Search This Blog

Thursday, January 31, 2013

Immigration policy

Senator Marco Rubio has been all over the media - conservative and otherwise - talking about his proposed immigration policy, which has the support of at least four Democrat senators and four Republican senators. The mainstream media (liberal) seem generally supportive, because it is a form of amnesty. Conservatives seem largely suspicious, because it is a form of amnesty. There are both good and bad points to his proposed bill, which I want to point out to you so you can keep them in mind as this debate continues.

First of all,understand that Marco Rubio is a skilled politician. I don't know how conservative he is or isn't, but he is definitely skilled. Everything he says - particularly that which grabs national attention - is smart from a political standpoint whether it comes from a principled position or otherwise. There is no other reason to explain why he announced this immigration reform bill before it is written other than that he needed to get the word out before Obama's speech about immigration. He recognizes that he and the GOP in general need to undercut Obama's continual GOP demolition. Here he is showing that Republicans are in fact reasonable and willing to negotiate. It is Obama who is not. He's trying to beat Obama at his own game by using the media to his advantage. Smart move.

Next, the contents of his proposed legislation. I listened to Marco Rubio when Rush Limbaugh allowed him to explain his proposition, since conservatives are rightly concerned that this is nothing more than a  repeat of 1987 amnesty which was supposed to solve the problem once and for all, but the border was never controlled so illegal immigrants continued to pour into the United States. Rubio's proposition is basically the same, even though he insists that if the border is not secure he will not sign it. That must come first. I was struck, as I listened, that Rubio came off as respecting and embracing conservative principles. As Rush said, he was passionate, clear, speaking from the heart rather than notes, and obviously believed what he was talking about. Among other things, his strong points include modernizing the legal immigration system so it doesn't take as long and incentivizes skilled workers at a time that America doesn't produce enough of its own skilled workers in certain fields. This is a good idea.

I was impressed again when Marco Rubio posted a response to conservative concerns at Red State. He made his case well. He said he wants to be transparent and open and for the American people to know exactly what he is doing and weigh in on it so they can make this bill as strong as possible. That's amazing, considering how Obamacare was rammed down our throats when no one - including Senators - knew everything in it, and a majority of the public opposed it.

Rubio shows a solid understanding of both politics and business in his policy, supporting a system allowing to food producers to pay less than minimum wage to those documented workers who are not legal citizens of the United States (currently illegal immigrants - and this is where the amnesty comes in), realizing that Americans aren't going to want to or be able to pay double what they currently pay for food, which they most certainly would if minimum wage were to become a requirement in that industry.

However, Rubio doesn't seem to realize that he's incentivizing more illegal immigration. It has been impossible to secure the border in the past, and who's to say we'll be able to do so now? Apparently some sectors along the southern border of the United States have greater improved their security, while others are dismally behind. Will we realistically be able to make an illegal-immigrant-tight border? I doubt it.

So does Ann Coulter. She really went off on his plan yesterday, and with good reason. Conservatives are right to be concerned and cautious about this proposed legislation, though they should commend Rubio for his transparency and invitation to become involved in the process rather than have it forced upon them as is the usual with our Congressmen these days.
Step One of Marco Rubio's plan is: Grant illegal aliens the right to live and work in America legally. (Rubio's first move in poker: Fold.) 

People who have broken our laws will thus leap ahead of millions of foreigners dying to immigrate here, but -- unwilling to enter illegally -- waiting patiently in their own countries. 

The only thing the newly legalized illegal immigrants won't get immediately is citizenship. Rubio claims that under his plan, they won't be able to vote or go on welfare. But in practice, they'll have to wait only until the ACLU finds a judge to say otherwise. 

Even under Rubio's scheme, all the children born to the 11 million newly legalized illegals will be instant citizens, able to collect welfare for their whole families and vote as soon as they are old enough. 

Which won't be long: The vast majority of illegal aliens are Hispanic, and Hispanics have a higher teen birthrate than any other ethnic group. In California, a majority of all Hispanic births are illegitimate. That's a lot of Democratic voters coming. 

And look how great that's turned out! With Hispanics on track to become the largest ethnic group in California this year, the state that gave us Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan is incapable of electing any Republican statewide anymore. Taxes keep going up, and there's no one left to pay the bill. 

That will be our entire country if Republicans fall for Rubio's phony "Enforcement First!" plan. Perplexingly, some Republicans seem determined to turn the whole nation into California, in the foolish hope of winning one last election. 
She raises good points - especially about the judicial system. The Red State community has likewise posted rejoinders to Rubio's post yesterday.  Keep watching this.

If nothing else, at least Marco Rubio prevented Obama from blaming Republicans for all the nation's immigration woes on Monday, but will we get a bill that conservatives can get behind? I continue to doubt it. Even if the Senate miraculously writes and passed legislation that conservatives can live with - which is unlikely: Democrat voters by dependence on government (buying votes with welfare) are what they're after - and the House also passes it, Obama isn't going to sign a bill into law that he doesn't like. He'll just blame the Republicans for making it too unreasonable as is his standard battle plan.

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Time to learn

I find this juxtaposition of conservative headlines informative:


THE MESS OBAMA INHERITED: ECONOMY SHRINKS IN 4TH QUARTER, RECESSION FEARED



How nice. The mainstream media not only continues to lie to the public, they continue to withhold information against Democrats from the public. The problem (for Democrats) is that real life also informs the public. Everyone's taxes went up. This is the time to reach new ears, folks. People are never more openminded than when they are dissatisfied with the status quo. Talk, talk, and talk some more! Listen first. If you listen to theirs views, they are much more likely to listen to yours.

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Mormons and freedom

Someone forwarded an excellent article to me, one that I would never have seen otherwise. I'm so glad I read it. He brought a unique perspective about Mormons and freedom. It's all true, though I had not thought of the connection between LDS theology and political beliefs exactly in this way before.
I’m inspired by this Mormon theological idea: God intended for humans to be free to make our own choices and live with the consequences of those choices.  The Founding Fathers of this country said essentially the same thing in the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
My study of Mormonism has not only given me newfound respect for this people and their religion; it has also made me evaluate my own attitude towards the liberty that seems to be slipping through all of our fingers.  Is this just something that is nice to have, and for which I thank the Founding Fathers?  Or is it really something that is endowed by God, and that He expects me to fight for.  According to Mormon theology, I already fought for this once.  The fact that I’m here says that I was on God’s side in the war in heaven, and fought for liberty.
A Mormon might ask, why should any of us be less willing to fight for it here than we were there?
Which brings me to the question many conservative Mormons ask about liberal Mormons: how can you be a Mormon Democrat? Democrats attack freedom! Not that we all have identical understanding of eternal principles and not that Democrats don't stand for many kinds of freedoms against God's law (like abortion and gay marriage and substance abuse). [Yes, I firmly support that the LDS Church's political neutrality and the right of members to choose a political party.]

