Minimum Wage Increases Drive Up ALL Wages AND Cost Jobs

When the minimum wage is increased it forces upward ALL wages above due to wage compression. When we increase the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 (approximately a 40% increase!), that increases the wage of those at the bottom from $7.25 to $10.10. What about someone making $8? Or $9? Or $10? The law would require that they ALL be raised to at least $10.10. But is that enough for someone previously making $8, $9 or $10? Logically, of course not! Thing is, the compression doesn't stop there. ALL wages above the NEW minimum wage are also affected!

For example, what about someone with 5 years experience and making $10.10 before the minimum wage increase? Is ANY company going to leave their wage there so that they make the same as someone just hired at $10.10? Of course not. Their wage must be increased too. Let's say their wage is increased from $10.10 to $12.50 ... ie, a smaller increase of 'only' 24%. That seems more fair, eh? But what about someone with 8 years experience who was making $12? Now someone less qualified/experienced is making $12.50, 50 cents more than they do. What do you do about that? Raise their wage also to something like $14.40 ... ie, 'only' a 20% increase. Now, what about a person who'd been making $14 before the minimum wage was increased? Can't leave them making less than someone now making $14.40, right? And so on ... with EVERY wage above the new minimum wage.

So, we can see that when the minimum wage is increased, it's NOT just the wages at/near the bottom that get increased. It forces employers to increase the wage of most(!) hourly workers.

Let's examine the resulting impact on employers. If they're forced to give NEARLY ALL hourly workers an average increase of, say 20% (remember it's a 40% increase just for those at the bottom), That's a VERY non-trivial hit to a company's bottom line. It's a historical statistical(!) fact that minimum wage increases hurts employment. Companies either slow their hiring or fire people in order to stay profitable. Would we rather they go bankrupt and have everyone lose their job?

Even President Obama's own CBO understands these economic factors. These consequences are discussed in a new National Review article that references that CBO report.

All of the analysis above is not only common sense when one considers the larger implications but historical facts verify it. We can't keep doing these things and expect different results especially when common sense tells us it's nuts. We've got to think with more common sense and a longer view of things or we're going to allow our federal and state governments to ruin our economy. We can't keep letting those knuckleheads do all our thinking for us!

American Republic Enduring

An interesting quote I read yesterday:

"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." (Alexis de Tocqueville - French writer & historian)

And It Was Republican Policies, Not Democrat, That Created Most Of Those Jobs

It's interesting to hear President Obama and other Democrat leadership take credit for the jobs growth during this 'recovery', anemic as it is. The facts say otherwise.

The jobs improvement in the US occurred almost totally in Republican-led states and has been the result of Republican policies. The states (and cities) with the worst jobs results are nearly all Democrat-led.

Republican governors and/or legislatures have implemented policies that are business-friendly. That's why businesses have been moving to their states in droves. They've also taken action to reduce their states' taxes, debt and spending. Republican states have tended to be fiscally and economically stable during this recovery. Democrat-led states have tended to be the ones in the most trouble economically and fiscally.

President Obama's and Democrat leadership's claims that their policies have led to what anemic improvement we've had in the unemployment numbers is factual nonsense. If anything, their policies have slowed the recovery.

80% Of Jobs Added The Past Four Years Were Part-Time. That's NOT "Growth"!

I thought the state of our economy was bad when I found out recently that the net number of jobs added to our economy the past four years is zero. Here's a reminder of the facts about that:

1. The unemployment rate decrease is almost totally due to people giving up looking for work and leaving the workforce. Another way to say that is, when you stop looking for work you are no longer counted as unemployed which drives the unemployment rate down.
2. If the same number of people were in the workforce now (instead of dropping out of it) as were in it at the beginning of this recession the unemployment rate would be around 11%. The claimed improvement in the unemployment rate is a total illusion.

As if that weren't condemnation enough proving that the economy is not better off after all, we now find out that of the jobs that were created, 80% of them have been part-time! We've been bleeding full-time jobs and replacing them with part-time jobs. That represents a sick economy, not a healthy one.

