Those Against Indiana’s Religious Freedom Law Are Either Ignorant Or Liars


Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

 photo freedom_of_religion_zpsxaldsbfq.jpg

Hat/Tip to Warner Todd Huston at Publius’ Forum.

Another outstanding Op-Ed from Warner Todd Huston, printed in its entirety.

I have to be straight forward right at the outset on this faux controversy over the new Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Those losing their tiny minds about it are either wholly ignorant of what is in the law, or know full well what is in it and are lying about the law in order to push their anti-Christian, gay-supporting agenda. There can be no other choice, here.

Firstly, before we even get to the case in Indiana, to act as if this whole idea is “new” is specious. Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRA) have been around since President Bill Clinton signed one in the 1990s.

The first such law was signed in 1993 by Bill Clinton and was passed unanimously by the House of Representatives where it was sponsored by no less than New York’s Chuck Schumer, now one of the farthest left Senators in Washington D.C.

Furthermore, 30 other states have RFRA laws just like Indiana’s or other laws that offer RFRA-like protections–including liberal states like Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Washington state, and Illinois.

In fact, 19 other states have laws almost exactly like the new Indiana law and no one is suddenly boycotting them. So, to act as if Indiana is alone, here, is a lie-based talking point.

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Additionally, all the hysterical attacks from halfwitted liberals out there are not addressing a single thing in the bill but instead are making wild-eyed, spittle-specked assumptions that the bill somehow outlaws gays. So, here is the text of the Indiana bill in case you need to see it.

But the fact is, the new Indiana statute does not give anyone the license to discriminate against gays or anyone else for that matter. We already have federal laws that prevent such things and this law doesn’t make any attempts to overturn those protections.

Additionally, this law has nothing at all to do with how citizens interact with other citizens. This law addresses what government does to people with religious convictions. This law covers how government interacts with the people, not how the people interact with each other.

There are plenty of other laws that prevent discrimination and this RFRA law doesn’t do a single thing to upset them.

Yes, when all is said and done, if you are one of those running around vomiting all over yourself because of this law you are either an ignoramus who knows nothing at all about what he is talking about, or you are a liar using lies to push your gay agenda.




Netflix: Hey, We Didn’t Want Net Neutrality To Apply To Us, Just All Those Other Guys


Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.



Sorry Net Neutrality knuckleheads, don’t say we didn’t warn you. But now it’s too late to be complaining about how when the jackbooted thugs of the FCC take aim at the internet they’re gonna squash your hopes and dreams too.

Exhibit A: Netflix! They got what they wanted, except they’ve decided they didn’t really want what they got.

Netflix CFO David Wells, in comments at an industry conference, said the company’s preference was that broadband Internet service should not be regulated by the U.S. government as a telecommunications utility — appearing to backtrack on Netflix’s previous stance on the issue, although the company later said that its position remained unchanged.

Last year, Netflix urged the FCC to reclassify broadband as a telecom service, under Title II of the Communications Act. In a July 2014 filing, Netflix said that “Title II provides [the FCC with] a solid basis to adopt prohibitions on blocking and unreasonable discrimination by ISPs. Opposition to Title II is largely political, not legal.”

But Wells said that the FCC’s adoption of Title II regulations covering broadband was not, in fact, Netflix’s preferred outcome. On Wednesday, Wells — speaking at the 2015 Morgan Stanley Technology, Media & Telecom Conference in San Francisco — said that, while the streaming-video company wanted to see “strong” net neutrality measures to ensure content providers would be protected against ISPs charging arbitrary interconnection fees, Netflix ultimately wanted the situation resolved without government intervention.

“Were we pleased it pushed to Title II? Probably not,” Wells said at the conference. “We were hoping there might be a non-regulated solution.”

Translation? We didn’t expect the FCC to regulate us, just all those other guys.

Yeah, tough noogies numbnuts. The Title II ship has sailed, thanks in no small part to you and your company’s mendacity. You asked for it, you got it. Now live with the consequences.

Speaking of “consequences,” here’s Exhibit B: 5G wireless services were specifically designed to prioritize different classes of data. Now, of course, such a rollout runs smack-dab into the Net Neutrality mavens’ silly “no fast lanes” mantra.

Net neutrality and 5G may be on a collision course as the mobile industry tries to prepare for a wide range of mobile applications with differing needs.

The net neutrality rules passed by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission last week have raised some eyebrows at Mobile World Congress this week. The full text of the rules isn’t public yet, but mobile movers and shakers are having their say. The latest questions involve 5G, the next-generation standard that everyone here is trying to plan for.

The most common thing they think 5G will have to do is to serve a lot of different purposes. Regulators’ attempts to ban “fast lanes” and other special treatment might make that impossible, people who’ve been thinking about 5G said Wednesday.

Industrial sensors, self-driving cars and other emerging uses of the Internet have needs that can’t be met by a general-purpose network, Ericsson Group CTO Ulf Ewaldsson said during a panel discussion. That’s driving a global discussion on a so-called “industrial Internet” alongside the regular Internet that’s grown up around the Web and other consumer activities, he said.

Regulatory efforts like the FCC’s rules don’t see a distinction, Ewaldsson said. He didn’t slam the agency for this but said the mobile industry needs to do a better job of explaining what it’s trying to do. Most importantly, it’s not trying to block or throttle people’s access to the Internet, he said.

Gee, a law written in 1934 isn’t compatible with the technology of 2015. Who’da thunk it! And when it turns out that government is incapable of accommodating nuance, yeah that’s not exactly a News Flash either. Except, maybe, to the starry-eyed utopians who put their faith in bureaucracy instead of the free market.

Now there is a federal agency involved, and it has a bunch of power that it didn’t before. Good luck to Mr. Ewaldsson. Good luck to Netflix. Good luck to Google. Good luck to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Good luck to the Progressive Policy Institute. Good luck to the Internet Society. You made your bed. Now lie in it.

Smiling-Reagan-Cowboy-HatHere’s where I remind you turkeys of Ronald Reagan’s wisdom:

“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.'”

Welcome to the party boys.




If You’ve Ever Wondered What The Internet Looked Like In 1934, You’ll Love ObamaNet

ObamaNet 1934
ObamaNet circa 1934

Obama’s FCC really did it. They really voted to regulate the internet. They dusted off a 1934 law used to rein in Ma Bell and said those rules need to apply to your home broadband connection in 2015.

Forward, into the past!

Forget visions of “half fast” internet. Those days are gone now.

Henceforth the internet will run at the speed of government.

And the government will decide who can connect.

The government will decide how you’ll connect.

A bureaucrat will determine if your internet usage is in “the public interest.” And fine you if it isn’t.

How many of you are old enough to remember when the FCC regulated telephone service? I am.

We could have any kind of telephone we wanted, so long as we wanted a black rotary dial desk phone.

We could call anywhere in the world we wanted, so long as we scheduled all “long distance” calls in advance and paid upwards of $20 per minute.

And we could connect anything we wanted to our telephone line, so long as we submitted it to the FCC first so they could “certify” it, a process that typically took dozens of years.