Still, people are given the freedom to make choices as a gift from God and they should be able to choose without the government telling them what to do. I'd only ask that Democrats also consider this in light of anti-smoking laws, anti-school choice, health laws, liberal power grabs limiting our freedoms (look at Obama) and financial regulations which similarly limit freedom to act by both businesses and individuals. Ask yourself whether the things the Democrat and Republican parties stand for are rooted in protecting and preserving freedom? Of course we need some laws and regulations to maintain a civil society, but there is a fine line between adding to society and making it more safe and becoming a burden on society by over-regulation and limiting options and red tape and basically the expansion of government at the expense of the private sector which feeds the government all it lives on (or should, like the days before deficit spending). It is a line we've already crossed.

I invite, and ask you to invite, Democrats to think about the consequences of their public policies. Do welfare handouts without work requirements really bring freedom or only a form of dependence? Do requirements on food stamp recipients to spend all the generous (double my budget per person!) money given or lose it all promote principles of self-reliance and financial responsibility or just waste and dependence? Do years of unemployment benefits while continuing to burden the job creators bring more freedom than pro-growth policies that create jobs? Do more taxes bring more financial freedom? Everyone wants to pay lower taxes than they have. I submit to you that Democrats can be reasoned out of their "feel-good," PC belief system and learn that the policies they think they support bring results opposite to the ones intended.

Monday, January 28, 2013

The mental illness hurdle

I've written before about how the mentally ill have a hard time getting the help they need, because of either insurance companies or the laws surrounding involuntary commitment in most states. Read this from Ann Coulter.

In the late 1980s, New York City Mayor Ed Koch tried to institutionalize Joyce Brown, a mentally ill heroin addict living on the street who went by the name "Billie Boggs" (after local television host Bill Boggs). Brown was defecating on herself, removing all her clothes, burning money, running into traffic and shouting obscenities at passers-by. In other words, she was a prototype for Occupy Wall Street.

Brown's family desperately wanted to have Brown committed to Bellevue Hospital. A Columbia psychiatrist argued for her institutionalization. The neighbors supported her commitment.

But the New York Civil Liberties Union wanted Brown back on the street. Her NYCLU attorney, Robert Levy, boasted that "Billie Boggs" was as sane as "a member of the board of the Civil Liberties Union."

A New York judge, Robert Lippman, agreed –- but not the way I do. Instead of ordering the entire NYCLU board institutionalized, he ordered the release of this poor, mentally disturbed woman. She promptly spoke at Harvard. (Princeton already had Peter Singer.) Then she was back on the street, taking heroin and getting into fights with other homeless people.

Schizophrenics are generally incapable of knowing they need help. Without involuntary commitment, they are abandoned to the streets, getting beaten up, sexually abused, stolen from and set on fire. They also sometimes push people onto subway tracks, murder grandmothers, slaughter firemen and enter "gun-free zones" to commit mass murder.
At least someone is talking about this, even if the media and Democrats won't.

Sunday, January 27, 2013

LDS Books

Did you know there is an entire genre of Mormon literature? Usually such books are about Mormon culture. Sometimes Mormon doctrine. I've heard of some new ones you may be interested in. They're about LDS missions. Check it out if you're interested. The link is to a review of one of them, mentioning some other titles in passing. This may give you some idea:
What I like best about “The Mission Rules” and a few other books that deal with the mission experience (Coke Newell’s “On the Road to Heaven” and Douglas Thayer’s “The Tree House,” both from Zarahemla Books, are other novels worth reading) is how positive and ultimately faith-affirming a mission experience can be when it isn’t lathered up with an excess of faux spirituality.

Saturday, January 26, 2013

Getting Back to the Constitution

From a conservative voice I much admire:
All we need to do is get back to the Constitution. It's really not complicated. It's gonna be very hard to do, but really all we need to do is get back to the Constitution. The Constitution was written expressly so that a ruling elite, be it because of class or wealth or birthright, would not occur. This was a government that was formed that was severely limited. The Constitution is filled with limits on the government, not on the people, not on the citizens. And, of course, we're now living through a 180 on that, where the limits on freedom are on citizens and the expansion of power and the ruling elite, the people that are in it, is in government, in Washington, DC.

Friday, January 25, 2013

Boehner commits?

Either Boehner's pulling a fast one on conservatives or he has genuinely experienced a change of heart. He has committed to a 10-year balanced budget plan. Meaning it will be balanced in 10 years, supposing Congress doesn't find new things to spend money on in the interim. Fat chance, I say. Yet at least it is a step in the right direction ahead of the spending battles looming large in Washington. If it isn't a step, at least their heads are turned in the right direction. Write your reps!

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Debt Bubble

The Economic Collapse Blog is alarmist, yet the writer uses enough data for me to take it seriously. For example: The Sovereign Debt Bubble Will Continue to Exand Until - BANG - The System Implodes. But inside this article?
In general, most economists consider a debt to GDP ratio of 100% to be a "danger level", and most of the economies of the western world have either already surpassed that level or are rapidly approaching it. Of course the biggest debt offender of all in many ways is the United States. The U.S. debt to GDP ratio has risen from 66.6 percent to 103 percent since 2007, and the U.S. government accumulated more new debt during Barack Obama's first term than it did under the first 42 U.S. presidents combined. This insane sovereign debt bubble will continue to expand until a day of reckoning arrives and the system implodes. 
And, like me and many others, he points out that the media is obfuscating reality for the Americans who rely on them for information. For his sources please visit the article by using the link above.

He's right.

As is a RedState writer saying "every new proposal [of spending cuts in Congress] will be moot as long as Obamacare is still funded." Too true. Programs breed dependency which breed expense for the American taxpayers.

Budget

I've seen countless editorials about what the GOP needs to do to pick its battles and what battles it should pick, leading up to the debt ceiling debate. Here is a typical example.

A writer for RedState has the most complete synopsis of actual GOP plans thus far, to extend the debt ceiling only until May so that the GOP can accomplish some real budget plans, as well as making the Senate pass a budget. Their first since 2009 even though it's required by law!
The underlying rationale behind this strategy is to defer the debt ceiling fight until after the FY 2013 CR is dealt with and the FY 2014 budgets are formulated. The idea is that the House would unite behind a pro-active budget/debt plan in March from which they would harness as their demand for any long-term debt ceiling increase in mid-April.

What sort of budget plan would Republicans formulate in March? According to a joint letter by five current and former chairmen of the Republican Study Committee, who are all supporting this plan, “the House will work to put the country on the path to a balanced budget in 10 years. House leadership also agreed to stand by the $974 billion discretionary number that is part of the sequestration process.”

If Republicans would truly use this short-term extension as an opportunity to formulate a balanced budget from which to use as any future demand for raising the debt ceiling, it’s a great deal.
But will they follow through? Boehner and his ilk have a history of promises conservatives what they want, then caving to the Democrats. Here's hoping.

Apparently Paul Ryan the prudent was leading these initiatives in his caucus.

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

World War?

It seems far-fetched to the (ignorant) peace-mongers that the world could ever again erupt into wide-spread war, but that seems to be the exact situation we face. The world has never stopped having conflicts, though African violence and genocides are largely ignored by the Western world. Now on top of Islamist wars in Africa (among other kinds of wars there, and places out of Africa not ignored) we face an antagonistic China, eyeing some islands of its neighbor and our ally, Japan.