Contrary to loud and frequent proclamations by the president, his democratic allies and The Media that the jobs picture is better than it was four years ago that's only true if you believe that part-time jobs are just as healthy for our country's economy and for families as are full-time jobs.

Four years after G. W. Bush's tax cuts went fully into effect we had full employment at 4.4%. After four years of President Obama's recovery programs the unemployment rate is still well over 7%, the real unemployment is still(!) near 11% and part-time job increases have outnumbered full-time jobs 4 to 1. Not only has this jobs environment not improved, it's far worse than under Bush after the same duration of jobs policies. Facts can be inconvenient things, huh?

If Detroit's Recovery Is Important Then We Must Begin By Understanding The Root Causes Of Its Problems

I say it every time about our nation's troubles/challenges: The Truth Matters! It matters because we CANNOT fix our country's problems until we have the courage(!) to BOTH understand the root issues AND fix those instead of succumbing to political correctness and doing things that feel good or simply have good optics. The appearance of doing something is perceived to represent progress whether it does anything good or useful. Appearance is everything. Honesty and integrity? Forget about it! That's too old-fashioned.

There are some facts, to the extent one cares about truth, that would be irrational on a cosmic scale to ignore. This research/analysis by The Heritage Foundation is relevant and important to anyone who actually cares more about fixing Detroit's problems than political agenda or political correctness.

Is it relevant that Detroit was one of the premier cities in the US, in the world in fact, in the 50's and 60's and is now in third-world condition? What happened there beginning 40 years ago? For one thing, it has been run by only liberal politicians/policies since 1972. Is that relevant? Let me answer that by asking a question: who would claim credit if that city were still a shining example as it was 50-60 years ago? Is it relevant that our country's explosion in union control over companies' management and in union-secured benefits began there 50 years ago? Is it relevant that Detroit's leadership has been among the most corrupt of all large cities in recent decades ... leading to conviction and jail time for many of those highest in city government? Is it relevant that about half of Detroit's adults are illiterate and only 7% of the kids entering high school are 7th grade level proficient in reading? (By the way, becoming educated requires(!) personal choice/commitment. No teacher or school can 'make' one become educated if one has no interest in it. One's attitude has everything to do with it. Check out Dr. Benjamin Carson's biography if you don't believe one can overcome poverty, a broken family, peer pressure, and even racism to become educated anyway.) Is it relevant that all these ills have resulted in spite of Detroit being one of the biggest consumers of state and federal (ie, taxpayer) largesse?

On a more general note, could it be more clear that what one would call tough love is not only necessary but sufficient? Detroit needs the city equivalent of what company restructuring can do to restore a company from bankruptcy thus restoring it to self-sufficiency and success. Now that a capable-appearing city manager has been put in charge, the extent to which Detroit can be restored depends almost entirely on what unions and the state of Michigan do to help solve Detroit's problems rather than holding illogically, in fact suicidally onto proven corrupt 'deals' (people went to jail but their deals stayed in place) of the past. It's time for honest and courageous introspection independent of any(!) political agenda or political correctness.

All-Knowing But Totally Oblivious

This is insane!

Leader after leader in this administration parades before congressional committees and claims ignorance about things they're paid to know ... and CARE ... about. Things they are PAID TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT!

A scandal breaks out within the Justice department and the guy in charge (Att'y Gen'l Holder) doesn't know what's been going on AND DOESN'T CARE ENOUGH TO FIND OUT? Recusing himself has far more to do with wanting to avoid it like the plague than doing his stinking job. He goes before the people in charge of our government and isn't motivated to come prepared with ANY answers as to why his organization is doing things that are causing a national uproar? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. What, sir? Are you completely stupid in addition to being ignorant and incompetent? You must think WE are that stupid too!

The Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, did the same exact thing. Someone decided to change ACTUAL INTELLIGENCE from "planned terrorist attack" to the completely MADE-UP(!) "the video caused a spontaneous mob action" and she neither knows that happened nor cares to find out who did it? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. What, madam? Are you completely stupid in addition to being ignorant AND incompetent? You must think WE are that stupid too!

