Monday, April 14, 2014

Obama has Proposed 442 Tax Hikes Since Taking Office

CNSNews.com ^ | April 14, 2014 | John Kartch
Since taking office in 2009, President Barack Obama has formally proposed a total of 442 tax increases, according to an Americans for Tax Reform analysis of Obama administration budgets for fiscal years 2010 through 2015. The 442 total proposed tax increases does not include the 20 tax increases Obama signed into law as part of Obamacare. "History tells us what Obama was able to do. This list reminds us of what Obama wanted to do," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. The number of proposed tax increases per year is as follows: 79 tax increases for FY 2010 52 tax increases for FY 2011 47 tax increases for FY 2012 34 tax increases for FY 2013 137 tax increases for FY 2014 93 tax increases for FY 2015 Perhaps not coincidentally, the Obama budget with the lowest number of proposed tax increases was released during an election year: In February 2012, Obama released his FY 2013 budget, with "only" 34 proposed tax increases. Once safely re-elected, Obama came back with a vengeance, proposing 137 tax increases, a personal record high for the 44th President.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...

New Common Core Kid’s Book Depicts White Racists Who Wouldn’t Vote For Obama

The Libertarian Republic ^ | 4/14/14 | Austin Petersen
A children’s book that is part of the Common Core curriculum portrays white voters as racists who would never vote for Obama for president. The book called, “Barack Obama,” says: “Some people said Americans weren’t ready for that much change. Sure Barack was a nice fellow, they said. But white voters would never vote for a black president,” the book reads. This is in spite of the fact that millions of whites voted for the sitting president. Follow TLR on Google+ Common Core’s implementation has gotten off to a rocky start. States like Indiana have opted out of the unified educational standards, with Governor Mike Pence signing legislation that removed the state from required participation. Still, the law doesn’t fully prohibit some parts of Common Core from being implemented. In New York, the first state that implemented the guidelines, a girl was suspended from school after she told classmates that they were able to opt out of the Common Core English test. She was suspended for insubordination for two days after the incident. Students at another school were rewarded with ice cream if they took the test, and students who refused to take it were punished by having their ice cream withheld. Common Core State Standards will reportedly have little to no impact on student achievement according to a study published by the Brookings Institution. The report concluded that it would take 24 years to achieve a noticeable improvement, making it harder to understand why the federal government is pushing so desperately for the unified educational standards. Common Core has been creating strange bedfellows coalitions across the United States, with conservative seeing it as obtrusive federal overreach and liberal activists seeing it as an attack on teacher’s independence. Left/Right grassroots groups have been rallying to fight back against the unified standards for different reasons, but with the same goal of decreasing the federal government’s ability to restrict the rights of teachers, students and parents. In New York recently, parents and teachers held a rally in support of students opting out of the statewide Common Core English exams.

HHS used “funny numbers” for its ObamaCare enrollment claims!

 Hotair ^ | 04/14/2014 | Ed Morrissey
Count Ted Cruz among the unimpressed about the HHS claim that over seven million Americans enrolled in ObamaCare by the end of the open-enrollment deadline. Javier Manjarres conducted a short telephone interview with Sen. Cruz, pointing out an earlier story broken by talk radio host Drew Steele about notification letters from HHS of ObamaCare auto-enrollment and questioned whether those were part of the HHS calculations. Cruz called this part of the mystery around the “funny numbers” coming out of the Obama administration, and wondered how many of the 7.1 million were only partial sign-ups:

CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE VIDEO

The letter illustrates two things. Number one, that the Obama administration is using funny numbers when it is touting the enrollment numbers, it has failed to distinguish between those who just signed up to get an application, and those who actually purchased insurance and paid their first month’s premium.It has also deliberately neglected who was insured, so they are just trying to inflate their numbers to make it appear far better than it is, and this is a real manifestation of this-we don’t know how many of these letters HHS sent out, and we don’t even know if they are counting the partially completed applications that they filled out in the funny numbers that they are releasing.In addition to that, it also underscores the incredible lack of data security and the violations of privacy that Obamacare necessitates, because on the face of the letter, it is state government agencies that are forwarding your personal health information to the federal government without your permission, against your wishes, and they have no business doing that. Its one of many problems that is pandemic in Obamacare.
Javier has pictures of one HHS letter, sent out to an unknown number of Americans which informed them that HHS had “started” an application for them based on information from other government agencies. This is part of the text of the letter:
“…You or someone on your application will likely be able to get coverage through the Marketplace, and get help paying for health coverage…We used the information from the state agency to start an application for you on Healthcare.gov. You’ll need to complete and submit this application to see if you qualify for Marketplace coverage.To do this, you can log into your Healthcare.gov account, or if you don’t already have an account, you can create one on Healthcare.gov… For more information about how to complete the application we started for you www.healthcare.gov/help/statetranser”
Did these partial sign-ups get counted in the final 7.1 million figure? No one knows, because HHS hasn’t exactly been forthcoming on the data from these claims made over the past couple of weeks.Needless to say, Republicans would like to get more of that information — and the nomination of Sylvia Burwell to replace Kathleen Sebelius as HHS Secretary gives Senate Republicans the perfect opening to demand that data, as well as explanations for the many other failures at HHS. Marc Thiessen argues at the Washington Post that they should take full advantage of that opening:
So thanks to Burwell’s nomination, Americans may finally get to the bottom of how the biggest presidential lie in recent memory made it though OMB’s fact-checking process — not once but dozens of times.The first time the lie surfaced — when Obama told the American Medical Association on June 15, 2009, “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what” — it wasn’t on Burwell’s watch.But Burwell was OMB director when Obama declared on Sept. 26, 2013: “Now, let’s start with the fact that even before the Affordable Care Act fully takes effect, about 85 percent of Americans already have health insurance — either through their job, or through Medicare, or through the individual market. So if you’re one of these folks, it’s reasonable that you might worry whether health-care reform is going to create changes that are a problem for you — especially when you’re bombarded with all sorts of fear-mongering. So the first thing you need to know is this: If you already have health care, you don’t have to do anything.”Burwell should explain to Congress and the American people how her office allowed blatant falsehoods to get into presidential speeches, including whether political aides overruled career policy advisers who warned that the president’s claims were untrue.
Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats may have enjoyed their brief victory lap, but it’s going to force them to defend ObamaCare the rest of the year. We’ll see how much of a victory the enrollment numbers turned out to be by the enthusiasm with which Democratic incumbents in tight races embrace them. If the studies from RAND and Express Scripts are any indication, don’t expect that to be a common thread.

How To Get A Job Despite The Economy

Zero Hedge ^ | 04/14/2014 | Charles Hugh-Smith