China seems to think that the US will no longer stand by its allies, as it hasn't stood by Israel. I sincerely hope they are wrong, but I suspect they are suspecting correctly - it is at least more true than it has ever been before post-WWII in American history.  They prepare for war. Our eyes and attention should be on Japan and China.

Both of the links above are not from traditional American media. One is Breitbart - a conservative online news outlet. The other is the Telegraph in Britain.

American media, you ignore threats to Obama's supremacy at your peril and ours. Swoon over him all you like in person, but don't try to pass off your reporting as objective. Yes, you aided and abetted in getting Obama to a second term, but your credibility suffered for it. Your bias is bringing your own demise. Must you repeat the mistakes you made on Benghazi and Fast and Furious? There - is to this day - much you have left in the dark compared to international and conservative news outlets. Why do you feel Obama is worth protecting, beyond your shared idealogies? He's ready to throw you all under the bus even after all you've done for him.

Monday, January 21, 2013

Obama's legacy

Have you noticed that Obama loves to channel Abraham Lincoln? I think it's preposterous to use the two analogously, but Obama didn't ask me. He doesn't ask anyone.

A UK paper has an interesting op-ed describing what made Lincoln great and what Obama would need to embrace to follow suit:
Firstly, Mr Obama must avoid the pitfalls of almost all second inaugurals by not making it longer than his first. “Lincoln learned that lesson,” said Dr White, “The Gettysburg Address was 272 words. The second inaugural was 701 words. Lincoln delivered it in just six or seven minutes and people were still arriving when he was finishing.”
Secondly, Lincoln dared to be honest. He confronted the American people frankly about the issue of slavery, an institution that cost the nation four devastating years of civil war.  
“People expected Lincoln to talk about the Confederacy - the guilty and innocent - but he understood this was the moment to give something short, inspirational and from the heart,” said Dr White, “He confronted the evils of slavery and avoided the usual exercise in self-congratulation, and talk about ‘this great nation of America’. It was a great risk, but Lincoln took it.”

And lastly, Lincoln succeeded because, unlike many a re-elected president, he didn’t fall for his own publicity. “In the Gettysburg address, there is not one personal pronoun and in the second inaugural, only two,” Dr White concludes, “Lincoln didn’t talk about his ‘mandate’ – a phrase you hear now from Mr Obama – but directed all the attention away from himself to the values of the great democratic experiment. He understood that he was a spokesperson for something larger than himself.”

Brevity. Honesty. Humility. If Mr Obama dares to dream of even coming close to matching his hero, these must be his watchwords.
 
I don't know that Lincoln is Obama's real hero - but he knows it would endear him to the American people if he were. Lincoln stood firm in the face of opposition. He knew it was part of life. Obama seems to be in denial that he should have any opposition, blaming the Tea Party and Republicans for all the nations' problems. He will crush them if he can. Not like Lincoln, who readily pardoned Civil War Confederate veterans and worked to rebuild a war-torn nation. He tried to heal the rift, with his generals setting the example. Americans were brothers again. Obama is trying to tear the nation in half and throw away the half he doesn't like.

As for the brevity, honesty, and humility? From what we've seen in the past four years, he has no history of any of the three. He gabs about himself all the time. He uses "I" and other personal pronouns more than any past president, if I remember a study correctly. Humility is the opposite of this narcissist we call President. He's lied about everything from Solyndra to the auto bailouts to the federal deficit and budget to the "success" of green energy to the media-passed-over-debacle in Libya to the what-should-be-a-media-driven-scandal-if-he-were-Republican-like-Abe-Lincoln Fast and Furious.

Obama loves to re-write history in how he tells it (to glorify himself and his idealogy), but there is no hope of him leaving a legacy like Lincoln. That much is certain. Obama, the great divider, will never be credited with uniting the nation - though if he's really lucky (or successful, depending on how you look at it) he may be credited with the demise of the GOP as we know it.

Sunday, January 20, 2013

Vindication

Quick note: the media loved to laugh at Mitt Romney, but they called him a liar incorrectly.

Whoops: PolitiFact's 'Lie of the Year' Turns Out to Be True. That's right. The "nonpartisan" fact-checker called out Romney for a lie that wasn't, though ignored Obama's lie about the same thing. No surprise.

Friday, January 18, 2013

Avoiding the consequences?

I found an excellent analysis of why Congressional Democrats have ceased to call for tax increases on everybody like they used to in previous decades: deficit spending is acceptible now!

It used to be that government didn't have annual trillion dollar deficits and the Democrats wanted taxes to pay for higher spending rather than run a deficit, and even in most of Bush's time up until 2007 (when a bubble burst) the revenue kept pace pretty well with spending on the whole. Compared to now, especially.
However, three things transpired over the past 20 years that completely changed the dynamic. First, deficit spending has grown from just a supplementary to the welfare state to an equal partner along with tax revenue. Hence, liberals no longer need more tax revenue to grow government. They’ll borrow the money. Second, Republicans won the tax debate, imbuing hatred for more taxes in the hearts of the voters. Why should Democrats risk sowing the seeds of disquiet with tax increases, when they can accomplish the same goals with deficit spending? Lastly, thanks to the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, a number of people pay little or no income taxes. Liberals are wise enough not to mess with that, and in fact, seek to grow that demographic.

Taken as a whole, Obama and the Democrats decided to beat us by joining us. Not only have they eschewed their broad tax hiking agenda, they couch their plans in the parlance of tax cutting. Despite their public arguments about the need to raise revenue to deal with the deficits, they know that they can never raise enough revenue from the rich. Yet, they figure they can have their cake and eat it too. That’s why they pushed for tax hikes just on the “super rich.” To that end, they are able to continue their spending binge (through deficit spending) while focusing their tax hikes on such a small percentage of people, most of whom are unknown to the average voter.
 
Depressing. But he's right. Yet the consequences will follow, sure as the sun comes up. We can spend ourselves to death - the bursting of the debt bubble - and the Obama administration is trying its darndest to do just that, regardless of future consequences. Interest rates have been kept very low by the Fed for a very long time, making it easier for Congress to spend than ever, because they have to pay less on the debt now. But when those interest rates rise?

Democrats have two favored options, not that they'll admit it. One, they can preach against the existence of the debt ceiling (kind of like a credit limit) and say there shouldn't be one - whether or not they can possibly pay for this - even whether or not our grandchildren could possibly pay for it. Two, they can print money to devalue the debt they incur and delay the burst of the debt bubble - causing rampant inflation. Our dollars would be worthless and nearly every American would go on the government dole in some form or other except for the preppers.

This is why the conservative battle to explain what we face is so important. This is why spending cuts now are so important. Neither of the Democrats' options bring good to the United States. To think otherwise is wishful thinking at best, just like the "appeasers" in Britain before WWII were so sure that giving in to Hitler over other European take-vers would guarantee Britain wouldn't be attacked. Winston Churchill was right - though much ridiculed and derided for it at the time.