And then there's the President, who's the 'boss' of them all. He ALSO HAD NO CLUE either of these things were going on AND DOESN'T CARE ENOUGH TO FIND OUT what's really going on with either of them? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I'll relentlessly pursue what's going on, TRUST ME! What, sir? Like you did with Fast and Furious and all the other scandalous things you promised(!) you'd take care of? Do YOU also think we're stupid?

You think you're not complicit just because YOU didn't cause any of this? You're THE MOST complicit by doing nothing about it when you're the people in charge! CEO's of real companies get fired ... immediately ... for this kind of nonsense. They're paid to make their companies successful and when trouble comes, to LEAD fixing it. The people currently in charge of our federal government seem to think they're only there to take credit for whatever good things happen whether they're responsible for them or not. You don't hear them saying I don't know when someone asks them about a success thing down in the ranks below them. In fact, they RUN to get in front of it to APPEAR like it was totally their doing.

These people are insulting our intelligence and defying common sense. And they're running our government? What's up with this?

Plausible deniability has morphed into bonehead ignorance in practice. Do we really want leaders who are this ignorant of what's going on in their organizations and don't care enough about bad things when they happen to PROACTIVELY(!) find out what's going on and practice REAL LEADERSHIP in getting to the root of them ... and fixing them?

What's wrong with these people? We didn't hire them to only work hard at remaining ignorant about what's going on beneath them! Good grief!

For 40 Years Americans Have INSISTED Our Government Close The Borders So Why Haven't They?

The ONE thing American citizens have been VERY clear about ... for 40 years(!!!) ... is wanting the federal government to close our borders to illegal entry. YES, conservatives ALSO want the immigrants here to have some kind of legal status. A work visa or some such thing at a minimum. To say conservatives don't want them to have some kind of legal status is a bald-faced lie.

You want proof? We relented TWICE on having amnesty first, having extracted a PROMISE by democrats to close the borders. We've done amnesty TWICE so by what warped logic can anyone claim we oppose it? How many times have democrats actually closed the border? ZERO times! Who is being intransigent and unsupporting? What's the REAL TRUTH? We are thoroughly fed up with democrats' collective passive-aggressive behavior on this! We have never opposed legal status (some form of amnesty) and we still do not! How much longer must we suffer their lies and thoroughly irresponsible behavior?

After TWICE getting screwed via democrats' broken promises, why should ANYONE be surprised that we now insist that the borders get closed FIRST? "Give us amnesty again and we PROMISE we'll close the borders first" democrats are saying again. Even republicans in the gang of eight are saying the same thing. On what RATIONAL basis are we to believe these guys .... AGAIN?

For 40 years, a majority of Americans have been saying the borders MUST be closed. What has been stopping mainly democrats the past 40 years from passing a bill that simply closes the border? Surely they could have closed it in all this time! IF they wanted to! Ah, there's the rub. Our politicians don't really want to do what a large majority of American citizens want them to do!!!

By the way, isn't it clear that closing the borders logically(!) requires NO preconditions to be done successfully? They could pass a bill tomorrow that does that and only that. Americans would support it by a huge majority. So why don't they do that?

We'd be STUPID to fall for the amnesty first argument ... AGAIN!

Ah, For The Good Old Days After Bush II's Tax Cuts!

Don't you all long for the good old days created by Bush II's tax cuts? Remember what happened after the majority (80%) of his tax cuts were implemented at the end of May 2003? One month later the unemployment rate peaked out at 6.3% and began a steady decline in only 3 1/2 years to 'Clinton levels' of 4.4%. And only three or four months after Bush II's tax cuts cut in, federal revenue began a steady climb to a record(!) $2.6 Trillion (also in only 3 1/2 years), some 30% higher than achieved under Clinton for the same unemployment rate?