In 1982 Judge Harold Greene nuked the FCC’s control over the telephone system. He ordered the breakup of AT&T, and he initiated a technological open season which in a few short years brought us the iPhone, FiOS, Wi-Fi, Google, Amazon, and yes, the internet as we knew it.

Yes, knew, past tense.

Because today Barack Obama’s lackeys on the FCC turned back the clock. The internet will henceforth be classified as a “telecommunications service” as defined in Title II of the Communications Act of 1934.

Back in 1934 telegrams were what passed for email. Back in 1934 the computer hadn’t been invented yet. Back in 1934 a Sears Catalog was as close as anyone got to online shopping.

By invoking that archaic law, the FCC gave itself broad power to control every aspect of your internet experience. To pick the websites you’re allowed to visit. To restrict which devices can be attached to your home network. To block “harmful” protocols like bittorrent. And of course to restrict anonymity via internet drivers licenses.

My friends, this is tyranny, pure and simple. And it came at the direct orders of Barack Hussein Obama.

Oh, and one more thing today’s action gives the FCC — the power to tax the internet. Ever notice the lines on your landline phone bill for “Universal Service Fund” and “FCC Subscriber Line Charge”? Go look for them. Look at how much of your bill they represent. Then get ready to see the same charges on your internet bill, because the main thrust of Title II isn’t regulation. Oh sure, Title II gives the FCC the authority to regulate. But it also gives the FCC the ability to impose fees on regulated “telecommunications services.”

Fees, just another name for “taxes.”

Barack Obama loves taxes.

Once the government imposes a fee it takes an Act Of God to rescind it. Did you know that until 2006 you were paying a 3% surcharge on your phone bill? And you’d been paying that 3% surcharge since 1898 when it was imposed “temporarily” to help pay for the Spanish-American War? That was one of those “tax the rich” chimeras by the way. Back in 1898 only “rich people” had telephones.

It took 108 years to get rid of that “temporary” tax.

Wanna bet FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has a similar plan to tax your broadband service so he can give internet access to everybody who signed up for an Obama phone?

Welcome to ObamaNet. Where your home page defaults to MSNBC, and no, you can’t change it.





Because Tom Wheeler Wasn’t Smarter Than Steve Case, Obama Will Tax And Destroy The Internet


obama turns interenet off



Today Barack Obama’s hand-picked FCC chairman laid out his rational for taxing and regulating the internet. It’s because AOL’s Steve Case ate his lunch back in the 80’s.

I personally learned the importance of open networks the hard way. In the mid-1980s I was president of a startup, NABU: The Home Computer Network. My company was using new technology to deliver high-speed data to home computers over cable television lines. Across town Steve Case was starting what became AOL. NABU was delivering service at the then-blazing speed of 1.5 megabits per second—hundreds of times faster than Case’s company. “We used to worry about you a lot,” Case told me years later.

But NABU went broke while AOL became very successful.

Steve Case built a better mousetrap. Tom Wheeler went into government.

Vengence is mine, sayeth the Obamabots.

Tom Wheeler failed at business. So he’s going to punish everyone who has managed to succeed.

That’s the whole story. Sour grapes. Because the thing is, the problem Tom Wheeler’s 1980s company encountered won’t be alleviated by his definition of Net Neutrality.

My proposal will modernize Title II, tailoring it for the 21st century, in order to provide returns necessary to construct competitive networks. For example, there will be no rate regulation, no tariffs, no last-mile unbundling.

Can you guess what NABU needed to make its cable internet venture successful?

Last mile unbundling.

Tom Wheeler needed the government to seize the private property of cable operators to make his dreams a reality. He needed free access to the wires coming into your house so he could put his magic gizmos on them. The very thing he’s saying he won’t demand.

But the fact remains, he didn’t want to pay for those wires. He didn’t want to rent those wires. He wanted them to be handed to him, on a silver platter, for free.

So why isn’t he now requiring last mile unblundling as part of his Net Neutrality initiative?

Because regulating the internet is only the first step. Nationalizing the internet is his, and his president’s goal. Total government control of what you download, what you see, and where your surf. For your own good, of course.

We used to call that censorship. Now it’s called Obamunism.

Imagine if the internet was an actual highway. (Remember Al Gore and his “information superhighway?”) Along the highway are billboards. Some of those billboards are bigger than others. Some are brighter. Some are closer to the road. Tom Wheeler’s billboard is in the next county. Nobody sees it. So his “solution?” Force you to drive on a 2 lane dirt road just so you do see it.

That’s Net Neutrality. Every billboard is equal.

Except, that’s not how America works.

Net Neutrality means everybody’s internet is equally slow.

You want to pay for faster internet? Sorry, you can’t. Because some schlub in Cleveland might be sad if he finds out his internet is slower than yours.

Adding insult to injury — the 16.1% tax Tom Wheeler is going to impose on your monthly internet bill.

Think of of it as Obamacare for the internet. He’ll tax you to subsidize broadband for “the underserved.” I’ll leave you to imagine how the population of the underserved intersects with the population of slacker Obama voters.

They want free internet. And Tom Wheeler and Barack Obama want you to pay for it.

There’s the dirty secret behind Net Neutrality. You pay. Obamabots get free downloads.

And Tom Wheeler gets to use his government position to stick it to Steve Case’s progenitors, so he can exact his pound of flesh and pretend he “won.”

The thing is, Steve Case did more to build and perfect the internet than Tom Wheeler ever could. And in 1,000 years, when history looks back at this era, Steve Case will be lauded as a visionary, while Tom Wheeler and Barack Obama will be forgotten, if not vilified and ridiculed for their pettiness.

Small comfort, for sure, when you and I are writing the checks.




New Yorkers Going Galt, Fleeing NY, Took $46,000,000,000 With Them


The blue states continue to suffer from the plague that causes the “blueness,” namely, being run by Democrats.  The latest victim is the state of NY.  It seems that lots of New Yorkers decided to say, “nyet comerade” to the state government’s nonsense, and simply leaving. The kicker is?  They are taking all their money with them, and that’s quite a lot! Here’s a map, with all the particulars, from Tax Foundation, via Lonely Conservative…

The Blue states, those that are predominately Democrat controlled face an interesting choice; abandon the destructive high taxation and regulation that causes producers to leave, just go on as usual, while blaming the rich for all of your problems, or build a wall to keep people from leaving.


Regulatory Overload = Cost Overload = Tyranny By Design


A big Hat Tip to Doug Ross@Journal for leading me to this article by the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The article,  titled Ten Thousand Commandments 2013, is their annual review of the Federal Regulatory State. Because of its brevity, I’m going reproduce it here with emphasis added by me:

Full Document Available in PDF

The scope of federal government spending and deficits is sobering. Yet the government’s reach extends well beyond the taxes Washington collects and its deficit spending and borrowing. Federal environmental, safety and health, and economic regulations cost hundreds of billions—perhaps trillions—of dollars every year over and above the costs of the official federal outlays that dominate the policy debate.