The consequences always catch up with you.

Thursday, January 17, 2013

Gun control

None of the gun control measures ordered by Obama or Governor Cuomo will be effective against the real problem: dealing with the criminally insane and reinstituting involuntary commitment to a mental institution. Their rules may, in fact, keep these people from seeking help. Why would they talk about violent fantasies if they know it will land them in trouble with the law, with all their guns confiscated (in New York)? Why would they turn to medical help at all?

They wouldn't. And they have a history of using illegally-obtained weapons.

The criminally insane have a general history of NOT seeking help in the first place, and these measures won't do a darn thing to prevent mass murders.  The one thing that at least does not hurt the situation is the clarification that doctors may tell the powers that be of threats to the public without breaking privacy laws. But again, the fact that the criminally insane now know that will add to their reluctance to seek help, if they had any desire to do so in the first place.

I was very glad to see Ann Coulter talking about this too, because mental health and mental health care is so poorly understood in the United States. There's a stigma against talking about it, even though it is quite common to be treated for some form of mental illess - even beyond depression and manic depression. This does not contribute to our safety, then, when we refuse to acknowledge and properly treat those who are a threat to themselves and others. For example:
Seung-Hui Cho, who committed the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007, had been diagnosed with severe anxiety disorder as a child and placed under treatment.

But Virginia Tech was prohibited from being told about Cho's mental health problems because of federal privacy laws.

At college, Cho engaged in behavior even more bizarre than the average college student. He stalked three women and, at one point, went totally silent, refusing to speak even to his roommates. He was involuntarily committed to a mental institution for one night and then unaccountably unleashed on the public, whereupon he proceeded to engage in the deadliest mass shooting by an individual in U.S. history.
And about Jared Loughner:
One of Loughner's teachers, Ben McGahee, filed numerous complaints against him, hoping to have him removed from class. "When I turned my back to write on the board," McGahee said, "I would always turn back quickly -- to see if he had a gun."
On her first day at school, student Lynda Sorensen emailed her friends about Loughner: "We do have one student in the class who was disruptive today, I'm not certain yet if he was on drugs (as one person surmised) or disturbed. He scares me a bit. The teacher tried to throw him out and he refused to go, so I talked to the teacher afterward. Hopefully he will be out of class very soon, and not come back with an automatic weapon."
The last of several emails Sorensen sent about Loughner said: "We have a mentally unstable person in the class that scares the living cr** out of me. He is one of those whose picture you see on the news, after he has come into class with an automatic weapon. Everyone interviewed would say, Yeah, he was in my math class and he was really weird."
That was the summer before Loughner killed six people at the Tucson shopping mall, including a federal judge and a 9 year-old girl, and critically wounded Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, among others.
Loughner also had run-ins with the law, including one charge for possessing drug paraphernalia -- a lethal combination with mental illness. He was eventually asked to leave college on mental health grounds, released on the public without warning.
 And Ann Coulter kindly explains the real problem behind mass murderers: even if people feel unsafe with them, most states have strict laws preventing involuntary commitment to an institution. But why wait until after people have died? Seriously.
As The New York Times' Joe Nocera recently wrote: "Connecticut's laws are so restrictive in terms of the proof required to get someone committed that Adam Lanza's mother would probably not have been able to get him help even if she had tried."

Taking guns away from single women who live alone and other law-abiding citizens without mental illnesses will do nothing about the Chos, Loughners, Holmeses or Lanzas. Such people have to be separated from civil society, for the public's sake as well as their own. But this is nearly impossible because the ACLU has decided that being psychotic is a civil right.
Yup. That sums it up. But will anything change? I doubt it. Gun control is a front for a power grab and pushing a Democratic agenda. That's all. Like anything else, they won't get to the real heart of the problem any more than higher taxes address the enormous spending problem in the federal governemnt.

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Federal Reserve and Government Debt

The guy writing The Economic Collapse Blog really knows financial stuff like the Federal Reserve. I always appreciate his posts about the Federal Reserve because he's good at explaining what they do and why they do it and why we really shouldn't even have a Federal Reserve! This week is no exception.

Barack Obama has greatly expanded the powers of the presidency during his time in the White House, but there is one institution that he simply will not mess with. There is one organization that is considered to be so sacred in Washington D.C. that Obama will not dare utter a single negative word against it. That organization is the Federal Reserve. Even though he has shown that he is unafraid to pick a fight with just about everyone else in Washington, Obama flat out refuses to criticize the Fed and he even reappointed Ben Bernanke for another term as Fed Chairman even though Bernanke has a track record of failure that would make the Chicago Cubs look good. Perhaps Obama is aware of what has happened to other presidents that have chosen to tangle with the Fed. In any event, it has become clear that Obama submits to anything that the Fed says without question, and the controversy over the "trillion dollar coin" is another perfect example of this. For weeks, there has been much speculation in the mainstream media about the possibility that the Obama administration may print up a one trillion dollar coin that it would use to keep paying the bills of the federal government if an agreement to raise the debt ceiling is not reached. But on Saturday the Federal Reserve killed that idea, and we shouldn't be surprised by that because under no circumstances will the Fed ever accept a threat to their monopoly over money creation in the United States. If the Federal Reserve had allowed Obama to print up a debt-free trillion dollar coin, that would have set a very dangerous precedent for the Fed. The American people would have realized that the federal government can actually create debt-free money whenever it wants and that it does not actually have to borrow money from anyone. That is something that the Fed probably would have moved heaven and earth to keep from happening. 
 
And about the Fed itself:
Sadly, most Americans don't even realize that a private banking cartel has a monopoly over all money creation in this country. In recent years they have abused this power by wildly printing money ("quantitative easing"), and by making more than 16 trillion dollars in secret loans to their friends during the last financial crisis. Under our system, the private Federal Reserve creates money whenever they want, and nobody else gets to create money. It is an insane system, but very, very few of our politicians will ever dare to question it.
 
And about its creation:
When the Federal Reserve system was initially created back in 1913, the bankers that created it intended for it to be a perpetual debt machine that would extract massive amounts of wealth from the U.S. government (and ultimately from all of us) through the mechanism of compound interest. Each year, hundreds of billions of dollars of interest are transferred into the pockets of the wealthy bankers and foreign nations that own our debt. This is one of the reasons why I preach about the evils of government debt until I am blue in the face. The debt-based Federal Reserve system is a way to systematically steal the wealth of the United States, and it is happening right in front of our eyes, but very few people actually understand it well enough to complain about it.

What it has come to now, in 2013 with four years of Obama-level spending:
Not only is our debt rising by more than a trillion dollars a year, we also need to roll over trillions of dollars of federal debt each year. If interest rates on that debt start rising, we are going to start feeling the pain very rapidly.
 
I recommend his entire article for your further education about the Fed. He also has a link to a previous article, "10 Things That Every American Should Know About The Federal Reserve".
 

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Political gambles

Obama is trying to force Congressional Republicans' hands against a default by refusing to shut down the government but yet to delay welfare checks - blaming the GOP, even though there is enough federal revenue even with a default to pay both debt interest and entitlements - all mandatory spending with some left over.