Of course The Left loves to fallaciously tie the 2008 economic problem to those Bush tax cuts and policies in spite of the fact(!) that they had nothing to do with it and in spite of the fact(!) that his tax cuts helped both unemployment and federal revenue until something totally unrelated cratered the economy. Remember that the 2008 collapse was triggered instead by the sub-prime mess that had nothing whatsoever to do with Bush tax cuts or policies? I'm sure those drinking The Left's Kool-Aid still choose(!) not to remember those inconvenient facts but that's what actually happened for those of you who 'can handle the truth'.

To MSNBC: What About President Obama's "Economic Acumen"? How Has That Worked Out?

Funny, FUNNY headline today on MSNBC: "Romney sells his economic acumen, but voters may not be buying".

That's flat hilarious!!! Of course they mean compared with Obama's "economic acumen", right? Our economy is stuck in a ditch that Obama said he'd have fixed long before now and HE has "economic acumen"? He was hailed as the smartest president ever. He AND the lame-stream media went out of their way to claim that no one on the planet knew what was wrong and how to fix it better than he did. If he was so smart, why is he now saying he didn't know how bad it was? Isn't that an admission that he was ignorant regarding the problem instead(!) of being the smartest about it?

How the media can say such things with a collective straight face is amusing isn't it?

President Obama Once Again Proves(!) He Doesn't Understand Our Founding Or Our Constitution

President Obama doesn't understand what the founding of this country was all about any more than he understands the constitution (as I explained a couple of blogs ago)

Regarding the constitution, just because he taught constitutional law doesn't mean he understands the constitution. One can attempt to teach something without truly understanding it. Just because you teach a subject doesn't mean you understand it correctly.

What he was teaching is the progressive view of constitutional law that what's lawful is not what the constitution says or was intended to mean. He was NOT teaching the constitution; rather how to change it!!! Hello People! What he was teaching is the progressive view that legal precedence trumps(!) the constitution. By that vehicle, therefore, the Supreme Court could have the power to change the constitution (the way progressives want) instead of defending its principles. Once they say something is constitutional, that makes it so ... whether either the founders or the constitution itself said so in the beginning. In effect, they can choose to define something as lawful that the founders tried mightily to prevent. It is they who can say what they want the constitution to support now whether that was supported originally or not. That is NOT what the founders intended ... AT ALL!

Now President Obama has the audacity to claim he's actually in sync with the founders. What a crazy idea that is! In a 4/19/12 article titled "The Governing Class and Us" the Heritage editors described his disconnect as follows: "President Barack Obama delivered a politically charged speech (on 4/18/12 in Elyria, OH) in which he hearkened back to the country's roots, saying that his opponents "don't seem to remember how America was built." In his view, taxpayers want their money spent in ways that will help further "the larger project we call America." In other words, more spending and bigger government paid for with higher taxes."

America was built on the principle of a small federal government with very limited power. President Obama's goal is to increase the scope, size and control of the federal government, period! As a progressive he believes there is no ill in our land that the federal government cannot fix ... if we give it sufficient money and bureaucratic power. That is what the founders worked hard to prevent!!! Even the liberals of those founding days ('old' liberalism per Herbert Hoover) understood the evils of big, powerful and controlling government. After all, they had just fought for our freedom from England over that very thing.

President Obama thinks his Republican opponents don't remember how America was built? Good grief! It is he who doesn't know our history! It's a good thing he never taught that subject ... progressives are terrible at teaching it but revising history is what they do best!!!

Learn from the evils in history or you'll be doomed to repeat them. Our founders knew that. They knew from history and their own experience with King George the inevitable results of big and powerful government. They did their best to prevent it here and they succeeded for about 200 years. Now this knucklehead of a president wants us to believe his revision of our own history. He must think we're stupid!

Taxing The Rich At Odds With The Electric Car Agenda

President Obama's progressive policies are running headlong into each other, mutual destruction style. Mr. Obama's tax plan, meet Mr. Obama's 'plan' for electric cars!

There's a big problem with electric cars. They're expensive. So expensive in fact that the market for them is pretty much limited to people making more than $200,000 per year according to Robert Bryce's quote of Deloitte Consulting about this.