An entire new feedback loop of accreditation is necessary in the economy we have, and fortunately that feedback is within our individual control.To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, we work in the economy we have, not the economy we might want or wish to have at a later time. And what characterizes the economy we have?It's bewildering because nothing works like it's supposed to. For example, getting a college degree was supposed to guarantee a good job and an 80% lifetime wage premium over people without college degrees.But in the economy we have, getting a college degree no longer guarantees a good job, or indeed, a job of any kind: 53% of recent college graduates under the age of 25 are unemployed or doing work they could have done without going to college.The payoff for getting a college degree is declining while the risks of becoming a debt-serf due to crushing student loans is rising. The big premium that once accrued to college graduates is eroding for reasons of basic supply and demand: there are far more people with college degrees than there are high-paying jobs for people with degrees--even law degrees, MBAs and PhDs.The entire notion that a college degree "signals" something valuable to employers is breaking down. In the good old days, earning a college degree proved that a student was hard-working and conformist--just what hierarchical corporations and government agencies want in employees. (The "signaling" value of a diploma is based on work by economist Michael Spence in the 1970s. In general, the signal indicates an attribute whose value is correlated with the difficulty and cost of the signal: the harder it is to get a degree, the greater the value of the signal it sends.)But in an economy in which education credentials are in over-supply, that signaling mechanism is running up against a basic reality: a degree accredits very little about the student's knowledge, problem-solving skills or professionalism. A degree is simply a proxy of knowledge, not evidence of knowledge or useful skills.Indeed, the study Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses concluded that "American higher education is characterized by limited or no learning for a large proportion of students."Signaling an ability to grind though four or five years of institutional coursework is no longer enough; the signaling needed to indicate an ability to create value must be much richer in information density and more persuasive than a factory model diploma.A resume is equally thin on information that accredits a worker's knowledge, useful skills and professionalism. A resume is a public-relations summary that everyone knows has been tailored to present the candidate in the best possible light. And precisely how useful and trustworthy is PR in any setting?Put yourself in the shoes of a hiring manager or potential collaborator: there is precious little useful information in either a diploma or a resume. As a result, human resources departments have been tuned to eliminate as many candidates as possible by signal-based winnowing rather than by the collection of useful information on the skills, knowledge and professionalism of the potential employee/collaborator.Conforming to social behavioral norms and being able to grind through mind-numbing work used to be enough to create value in the economy--but this is no longer the case for high-value (i.e. well-paid) work. The "signaling" camp holds that a degree showing the student sat through four or five years of classes is sufficient to justify hiring the person. That the student learned essentially nothing useful doesn't matter; the entire value of college is in the last class needed to get the diploma.This was true in the long postwar boom when the number of well-paid jobs expanded at a faster rate than the number of college graduates. This is simply no longer true.In contrast to the "signaling" theory of value, the "human capital" camp holds that working knowledge is what creates value. If the student learns little critical thinking, real skills or practical knowledge, then a college degree has little value.What if conformity and being able to navigate formal systems/bureaucracies no longer creates value or helps people solve real-world problems? In the economy we have, the "signal" value of a college degree has sharply declined. This is why college graduates can send out hundreds of resumes and not even receive a single reply, much less an interview or job offer.Systems analysis teaches us that changing the parameters of a system (for example, adding another line to your resume or getting another degree) does not change the system; only adding a new feedback loop can change the system.Clearly, an entire new feedback loop of accreditation is necessary in the economy we have, and fortunately that feedback is within our individual control: it's a process I call accredit yourself. The most powerful feature of accredit yourself is the process is open to anyone: recent college graduates, those without degrees, those re-entering the workforce, those seeking to launch their own enterprises--everyone who wants an income stream in the economy we have.I outline the process of accrediting yourself in my new book Get a Job, Build a Real Career and Defy a Bewildering Economy