Highlights of the report:

• Total costs for Americans to comply with federal regulations reached $1.806 trillion in 2012. For the first time, this amounts to more than half of total federal spending. It is more than the GDPs of Canada or Mexico.

• This is the 20th anniversary of Ten Thousand Commandments. In the 20 years of publication, 81,883 final rules have been issued. That’s more than 3,500 per year or about nine per day.

• The Anti-Democracy Index – the ratio of regulations issued to laws passed by Congress and signed by the president – stood at 29 for 2012. That’s 127 new laws and 3,708 new rules – or a new rule every 2 ½ hours.

• Regulatory costs amount to $14,678 per family – 23 percent of the average household income of $63,685 and 30 percent of the expenditure budget of $49,705 and more than receipts from corporate and personal income taxes combined.

• Combined with $3.53 trillion in federal spending, Washington’s share of the economy now reaches 34.4 percent.

Please take a moment and think about the figures that I put in bold. Every time a new law or regulation is written, the federal government has a little bit more control over our lives. As the power of the federal government grows, the opportunities to abuse that power also increase. And, think about the costs. Think of all these laws and regulations as a huge anchor that the private sector economy has to drag along while it tries to grow.

There is a small favor for which we should be grateful. There are so many laws and regulations that the government can not possibly enforce them all uniformly. Imagine if the government agencies like the IRS, the EPA and, OSHA had enough enforcement agents to make every citizen and business to comply with the letter of every regulation. The economy would come to a screeching halt. And so, the laws and regulations are selectively enforced. And, that in itself is a form of tyranny.

So how did we get in this mess? The short answer is that it is the nature of governments to accumulate more and more power. Even in this very special place we call America with our government Of The People, By The People, and For The People where our founders created a constitutional republic that included specific limitations on the power of the federal government, by its very nature it was destined to grow in power. Think about our two house legislature. We call the people we elect Senators and Congressmen. But, there is another name for them: Lawmakers. And so, for about two hundred and forty years our “Lawmakers” have been making laws and every law gives a little more power to the government. The Executive branch of our government is charged with the responsibility of enforcing the laws passed by the Legislative branch. But, before the Executive branch can enforce the laws of Congress, it, through its bureaucracy, must first write enabling laws and/or regulations before it can carry out the wishes of Congress. And, We The People have been complicit in this growth of government. Every time something bad happens somewhere I cringe when someone invariably reacts by saying THERE OUGHT TO BE A LAW! That’s true, isn’t it?

The insanity in the asylum will just keep getting more insane.

Well. that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Original Post:  Asylum Watch


The Left and the Right Have A common Enemy and Don’t know It: Crony Capitalists


There is a thought-provoking article in Forbes titled We Can’t Save Capitalism Unless We  Denounce Its False Prophets. The author, Bill Frezza, makes the point that when it comes to trying to save the “economic soul” of America, and by that he means the free market capitalist system, the Right vs Left dichotomy is not working and is counter productive. He rightly states that there are not two sides to this important issue; but three:

In one corner we have the traditional market capitalists, the bedrock of American exceptionalism and the source of our prosperity. These businesses, both large and small, pursue profits by trying to do a better job than their competitors at pleasing customers. Often referred to by the press as “Main Street,” most market capitalists seek neither special privileges from government nor regulatory shackles for their competitors.

In an adjacent corner, claiming a common heritage, are the crony capitalists. These are generally large companies with substantial lobbying operations. Contrary to popular belief, crony capitalists love regulations—especially when they get to write them. Nothing chokes off up-and-coming competitors better than a thicket of incomprehensible and expensive new rules. Crony capitalist enterprises have a well-oiled revolving door that allows their key people to seamlessly enter “government service” (sometimes taking huge severance bonuses with them), while welcoming former bureaucrats, congressional staffers, and elected officials seeking to cash in on their connections. And while crony capitalists have been with us since the friends of Alexander Hamilton cornered the Revolutionary War bond market, never before has their raiding of the public till so focused the public’s attention.

This brings us to the third member of the triad—the federal Leviathan. Bloated beyond recognition, the beast in Washington has reached the point where it can only be kept alive using borrowed and printed dollars. Contrary to some Republicans’ small-government rhetoric, both parties have contributed to its growth over the last half century. And neither is doing anything substantive to restore fiscal sanity, as they engage in cosmetic battles that do nothing more than tinker around the edges. Even worse, while Congress claims to maintain oversight, it is no match for the crony capitalists and career bureaucrats who run the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve, particularly when they join their corporate brethren to shout “crisis” and demand more of the bailouts that have allowed firms to socialize losses and privatize gains.

The author then goes on to describe how the Leviathan and the crony capitalist corporatist work hand-in-hand against all of the rest of us, whether we are politically on the left or on the right.

The Leviathan’s business model is simple: 1) Collect tribute in the form of taxes from market capitalists and redistribute it to favored constituents in return for votes; and 2) collect campaign donations from crony capitalists so that incumbent politicians can remain in office and expand their power. In return for said contributions, those politicians regale their crony capitalist supporters with special favors, including subsidies, tax loopholes, and regulations designed to cripple their competitors.

Mr. Frezza is right, isn’t he? He goes on to urge conservatives to denounce cronyism whenever we see evidence of it. I agree! That is fine as far as it goes. But, there is a dilemma that he doesn’t address. We on the right have a common enemy with those on the left: crony capitalists. They are false capitalist, as the author points out. We on the right know that. Those on the left so not know that.  They haven’t the foggiest idea what free market capitalism is about. The think all capitalists are crony capitalists. Therefore, they think we support the TBTF banks and the General Electric’s and the Monsanto’s and all other corporatist ( a word that is not in their vocabulary).

The fact of the matter is that the sum of those on the right and the left that hate the crony capitalist are a great majority of Americans. If both sides would recognize that the tag team of the Leviathan and the Crony Capitalist is what is destroying this country, then together we could defeat them at the polls. Sadly, that is unlikely to ever happen. Although the left hates the Crony Capitalist as much as we do, they love the Leviathan and do not realize that their love is in bed with the Crony Capitalist. What a shame!

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Original Post:  Asylum Watch


The State of the Union? It Sucks!


Nancy Pelosi recently said “It is almost a false argument to say that we have a spending problem.” She went on to say that what we have is a deficit problem.  Conservatives have given Ms. Pelosi a lot of flack over her statement and maybe we have been too hard on the less than brilliant Congressman from San Francisco. After all she did use a qualifier; “almost”, which can mean “not quite”. And, she was spot on when she said the US has a deficit problem. Who could argue with that? By saying that we have a deficit problem instead of saying we have a spending problem, the loyal Democratic trooper was setting the stage for President Obama’s State of the Union address tonight. What she was saying is that if the problem is deficits, there are two ways (balanced approached) to reduce deficits: reduce spending investments and increase taxes revenue. Of course that is what you are going to hear from the president tonight, if you bother to listen to him. That plus he will blame the Republicans for his own “sequester” idea. The president has evolved once more and now he believes the cuts in the “sequester” would hurt national defence and could also hurt the great stagnation recovery we are all experiencing. He will tell his listeners that about his “balanced approach”, which is much better because it increases taxes on the evil rich.

