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?

A President And Government Of ALL The People? Hardly!

A "Special Briefing" on Benghazi was held just before yesterday's press briefing. For "select" members of The Media. I'm sure the liberal attendees did indeed feel "special" but what about the concept of freedom of the press? Doesn't the concept of a free press have as a fundamental precept openness by administrations to ALL 'The Press', not just the ones that find themselves on the good side of a president?

What kind of message does that deliver? Better be nice to us if you want to get the inside scoop on things. If you print something that makes us look bad you run the risk of not being invited back. We'll send you to a 'time out' if you misbehave. That's CONTROL (by exclusion) of the press, not freedom of the press.

Adding emphasis to this administration's hostility toward all things conservative is the other news yesterday that the IRS targeted conservative groups for 'special' investigation if the terms "Tea Party" or "Patriot" are in any way connected with a group claiming tax-exempt status. Hmmmmm. You don't suppose they'd do that with their counterpart groups on the left end of the political spectrum that dare call themselves progressive do you? That would be fair and balanced would it not?

What kind of message does that deliver? Better not create a group like that or promote yourself that way on our watch or you'll get 'special treatment' by the IRS. Isn't that nice? How special, huh? Everyone knows how much fun it is to get 'special treatment' by the IRS.

And what if one happens to be an officer in such groups? By definition, they'd be getting extra scrutiny by the IRS as they dig into what the group may or may not be doing. Having been on the executive committee of one I'm no doubt on the IRS watch list.

What do you suppose will be the IRS' reaction to this news being made public? Will they simply stop doing that or will they simply do it more surreptitiously?

Also, if the IRS is giving extra attention to Tea Party and Patriot groups, doesn't that imply it's most likely true that other government departments are also giving 'special treatment' to them AND their membership too?

Understand that this is coercive action by the government. It's a more passive-aggressive form of it but that's what it is, plain and simple. By definition it is the antithesis of freedom and constitutional principles.

Oh, it feels SO good to receive such special treatment by my government. Media representing my interests cannot get into White House briefings and groups with which I associate come under special investigation by agents of the government simply because we have an opposing political view. Never mind that we do things peacefully compared with the likes of the left's "Occupy" movement.

Thank you Mr. President. You make me feel SO SPECIAL!

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!

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?

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?

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!

Pay Attention To President Obama's Progressive Instincts Because A President's Instincts Matter

Heed Obama's instincts because they'll matter far more if he's re-elected!

ALL Liberty Is Under Assault By This Progressive Agenda, Not Just Religious Liberty!

We didn't need this current issue of HHS forcing religious organizations to provide contraceptives and the morning after abortion pill to know about President Obama's progressive instincts. But it surely provides added clarity for those of you who still don't get it or what's at stake because of it.

Three years ago he and a Democratic congress rammed ObamaCare down our throats, going out of their way to ignore(!) pleas by Congressional Republicans to at least debate the legislation. By unilaterally forcing it on Americans they put us on notice that they ARE(!) determined to do whatever they want, arrogantly refusing(!) to debate important legislation and thereby patently refusing to compromise. That they dare to claim high ground on compromise and blame lack of it on Republicans demonstrates both their arrogance and commitment to implementing a progressive agenda no matter what. That action on one of the most important pieces of legislation in our country's history proves clearly what their basic and default instincts are: No compromise! In fact, take no prisoners ... no mercy!

So, here we go again this week with their affirmation(!) that ObamaCare requires religious institutions to provide the forementioned 'medical' coverage. That they could utter those words in total defiance of constitutional principles ought to alarm everyone. That they subsequently capitulated to an outcry and backed off that requirement isn't the important news.

They do not deserve credit for being magnanimous or fair by changing their minds. If they were those things they wouldn't have implemented or later affirmed the requirement in the first place. They didn't change their minds because they saw the error in requiring such a thing. What's important is their arrogance even daring to make it a requirement in the first place and then in the face of strong opposition reaffirming it! The possibility of losing the Catholic vote is what made them change their minds, not an understanding(!) how wrong they were in the first place. The important lesson for us is that it demonstrates their instincts favoring(!) unilateral force (Compromise? What's that?), progessive agenda trumps all considerations and ignoring constitutional principles and laws that stand in their way. Have they apologized for going too far? Heck no! What they're sorry about is not getting what they still(!) want.