Sebelius' Shameful Legacy

Breitbart ^ | 14 Apr 2014 | DEBRA HEINE
Outgoing HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius will be remembered by most for the insanely botched roll-out of ObamaCare, but her most shameful legacy to those of us who remember it, will always be her disgraceful tenure as Governor of Kansas because of her unwavering support for illegal late term abortions, and her role in vilifying the attorney general who was trying to put a stop to them. Infamous late term abortionist, Dr. George Tiller, who practiced his shady, sordid business in Wichita, was able to game the system through strategic donations to Democrat politicians, most particularly, Kathleen Sebelius.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...

There is Nothing New Under the Sun. Do you remember the department store chain Montgomery Ward?

 Barnhardt.biz ^ | April 13, 2014 | Ann Barnhardt
Here’s your history lesson of the day, and it’s a duzy. Do you all remember the department store chain Montgomery Ward? It was in the same class as JC Penney and Sears, and like Penney’s and Sears had a robust catalog business in the 20th century. The catalog ended in 1985 and the stores closed in 2000. The incident we are going to talk about happened during World War 2, in 1944. When I read this it initially put my jaw on the floor, but when I thought about it for a moment, I realized that it put all of the pieces together regarding Marxist tactics and motivations.In early 1943 employees of Montgomery Ward went on strike in seven cities: Jamaica, New York; Detroit; Chicago; St. Paul; Denver; San Rafael, California and Portland, Oregon. (For the sake of brevity, I will henceforth refer to Montgomery Ward as “Wards”, which is what people casually referred to them as back in the day.) Wards stood their ground and refused to recognize or capitulate to the union thugs in these seven locations.Now get this. On April 26, 1944, President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered U.S. Army troops to storm and seize Wards’ corporate offices in Chicago. Yes, you read that correctly. FDR deployed the Army against Americans on American soil, physically captured occupied their property and even had Wards’ chairman, Sewell Avery, forcibly carried out of his office by US Army troops. FDR then installed his Secretary of Commerce, Jesse Holman Jones, as manager of Wards’ Chicago facility. FDR justified this action by citing his power as Commander-in-Chief AND his authority under the Smith-Connally Act.sewell-averyThe Smith-Connally Act, which was also called the War Labor Disputes Act, was passed in June of 1943. It was hastily rammed through congress, touted as an “emergency measure” (sound familiar?) after 400,000 coal miners went on strike. Why did the miners go on strike? They went on strike because of the high inflation that was being experienced at the time. (Sound familiar?) They wanted a $2 per day wage increase in order to pace the inflation. Interestingly, FDR vetoed the Smith-Connally Act but Congress had a super-majority and overrode FDR’s veto. This threw me for a moment when I first read it, but let me explain. The Smith-Connally Act gave FDR massive dictatorial power. So why did he veto it? Optics. FDR knew that he had a super-majority in Congress, so in order to appear like the innocent, blushing maiden, rather than the Marxist dictatorial wolf that he was, he vetoed it. Congress promptly overrode the veto and FDR was then free to wield the power which was handed to him by Congress and which he falsely claimed to protest. In other words, “Hey, you INSISTED on giving me this power. Now you can’t complain when I use it.”Back to Wards. In the summer of 1944 the National Labor Relations Board (Sound familiar? Boeing? South Carolina? 2011?) tried to organize a Wards union again, but Wards STILL stood its ground. As a result, FDR issued an executive order (sound familiar?) ordering the Secretary of War (which is now called the Secretary of Defense) to seize ALL Wards property nationwide in order to force Wards to capitulate to the unions. This seizure was upheld by the Court of Appeals. No joke. I’ll tell you how the story ended in a minute.I have one more anecdote about the tyrannical use of the Smith-Connally Act by FDR. This one is complex because there were wrongs on both sides, and it actually involved FDR turning against the unions, but we’ll think our way through it. In 1944 the Philadelphia Transport Workers Union went on strike because Philadelphia Transportation Company decided to integrate the skilled positions on trains and trolleys, namely motormen and conductors by promoting and training black porters and other existing employees in menial positions, but who were already experienced with the trains of trolleys. This integration was spurred not by altruism and a spirit of Christian brotherhood, but because there was a shortage of labor due to the war. Because of this, the whites-only union went on strike. Yes, everyone’s motives were sleazy. But, I want you to focus on what FDR did, because the issue in question is the lawless tyranny of the state. The true racism of the unions is a given. We don’t need to re-invent that wheel.FDR ordered his then-Secretary of War (again) Harry L. Stimson to seize the Philadelphia Transportation Company and installed US Army Major General Philip Hayes as CEO. That’s right. FDR forcibly seized and handed a private company to the United States military by executive fiat. When the union didn’t agree to Gen. Hayes’ terms, Hayes deployed 5000 troops to seize and run the PTC trains, with armed soldiers riding the trains as “security”. Oh, but it gets even worse! On August 5, 1944, Gen. Hayes issued an order that unless the unions returned to work by 12:01 am on August 7th, they would be fired and all between the ages of 18 and 37 would lose their military draft deferments. Yep. He threatened to draft them, which during World War 2 carried a very high risk of being killed.FDR was one of the most dangerous men in American history up until Obama. If FDR had been ten years younger than he was and had lived, I honestly think that he could have become a full-blown dictator. FDR died in April of 1945 