So, Nancy Pelosi, with her double-digit IQ, did what little she could for the President. On Sunday, Lawrence Summers wrote an article in the Washington Post giving the President some advice on that “almost fake spending” problem. Mr. Summers was a past president of Harvard, he was Secretary of Treasury under Bill Clinton (bye-bye Glass- Steagall, hello bailouts for the Too Big To Fail banks), and he was an economic advisor to President Obama in 2009 and 2010. It is probably safe to say that larry Summers has a higher IQ than nancy Pelosi. So, let’s see how he would fix our economic woes.

Summers starts out sounding almost reasonable:

There should be little disagreement across the political spectrum that growth and job creation remain America’s most serious national problem. Ahead of President Obama’s first State of the Union address of his second term, and further fiscal negotiations in Washington, America needs to rethink its priorities for economic policy.

The U.S. economy grew at a rate of 1.5?percent in 2012. Last week, the independent Congressional Budget Office projected that growth will be only 1.4 percent during 2013 — and that unemployment will rise. While the CBO says that growth will accelerate in 2014 and beyond, it nonetheless predicts that unemployment will remain above 7 percent until 2016.

Later, he goes on to say:

A broader growth-centered agenda is needed to propel the economy to its “escape velocity.”

Wow! That sounds encouraging. Our Democratic pundit has four recommendations for the President.

First, as the president has recognized, the budget cuts implicit in the sequester scheduled to begin in March should not be reduced but spread over time.

As Ronald Reagan would have said; “There you go again”. Kick those spending cuts down the road. Let the next generation take care of the problem. Of course, cutting government spending will hurt the economy. Government spending is now 25% of GDP. What is it buying us? Nada!

Second, the president and Congress should fix a firm year-end deadline to address the international aspects of corporate tax reform.

It’s true that American companies have about $2 trillion in foreign earned profits that they won’t repatriate because those profits would be hit with a 35% US tax.  So, Summers’ plan is to wait a year to talk about reducing those taxes? Why wait, Larry?

Third, no American, regardless of his or her ideology, should be satisfied with the way the nation’s housing finance system is working.

Sure! Let’s see if we can create another housing bubble. Here is an idea for you, Larry. GET THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE HOME MORTGAGE BUSINESS!

Fourth, the transformation of the North American energy sector needs to be accelerated. This will have economic and environmental benefits. This will have economic and environmental benefits….approve the Keystone XL pipeline…Natural gas exploitation, too, could bring huge environmental benefits.

Bingo! One good idea out of four is pretty good for a Democrat. Way to go, Larry Summers.

The “State of the Union” sucks and I fully expect the Obama’s State of the Union speech will suck, as well.  The Republicans could better spend their time at home with their families tonight. It’s going to be more of the same-O, same-O: more taxes revenue enhancements and more spending investments in the future.

Well, now you know what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Original Post: Asylum Watch


Liberal to English Translation


I know many liberals and have asked them all the same question, “You detested that Bush spent so much money and raised our national debt, yet Obama is quadrupling this debt and has, in fact amassed more deficit spending than all other Presidents combined. Does this bother you?”

Every single time the answer has been, “No, it doesn’t bother me because he is spending money on things that need to be done.”

To which I state something along the lines of, “You mean like A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film, or $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees, or $160 million for “paid volunteers” at the Corporation for National and Community Service, or lastly, how about $850 million for Amtrak.”

This is usually where the conversation either turns ugly or ends, because when confronted with the truth, the average liberal cannot deal with it. It is hard to call these things investments when they are what they are – government waste and misuse of our tax dollars.

The liberals have been so successful the last few years because of a number of reasons. The liberal media is in their back pocket for one, and have been a very useful tool of the liberal. The liberal media has even adopted the language of the liberal. For example, it’s not raising taxes, it’s “investing.” It’s not abortion, it’s “choice.” They’re not illegal aliens, they are “undocumented immigrants.” For you see, to make their far left agenda more palatable to the average American, they have to – because it is so radical.

So I have compiled a partial list of liberal to English translation. It is in no particular order and of course only a partial list because it is constantly being changed and updated.

“The constitution is a living, breathing document.” = A fundamentally flawed document (Spoken by Obama in a radio interview in a 2001 Chicago Public Radio interview) that changes with political expediency

“Deficit Reduction” = Tax Hike

“Religious right” = Christians who are conservative

“Bipartisanship” = Arlen Specter

“Intolerance” = Opposed to liberal agenda

“Propaganda” = Conservative point of view

“Assault Weapons” = Virtually any firearm

“Cut” = Reduction in the rate of growth

“Pandering” = What Republicans do when supporting something liberals don’t like, usually applies to the NRA or religious right

“Profiteering” = Not losing money

“Managed competition” = Government takeover

“Overheated economy” = Prosperity

“Fully fund” = Blank check

“Diversity” = Multiple groups that adhere to the liberal agenda

“Special interest groups” = Non-liberal groups

“Fundamentalist” = Conservative

“Greed” = Profit motive

“Multiculturalism” = When placed in context to other countries, it means that America is to blame for all that is wrong in the world and that the USA is only one country among many, NOT the leading nation in the world

“Choice”= Abortion – not to be confused with the choice of personal liberty, that is not allowed under the liberal system

“Oversight” = Government

“Working Americans” = Only lower and middle class Americans

“Conduct a review” = Strategic delay

“Insurgents” = Terrorists

“Rigid Ideologue” = A conservative that stands up for his beliefs

“Compromise” = Only comes about when people agree with liberal agenda

“Affirmative Action” = Racial Preferences

“Lies” = “Policy Differences”

“Patriotism” = Paying more and more taxes is often equated with being a patriot

“Racism” = Open criticism of the Obama administration

“Closed-minded” = Does not agree with liberal agenda

“Right wing extremist” = The GOP

“Social responsibility” = Redistribution of wealth

“Corporate welfare” = Gross revenue minus taxes

“Corporate subsidy” = See ‘corporate welfare’

“Deserving poor” = People who vote for liberals

“Tax the rich” = Increase taxes on anyone making $250,000 a year or higher, $200,000 or, er, I mean $150,000 a year – *sigh* this number keeps getting lower

“Freedom Fighters” = Terrorists, Somalia Pirates, Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, etc…

“Decriminalization” = Legalization

“Regulate” = Ban


Government to Regulate Junk Food?


If you let the government control your health care, they can start making and justifying all sorts of demands.  Like, for example, maybe they can regulate what you ear-even the junk food!  Gateway Pundit has more…

The Washington Examiner reported:

Larry Summers, chair of the White House National Economic Council when the 2009 stimulus was developed, suggested that President Obama will eventually tax and regulate junk food to drive people to eat more healthily — although he dinged First Lady Michelle Obama’s healthy foods initiative.