Why this is so important:
Their instincts have mattered these past three years. They will matter even more should they get another four years to push their progressive agenda. If you think the arrogance of this administration has been excessive his first term, just wait to see what a second term will bring when he's not constrained by re-election worries! And if Democrats should gain control of the House and Senate you will see a progressive assault on liberty, free enterprise and constitutional principles and freedoms that you or our founders never imagined possible in Our Republic.

Seriously President Obama, Please Put Some Effort Into Understanding What Leadership Is And Is Not

Here's an article that puts accurately into words/explanation what I've blogged all over the map about:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/290203/out-touch-obama-michael-barone

Most people seem to think this kind of behavior is 'unpresidential' of him. For sure it's that in great degree but is too unspecific for me. To me, he's completely lacking in leadership skills. Divisive, aloof, no clue about team building much less teamwork, no clue about decision-making, no clue about how to do balanced budgets or why that and no debt are important.

It's sad for me to see this in a president. As I proudly(!) blogged on his inauguration day, "A genuinely momentus day in our history today as an African-American, Barack Obama, is sworn in as president! We pray for a new spirit of cooperation, mutual respect and responsibility throughout our country that focuses not on divisive attitudes but on resolving the problems we face with courage and resolve in God's good grace."

To say I'm disappointed is a huge understatement.

Obama And The Pipeline Non-Decision: It Does NOTHING To Protect The Environment

Regarding my previous blog on this subject, one has to wonder which of the following are the actual reasons President Obama said more information was needed about the pipeline's environmental impact:

1. He and all his so-called experts on the environment really don't know what the impact will be even though they've had three(!) years to investigate it or
2. This administration's desire to drive up the cost of fossil fuels to make 'clean energy' cost-competitive overrides all other considerations so it's better to just cut off a debate that's based on science and reason or
3. They do know the answers to the environmental questions but they don't like the answers because they affirm the pipeline won't cause any significant environmental damage ... so they need to keep studying it until they get answers that support their agenda-driven biases.

Since our Canadian friends won't wait any longer for an answer, option #3 doesn't really mean this administration intends to keep studying it. After all, what's the point of further investigation since Canada won't pursue it with us any longer? So this is the best of all worlds for the Obama administration. Not only do they get to say no to the pipeline, they even get to stop studying whatever science might inconveniently affirm the pipeline poses no significant risk. It's a win-win for their agenda. Unfortunately, it's also a lose-lose for America.

What's hilarious is that the president's decision doesn't do anything to protect the environment. The risk to the environment is no different whether the pipeline crosses the USA or Canada to their west coast. In fact, the president's "no" decision increases the environmental risks! Once Canada's oil gets to their west coast it'll be put on ships and hauled all the way across the Pacific. Ships leak and crash. That's a NET INCREASE IN RISK to the planet's environment in a place where it's much harder to clean up than on land. Also, that oil will be used in China in ways that are more environmentally harmful than the ways we'd use it. Also, that pipeline would have allowed us to bring in less oil from other countries by ship. That's an opportunity lost to reduce the risk of an offshore oil spill from tankers ... another UNNECESSARY RISK TO THE ENVIRONMENT that could have been diminished if the pipeline had been approved.

So to say no due to environment reasons is laughably absurd. It defies logic in so many ways it makes me wonder how smart they are. Or how stupid they think we are.

On The Pipeline Deal The President Voted 'Present' ... Again

The president's excuse for disapproving the Canadian pipeline shows poor leadership skills. It's a teachable moment in which to describe what comprises good leadership skills regarding decision-making and doing what's best for the entity for whom you work.

Competent leaders keep an eye on key areas affecting a company's future so they can either take advantage of an opportunity before it evaporates or be properly prepared to say no to an opportunity rather than risk rushing into something that will most likely be bad for the entity. Note that I said properly prepared. The more important an area is to the entity's future, the bettter prepared competent leaders are to make a decision before any important deadlines occur after which the opportunity will evaporate.