after having just been sworn in to his FOURTH term as President. Harry Truman then became president and after the conclusion of the War appointed the Hoover Commission which promptly recommended the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution which limited Presidents to two terms. Truman knew that we had dodged a bullet with Roosevelt and made certain that a tyrannical dynasty like FDR’s would never happen again. With regards to Montgomery Ward, Truman terminated the government seizure of Wards almost immediately after being sworn in as President in 1945. Remember, Truman was a Democrat whom FDR picked to be his Vice President knowing that he probably wouldn’t survive his fourth term. Can you imagine Joe Biden being elevated to the Presidency (in whatever circumstance) and then immediately repealing ObamaCare and calling a commission on eligibility requirements resulting in a Constitutional amendment? Of course not. Why? Because Joe Biden has no personal integrity. None of them today do. None of them. They are, ALL OF THEM, whores and psychopaths. But Truman had a shred of integrity and reversed Roosevelt’s imperious tyranny. That was a different time, a different culture, and literally, a different country. The U.S. was able to shake off Roosevelt’s brand of Marxism and get back on track because the halls of government were still walked by men with a backstop of integrity and morality. That backstop no longer exists, which is why we are screwed.Finally, a quick word on how Marxists relate to Unions. The unions think that the Marxist ruling class is “on their side” . . . right up until the bullet actually enters their cranium. Marxism DESPISES the middle class. Marxism is all about destroying the middle class – but the middle class is actually split into two separate parts. The first part is what we call the “upper middle class”. You may have heard the French term “bourgeois” (buzh-wah). The noun form of “bourgeois” is “bourgeoisie” (buzh-wah-ZEE). That’s the upper middle class. Marxists use guilt to induce self-loathing among the upper middle class. Many of them, especially those who do not have strong faith in God, fall for it and thus essentially hand themselves over to the Marxist elites. Sound familiar?For those in the upper middle class who don’t fall for the self-loathing Marxist agitprop, persecution and death comes early in the Marxist revolution process. The self-loathers are the second group to be eliminated. Academics, clergy, artists, business owners and politicians outside the elite cadre, even though they supported the Marxist elites, are killed early in the purging process. Why? Because the Marxist elites know that once these people figure out that all of their “social justice” talk is complete bee-ess, these people COULD turn on them and expose their fraud to the lower-middle class, or “proletariat”. So, the Marxist elites eliminate that risk. For the love of God, PLEASE read the history of the Soviet Union. Lenin and Stalin eventually killed damn near EVERYONE who ascended through the Communist Party. They had to keep continually elevating and then murdering people in order to maintain their decadent lifestyle and fraud without being ratted out to the suffering proletariat who would certainly revolt against the Marxist elites if they knew the truth.The proletariat, or lower-middle class, is a bit different. In the beginning of the revolution process the Marxist elites rely heavily on the lower-middle class, blue collar workers. They agitate and organize workers and form unions. Josef Stalin was a union organizer. They do this by stirring up class envy between the lower middle class and the upper middle class. (Sound familiar?) Every business owner is cast as a “greedy fat cat”. “Equality” and “fairness” are the buzzterms used to incite the workers against their employers. The Marxist elites promise the proletariat “equality and fairness” if they will only give them power and loyalty and support the Marxist revolution. But it is all a lie. The Marxist elites don’t give a crap about the proletariat – in fact, they DESPISE them. They view them as expendable animals whose only purpose is to deliver the Marxist elites to power. Once the revolution is complete, the proletariat – now fully integrated into the destitute lower class – no longer serves a purpose. Not only do they not serve a purpose, but they are a massive drain on the Marxist oligarchy’s government. They eat and get sick and use resources. They also get disgruntled when they realize that the elitists used them, promised them the moon, and then delivered poverty, starvation and disease. In order to maintain power, Marxists have to squash the proletariat under the jackboot of a police state driven by violence and terror.And so, in FDR’s tyrannical actions from 1943-1945 we see a microcosm of the agitation-suppression cycle of the union-elitist relationship. The Marxists start out all kissy-kissy with the unions, but then transition to threats and brutality as soon as they have accumulated power. This is why Marxists began their infiltration of our culture 50 years ago in the SCHOOLS. It is critically important that both the lower middle class and the upper middle class today have NO KNOWLEDGE of history and thus cannot recognize what is happening, and more importantly how it is going to end. These pathetic union members honestly believe that Barack and Michelle Obama, who take multi-million-dollar vacations on a near-monthly basis, actually care about them when the truth is that they despise them and laugh at their gullibility. And none of them have the foggiest idea who Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong or Pol Pot were, much less that these four men alone consciously murdered well over one hundred million (100,000,000) of their own people in roughly 60 years.Layer on top of this the fact that the Union oligarchs have stolen wages and looted “retirement and pension” accounts for into the TRILLIONS of dollars – accounts that simply WILL NOT pay out because the money IS NOT THERE – a dynamic which did not exist 70 years ago, and you see that while there is nothing new under the sun, this is indeed a whole ‘nother level of evil.