“I think there is no question that the way Americans eat and what Americans weigh is a big contributor to health problems and it’s a big contributor to health costs,” Summers said on Morning Joe today.It’s not the agenda now, but I think at some point you’re going to see tax measures and regulatory measures that are going to be directed at helping people be healthier. That’s just going to happen and I think it’s probably a good thing when it does.”

Summers this agenda to anti-cigarette policies. “[J]ust as we have over time done things with respect to tobacco that are very constructive and that are saving hundreds of thousands of people’s lives, that kind of agenda is going to come to other aspects of public health, including the way people eat,” he said.

Curiously, though, Summers took an oblique shot at the results of Mrs. Obama’s overhaul of the school lunch menu as part of her effort to fight child obesity.

“Should kids be going hungry at lunch because they can’t have any good food — any food they like in the schools?” he asked rhetorically. “You can obviously take it too far and you have to be careful.”

Again, just to be clear, no legislation has been proposed for this.  However, the idea is clear.  When the government provides something to you, they are them justified in addressing anything that potentially impacts what they are funding.  If they pay for health care, and you are fat, they will tell you what to eat.   Got it?


This Regulation Nation Will Explode Under An Obama Second Term


Americans are learning more about the “fiscal cliff” approaching at the beginning of next year, when tax rates for families and small businesses are set to spike and new taxes in President Obama’s health-care spending law take effect. But unless there’s real change in Washington, we’re also headed for a steep “regulatory cliff” that could compound the damage.

The above quote is a warning from Ron Portman in an opinion piece he wrote for the Wall Street Journal this past Thursday. This article is worth a read because he talks about a number of stifiling regulations that the Obama administration has put on the back burner until after the elections. You know _ when Obama will have more flexibility.

After three years of bureaucratic excess, the Obama administration has been quietly postponing several multibillion-dollar regulations until after the November election. Those delayed rules, together with more than 130 unfinished mandates under the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial law, could significantly increase the regulatory drag on our economy in 2013.

According to Senator Portman, the Labor Department has put off until after the elections plans for something called the Fiduciary Rule. A study by the Oliver Wyman Group found that this rule would seriously hurt middle-class people with  IRA accounts.

A study last year by the Oliver Wyman Group found that the Fiduciary Rule could result in higher retirement account minimums and cause 7.2 million individual retirement account (IRA) holders to lose access to investment advice. Even the Labor Department was unable to show that the rule’s illusory benefits outweigh its substantial costs.

The Senator goes on to tell us about the EPA and its planned Ozone Rule. He says it is “so strict that up to 85% of U.S. counties monitored by the EPA would be in violation.” The EPA itself estimates this rule will cost industry 90 billion dollars.  The EPA Portman tells us is also planning more controls on power plants that they estimate will cost one dollar every three cents in benefits. How insane is that?

And, not to be out done, the Transportation Department has plans to make cars more expensive.

Consumers can also look forward to a new Department of Transportation rule that will increase the costs of new cars and trucks by mandating expensive new technology. First proposed in 2010, the Rear-View Camera Rule would require that all cars and trucks be equipped with a rear-view camera and video display on the dashboard, at a cost of some $2.7 billion to auto makers and car buyers.

On top of all of this, we know that a tonne of new regulations yet to come from Obama’s Affordable Care Act and also from the results of the Dodd-Frank legislation. The insanity of the Obama administration can not be underestimated. Our economic growth, for the last two quarters has been barely positive. It won’t take much to send America back into recession just like the Euro Zone is today. The Obama administration seems hell-bent on putting the final nail in our economic coffin.

I share this information with you, dear readers,not because I think you need any more reason to want Obama out of office. I share this information on thee off chance that some may need more reason to set aside what ever occupies your time on the days leading up to the elections and I ask that you volunteer your time to your local Republican Party and/or your local Tea Party to help turn out the vote on election day.

I read an article other day that I unfortunately did not bookmark. But, the author made a compelling case that this election, contrary to the expert¡s opinions, will be decided more by the base of the parties than it will by the so-called independent voters. The point made by the author was that the party that can energize its base in the toss-up states to turn out the vote, will win.

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Original Post:  Conservatives on Fire


Liberal Policies Tend to Backfire: Will Higher Taxes and Regulation Help or Hurt the Mythical 1%?


Some refer to the law of unintended consequences.  Others call it purposeful crony capitalism.  But the reality is simple; in a high-tax and high-regulation environment, large corporations and the wealthy flourish, and the little guy? Not so much.  Our contributor, Don, and I were chatting about that just last night.  Then, as I was checking out some news sites this evening, I saw that Don and I weren’t the only ones pondering that point.  Seton Motley, over at Big Government, was pointing out the same uncomfortable truth.  

In Reality, this Leftist policy disconnect happens with cringe-inducing regularity.  They push proposals that will have the exact opposite effect of their desired intent – and yet onward they press.

Oft it is unintentional – sometimes it is not.  Then soon-to-be President Barack Obama admitted that the inheritance (death) tax costs more to implement than it collects – but that he favored it anyway, in the interest of “fairness.”

Spread the misery around.

In Reality, bigger government and more regulations – which the Left (say they) implement to reduce the gap between rich and poor – actually widen it.

It goes like this:

Say we increase all regulations by a cumulative 50%.  The Rich, Big Companies have the money to absorb the abusive costs and keep going.  The up-and-comers do not.  The Rich, Big Companies hold on – the little ones go under.

So you end up with a few wealthy joints, and everyone else starving – the gap between widens.

Say we raise taxes to 50% of income.  The likes of Warren Buffett can afford it – they’re already rich.  But it dramatically damages the chances of people like us – the up-and-comers – from becoming rich.

So you end up with a few wealthy individuals, and everyone else starving – the gap between widens.

In short: The bigger the government – the bigger the taxes, the more the regs – the bigger the gap between rich and poor.

The outcome the Left with their policies seek to ameliorate – they instead exacerbate.

Hit. it. out. of. the. park!  The taxes, regulations, as well as the gigantic government needed to enforce them, will actually create the problem that OWS laments.  OWS blames the free market for the problems that we face, when in reality, we haven’t had a free market for decades.  During that time, government has increased it’s role, via the tax code and regulation, turning the free market into a crony capitalistic fur ball.  The results have been to make it more difficult for start ups and mi-sized companies to compete with the big ones.  Sending jobs overseas, or having many companies go out of business completely.  So far, the Obama administration has permanently killed over 2,000,000 jobs.  If OWS had their way, millions more would go down the tubes as well.

But, then again, the more jobs that are permanently killed, the more people that will require government assistance.  And, when people are on the government drug, they are more likely to vote for the dealer.


I'm a 1936 Republican


The last three years have been very painful for many of conservatives.  We have witnessed first-hand the total disregard for our constitution, the overregulation of our economy, the devaluation of our dollar, and the out control spending which has created a massive debt for our children.  Now is not the time for watered down solutions.  Now is the time to think outside of the box.  Now is the time for bold action.  Now is the time for sound conservative policies to get America back on its feet.  And the platform Republicans should be standing on is the Republican platform of 1936.