Would you say that energy is one of our most important issues? President Obama claims it is. He has said so in pretty much every speech he's given as president or as a president candidate. It's important to the future of our energy supplies, to manufacturing, to our economy, and to national security, right? Problem is, after 3 years of evaluating the pipeline's impacts, President Obama is still not done getting information about its environmental impacts. Or so he claims.

A competent leader would have made sure he/she found out all he/she needed to know before Canada's deadline passed. It's irrational to think we couldn't have found out the answers to all relevant questions within three years. We've won world wars in less time and the people in this administration claim to be experts on the environment. Do you really think that this pipeline and its effects on the environment is as complex as winning those world wars? The president has a literal army of self-proclaimed experts looking into the environment issues, including thousands in the private and not-for-profit sectors and they can't figure out the impacts in approximately the time it took to win world wars?

So, either he and his administration are nowhere near as competent on environmental issues as they claim or his pipeline decision is strictly political. Neither answer ought to be acceptable to our citizens. This is too important an issue not to be prepared to make a decision by a deadline we knew has been coming for three years.

Real leaders take responsibility to make sure they're ready to make a decision on important issues based on merit (pros/cons) by deadlines beyond which a decision becomes moot. Real leaders find a way to be ready by deadlines in order to do the right thing for those for whom they work. Not being ready to make a decision is an abdication of responsibility. President Obama really didn't make a decision. In effect, he voted 'present' ... again.

So, we're going to let a very important opportunity pass that we may never get back because he didn't make sure that he knew enough to make a decision yet based on merit (pros/cons). Unacceptable sir. It's your job(!) to become ready. Making excuses for why you weren't ready is weak and irresponsible. You chose the worst of three options ... yes, for specific merit-based reasons, no, for specific merit-based reasons or I don't know yet. This is as weak as saying you didn't turn in your homework because the dog ate it. You knew when it was due. It was your responsibility to get it done on time.

His Majesty, King Obama Can Do Whatever He Wants Irrespective Of Congress Or The Constitution

Obama's recess appointments this week are contrary to the letter of the Constitution, to constitutional principles and to Obama/Democrat principles when Bush was in office. First, check this out:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203471004577140770647994692.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

So, when Obama says he's only doing what George Bush did, he's flat lying. When he says there's precedent for what he's doing, he's flat lying. When he says what he's doing is constitutional he's flat lying.

So, what to make of this? Under Obama the presidency is becoming imperial. That means republic principles have been thrown out the window. In fact, this is no longer even something one could honestly call a "representative democracy" (which, in case you didn't know, is not the same thing as a republic).

Obama can basically do and is, indeed, doing(!) anything he wants without congress' consent/approval. If congress won't approve something on his agenda, he appoints czars to do it from the executive branch or gives(!) authority to one of several executive branch  bureaucracies (like the EPA, FCC and others) to implement his policies without congressional approval OR oversight. That means, my friends, that this is no longer a representative democracy. Your elected representatives in congress have nothing to say about any of this, including his appointments this week in very, very powerful executive branch bureaucracies.

The way it's supposed to work is, the president's party proposes an item on Obama's agenda in the form of legislation. Then either it advances in one house and then moves to the other for approval OR each house (senate and house of representatives) produce their own versions of the legislation at which point both bills go to a conference committee to work out a compromise.

Well, this president doesn't want(!) compromise that's required(!) under our constitution so he goes forward implementing his agenda the way he wants (ie, without the compromise that's required under our constitution!) via the executive branch within bureaucracies that don't answer to congress. In other words, his agenda is implemented without consideration of, consent by or oversight by The People's duly elected representatives.

The Constitution was specifically constructed to prevent any one person having this kind of power. After all, it was such one-man authoritarian control by the king of England without representation from the colonists that led to our declaration of independence and separation from English control. We fought a revolution against one-man, representative-ignoring control over us.

