, "Remington is not only a major employer, but it's a historic employer. It's been part of our very fiber for 200 years."
And so it is with the rest of the industry. Despite tough economic times, firearms and ammunition companies have created nearly 27,000 well-paying jobs over the past two years alone, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation. Businesses in the United States that manufacture, distribute and sell firearms, ammunition and hunting equipment employ nearly 100,000 people in the U.S. and generate an additional 110,000-plus jobs in supplier and ancillary industries.
"These are good jobs, paying an average of $46,858 in wages and benefits," the NSSF reports. In addition, "the firearms and ammunition industry was responsible for as much as $31.84 billion in total economic activity in the country ... (and) the industry and its employees pay over $2.07 billion in taxes including property, income and sales based levies."
In my adopted home state of Colorado, where unemployment hovers near 8 percent, nearly a dozen businesses are being forced to consider leaving their home state because of extremist gun-control proposals. Vice President Joe Biden himself leaned on Democratic lawmakers to support an arbitrary 15-round limit on ammunition magazines. So, what have Sheriff Joe and his gun-grabbing pals wrought? Denver-based ammo magazine manufacturer Magpul served notice that it will take its 400 full-time employees and subcontractors somewhere else. Magpul generates some $85 million in spending in the state.
As the Denver Post reported, the privately held company makes an array of consumer products in addition to sales to the military, law enforcement and gun owners. And because Magpul has made a conscientious effort to support other Colorado companies, the ripple effect could reach far beyond the gun industry -- including several cutting-edge innovators in the plastics-injection-molding business. One of Magpul's most important contractors, Denver-based Alfred Manufacturing Co., employs 150 residents. It, too, will "relocate part or all of our operations out of state" if Democrat Gov. John Hickenlooper enacts the stringent gun-control regime pushed by Biden and company. The company has already put expansion plans on hold.
Smart lawmakers from Texas, Michigan, Oklahoma, Arizona and South Carolina are now courting Remington away from New York and Magpul away from Colorado. For now, these states can offer business-friendly, Second Amendment-defending climates that support a demonized industry. But how much longer will it be until Obama and the pro-jobs hypocrites on Capitol Hill find new, more nefarious ways to obstruct this innovation-driving, wealth-producing sector of the American economy? Make no mistake: Gun-control demagoguery is a lethal weapon.

Country Club Republicans Link Up With Democratic Ruling Class

Forbes ^ | 2/20/2013 | Angelo Codevilla

On January 1, 2013 one third of Republican congressmen, following their leaders, joined with nearly all Democrats to legislate higher taxes and more subsidies for Democratic constituencies. Two thirds voted no, following the people who had elected them. For generations, the Republican Party had presented itself as the political vehicle for Americans whose opposition to ever-bigger government financed by ever-higher taxes makes them a “country class.” Yet modern Republican leaders, with the exception of the Reagan Administration, have been partners in the expansion of government, indeed in the growth of a government-based “ruling class.”
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...

To The GOP - You Must Stand Your Ground On The Sequester

Political Realities ^ | 02/22/13 | LD Jackson

SequesterIn one week, seven days, the GOP has a decision to make. In spite of the dire warnings and fear mongering being broadcast by President Obama and his minions in the liberal media, the GOP has publicly stated the sequestration will go forward on March 1. That's their public face, but I can't help but wonder what is going on behind closed doors. We have already discussed the sequester many times. Those of us who pay attention to these things know President Obama is up to his same familiar tricks, trying to sway public opinion in his favor by feeding us a lot of rhetoric that smells to high heaven. We also know the sequester is anything but a cut in spending. It is nothing more than a cut in the growth of spending, but to hear President Obama tell it, one would think the Dark Ages were just around the corner. That is one reason I say the GOP needs to stand their ground and let the sequester take place.
If ever there was a time for the GOP to refuse to budge, now is that time. That may not be a popular opinion in some circles, especially with those of you who hold a more moderate view of politics, but I stand by that opinion. It is clear that President Obama is in full denial. He refuses to acknowledge that the sequester was his baby, the leverage he was going to use to force the GOP to make concessions. He even vowed to veto any legislation that would delay or halt the sequester. That was in 2011. Fast forward to 2013 and he is now saying the fault lies with the Republicans. He claims they are using the sequester to protect their rich friends from having to pay more taxes. David Limbaugh says it better than can I.
(Human Events) President Obama’s demagoguery and fear-mongering on his sequester cuts are breathtaking, even for him. Lest you think I am engaging in hyperbole, let me give you the dictionary definition of a demagogue. One definition is “a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.”
Obama’s ordinary MO is to stir people against one another, to stoke the flames of envy among some against others in lieu of rational argument to rally support for his causes.
Obama has had four years to try his ideas. They have all failed, in every category. His stimulus plan to spend nearly $1 trillion of borrowed money to jump-start the economy was a colossal, unconscionable waste of money we didn’t have and not only didn’t work as promised but probably stalled the private sector’s efforts to recover. He remains defiantly unrepentant in the face of his repeated reckless green policy failures.
Even if the media will not report them as such, President Obama's failures are on full display, if only we will look closer. The only way he could be considered anything less than a complete failure is if you are in favor of a much bigger and all-encompassing federal government. If you hold the opinion that our federal government is far too large and out of control, then the logical conclusion is that of failure for the first four years of the Obama administration. Therefore, we should not continue on the same path, which would only lead to more failure and greater debt for our country. There is no scenario I can envision where the Republicans should back down from allowing the sequester to take place. They should realize the media will be all over them for that decision, but how is that different from how the media portrays them now? It may get a little worse, but so be it. The GOP has the upper hand in this stalemate, if only they will stand their ground and refuse to let Obama have his way. It is time President Obama realized there is a political price to pay for failure and it is his time to pay the Pied Piper. The sequester is his baby and the GOP should let it fall right in his lap.