So Obama's talk is all anti-Republican staging. He wants to beat them into oblivion. He might just get his way, because the RINOs aren't about to join the conservatives in firm opposition to Obama's plans.

Obama is just bullying again at this point. His debt ceiling "negotiations" haven't even begun, but he's already blaming the GOP for any bad that comes of it, with the media happily complying. He's threatening delayed checks, the whole shebang. Even the Washington Post has picked up on the bullying now.
“I’m a pretty friendly guy,” President Obama said near the end of his White House news conference Monday afternoon.

The claim might have been a touch more plausible if he hadn’t spent the bulk of the previous hour demonstrating just how adversarial he could be. Indeed, there was no precipitating event that led him to schedule the last-minute session in the East Room — lending credibility to the theory that he summoned reporters so he could bait Republicans.

“If congressional Republicans refuse to pay America’s bills on time, Social Security checks and veterans benefits will be delayed,” the friendly president said, explaining his refusal to negotiate over increasing the debt limit.

Calling the opposition’s stance “absurd,” Obama advised Republicans that they “have two choices here: They can act responsibly and pay America’s bills, or they can act irresponsibly and put America through another economic crisis. But they will not collect a ransom in exchange for not crashing the American economy. . . . And they better choose quickly, because time is running short.”

And that was just the opening statement. The hectoring continued through the Q&A. Exactly one month after the massacre at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., Obama said of debt-reduction talks: “What I will not do is to have that negotiation with a gun at the head of the American people.”
Don't you love it? He refuses to compromise at the very time he's calling for compromise - of GOP principles that work.

If it's No-more-Mr.-Nice-Guy with Obama, how bad will he be? He was never "nice" or cooperative with the Congressional Republicans in the first place!

Will the GOP stand their ground and accept default and real cuts over raising the debt ceiling with few if any spending changes? I hope so, but I doubt it. Boehner isn't made of steel. Even when the American public overwhelmingly wants big cuts - cuts they ought to know full well won't be coming from the Democrats.

I still hold out hope against hope that the two-month-delayed sequestration will happen. It will by default, but will Obama wrap it into the whole debt ceiling nastiness and the GOP leadership will want to avoid the blame, once again? Most likely.

Monday, January 14, 2013

Doctor Shortage

The number of US medical students has increased sharply in the past few years, and by 2016 there will be more medical student graduates than there are US residency training positions. The number of residency spots will be dropping beginning in 2013, because resident funding is in part from Medicare, in part by the hospitals providing the training. Hospitals are experiencing dramatic cuts from Medicare as required by Obamacare, and are looking to cut optional expenses - including residency and fellowship positions. Obviously this will lead to worsening doctor shortages.

A few years ago, the lawyers in Congress concluded that we need only increase medical student numbers to get more doctors. Wrong. It is required by law to complete a residency training program in order to practice medicine. The number of residency spots filled each year is about as many as there are total, because foreign graduates fill spots not filled by American doctors.

In conclusion, Congress is dumb. We'll have no more doctors than before. Here they've fostered a group of students with enormous student debt with no job at the end of it.

If you know anyone considering medicine as a career, urge them to get a PA or nursing degree over an MD or DO. This is not the time.

Mali

The United States has long been ignoring Mali's requests for help. The African country has meanwhile been under assault from jihadists, trying to take over the region. Mali warned the international community that getting rid of Gaddafi would open the area for further control by radical Islamist groups. They were right. France has now stepped in to fight the jihadis in their former colony without waiting for UN approval or US support. Chalk up another failure to Obama in international peace.

I know one of the presidential candidates in Mali, Yeah Samake. I met him and his then-fiance at BYU. He is, in fact, a Mormon. A not-so-rare Christian in Mali, but a very rare Mormon. He thanked Mitt Romney for drawing (brief) national media attention to the situation in Mali during the foreign policy debate. Mali has faced many struggles this past year, including a military coup and Islamist take-overs in certain regions.

For a full, detailed history of Mali's recent struggles and how they relate directly to Obama's foreign policy bungles, please visit Losing Mali: The administration will not avoid further avoidance in an African tribal war, published in American Spectator 10 days ago. I think the author is wrong in assuming the US will get involved, however. Obama is no leader and he routinely supports the jihadists over the interests of American allies. I don't get it. I just know that's how Obama works. Look at Egypt, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Israel and even aspects of his policy in Afghanistan.

UPDATE: Here are more details of France's recent involvement.

Saturday, January 12, 2013

Fostering Dependence

The Economic Collapse Blog wrote up a response to a report that 128 million Americans get some sort of federal assistance each month. That a LOT of Americans. Nearly 42% of the population. A dramatic increase from only 94 million in 2000. The blog author poses this question which many Americans ask themselves:
Overall, more than 70 percent of all federal spending goes to what they call "dependence-creating programs". It is the most massive wealth redistribution scheme in the history of the world, and it continues to grow at a very rapid pace with each passing month. But can we really afford this? Of course we never want to see a single person go without food to eat or a roof to sleep under, but can the federal government really afford to support 128 million Americans every month? If millions more Americans keep jumping on to the "safety net" each year, how long will it be before it breaks and it is not there for anyone? 
Without question, the economy is terrible and Obama's response is making it even worse for the middle class - adding to the class divides, actually.  New taxes and regulations hit the middle class proportionally worse than the upper class, while the welfare class avoids them by getting tax-free handouts.

This disproportionality comes as businesses pass along their tax increases in the cost to the consumers (mostly middle class) and that the FICA tax is pertinent on only the first 110k of income but nothing beyond. Then Obamacare strangles businesses and affects unemployment and more people go on the government dole just as Obama planned, as I believe many of us begin to realize. He wants a compliant majority voting base, happy to get freebies (to them, not us) forever by assuring a liberal majority from now until kingdom come.

The future looks bleak, with a president who has hijacked our economy and radically increased spending and forced the private sector to shrink, resulting in record numbers of Americans leaving the labor market, all while the public debt burden per person (taxpayer burden) is twice what most of us make in a year.

Yet there is a way out. It would be quite simple for Congress to force Obama into a balanced budget by simply allowing us to hit the debt ceiling, as explained at RedState (that link). What does hitting the ceiling do?
When we reach the debt limit we can only spend what we take in; quite a novel, radical idea in Washington. Of course, how the revenue gets spent gets complicated, but one thing is certain. Upon hitting the ceiling, the executive branch chooses how revenue is allocated. The US government would only default if the President ordered the Treasury Secretary to not pay our debts. It’s practically impossible. It’s less likely than seeing a fish ride a bicycle. CBO estimates the US government will take in $2.6 trillion this year. It costs approximately $220 billion to service the debt and prevent us from defaulting–just 8.5 percent of revenue. In other words, if we hit the debt ceiling, we still have plenty of money to pay the essential bills.
In fact, according to the CBO, we have enough to pay all “mandatory spending” (Medicare, Social Security, veterans benefits, debt payments, etc.) and defense spending, plus have more than $300 billion to use for “discretionary” spending. That’s right. Not only could we run all absolutely essential functions of government, we would still have $300 billion to spare.