The Democrat Party's Century of Tax Hikes

Townhall.com ^ | April 14, 2014 | Michael Schaus
The worst amendment to the Constitution is also one of the vaguest. The right to keep and bear arms might be simplistic, but at least it is direct. Our first amendment is mildly long winded and grotesquely misunderstood. However, the 16th amendment, ratified in 1913, stands as one of the most viscous deteriorations of the American Experiment. Stating simply “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration” the amendment grants to the Federal government powers typically reserved for serfdom or British ruled colonies. It’s not that tax collection is inherently evil, or that a personal income tax of some nature is abhorrent to Constitutional values, but the 16th Amendment marked the beginnings of progressive dominance in political discourse. Direct taxation (which was expressly prohibited in the Constitution) endangers personal property, privacy and anonymity. In 1894 Democrat President Grover Cleveland – with support from Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress – declared a 2 percent tax on those evil “one percenters.” (It turns out Grover might be a good mascot for the Occupy Wall street crowd. Just a thought.) However pathetic a 2 percent tax on Mitt Romney might seem by today’s debate standards, the tax was contentious and immediately challenged in court. As any good historian would note, the US Constitution only allows for certain types of taxation. . . And any “direct” tax, such as incometaxes, are explicitly prohibited. Of course, even in 1894, few progressives allowed that pesky founding document to get in their way. Republican President William Howard Taft – influenced heavily by the “progressive” wing of the Republican Party and Theodore Roosevelt – pushed for a change to our constitution. By the end of his term, with help from Progressive Republicans (who supported things like gun control, Keynesian economics, and even fascism) and Democrats in congress, the 16th Amendment was ratified. Horrifically, the Democrat controlled houses of Congress, and the new Progressive President Woodrow Wilson, immediately passed a progressive income tax. The tax rates ballooned from a top marginal rate of 7 percent under Wilson, to over 70 percent in WWI. Amazed, and no doubt bewildered, Democrats and progressives screamed for even higher tax rates as revenue to the federal government failed to match the exponential rate increases. By WWII, tax rates had been hiked up to a top marginal rate of 94 percent. Even middle class families faced rates as high as 23 percent. The number of tax brackets had swollen from less than a dozen to nearly two dozen. As more of the nation’s wealthy moved their wealth into various tax havens and tax advantaged vehicles (yes. . . They had a complex web of deductions and exemptions back then as well) revenue plummeted. Mixed with a staggering economy that was burdened by soaring national debt and an ever-increasing entitlement state, rates were unlikely to lower anytime soon. As the decades trudged on, rates went up and down with “loopholes” being closed and opened repeatedly. Our tax code seemed to be a cancer on our American experiment as the number of words used to print the code began to outpace the total works of William Shakespeare. We can thank reluctant Democrats such as JFK, and conservative Republicans such as Ronald Reagan, for lowering the rates near the level they are today. Of course, we can also thank the Democrat majorities for Social Security, Welfare, Medicaid and the ever increasing web of social entitlement programs that overwhelm our federal budget. During Clinton’s tenure, the “negative tax” was a major point of contention. . . A process where people paying no federal income tax are eligible for “refunds” of money they never paid. Our tax code today serves as a massive redistributive Rube-Goldberg machine without sufficiently funding our treasury for repayment of the trillions we borrow. The US tax code, as it stands today, is a perfect example of runaway government. A one sentence Amendment led to nearly 74,000 pages of rules and regulations in an attempt to separate Americans from a portion of their hard earned money. Moreover, the tax system no longer achieves its main purpose. Internal revenue is designed to supply the government with the funds needed to keep government operations functioning. Our tax system, since its modern inception in 1913, has been designed to spread “equality” by treating wealthy people differently than the poor; and “spreading the wealth around”. Of course this attempt at wealth redistribution is ineffective and burdensome. The wealthy, and the influential, continue to avoid proportionately higher taxation by the simple virtue that they have more money to dispose at avoidance. (Just ask Warren Buffet. . . His secretary saw a tax increase when Obama and the Democrats allowed the payroll tax cut to expire. But he sure didn’t.) The system, however, does continue to feed into emotions of envy, jealousy and victimhood. The reason our current system is such a danger to Americanism, is because it is arbitrary and cumbersome. It is so unwieldy and complex, any citizen can (and probably will) find themselves in violation at one point or another. The system necessary to enforce such a massive and overreaching set of regulations, rules and data is intrusive and brutal. While the recent IRS targeting of conservative groups is legally questionable and morally reprehensible, it is only conceivable because of the system we have in place for tax collection. While Americans rant to their neighbor about the intrusive nature of the NSA, they should consider for a minute how much their local IRS agent knows about their life. Our IRS was not selected to enforce Obamacare because of any demonstrable competency, but because they already have information pertaining to every facet of every American’s life. The 16th Amendment gave birth to the idea that what someone earns is first property of the government. It gave birth to the “progressive” notion that some of us owe our government more than a pound of flesh because of our success, or wealth. It opened up the door to envy politics, and class warfare. It gave rise to the “progressive” notion of “fairness” and redistribution of wealth. It deteriorated our traditional sense of private property, private information, and private affairs. Perhaps the worst part about the 16th Amendment is not within its actual text. (After all, we can all agree government is in need of revenue for legitimate functions.) Its problem relies on a tax system put in place 100 years ago by redistributive Democrats and progressive Republicans. So, when you hear the “Progressives” talk about increasing taxes on the rich, increasing the number of tax brackets, or increasing credits to certain groups of Americans, just remember: We’ve been doing this since 1913. There is nothing “forward” looking, or “progressive” about continuing a century of failed ideas.

Coming attractions for the Obamacare disaster film

American Thinker ^ | 04/14/2014 | Thomas Lifson
Betsy McCaughey, who knows as much about Obamacare as anyone who wasn’t involved in writing it, offers a preview of the new disasters about to unfold as the health care law kicks in. If the law were a disaster film, her article could serve as the trailer for part 2.
 