Read the Declaration of Independence. In it, we outlined our grievances with him which include several along the line of these quotes:

"He has dissolved (in our current case, ignored, which is the same in effect/principle) Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasion on the rights of the people."

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance."

"He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our consitution (ie, czars and executive branch bureaucracies in general), and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation." Ie, without approval by the people's representatives.

"... for suspending our own legislature and (executive branch authorities) declaring themselves(!) invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever." Ie, without involvement by the people's representatives.

Our Constitution was constructed to prevent such abuses of power by one man or many men. It was never(!) intended for a president to have such authority over us without congress' involvement in every respect that has significant effects on us. In fact, the constitution was constructed to give congress(!) ultimate authority over such things via their veto-override authority. Therefore, the Constitution says Congress may pass legislation without the president's approval. And the president may NOT put legislation into effect by any means outside the authority of congress. Instead, President Obama is acting like HE has ultimate authority regardless what congress will or will not support. He won't even give them a chance to work out compromise legislation because he wants to get his way 100% and has no interest in compromise as structured into our constitution.

This is becoming an imperial presidency and that's abhorent to truly freedom-loving people.

Want To Know The Date By Which Iran Will Be Nuclear Capable? January 20, 2013

January 20, 2013 is not only the date our president will be sworn in next year. It's the date by which you can bet Iran is planning(!) to have a nuclear weapon and the means to deliver it. Why? Because that's the date by which a Republican president, if elected, will stop taking any nonsense from Iran.

That means Iran will have a nuclear weapon test later this year to ensure they have a deliverable weapon by January 20, 2013 at which time a Republican, if elected, would take a stronger position on Iran's development of nuclear weapons. Unfortuately, all this blustering by Republican candidates about preventing Iran from having nuclear weapons is moot. By the time a Republican can be sworn in, Iran will, in all likelihood, already have deliverable nuclear weapons.

Iran having nuclear weapons is a scary thing to contemplate but an honest person has to acknowledge it's likely to happen because the current administration is unwilling to do what's necessary to prevent it. The appeasement approach they thought would work (which conservative America consistently said wouldn't work) ... as in 'be nice to them and they'll stop wanting us all dead' ... was destined to fail from the start. After all, Iran's leadership has repeatedly sworn their most important goal is to bring ruin to us and Israel because(!) it's Islam's destiny to rule the world. This is not just bluster from them. They believe it to their core and are 100% committed to it. Why so many Americans are unwilling to take them at their word on that is mind-boggling.

History has proven that denial and appeasement do NOT work with bullies either on the playground or on the international level. The only thing that gets a bully's attention is a poke in the eye. Bullies bluster and carry on. Allow them to continue and they'll just keep pushing the boundaries. Inevitably, as history tells us is true 100% of the time, someone must stand up to bullies or they win.

If You Want: 1) To Know More Details About Cosiness Between Wall Street And Politicians And 2) A Headache, Read This

Honestly, I'm so dumbfounded by this that I have no idea where to start with comments of my own. Does this sound like the dealings of honest 'representatives' who are trying to make us believe they're on our side against the greed inherent in Wall Street?

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/286704/repo-men-kevin-d-williamson

Obama And Reid Subvert Legislative Process In Order To Cast Unfounded Blame On Republicans

There are several things about what the Democrats did regarding the two-month extension of the payroll tax cut that ought to ALARM us. They should bug any American who really cares about maintaining the integrity of our Democracy, The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

You need to understand how the legislative process is supposed to work in order to appreciate the subversion going on. Briefly, here's the process that Democrats subverted:

1. Either House or Senate body may start their version of needed legislation.
2. Once the bill is passed in the first body it is sent to the other body.
3. The second body either approves it as-is, amends it and send it back to the first one, rejects it and does nothing more, or rejects it and sends back a totally different version of their own.
4. If the legislation is not dead or signed as-is from the first body that means they both want some form of it passed but they're too far apart to agree yet. If they each have their own separate versions then it is supposed to go to a 'conference' committee to iron out a compromise between the two versions.
5. Once the conference committee, composed of representatives from both the House and Senate, has a version on which they mutually agree, then it goes back to both bodies for passage.
6. The back-and-forth process can continue for multiple iterations until it finally does pass in both bodies.
7. Then it goes to the president who can sign or veto it as he/she chooses.