Obama’s math doesn’t add up, yet the President and his buddies in the media have convinced people that the government will “default” if we hit the debt ceiling. They say our economy will tank. Explain this: How is a balanced budget bad for the economy? I mean, God forbid we only spend what we take in…
 
Yes, Obama plans to add new spending. Yes, Obama wants to raise taxes (again). Yes, Obama wants to increase the burdens on American businesses and families... but we don't have to let him.

I pray that the Republicans in Congress and even fiscally responsbible Democrats will take this option seriously. It is the only option we have to stop overspending and hand our grandchildren decades of irresponsibility. Only then can we begin to turn the economy around (eventually) after government spending levels are cut back down to size and maybe even restructured and reformed to have less overhead and bureaucracy (also called modernization and increasing efficiency, if we want to draw a private sector analogy to a federal government behemoth) and we reach equilibrium. The road will not be easy, even turning around now. Supposing we can. But it will be easier now than later with even more spending and debt to curtail. Maybe we can then we can focus on getting people off welfare and back to work, the way welfare was restructured in 1996.

Friday, January 11, 2013

Unconstitutional

Obama loves to use the executive order more than past presidents, but is it even legal under the Constitution? A Representative wrote about Obama's power grabs and their unconstitutionality. Obviously, the liberal "news" media keeps their questions about Obama's extra-legal orders to themselves. They wouldn't want the American people to be suspicious of their Chosen One, now would they? I bet you haven't even heard of most of these power grabs. Hand it to the media. They cover for Obama right well - but that doesn't mean they should.

The Rep's summary:
President Obama has, by executive order, circumvented national immigration law by ordering a halt to deportations of certain unlawful aliens, without getting the law changed. In July of 2012, President Obama changed long standing welfare policy to allow states to change mandated work requirements. Earlier he ordered the DOJ not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act. None of these orders were submitted to Congress for review, which the Government Accountability Office concluded he should have done in part. I have co-sponsored bills to reverse these unconstitutional power grabs and will continue to fight them.
The President, touted by some as knowledgeable about our Constitution, acts as if he never heard of it sometimes. Now, the President and Vice-President are talking about enacting gun bans by executive order.
But how is this against the law of the land? His explanation:
Let's focus on the supposed authority of the President to simply enact laws by the stroke of his pen. Article I Section I of the Constitution vests all legislative powers in Congress. All. None are given to the President or the Courts. All government acts need to be evaluated on whether they are consistent with our Constitution.
The executive branch has the Constitutional responsibility to execute the laws passed by Congress. It is well accepted that an executive order is not legislation nor can it be. An executive order is a directive that implements laws passed by Congress. The Constitution provides that the president "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Article II, Section 3, Clause 5. Thus, executive orders can only be used to carry out the will of Congress. If we in Congress have not established the policy or authorization by law, the President can't do it unilaterally.   
He doesn't illuminate steps we can take to prevent Obama from taking powers not vested in the executive other than his bill in Congress which we can bet the Senate will never touch, but I suppose education is a great first step. Not that that isn't going to stop Obama from making gun control laws through an unconstitutional executive order if he can possibly get away with it, or with any other current law he doesn't like. Not that gun control even prevents crimes.

Ann Coulter elaborates on that this week:
There is an academic, peer-reviewed, long-term study of the effect of various public policies on public, multiple shootings in all 50 states over a 20-year period performed by renowned economists at the University of Chicago and Yale, William Landes and John Lott. It concluded that the only policy to reduce the incidence of, and casualties from, mass shootings are concealed-carry laws. The Times will never mention this study.

Instead, Rosenthal's column proclaimed that armed guards do not reduce crime because: "I recently visited some Latin American countries ... where guards with guns grace every office lobby, storefront, ATM, restaurant and gas station. It has not made those countries safer or saner."

So there you have it: The cock crowed, then the sun came up. Therefore, the cock's crowing caused the sun to come up. Rosenthal went to Harvard Medical School.

Here's a tip: High-crime areas are often bristling with bulletproof glass, heavy-duty locks, gated windows and armed guards. The bulletproof glass doesn't cause the crime; it's a response to crime. On Rosenthal's logic, hospitals kill people because more people die in hospitals than outside of them.
But then again, Obama isn't after gun control out of concern for Americans. He's after power. His quest for power inexorably increases with each power grab. I expect we'll see plenty more in his second term, even more blatant and questionable than in his first since he won't (shouldn't) be up for reelection. Don't be surprised when it happens. You've been warned.

What can we do about it? I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. Suggestions?

My only suggestion at the present time is to invite as many Americans as possible to read the Constitution themselves, as well as other Founding documents. You'd think a country would bother to properly educate its citizens about its beginnings and teach them to reverence it, but not now that unpatriotic liberals are in charge of public education!

There's a reason there are so many home-schooling parents these days, and it isn't because they've always dreamed of home-schooling their children. Not only has the public school system lowered its academic standards compared to other countries, the Americans level of patriotism is low compared to many, many countries. I've met foreign people taught a fierce and admirable patriotism in their schooling, and I've been jealous. That hasn't happened in America since WWII.

Understanding the Constitution, why it was made the way it was, how it has preserved us for the past 236 years, and comparing it to the protections of citizens in other countries will reestablish patriotism and gratitude for our Founding Fathers. We need that, if we are to survive in the United States as we know it.

Supposing we're not already too late to prevent Obama from changing the United States beyond all recognition.

UPDATE: Breitbart's Ben Shapiro is on a role educating Americans about the Constitution (or trying to) all over the internet and airways. See here, here, and here.

Thursday, January 10, 2013

A Model for the Nation

The tools of true reform are at our fingertips with proven records, but they go unheralded by those in political power (aided by their liberal media buddies) at the present time.

From Breitbart: Economy Grows, Revenues Increase after Texas Slashed Spending:
The Texas state comptroller estimated Texas will generate $96.2 billion in revenue for the 2014-2015 fiscal cycle and reported Texas collected $8.8 billion more in revenue than expected during the last fiscal year.  
When unemployment in Texas was at its highest in a decade and the state government faced a $27 billion shortfall in 2011, legislators wrote what was then described as a “cut-to-the-bone” budget.
 
And it worked.
 
According to the Associated Press, “unemployment now is at a four-year low of 6.2 percent, sales tax receipts are skyrocketing and money is pouring into state coffers behind a new energy boom.”
 
And while Texas is projected to have more revenue to spend, Gov. Rick Perry and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst have indicated they would “limit any increase in state spending to a sum of population growth plus inflation, or 9.85 percent,” to prevent Texas from racking another budget shortfall.