But, wait a minute! Aren't those the same people whose income is about to take a big dive if Obama gets his way with his tax-the-rich scheme? Seems to me that those 'evil rich' people will be less able and less inclined to buy those electric cars that only they used to be able to afford.

Progressives tend to believe they can create (force) a market where one doesn't exist by force of power or taxpayer money. Problem is, that only works in college classrooms ... at progressive institutions. In the real world, the market is determined by what people want and can afford. Progressives may not like capitalism but, in the end, it rules the day. Produce a product few people want (because it doesn't work or meet a real need) or can afford and they won't buy it.

That approach didn't work in communist Russia when the government decided to control shoe production. They created a standard shoe that would be made throughout the country and they made more than enough for everyone. Yet, there was a shoe shortage. Why? Because no Russians wanted the shoe designed by their government. Those plentiful shoes piled up in government-owned shoe stores and people went without shoes because that was easier on their feet than wearing a bureaucracy's creation.

Hmmmmm. Is it 'back to the drawing board' time on your policies yet Mr. President? Perhaps on your progressive approach to things as well?

Even Progressives 'Get' The Issue With ObamaCare

"The Far Right" wasn't so nutty after all! We claimed from the beginning that ObamaCare would cost more, not less, and that it would add to the deficit in spite of President Obama's assurances to the contrary. We used common sense at the time. We had no choice because ObamaCare's instigators were hiding the truth and playing shell games with our tax money. We suspected, based simply on common sense, what has become provably true now. Check out two NRO articles.

First, John Fund's description of what happened includes this:

"As early as last September, a panel of liberal journalists on NBC News consisting of MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, the Huffington Post’s Howard Fineman, and David Ignatius of the Washington Post all agreed that Obama’s “biggest political mistake” was devoting so much time and attention to health care. “The idea of launching a major change in social legislation without having a consensus in the country and in Congress about what that should look like was a mistake,” Ignatius summed up. “That’s just not how a president makes good policy.”"

The reaction of us on 'the far right': Well, DUH!!! Those kinds of comments are startling to progressives across America but we far right crazy people can reasonably and quite rationally claim We Told You So!

Second is Michael Barone's article on the real cost of ObamaCare. Smoke and mirrors at a minimum. Lies and subterfuges would be a more honest assessment.

It's Ironic That President Obama Is Accusing The Supreme Court Of Activism

So, the Prez is accusing the Supreme Court of judicial activism should it overturn part/all of ObamaCare. That's ironic because creating ObamaCare was an act of progressive activism and of executive activism. Actually, I guess the Prez ought to know what activism is since he's the most practiced president of it in our entire history. Who better to judge what is or is not activism? ;-)

Well, if it is judicial activism, I say so be it. Sometimes it takes an act of activism to counter an activist action. One can accurately say, however, that it's not the Supreme Court that would be activist in this case. The real activism in this case was the Prez's health care law. Overturning it would be an act of patriotism and constitutional support/enforcement. It would be honoring, y'know, that pesky oath they ALL take to uphold, preserve and protect the constitution of the United States.

The Prez, by that legislation and his threats(!) toward the Supreme Court, has proved once again the irrationality of his claim that he understands the constitution. It proves his claim to knowledge based on having taught constitutional law is invalid. Just because you teach something doesn't mean you understand it correctly and he's proving that he doesn't by actions he takes nearly every day he's in office. The only thing he really understands about the constitution is the progressive agenda for changing it into something it was never intended to be.

Progressives Probably Can't Connect The Dots Between Over-Protective Parents And Over-Protective Government. Government = Our Helmet For Life!

Interesting story about crash helmets for crawlers and toddlers. It's kinda funny to read about the fairly liberal Today Show talking about that as bad for kids because they'll become risk averse and be less likely to succeed at things that have potential for being rough, physical and risky.

An over-protective government does the same thing to people's psyche folks! Too much protection robs people of the opportunity to grow to their maximum ability. Dependency creates a "I prefer safety and comfort" over doing anything that might be difficult, require real sacrifice and at which they might actually fail.