If you need proof or further information regarding this legislative process, this link provides it: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/legprocess.htm

In the case of this payroll tax reduction extension legislation, both houses produced their own versions and neither agreed to the other body's version. At that point both of the bills were supposed to go to conference where the various differences are worked out into one bill that provides a fair balance of 'gain' and 'loss' for each body. In fact, that's what Speaker Boehner asked to be done. THAT DID NOT HAPPEN THIS TIME.

Both House and Senate produced their own versions of the extension and then the president said the House MUST accept the Senate's version. In other words, the president picked which one he would sign instead of a conference committee producing one that balanced both bodies' interests.

Think about that. Both House and Senate produced their own versions of the needed legislation and THE PRESIDENT PICKED(!) which one he'd sign under threat of doing nothing and blaming doing nothing on Republicans. The constitution did NOT set up the process to work this way!!! The PRESIDENT HAS NO SUCH AUTHORITY to pick whether the House's or Senate's version HE WILL ALLOW to come to his desk.

Think about that in terms of the constitution's balance of powers principles. If anyone has final and ultimate authority it is CONGRESS(!), NOT THE PRESIDENT. While the president can veto a given piece of legislation, his veto can be overcome by a 2/3 veto override vote in both congressional bodies. The constitution was set up specifically to ensure that CONGRESS, NOT ANY ONE MAN/PRESIDENT, has ultimate authority. In this case the president decided that the House MUST sign the Senate's version. He has NO SUCH authority.

Think about the wisdom of that by our founders. They understood that if one person had authority to control legislation it could lead to "tyranny". They said so in various writings! That kind of tyranny is why their ancestors fled their countries of origin in the first place. They were dead-set against one man being able to say which congressional body would have control or which of competing parties would 'win' a particular vote. The constitution makes the president ULTIMATELY subject to congress' authority, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. So what Obama and Reid did this week was a total subversion of the constitution, both in its content and its principles.

And to make matters worse, the president and Democrats in general are being rather successful blaming Republicans for not cooperating better. Boehner in fact asked the president to support a conference action to happen, consistent with the constitution and the president refused! Good grief folks! The president doesn't even have the authority to stop congress from sending it to conference. Republicans were following the constitution. Democrats blamed Republicans for not accepting the Senate version immediately. And Democrats(!) are winning that argument?!?! Does that make any sense?

Perhaps the most important questions to ask you are, how comfortable are you with:

1. Subversion of constitution-based principles and procedures by Obama and Democrat leadership?
2. One person having that much power over what legislation gets passed?
3. One political party subverting the constitution and then blaming the other party?
4. The President playing such partisan games PURELY for the sake of polical gain, not for the sake of getting done what needs to be done?
5. Americans having so little understanding of the constitution and its principles that they're not even aware of how the constitution-based processes are being subverted?
6. Americans having so little understanding of the constitution and its principles that they have no problem with one person having so much control over congress?
7. Americans having so little understanding of the constitution and its principles that they don't understand why it's important that the president should not be able to tell congress what to do (without declaring a state of emergency)?

But Aren't You Getting Tired Of Congress, Especially The Senate, Kicking Debt-Related Legislation Down The Road?

As I said yesterday, I think Boehner's rationale for opposing the Senate's Two Month Payroll Tax Cut Extension is bogus. However, that doesn't mean I think the House should pass it. I only objected to his nonsense rationale. There's a better reason to reject it.

A two month extension is stupid from the standpoint of buying a short amount of time until they can work something out that is based on a one-year extension which the House, Senate and White House all seem to think is necessary. It's ANOTHER(!) example of deadlines and 'need dates' meaning nothing to those knuckleheads in congress, especially among Senate Democrats.

In other words, the Senate screwed up by not working out a one year deal in the first place. It's the same Senate that hasn't passed a budget in over two years because they don't want to face the problems in that area head-on. I think Senate Democrats are cowards for not moving aggressively to get sensible legislation done.