And from American Spectator's If They Would Just Think Anew about the 1996 welfare reform incentivizing work to get off welfare rather than permanent dependency with block grants to states:
Exactly contrary to the predictions of liberal opponents, the reform was immensely successful. The old AFDC rolls declined by two-thirds nationwide, even more in states that pushed work most aggressively: Wyoming (97%), Idaho (90%), Florida (89%), Louisiana (89%), Illinois (89%), Georgia (89%), North Carolina (87%), Oklahoma (85%), Wisconsin (84%), Texas (84%), Mississippi (84%). As a result, in real dollars total federal and state spending on TANF by 2006 had declined 31% from AFDC spending in 1995, falling by more than half of what it would have been under prior trends.
Yet, the incomes of the families formerly on the program rose by 25%, and poverty among those families plummeted, because of the increased work by the former welfare dependents.
The same reforms can and should be extended to all of the remaining, nearly 200, federal means-tested welfare programs, including the biggest ones such as Medicaid and food stamps. That would achieve the ultimate dream of Reagan and Carleson, sending welfare back to the states.
 
I'm dreaming of national change. That's all I can do at this point.

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

Contrasts

Here are some headline comparisons all from different news sites:

Breitbart:
Senator Demands Benghazi Answers Before Confirming Obama's CIA Pick

CNN:
Opinion: Why pot should be legal

Drudge:
BANG BANG: CUOMO TO ANNOUNCE SWEEPING GUN LAWS

MSNBC:
Contrary to Obama's hopes, GOP 'fever' hasn't broken

FoxNews:
AIG Biting Hand That Feeds It?

ABC:
Poisoned Lottery Winner's Wife Seeks 'Truth'

Red State:
Staring Down the Schoolyard Bully

Politico:
Chuck Hagel pick: Final snub of George W. Bush

Newsbusters:
ESPN Drops Racial Loudmouth Rob Parker

Washington Post:
Syria exchanges 2,130 captives for 48 Iranians

National Journal:
Will the Republican Party Split Apart?

New York Times:
Bank Hacks Were the Work of Iranians, Officials Say


These sites alternate between conservative-leaning and liberal-leaning (in case you didn't notice). Compare those headlines (of the moment I'm writing) again. What do you notice?

Conservatives are concerned with calling out Big Government, issues within the Obama administration, and fighting against the liberal definitions of what is PC.

Liberals are concerned with ignoring any problems within the government or administration by reporting world news ahead of national news, or instead are focused with things not worthy of headline status. Only one (MSNBC) is concerned that Republicans aren't giving Obama what he wants! Policito, as usual, mocks Republicans. That's what they do.

Imagine, for a minute, if the tables were turned. If the Republicans had control/approval of the traditional news media?

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

The bullies in power

Have you heard the latest? Obama and his pals says that there is no way that we're raising the debt ceiling without also raising taxes $1T. That's a LOT of taxes. All Democrat Congressional talking heads have reiterated that there will be no spending cuts at all, only tax increases. The GOP they will not agree to taxes, only spending cuts, because taxes can't and won't solve a spending problem. Obama refuses to admit the obvious, reportedly saying, "We don't have a spending problem."

Meanwhile, the Republicans in Congress return fire about the debt ceiling, saying that if Obama wants to raise the debt ceiling again, then they had better plan to pass a budget in the Senate as required by law but ignored since 2009. The theory is that if the American people saw how much Democrats want to spend revenue and borrowed money that the American people would be uncomfortable with it. We sure are!

You don't spend $1T over revenue annually by frugality! You don't add nearly $5.5T in only 4 years without a spending problem! Democrats ignore their own spending problems but still blame Bush's more modest spending growth for our problems. They lie.

I'm relieved that the GOP seems prepared to fight, even if it ends up only as posturing in the end. Why? Even with the posturing, the American people will be more aware of the spending problem in the United States. They should realize that no amount of taxation can raise enough revenue for Obama's spending apetite. And they might just support the automatic spending cuts scheduled to take place in March by default.

Obama, ever the masterful politician, is already name-calling and saying that the United States isn't going to default: they'll raise the debt ceiling to pay what they owe. The problem with that statement is subtle and plays to the underinformed voter. Because, you see, it would actually be preferable to default and get some big cuts and reforms out of it than to never get any cuts at all and experience high inflation to boot.

We're broke. The consequences are going to catch up to us eventually. It's better to look them in the face and deal with them responsibly than to keep our heads in the sand.

The media, naturally, will report Obama's plans glowingly and the Republican's plans mockingly. They're just as bullying as the Democrats. I think they've overplayed their hand, though time will tell. More people see the bias and agree with Republicans that we need big spending cuts to save this country and spare our children our folly. A full three quarters of Americans support big cuts across the board.

Watch out, Democrats and media in power. We're on to you.

Monday, January 7, 2013

Psychiatric medications

I've focused on the psychiatric health of mass shooters. A new article asks why the media hasn't bothered to find out so much as what medication Adam Lanza may have been taking.
So, what is the truth? Where is the journalist curiosity? Where is the follow-up? Where is the police report, the medical examiner’s report, the interviews with his doctor and others?
But let me back up. Perhaps you’re wondering why this issue of psychiatric medications should be so important.
As I documented in “How Evil Works,” it is simply indisputable that most perpetrators of school shootings and similar mass murders in our modern era were either on – or just recently coming off of – psychiatric medications: 
Now. Some of these questions raised are not yet answerable. Medical examiner reports, for example, take weeks of waiting for toxicology (what drugs are in the system) after the initial autopsy. And the truth? Does any report ever include the full truth and nothing but the truth? 

This author does raise a good point, however, because phychiatric medications do have side effects and the body/mind are especially unstable when changing medications or the amount of a medication. We should have heard about those of Adam Lanza's by now, from interviews with his psychiatrist or standard doctor.

There is yet another scenario, however, to the changing of drugs or whatever. Often, in mental illness, a drug becomes ineffective over time. The nature of the mental illness can change. Previous treatments may be for the wrong mental illness, though it may be entirely unclear because so many early signs are similar to other disorders.

One example cited in the article was of the Thurston High School shooting in Oregon in 1998, with a killer with two drugs prescriptions: an antidepressant and ritalin. Unmentioned is his schizophrenia, which remained undiagnosed and untreated until his entrance into the state penitentiary system. He had never seen a psychiatrist prior to the shooting. He disclosed the voices he was hearing only to his journal. Therefore, the antidepressant and ritalin most likely had Absolutely Nothing to do with his case, only his untreated schizophrenia.

All this together illuminates the dire need for mental health education. If people know the signs of mental illness, they will be able to get appropriate treatment for their loved ones, whether that be therapy or medication or both. Mental illness is tricky to dianose and to treat. We need to erase the stigma so that those who need help feel comfortable getting it.

This article does the opposite: it feeds the stigma. Almost every case identified labeled antidepressants and ritalin as culprits. But they're not. This guy would have you conclude that every person with any kind of psychiatric disorder and treatment is a potential killer. WRONG! We really gotta work on mental health education, folks.

Collectively, we know a ton about heart disease and its symptoms. We know a ton about breast cancer and its symptoms. We also know what these things are not. Very few people can say the same about mental health problems. Yet the average American adult knows at least one person who is treated for these problems, whether or not they know about the treatment. That would never happen with cancer or a heart attack, which are more rare. Again, we need to erase the stigma.