Progressives want to create an over-protective government. That might feel good to lots of people (both the provider and the recipient) but it robs the dependent ones of the opportunity to experience real things in life because it inherently encourages them not to take risks. Life can be exhilarating in both good and bad ways. Thing is, we LEARN IMPORTANT THINGS FROM BAD EXPERIENCES! We become more resilient and less likely to repeat what caused it. We become better survivors!!! Living in the government's protective bubble does the opposite of encouraging people to become survivors and experience all they can in life.

Yes, crawlers can bang their heads into things and there are probably statistics 'out there' that can show some number of crawlers hurt themselves seriously. But a far worse problem is that keeping a helmet on them doesn't teach them what to avoid in the future when they have no helmet. The only solution then will be helmets for life sold in all sizes from one minute old to the latest possible age.

Same for government. Progressives think we need government to protect us throughout our lives so we don't experience any of the vagaries of life. Under their plan, government becomes our helmet for life. Problem is, we'll never actually get to experience life that way! How boring and unfulfilling is that? Hello! Earth to Progressives!

We Need To Understand What We're Up Against With The Middle East And Islamism

Too many Americans don't know history very well thanks largely to the sanitizing efforts of the progressive movement in our education system. Too many of those who have heard the historical facts don't know how to add them up, thanks again to PC-think being ingrained in our kids for several generations now. And the media whose job used to be informing us about the facts of things are so invested in the progressive PC-think culture that they won't share the truth because it doesn't line up with the appeasement philosophy within the progressive agenda.

Every once in a while however someone in the media explains elements of what's going on in the Middle East in an informative and honest way. We should pay more attention for our future's sake. If you're one of those rare folks who are interested in the truth, won't hide from it, won't irrationally dismiss it, and care about where it'll take us if we ignore it, read Clifford May's article, "It's Not The Arab Spring, It's The Nahda". in NRO earlier today.

A President Of The USA Who Doesn't Know The Role Or Authority Of The Supreme Court Doesn't Know Squat About The Constitution Or Maybe He Just Doesn't Care

Per President Obama: "Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress". And he said that it would be an act of "judicial activism" to overturn his health care legislation.

There are so many things wrong with those knuckle-headed statements that I hardly know where to begin. Basically, he doesn't understand the constitutional principle of separation of powers. Nor does he understand either the authority or role of the Supreme Court.

First, ObamaCare did NOT pass by "a strong majority". In the House it passed 219 to 212 ... by 4 votes out of 431 (4 yea votes going the other way would have defeated it 216 to 215). Even 34 Democrats voted against it! To call it "a strong majority" and to claim it would be "unprecedented" are nothing short of lies as Thomas Sowell had the courage to say. Sowell also exposed the deceptive nature of so much that President Obama does/says. He's expertly adept at distortion and at cover-ups when his deceptions are exposed.

Second, it is nowhere near unprecedented of the Supreme Court to strike down a law of economic or any other importance. It's what they do! Hello!

Third, to say that the Supreme Court isn't paying attention to the 'will' of the majority in the legislature President Obama is demonstrating his complete lack of understanding that the Supreme Court's job is to NOT rule based on any will of any majority. Their job is to determine whether the expressed will of Congress' majority is constitutional. It doesn't and, constitutionally, ought not matter to the Supreme Court justices how popular a piece of legislation is. OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT (IE, OUR VERY FREEDOM AND LIBERTY) IS, IN FACT, DEPENDENT ON THE SUPREME COURT NOT BENDING TO THE WILL OF EITHER OF THE OTHER TWO BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT!!!

And to hear President Obama claim "judicial activism" is laughable! His policies and actions comprise the very definition of (progressive) activism in a major branch of government!!! He only needs to look into a mirror to see who's practicing 'activism' in our federal government ... executive activism in his case.

He is SOOOOOOO off-base with his comments directed at the Supreme Court that I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Laugh about how ridiculous his thinking is. Cry about what his approach to national governance means to our constitution and our freedom.

John Fund's article covers all the various aspects of President Obama's 'warning' to the Supreme Court is the best of many I've seen.