The House has submitted many debt-reduction bills this year that the Senate Democrats refused to even bring to the floor for debate, including a budget. Rather than debate the version of the current legislation that the House submitted, the Senate passed yet another stop-gap version and are trying to kick yet another problem down the road. The House did their job. The Democrat-controlled Senate punted. AGAIN!

What makes NO sense at all is that even the Senate wants a one-year extension. If they didn't like the House version, the Senate should have produced their own completely unique version of a ONE-YEAR extension. That would represent an honest effort to extend this tax cut. But they chose to punt again. It's what they've been doing for over two years and it's unacceptable. Note that they were doing this kicking our problem down the road when Democrats controlled the House as well. What are they thinking?

We're beyond ready for the Democratic Senate to roll up their sleeves and get required legislation done by the need dates. That includes budgets. That includes deficit-reduction and debt-reduction. Isn't this a big enough crisis yet for them to actually want to do their jobs on the People's behalf instead of playing political games and rarely producing legislation that actually fixes things?

Speaker of the House Boehner Is Playing A Stupid Political Game By Rejecting The Senate's Payroll Tax Cut Extension

Speaker Boehner spoke complete nonsense today in his reasoning for rejecting the Senate's payroll tax cut two-month extension. First, a link to one report: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45715200/ns/politics-white_house/

Boehner said his reason for rejecting it is the uncertainty businesses have as a result of extending the payroll tax cut only two months. Problem with that is, that payroll tax cut or even letting it expire does NOT help or hurt businesses in any way.

The payroll tax cut only reduced what EMPLOYEES pay into the Social Security (SS) 'trust fund'. The portion of the payroll tax that employers pay has not been touched in any way. What most Americans and, apparently, Speaker Boehner(!) don't understand is that the payroll tax is half paid by employees into SS and half paid by employers. The payroll tax cut that congress approved during this economic trouble only cut what EMPLOYEES pay into the SS trust fund. The amount that employers pay into the system wasn't affected.

Therefore, companies' ability to hire is UNAFFECTED by these increases and decreases. The tax cut put money directly into the hands of employees, not employers. To say, as Speaker Boehner did, that extending the tax cut OR even letting it expire has ANY effect on a company's bottom line or, therefore, on its ability to hire or otherwise run its business is illogical and obviously strictly political.

It does NOT matter to businesses whether the payroll tax cut is extended for two months, for one year or even if it's allowed to expire.

Speaker Boehner is being untruthful in order to play political games against Democrats. This kind of behavior that BOTH parties have been practicing the past five years is irresponsible to the extreme.

The President's Speech In Kansas Last Week: Idiologically Scary

So President Obama wants to double down on policies and strategies that have been miserable failures? Not good folks. See Heritage's analysis here:
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/12/07/morning-bell-the-last-incarnation-of-barack-obama/

Step back from the political spin for a moment and consider, as objectively as possible, the extent to which his policies have worked. Do we really want him to double down on them in another term? Rhetoric won him his first term. Now it's time for his results (or lack of same) to stand on their merit and be the measuring stick for justifying a second term.

We need action, not flowery smart-sounding speeches. Time to stop blaming other people and take responsibility for one's record, especially when we consider he had FULL control to do anything he wanted his first two years. In fact, he did exactly what he wanted (running over Republican opposition in the process), all the while PROMISING that it would fix the problems we have. We need to think for ourselves whether more of this will be good for us irrespective of how smart President Obama looks and sounds. Results (or lack of same) MATTER!!!

Time to get realistic about the progressive approach to fixing these problems. We let him try. He failed, period!

ANOTHER Year Of Congress Doing NOTHING?!?! R U KIDDING ME? In THIS Economy?

Well, we gave congressional Republicans ANOTHER chance to fix this mess and what did they do this year? ALMOST NOTHING! If it weren't for the Tea Party folks among House members we wouldn't have even had a budget proposed. Establishment Republicans in the House and Senate are a truly sorry lot. I'm disgusted with the lot of them.