It was 1936 and the nation was in peril.  The year marked FDR’s fourth year in office and by all accounts his manipulation and molding of a new society in the progressive image yielded very little in terms of putting people back to work.  People in America were still struggling after four years of progressive policies that failed to jump start the economy.  Our stock market was stagnating at best and even though GDP had slightly risen since the 1929 crash the economy was still under performing.  FDR’s central economic planning was failing as is Obama’s central economic planning is failing today.  The people of 1936 were facing many of the same economic woes we’re facing today.  I decided to take a look at the 1936 Republican platform to see where they stood.  I was surprised by what I discovered.  Below is the entire 1936 Republican platform.

1936 Republican Party Platform

America is in peril. The welfare of American

Men and women and the future of our youth are at stake. We dedicate ourselves to the preservation of their political liberty, their individual opportunity and their character as free citizens, which today for the first time are threatened by Government itself.

For three long years the New Deal Administration has dishonored American traditions and flagrantly betrayed the pledges upon which the Democratic Party sought and received public support.

The powers of Congress have been usurped by the President.

The integrity and authority of the Supreme Court have been flouted.

The rights and liberties of American citizens have been violated.

Regulated monopoly has displaced free enterprise.

The New Deal Administration constantly seeks to usurp the rights reserved to the States and to the people.

It has insisted on the passage of laws contrary to the Constitution.

It has intimidated witnesses and interfered with the right of petition.

It has dishonored our country by repudiating its most sacred obligations.

It has been guilty of frightful waste and extravagance, using public funds for partisan political purposes.

It has promoted investigations to harass and intimidate American citizens, at the same time denying investigations into its own improper expenditures.

It has created a vast multitude of new offices, filled them with its favorites, set up a centralized bureaucracy, and sent out swarms of inspectors to harass our people.

It has bred fear and hesitation in commerce and industry, thus discouraging new enterprises, preventing employment and prolonging the depression.

It secretly has made tariff agreements with our foreign competitors, flooding our markets with foreign commodities.

It has coerced and intimidated voters by withholding relief to those opposing its tyrannical policies.

It has destroyed the morale of our people and made them dependent upon government.

Appeals to passion and class prejudice have replaced reason and tolerance.

To a free people, these actions are insufferable. This campaign cannot be waged on the traditional differences between the Republican and Democratic parties. The responsibility of this election transcends all previous political divisions. We invite all Americans, irrespective of party, to join us in defense of American institutions.

Constitutional Government and Free Enterprise

We pledge ourselves:

1. To maintain the American system of Constitutional and local self government, and to resist all attempts to impair the authority of the Supreme Court of the United States, the final protector of the rights of our citizens against the arbitrary encroachments of the legislative and executive branches of government. There can be no individual liberty without an independent judiciary.

2. To preserve the American system of free enterprise, private competition, and equality of opportunity, and to seek its constant betterment in the interests of all.


The only permanent solution of the unemployment problem is the absorption of the unemployed by industry and agriculture. To that end, we advocate:

Removal of restrictions on production. Abandonment of all New Deal policies that raise production costs, increase the cost of living, and thereby restrict buying, reduce volume and prevent reemployment.

Encouragement instead of hindrance to legitimate business.

Withdrawal of government from competition with private payrolls.

Elimination of unnecessary and hampering regulations.

Adoption of such other policies as will furnish a chance for individual enterprise, industrial expansion, and the restoration of jobs.


The necessities of life must be provided for the needy, and hope must be restored pending recovery. The administration of relief is a major failing of the New Deal. It has been faithless to those who must deserve our sympathy. To end confusion, partisanship, waste and incompetence, we pledge:

1. The return of responsibility for relief administration to non-political local agencies familiar with community problems.

2. Federal grants-in-aid to the States and territories while the need exists, upon compliance with these conditions: (a) a fair proportion of the total relief burden to be provided from the revenues of States and local governments; (b) all engaged in relief administration to be selected on the basis of merit and fitness; (c) adequate provision to be made for the encouragement of those persons who are trying to become self-supporting.

3. Undertaking of Federal public works only on their merits and separate from the administration of relief.

4. A prompt determination of the facts concerning relief and unemployment.


Real security will be possible only when our productive capacity is sufficient to furnish a decent standard of living for all American families and to provide a surplus for future needs and contingencies. For the attainment of that ultimate objective, we look to the energy, self-reliance and character of our people, and to our system of free enterprise.

Society has an obligation to promote the security of the people, by affording some measure of protection against involuntary unemployment and dependency in old age. The New Dealpolicies, while purporting to provide social security, have, in fact, endangered it.

We propose a system of old age security, based upon the following principles:

1. We approve a pay-as-you-go policy, which requires of each generation the support of the aged and the determination of what is just and adequate.

2. Every American citizen over sixty-five should receive the supplementary payment necessary to provide a minimum income sufficient to protect him or her from want.

3. Each state and territory, upon complying with simple and general minimum standards, should receive from the federal government a graduated contribution in proportion to its own, up to a fixed maximum.

4. To make this program consistent with sound fiscal policy the Federal revenues for this purpose must be provided from the proceeds of a direct tax widely distributed. All will be benefited and all should contribute.

We propose to encourage adoption by the states and territories of honest and practical measures for meeting the problems of unemployment insurance.

The unemployment insurance and old age annuity sections of the present Social Security Act are unworkable and deny benefits to about two-thirds of our adult population, including professional men and women and all those engaged in agriculture and domestic service, and the self employed while imposing heavy tax burdens upon all. The so-called reserve fund estimated at forty-seven billion dollars for old age insurance is no reserve at all, because the fund will contain nothing but the Government’s promise to pay, while the taxes collected in the guise of premiums will be wasted by the Government in reckless and extravagant political schemes.


The welfare of labor rests upon increased production and the prevention of exploitation. We pledge ourselves to:

Protect the right of labor to organize and to bargain collectively through representatives of its own choosing without interference from any source.

Prevent governmental job holders from exercising autocratic powers over labor.

Support the adoption of state laws and interstate compacts to abolish sweatshops and child labor, and to protect women and children with respect to maximum hours, minimum wages and working conditions. We believe that this can be done within the Constitution as it now stands.


The farm problem is an economic and social, not a partisan problem, and we propose to treat it accordingly. Following the wreck of the restrictive and coercive A.A.A.., the New Deal Administration has taken to itself the principles of the Republican Policy of soil conservation and land retirement. This action opens the way for a non-political and permanent solution. Such a solution cannot be had under a New Deal Administration which misuses the program to serve partisan ends, to promote scarcity and to limit by coercive methods the farmer’s control over his own farm.

Our paramount object is to protect and foster the family type of farm, traditional in American life, and to promote policies which will bring about an adjustment of agriculture to meet the needs of domestic and foreign markets. As an emergency measure, during the agricultural depression, federal benefits payments or grants-in-aid when administered within the means of the Federal government are consistent with a balanced budget.