She expects a wave of premium defaults, and explains why even the AMA, a big proponent of the law, is worried:
First-time insurance purchasers, especially those living paycheck to paycheck, will be shocked by ObamaCare’s high deductibles, about $3,000 for the silver plan (the most commonly selected) and $5,000 for the bronze plan (the most affordable).
Basically, you’ll have to pay thousands out of pocket for appointments, tests and prescriptions until you reach your deductible.Millennials who heard Obama say on “Between Two Ferns” that they can buy a health plan for the price of a cellphone contract won’t be laughing when they realize what the $5,000 deductible means. (It’s like a cellphone contract that makes you pay $5 a text for your first thousand texts.) Rather than pay thousands out of pocket for care while also paying premiums, some will quit paying premiums.Makes perfect sense to me. The billion dollars or so of Obamacare advertising, marketing, and promotion neglected to mention that you would need to lay out several thousand dollars each year before you could collect a dime in benefits. Misleading advertising?Then there are the premium hikes coming our way:
Consumers reeling from Obama­Care premium shock are in for another jolt when the 2015 rates come out.Overall, consumers had to pay far more for individual plans this year. In some states (Delaware and New Hampshire), rates went up 90 percent



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

SAY IT AIN’T SO HANK!

Coach is Right ^ | 4/14/14 | Bill Martinez and Bob Cook
Have you Heard! Another true American Hero has tarnished his unblemished reputation as a superb Athlete, as an Achiever, and as a Role Model for millions of Americans; someone whose dream was big enough to overcome an apparent lack of opportunity. That man is our Hero, Hank Aaron, and the sad incident in question involves the unfortunate remarks taken from his speech given at an Official Anniversary Celebration of his remarkable achievements. On one hand, Hall of Famer Aaron’s political statements regarding blacks in America reveal his pain and perspective. But to what purpose? Have his comments advanced the dream and future that Martin Luther King preached about? Sadly I do not think that was achieved. His comments are unfortunate in as much as they take blacks...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...

A TEXAS GIRL SOUNDS OFF AS ALL RESPONSIBLE FOLKS FEEL!

 
"IF YOU CAN'T FIX IT WITH A HAMMER,YOU'VE GOT AN ELECTRICAL PROBLEM"
 
WRITTEN BY A 21 YEAR OLD FEMALE. Wow, this girl has a great plan! Love the last thing she would do the best.

This was written by a 21 yr. old female who gets it. It's her future she's worried about and this is how she feels about the social welfare big government state that she's being forced to live in! These solutions are just common sense in her opinion.
This was in the Waco Tribune Herald, Waco , TX


PUT ME IN CHARGE . . .


Put me in charge of food stamps.
I'd get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho's, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.

Put me in charge of Medicaid.
The first thing I'd do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations.Then, we'll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine.If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, or smoke, then get a job.
Put me in charge of government housing.
Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your "home" will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried.If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360,then get a job and your own place.

In addition,
you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a "government" job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you.We will sell your 22-inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the "common good."

Before you write that I've violated someone's rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary.
If you want our money, accept our rules.Before you say that this would be "demeaning" and ruin their "self esteem," consider that it wasn't that long ago that taking someone else's money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.

If we are expected to pay for other people's mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices.
The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.

I love this one.
AND While you are on Gov't subsistence,
you no longer can VOTE! Yes, that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest.You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Gov't welfare check.If you want to vote, then get a job.

Now, if you have the guts - PASS IT ON...I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO GET THIS BACK, IF EVERYONE SENDS IT, I WILL GET OVER 220 BACK!!! I WOULD KNOW YOU SENT IT ON!!!

How Lending A Friend Your Car Can Land You a Life Prison Sentence!