In BOTH the House and Senate, Establishment Republicans AND Establishment Democrats have PROVEN themselves to be incapable of doing their constitutional duty to control the federal budget and runaway spending/debt. This year we're spending more than last year ... AGAIN!!! Don't these people 'get' how much trouble we're in?

No wonder Gingrich is so popular. Why would we want to vote someone into the White House with whom Establishment politicians of either party are happy or 'comfortable'? It's time for them all to be uncomfortable don't you think? We need someone who will go in there and kick some serious butt!

The Heritage Foundation recently published a critique of these politicians' nonsense and a strategy to get our country headed in the right direction:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/12/appropriations-endgame-one-last-shot-at-fiscal-credibility

Doesn't Heritage's critique make you mad? Isn't it extraordinary how incompetently both(!) parties have performed this year? Are you mad ... at BOTH parties? I am!

Doesn't Heritage's proposal sound like it contains some common sense ideas? Someone has to start somewhere. These yahoo's in congress had better get their act together soon or our economy is going to be flushed down the drain altogether.

WISE UP CONGRESS!!! WE WANT NO MORE BAND AIDS!!! WE WANT REAL FIXES!!!

So, Establishment Republicans Don't Like Gingrich. Big Deal! That's A POSITIVE In His Resume!

Words fail me in expressing how mad I am at 'establishment' Republicans. For the past ten years they've done a TERRIBLE job so if they don't like Gingrich's principles or his way of leading, that makes me want to vote for him more, not less!

They haven't the backbone to propose a sensible budget in these tough economic times. Yes, Ryan proposed a budget that was a REALLY good starting point in reducing our spending and the establishment Republicans voted it through ... only because it would be political suicide not to. But it was a Tea Party guy that produced that, not establishment Republicans! Where HAVE the ESTABLISHMENT Republicans been all year? I see no real leadership of the kind we need most. Indeed, Speaker Boehner has been acting more responsibly but he isn't leading as if the historical conservative core of the Republican party matters in really tough times when we need it most.

What has the Republican controlled House done in 2011? They've had the ability to at least put a halt to increasing spending but, BY CHOICE!, they haven't even done that at a time when it's clearly insane to keep growing it.

Establishment Republicans are mad at Gingrich. ALL Democrats are mad at Gingrich. I say, FINE! Establishment politicians of BOTH PARTIES GOT US INTO THIS MESS AND THEY'RE DOING NOTHING TO GET US OUT OF IT! Do we REALLY want someone in the White House that keeps THOSE GUYS happy? REALLY?

Why Are Only Republicans In Congress Decrying The Need To Balance Congress' Budget?

Let's see. Congressional Democrats patently refuse to even offer a budget. It's obvious why. If they created a proposed budget they'd have to defend their irrational spending spree in these tough economic times AND and they'd have to submit to controls over their appetite for progressive spending. Because the Democrat-controlled Senate hasn't offered a budget they are conveniently free of both of those 'problems'. Never mind that the constitution SAYS they must make a budget every year. Never mind that their oath of office says they'll adhere to the constitution. Never mind that both The People and our circumstances demand the create a responsible budget and stick to it.

Honestly, when was the last time you heard a Democrat talk about any need to get the budget back in balance? Either when addressing The People OR in speeches on the floor of the House or Senate? They cannot do it because then they'd be obliged to walk the talk. Better not to talk about it so they can continue their irrational spending unencumbered by having to defend/explain their spending choices.

Republicans have been talking about the need to balance the national budget for a long time. That is SO welcome because they started this precipitous slide down the debt cliff. Yes, they did it too but at least they are now both admitting they screwed up AND ARE trying to do something about it. They are not only talking but walking the talk.

Democrats keep talking about nibbling around the edges of our enormous debt. House Republicans have been submitting bills ALL YEAR that would have made a difference but they are being ignored by the Democratic Senate. It's well past time when congressional Democrats started acting responsibly and stop complaining about the past. They cannot do anything about the past so they should stop complaining about it (especially since they're at least as much at fault for this mess!) and do their constitutional duty.