We propose:

1. To facilitate economical production and increased consumption on a basis of abundance instead of scarcity.

2. A national land-use program, including the acquisition of abandoned and non-productive farm lands by voluntary sale or lease, subject to approval of the legislative and executive branches of the States concerned, and the devotion of such land to appropriate public use, such as watershed protection and flood prevention, reforestation, recreation, and conservation of wild life.

3. That an agricultural policy be pursued for the protection and restoration of the land resources, designed to bring about such a balance between soil-building and soil-depleting crops as will permanently insure productivity, with reasonable benefits to cooperating farmer’s on family-type farms, but so regulated as to eliminate the New Deal’s destructive policy towards the dairy and live-stock industries.

4. To extend experimental aid to farmers developing new crops suited to our soil and climate.

5. To promote the industrial use of farm products by applied science.

6. To protect the American farmer against the importation of all live stock, dairy, and agricultural products, substitutes thereof, and derivatives therefrom, which will depress American farm prices.

7. To provide effective quarantine against imported live-stock, dairy and other farm products from countries which do not impose health and sanitary regulations fully equal to those required of our own producers.

8. To provide for ample farm credit at rates as low as those enjoyed by other industries, including commodity and live-stock loans, and preference in land loans to the farmer acquiring or refinancing a farm as a home.

9. To provide for decentralized, non-partisan control of the Farm Credit Administration and the election by National Farm Loan Associations of at least one-half of each Board of Directors of the Federal Land Banks, and thereby remove these institutions from politics.

10. To provide in the case of agricultural products of which there are exportable surpluses, the payment of reasonable benefits upon the domestically consumed portion of such crops in order to make the tariff effective. These payments are to be limited to the production level of the family type farm.

11. To encourage and further develop co-operative marketing.

12. To furnish Government assistance in disposing of surpluses in foreign trade by bargaining for foreign markets selectively by countries both as to exports and imports. We strenuously oppose so called reciprocal treaties which trade off the American farmer.

13. To give every reasonable assistance to producers in areas suffering from temporary disaster, so that they may regain and maintain a self-supporting status.


Nearly sixty percent of all imports into the United States are now free of duty. The other forty percent of imports compete directly with the product of our industry. We would keep on the free list all products not grown or produced in the United States in commercial quantities. As to all commodities that commercially compete with our farms, our forests, our mines, our fisheries, our oil wells, our labor and our industries, sufficient protection should be maintained at all times to defend the American farmer and the American wage earner from the destructive competition emanating from the subsidies of foreign governments and the imports from low-wage and depreciated-currency countries.

We will repeal the present Reciprocal Trade Agreement Law. It is futile and dangerous. Its effect on agriculture and industry has been destructive. Its continuation would work to the detriment of the wage earner and the farmer.

We will restore the principle of the flexible tariff in order to meet changing economic conditions here and abroad and broaden by careful definition the powers of the Tariff Commission in order to extend this policy along non-partisan lines.

We will adjust tariffs with a view to promoting international trade, the stabilization of currencies, and the attainment of a proper balance between agriculture and industry.

We condemn the secret negotiations of reciprocal trade treaties without public hearing or legislative approval.


A private monopoly is indefensible and intolerable. It menaces and, if continued, will utterly destroy constitutional government and the liberty of the citizen.

We favor the vigorous enforcement of the criminal laws, as well as the civil laws, against monopolies and trusts and their officials, and we demand the enactment of such additional legislation as is necessary to make it impressible for private monopoly to exist in the United States.

We will employ the full powers of the government to the end that monopoly shall be eliminated and that free enterprise shall be fully restored and maintained.

Regulation of Business

We recognize the existence of a field within which governmental regulation is desirable and salutary. The authority to regulate should be vested in an independent tribunal acting under clear and specific laws establishing definite standards. Their determinations on law and facts should be subject to review by the Courts. We favor Federal regulation, within the Constitution, of the marketing of securities to protect investors. We favor also Federal regulation of the interstate activities of public utilities.

Civil Service

Under the New Deal, official authority has been given to inexperienced and incompetent persons. The Civil Service has been sacrificed to create a national political machine. As a result the Federal Government has never presented such a picture of confusion and inefficiency.

We pledge ourselves to the merit system, virtually destroyed by New Deal spoilsmen. It should be restored, improved and extended.

We will provide such conditions as offer an attractive permanent career in government service to young men and women of ability, irrespective of party affiliations.

Government Finance

The New Deal Administration has been characterized by shameful waste, and general financial irresponsibility. It has piled deficit upon deficit. It threatens national bankruptcy and the destruction through inflation of insurance policies and savings bank deposits. We pledge ourselves to:

Stop the folly of uncontrolled spending. Balance the budget—not by increasing taxes but by cutting expenditures, drastically and immediately.

Revise the federal tax system and coordinate it with state and local tax systems.

Use the taxing power for raising revenue and not for punitive or political purposes.

Money and Banking

We advocate a sound currency to be preserved at all hazards.

The first requisite to a sound and stable currency is a balanced budget.

We oppose further devaluation of the dollar. We will restore to the Congress the authority lodged with it by the Constitution to coin money and regulate the value thereof by repealing all the laws delegating this authority to the Executive.

We will cooperate with other countries toward stabilization of currencies as soon as we can do so with due regard for our National interests and as soon as other nations have sufficient stability to justify such action.

Foreign Affairs

We pledge ourselves to promote and maintain peace by all honorable means not leading to foreign alliances or political commitments.

Obedient to the traditional foreign policy of America and to the repeatedly expressed will of the American people, we pledge that America shall not become a member of the League of Nations nor of the World Court nor shall America take on any entangling alliances in foreign affairs.

We shall promote, as the best means of securing and maintaining peace by the pacific settlement of disputes, the great cause of international arbitration through the establishment of free, independent tribunals, which shall determine such disputes in accordance with law, equity and justice.

National Defense

We favor an army and navy, including air forces, adequate for our National Defense.

We will cooperate with other nations in the limitation of armaments and control of tragic in arms.

Bill of Rights

We pledge ourselves to preserve, protect and defend, against all intimidation and threat, freedom of religion, speech, press and radio; and the right of assembly and petition and immunity from unreasonable searches and seizures.

We offer the abiding security of a government of laws as against the autocratic perils of a government of men.


1. We favor the construction by the Federal Government of head-water storage basins to prevent floods, subject to the approval of the legislative and executive branches of the government of the States whose lands are concerned.

2. We favor equal opportunity for our colored citizens. We pledge our protection of their economic status and personal safety. We will do our best to further their employment in the gainfully occupied life of America, particularly in private industry, agriculture, emergency agencies and the Civil Service.

We condemn the present New Deal policies which would regiment and ultimately eliminate the colored citizen from the country’s productive life, and make him solely a ward of the federal government.

3. To our Indian population we pledge every effort on the part of the national government to ameliorate living conditions for them.

4. We pledge continuation of the Republican policy of adequate compensation and care for veterans disabled in the service of our country and for their widows, orphans and dependents.

5. We shall use every effort to collect the war debt due us from foreign countries, amounting to $12,000,000—one-third of our national debt. No effort has been made by the present administration even to reopen negotiations.