GADS PEOPLE! DO YOU UNDERSTAND HOW SERIOUS A PROBLEM THIS IS? HOW SERIOUS A RISK IT IS TO OUR REPUBLIC?

President Obama: "I Don't Bluff!!!" Uh, Pardon Me Sir But What About All Those Pesky Campaign Promises?

When commenting about the challenge of keeping Iran from developing nuclear weapons and America's promise(!) to not let that happen, President Obama said a few days ago that "I am not a bluffer!". Are you kidding me?

Based on President Obama's campaign promises (most of which went unfulfilled) one could easily justify labelling him The Bluffer-In-Chief because he didn't keep his word on most of his promises ... to his own citizens!. And he now expects us and Israel to believe that we can trust his promise to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons! C'mon folks! Does it make more sense to base our belief whether he's bluffing on words or on his historical lack of action on previous promises?

IMPORTANT QUESTION: If you were Israel's leader would you (based on President Obama's actual track record) trust President Obama's promises when your country's very existence depended on it?

President Obama's campaign promises didn't become truth so were they lies or bluffs or naivete? If naivete is the reason, isn't it likely that he's being naive now and will back down to Iran when real consequences loom? If his campaign promises were lies or bluffs, that's no better than naivete is it? Regardless how one dissects President Obama's latest not-a-bluffer claim, his record (assuming actual facts matter to you) is one of not doing much of what he says he'll do. If you were Netanyahu, what would you think and do? Be honest now!

Political Cage Fights Are NOT WHAT WE WANT!!! KNOCK IT OFF MEDIA!!!

The Lamestream Media is so transparent it's humorous. They're working very hard at creating a food fight among Republican candidates so that we can avoid a national discussion of the substantive issues of our times.

CNN is the absolute worst. Their moderators spend entire debates framing questions in ways that require candidates to attack each other rather than the issues themselves. I suspect CNN sees those as one in the same but they're not.

WISE UP MEDIA! What we NEED from you is to frame and present questions in ways that candidates have to explain(!) their positions, not defend them. What we want is to hear what each candidate's positions are on substantive issues presented to us clearly and directly. THEN LET US(!) decide which positions we favor. We DO NOT WANT YOU to create brawls on the stage such that the last guy standing is the winner.

Yes, we WANT to hear them each differentiate themselves from Obama so that we can decide FOR OURSELVES which one represents our interests the best relative to his administration. The more time the spend defending themselves, the less time the have to explain how they'd do better than Obama.

Somehow The Media has gotten it in their collective minds that they have to create an environment where debates become like a Survivor season. Or create a Roman gladiator kind of environment. These debates are becoming the political equivalent to cage fighting and we're sick of it.

We care more about the content of their policies than their ability to survive a cage fight on stage at these debates. Yeah, we do want a good fighter for a president but policies matter more. These debate cage fights are good theater to some but we want to know what these candidates think are the root of our problems and what they think will fix that. We're not getting that so KNOCK IT OFF!!! PLEASE!!!

It's Okay For Muslims To Puposely Kill Christians And Destroy Their Churches But Burning Qurans Deserves Protests And Requires Accountability And Profuse Apology From Our President

We Americans do NOT have as an objective or policy to destroy or deface Qurans much less kill Muslims for simply being Muslims. As a matter of choice and fact we make a strong effort to show respect for Islam and what Muslims hold sacred. We even practice self-accountablility.

On the other hand, whole Islamic countries have it as their primary goal in life to destroy America, especially Christian Americans, and actually do so at every opportunity. Muslims destroy Christian churches and kill Christians for simply being Christians.

When an American does mess up and deface a Quran our own policies as well as Muslim demands result in profuse apologies and strong accountability. If many Muslims had their way our response would include the severist of penalties (inlucing death) for those who'd do such a thing. Such an offense requires of many Muslims to conduct angry protests demanding retribution.

On the other hand, when Muslims kill Americans and Christians we do nothing in retaliation and Muslims feel no obligation to apologize for it, much less hold the responsible people accountable in any way.