The Nation ^ | 03-24-2014 | Charles Grodin
Several years ago I read a piece in The New York Times by Adam Liptak about Ryan Holle. Ryan, who had no prior record, is serving a life sentence with no chance of parole in Florida. He was convicted of pre-meditated murder, even though no one, including the prosecutor, disputes that Ryan was asleep in his bed at home at the time of the crime. This could only happen in America, because we are the only country that retains the Felony Murder Rule. What the Felony Murder Rule essentially says is if anyone has anything to do with a felony in which a murder takes place, such as a robbery, that person is as guilty as the person who has committed the murder. Every other country including England, India and Canada has gotten rid of it because of its unintended consequences. In America, Michigan, Kentucky and Hawaii no longer have the law. The Canadian Supreme Court ruled, when they discarded the Felony Murder Rule, that a person should be held responsible for his own actions not the actions of others. Exactly what did Ryan Holle do? At a party in his apartment over ten years ago, he lent his car to his roommate and went to sleep. He had lent his car to his roommate many times before with no negative consequences. This time the roommate and others went to a house where they knew a woman was selling marijuana from a safe. They planned to get the marijuana, but in the course of their break-in a teenage girl was killed. Those at the scene all received appropriately harsh sentences, but so did Ryan Holle. I got involved with the case shortly after I read Adam Liptak’s piece. I have been advocating on behalf of clemency for Ryan, who was first offered a plea deal of ten years but chose to go to trial. I’m sure it was difficult for a young man, who had never been arrested, and who believed he had done nothing to accept that he should go to prison for ten years, so he went to trial, was convicted and sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole. He is now in his eleventh year of incarceration. Again, this is a young man who was home asleep in bed at the time of the crime. I personally know of no other felony murder conviction where the person was not even present, and the pre-meditated part of the conviction suggests that Ryan knew his car was going to be used in the course of a murder, which to me, isn’t credible. To the best of my knowledge, in the entire history of the criminal justice system in America, no one has ever been convicted and sentenced to life in prison for loaning a car and going to sleep. A few years ago I was on a television show with the father of the girl who was murdered in the robbery attempt. The father felt that it was entirely justified that Ryan Holle spend his life in prison. At the time, I couldn’t bring myself to say what I was feeling. I felt the father and mother were a lot more responsible for their daughter’s death than Ryan Holle. The mother did actually serve three years in prison for selling drugs, but both parents in no way should have been involved in selling drugs from their house. It would only be a question of time before the wrong person knocked on the door. In my judgment, parents who would do that with two teenage daughters at home have a lot more responsibility for this tragedy than Ryan Holle. Ryan writes me from prison telling me that when he gets out, he plans to speak out against the Felony Murder Rule. Unless people of good will and common sense publicize his case, Ryan Holle will die in prison.

Murphy's Law

This Stupid!

Successes!

The Rat in the Hat

Along for the ride!

King Koch

Two Americas

Term Limits!

Advisor's Reunion

Disguised!

The Card!

PRICELESS!

Don't expect...

Making it up!

Our President

Pro-Choice?

Company Tied to Reid's Son Wants Land in Bundy Standoff!

Newsmax ^ | April 13, 2014 | Greg Richter
The Nevada rancher who forced the federal Bureau of Land Management to back down last week may have been targeted because a Chinese solar company with ties to Sen. Harry Reid's son wants the land for an energy plant, several websites report. A report on Godfatherpolitics.com, says Chinese energy giant ENN Energy Group wants to use federal land as part of its effort to build a $5 billion solar farm and panel-building plant in the southern Nevada desert. Rory Reid, the son of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, is representing ENN in their efforts to locate in Nevada. Part of the land ENN wants to use was purchased from Clark County at well below appraised value. Rory Reid is the former Clark County Commission chairman, and he persuaded the commission to sell 9,000 acres of county land to ENN on the promise it would provide jobs for the area, Reuters reported in 2012. [SNIP] Further, Loesch reports, Harry Reid pressured the BLM to change the tortoise's protected zone to accommodate developer Harvey Whittemore, one of the Democrat's top donors. Whittemore was convicted in May 2013 of making illegal campaign contributions to him. "BLM has proven that they’ve a situational concern for the desert tortoise as they’ve had no problem waiving their rules concerning wind or solar power development," Loesch writes. "Clearly, these developments have vastly affected a tortoise habitat more than a century-old, quasi-homesteading grazing area. If only Clive Bundy were a big Reid donor."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...

Eric Holder and the Race Card: The issue the media can't resist!

Fox News ^ | 4/14/2014 | Howard Kurtz
When Eric Holder became attorney general in 2009, he declared that when it comes to discussing race, we have become “a nation of cowards.” Now there’s plenty of discussion of race, some of it swirling around Holder himself. In recent days, conservative critics have accused Holder of playing the race card to deflect criticism—while his liberal allies believe some of that criticism is racially motivated. It reflects a classic cultural divide in this country and in the media establishment. Just days ago, I was questioning whether New York Magazine went too far in proclaiming that everything about the Obama presidency was somehow colored by race. The argument this time is over who’s responsible. What set off the racial fireworks was a Hill confrontation between the nation’s first black attorney general and Rep. Louie Gohmert, who cited the House holding him in contempt two years ago over the Fast and Furious gun-running scandal. “I realize that contempt is not a big deal to our attorney general but it is important that we have proper oversight,” Gohmert said. “You don't want to go there, buddy,” Holder shot back. Holder was steamed, and in a speech the next day to Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, it showed.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...