The one things this article got right is illuminating that the media is willing to report anything to aid the Democrat cause. In this case, guns are a side-show to the looming debt and spending crisis we face in the United States of America.

Saturday, January 5, 2013

Unconstitutional

Did you know that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi back Obama raising the debt ceiling by executive order? Chalk up another unconstitutional power grab by Barack Obama. At this rate, Congress will be nigh unto superfluous in four years, the Supreme Court will be a side-note to backing Barack Obama, and we'll be stuck with Barack Obama for life.

I don't like it.

There's a reason the Constitution specificially set up government with a series of checks and balances, such that the executive, legislative, and judiciary branches would remain separate but equal in preserving the United States from becoming a dictatorship. Obama has ignored many of those balances, taking powers which were never granted to the executive branch. He'll not be returning them, either. Where will it end? I can only tell you the direction we're headed is towards dictatorship.

Believe me, Obama is the kind of person who gets or takes what he wants by hook or by crook. He's a product of Chicago, and lawyer who knows how to get around with loopholes, and a "celebrity" president who the media fawn over and never question. If he wants to be president for life, he'll make it happen. If he doesn't, then we'll be spared an unprosperous socialist fate.

But I'm not counting on the latter.

Friday, January 4, 2013

One-side coverage

I love this! The media is getting called out for their inherent bias more frequently these days. Here's a list of 10 examples from the past year. They're as telling as anything else, maybe more so. Take any media article and you can tell what sympathies the author/editor/paper have if you give it a close read. I'll give you a hint: traditional media identifies Democrat by a ratio of 9 to 1. That's not even close to being representative of the country!

The list mentioned includes the media smearing a beef plant (and getting sued for it), the media reporting OWS but not all the many crimes committed by OWS, the video "responsible" for Benghazi that had actually been out for months, the views published about gay marriage debate, "racism," the fictitious GOP "war on women," the anti-gun and NRA slamming articles despite Obama's involvement (unreported) in Fast and Furious, and anti-Christian slants. Follow the link to find many, many additional links to evidence.

Thursday, January 3, 2013

Absurdity in government

Some things you should be aware of:

Obama scheduled the debt ceiling debate to resume in February, even though technically we're already past the previous "final" ceiling. Make some cuts already, Obama! Oops. I forgot. You're in denial that Congress can't keep borrowing without consequences to the economy. Hello, welfare state. Obama must think that socialism works even though it fails everywhere it's been tried. Eastern Bloc, anyone?

The "milk cliff" has been avoided for another year, but only by extending a farm bill meant to correct the 1949 antiquated law. Why not just repeal that old one and replace it with one more appropriate? It's not like subsidies are really necessary to the degree they're given. We taxpayers are still paying for the "milk cliff;" just not directly.

The latest fiscal cliff deal summed up is this (I recommend the full editorial):
The resolution to the fiscal cliff crisis was fittingly perverse, containing the very prodigal spending and denial of looming deficits that caused it. Washington never fails to use a crisis to compound the underlying elements of the crisis.

 
UPDATE: Also, have you heard the reason that green energy, Hollywood and bank/corporate tax cuts were included in the last-minute fiscal cliff deal? It was legislation that was previously crafted which OBAMA insisted be part of the deal.  I roll my eyes, to counter the sinking in my gut over the mess that is government spending.

Wednesday, January 2, 2013

Passage?

Though the Senate deal was significantly worse in many ways for Republicans than the much-derided Plan B, the Senate deal passed. Why? It was absolutely the last possible time to act to protect any Americans at all. You don't have to like it. You can hold your representatives accountable if you want. But, however bad the deal for America (adding $3.9T over 10 years compared to the fiscal cliff) be grateful that although payroll taxes are going back up, income taxes for most Americans are not. That would certainly add insult to injury in a precarious economy such as we operate under, and have for the past four years of negligence from President Obama.

I admit I am relieved to have an additional $100/mo tax burden instead of $300/mo. It would be have been extremely difficult to make the necessary cuts in our budget to accomodate $300/mo. Why, oh why won't Congress make cuts and save Americans the extra money and jobs and spare us all the rising costs of living which come from businesses passing along the higher tax rates to consumers to stay in business? What happened to government of the people, by the people, and for the people? The benefits from government are far smaller per taxpayer than they would be administered under the private sector, which operates with less bureaucratic overhead.

Paul Ryan explained his vote for the bill:
“We’ll never get our debt under control unless we tackle its main drivers: too little economic growth and too much spending. Without presidential leadership, it will be difficult to forge bipartisan solutions to our debt and economic challenges.
“Today, I joined my colleagues in the House to protect as many Americans as possible from a tax increase. We also provided certainty by making the lower tax rates permanent. The House has already passed legislation to prevent tax increases for every American family, and it is unfortunate that President Obama insisted on taking more from hardworking taxpayers. Despite my concerns with other provisions in the bill, I commend my colleagues for limiting the damage as much as possible.
“The American people chose divided government. As elected officials, we have a duty to apply our principles to the realities of governing. And we must exercise prudence. We must weigh the benefits and the costs of action—and of inaction. In H.R. 8, there are clearly provisions that I oppose. But the question remains: Will the American people be better off if this law passes relative to the alternative? In the final analysis, the answer is undoubtedly yes. I came to Congress to make tough decisions—not to run away from them.
“Now, we must return our attention to the real problem: out-of-control spending. Washington’s reckless spending drives the debt. And this debt is hurting the economy today. Unless we get at the heart of the problem, Americans will face a debt crisis—one that will threaten our most vulnerable in particular. It is our responsibility to prevent such a crisis.”
My fear is that Republicans will similarly cave to Democrats on significant spending cuts. The bill passed last night is crafted such that the two month delay in sequestration will automatically happen - if Congress does not again intervene. However, experience with this administration would suggest that Democrats will do what they can to delay what must inevitably occur if we're serious about saving the country. Obama will get what he wants by hook or by crook. The only reason he wanted this bill over the fiscal cliff (which he loved for all the tax money it would have given him) is that it delayed the spending, meaning that continued delays could happen inevitably if he got his way!

The Republicans have two things going for them. First, this time, the spending can happen by default separately from any increase in taxes negotiated by Democrats. Second, the debt ceiling debate looms again. We face certain downgrades if we raise the debt ceiling without cutting spending. That doesn't mean that Obama won't try to increase taxes again as part of that debate. He will. He wants Americans to pay for his reckless increases in spending rather than to cut anything. Irresponsibility and arrogance to the max!

I just hope that the Republicans will realize the position of strength that they have and use it to their advantage and to the advantage of our country and countrymen. For we cannot spend more and more without paying for it eventually, Democrats. And taxes surely slow the economy and increase unemployment: it's already happening now. You can't tax your way out of this mess. There's not even enough money in America taxing at 100% to pay for the total deficit. We must cut. And we must cut now.

To win, Republicans need to stop cowering to the liberal news media. They're never going to be covered accurately. Get over it, GOP! Use it to your advantage, as Andrew Breitbart did!