What's wrong with this picture?

Agenda And Supporting Spin Matter More Than Truth, Integrity, Principles, And The Constitution

To this administration, spin has become an art form. Just as in art, what they're doing doesn't make a lot of sense to a lot of people but something that's going on this week makes their "spin versus principle and honesty" instincts clear to everyone.

Penalties for not purchasing health care ARE TAXES!
The adminstration sent its Justice (HA!) Branch attack dogs to the Supreme Court this week to defend the ObamaCare penalties. Their argument to the justices: the penalites are taxes and therefore are constitutional because the executive and legislative branches have constitutional authority to levy taxes. In fact, however, this administration doesn't actually care whether they are taxes; it's strictly an argument of convenience and necessity not honesty.

AND(!) Penalites for not purchasing health care ARE NOT TAXES!
The administration also sent it's budget director to Capitol Hill the very same day(!) this week to defend ObamaCare. The budget director was asked by a congressional committee this week whether those penalties were taxes. He evaded and evaded and evaded but the congressmen persisted and insisted he answer the question. When he finally relented, he said, the penalties are not taxes. Why does this administration want Congress to believe the opposite (HUH?) of what they want the Supreme Court to believe? Because this administration knows that Americans, even their own supporters, are intolerant of tax increases on the middle class and that Congress would therefore be inclined to toss out some/much/all of ObamaCare if it raised taxes on the poor and middle class.

What do people possess in the way of principles when they argue before Congress one thing and at the same time(!) argue (as a matter of choice!) before the Supreme Court the exact(!) opposite? It's one thing for different entities on opposite sides of legislation to take opposing views. It's another thing altogether for the same entity to take totally opposite positions at the exact same time to different groups of people. What is that? Schizophrenia? A political kind of insanity? Or just agenda taking priority at all times, at all costs and over all things including reason and common sense?

Does this administration not understand that they've made a conscious decision(!) to lie? Either to Congress or to the Supreme Court? That places them in technical legal contempt of court or contempt of Congress because one claim must be untrue. This administration has no problem being dishonest to one of the three brances of our federal government. Which implies that they'd have no problem being dishonest to either one or, by extension, to The People. And what about being consistent with, much less submissive to the Constitution? Isn't it therefore fair to assume that, to this administration, agenda trumps the Constitution if they can find any possible way make it submissive to that agenda rather than the other way around? Maybe that defines progressivism.

It turns this into a plausible, sensible question: how are we to know when/whether they're lying to the American people if they have no problem choosing(!) to lie to Congress or the Supreme Court for purely agenda-driven purposes? If they're willing to consciously lie to one of the branches of government this way, doesn't it mean that, to these people, agenda trumps honesty, integrity, principle, and even the Constitution ... at ALL times? The Constitution thereby being something to bend to the will of one's agenda, ie to progressivism.

The CLEAR bottom line: What's hilarious if it weren't so incompetent, this adminstration doesn't know OR care whether the penalites are taxes and will argue it whichever way meets the approval of whomever they're speaking to at any one time. Truth, integrity, principle, and even the Constitution are irrelevant. All that matters is getting their current audience whomever it is to believe what they're saying at any given moment so that ObamaCare (or any other item on their agenda) survives. Protecting that trumps everything, period, no exceptions. If they'll purposely distort truth before Congress and/or the Supreme Court, how much more easily are they capable (and driven!) to do the same with us citizens? Are you okay with that? I'm not!

In Fact, it's not even a rhetorical question any more ... they played the same truth-distorting game with us on this already! Do you remember when they were trying to get Americans' buy-in on ObamaCare and they encountered resistance because those penalties looked like taxes to us at the time? Do you remember that they already said to us before that these are not taxes? Doesn't it bother you that they're now before the Supreme Court arguing that they are taxes? Their lawyers believe these are not taxes but they have no difficulty telling us they aren't!!! So it isn't even a question whether they'll play games with and distort truth to us. They have already done so!!! Do we care about honesty and integrity in our president? I do!