6. We are opposed to legislation which discriminates against women in Federal and State employment.


We assume the obligations and duties imposed upon Government by modern conditions. We affirm our unalterable conviction that, in the future as in the past, the fate of the nation will depend, not so much on the wisdom and power of government, as on the character and virtue, self-reliance, industry and thrift of the people and on their willingness to meet the responsibilities essential to the preservation of a free society.

Finally, as our party affirmed in its first Platform in 1856: “Believing that the spirit of our institutions as well as the Constitution of our country guarantees liberty of conscience and equality of rights among our citizens we oppose all legislation tending to impair them,” and “we invite the affiliation and cooperation of the men of all parties, however differing from us in other respects, in support of the principles herein declared.”

The acceptance of the nomination tendered by the Convention carries with it, as a matter of private honor and public faith, an undertaking by each candidate to be true to the principles and program herein set forth.

H/T The American Presidency Project

Such talk today would be viewed by the left as radical, racist, and extreme. As for me, today’s Republican Party needs to take a page from the Republican Party of 1936. I choose the platform of the 1936 Republican Party because the solutions are sound and most of all they are derived from true conservatism.

Liberty forever, freedom for all!


Government Does Not Create Jobs; In July Alone It Added $9.5 Billion to the Cost of Doing Business


Pivoting away from other issues like the environment (“Bombshell” Experiment: Global Climate Change Caused by Cloud Cover) or education (More Than 200 D.C. Teachers Fired! Progress?), let’s return back to jobs and the role that the government plays in job creation.

In my post Coming To Grips With a Political Economy I wrote about a class that I took in college called ‘Political Economy.’ The class was an attempt to indoctrinate students with the idea that government could create jobs through its actions and could create wealth through proper regulation and control over free markets. I struggled through this class, mostly because I rejected entirely the idea that government can create wealth and jobs through its actions, and today I still believe that.

Government does not create jobs. It takes wealth from those who are productive and creating wealth, cycles it through many layers of bureaucracy and ‘management’, and then gives that wealth to those people who are favored by the government. Some of those who are favored by the government should be- the Constitution identified those who the government can give ‘jobs’ to and states further have identified those who the government should give ‘jobs’ to. But many others who the government gives ‘jobs’ today in America are simply those who benefit from the kind of crony capitalism and banana republic policies that are more common to two-bit dictatorships and tyrannies.

And the ‘jobs’ that are created by government are inefficiently created- much wealth and property is squandered and lost and burned by having government provide these jobs because of the many layers of ‘management’ and bureaucracy that mark the government. This is an acceptable price to pay for fire, police, and military jobs, but for most other ‘jobs’ the government creates the cost to create these jobs far exceeds the useful good that these jobs provide to society.

For example, many liberals claim that Obamacare will ‘create jobs’- agencies and regulatory bodies that will hire overlords and masters who supervise a once-free and vibrant economic sector and regulate, tax, and control it. But the cost of these jobs was demonstrated graphically by the reaction that businesses had to it- after the passage of this law businesses dramatically dropped their hiring of workers. The Heritage report explained why this happened:

Businesses with fewer than 50 workers have a strong incentive to maintain this size, which allows them to avoid the mandate to provide government-approved health coverage or face a penalty; Businesses with more than 50 workers will see their costs for health coverage rise—they must purchase more expensive government-approved insurance or pay a penalty; and Employers face considerable uncertainty about what constitutes qualifying health coverage and what it will cost. They also do not know what the health care market or their health care costs will look like in four years. This makes planning for the future difficult.

Yet President Obama and the modern-day Democratic Party continues to think that regulations, spending, taxes, and control over free people can ‘create jobs’. They take wealth from those who have it- either through taxes or fees or by simply sucking up savings by selling debt- and give it to those who they favor and try to pretend that they have made society better. But they haven’t- they have killed legitimate jobs that millions of people through their free actions wanted and needed (the unseen hand of the market) and made society less because of their actions that took away freedom and property.

In Latest EPA Rules to Cost 1.4 Million Jobs and a 12% Increase in Utility Bills I wrote about how the Washington Post reported that the new EPA rules that were recently published will cause electric bills will jump 12 percent nationally by 2016 to comply with these new policies, with residents in areas such as Kentucky and Tennessee seeing a 24 percent increase in their utility bills. These policies are project to eliminate 1.4 million jobs- real jobs that will be destroyed by the actions of government, creating people who will no longer be paying taxes any more and will now be sucking down government benefits, all thanks to these policies pushed by Democratic bureaucrats employed by a Democratic President supervised by Democrats in the House and the Senate and supported by Democratic unions and a Democratic media.

And now Wyoming Republican Senator John Barrasso has put together a report that showed thatthe executive actions of the Democrat President have put in place in July alone an additional $9.5 billion in new regulatory costs by proposing 229 new rules and finalizing 379 rules. Among those rules that are going to add to the cost of doing business, kill jobs, and make our society less productive and wealthy are rules regarding the fake issues of global warming, healthcare reform, and financial regulatory reform rules.

IN JULY ALONE A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT PUT IN PLACE $9.5 BILLION IN NEW COSTS! I don’t care how many times Obama ‘pivots’ to talk about jobs, the heart of the matter is that he is wrong about the government being able to create jobs and wealth through its actions- government is best that governs least because when people are free and free to live their lives and free to make their own decisions and free to do with their wealth and labor as they see fit, then jobs are created and wealth is created.

Make the choice in 2012 to turn America away from tyranny and ‘government-created jobs’ and to freedom and ‘people-created jobs’.

For more reading, try Productivity versus OSHA and EPA regulations (Research for business decisions).

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher


Must Read Interview by IBD with Home Depot Founder Bernie Marcus!


Just read this interview that Investors Business Daily had with Bernie Marcus, the co-founder of Home Depot, one of the largest home improvement stores in the nation and employer of lots of people. The interview is stunning because Marcus says what we’re all seeing- that the biggest barrier to wealth creation is now the government, that Obama and the Democrats are contributing to the problem, that the White House doesn’t even know how to talk to wealth creators, and that the reason why no one is speaking out is that they are all afraid of the powerful wealth destroying government targeting them if they don’t toe the line in this now tin-pot banana-republic. Well said Mr. Marcus, and great interview IBD!

IBD: What’s the single biggest impediment to job growth today?

Marcus: The U.S. government. Having built a small business into a big one, I can tell you that today the impediments that the government imposes are impossible to deal with. Home Depot would never have succeeded if we’d tried to start it today. Every day you see rules and regulations from a group of Washington bureaucrats who know nothing about running a business. And I mean every day. It’s become stifling.

If you’re a small businessman, the only way to deal with it is to work harder, put in more hours, and let people go. When you consider that something like 70% of the American people work for small businesses, you are talking about a big economic impact.

IBD: President Obama has promised to streamline and eliminate regulations. What’s your take?

Marcus: His speeches are wonderful. His output is absolutely, incredibly bad. As he speaks about cutting out regulations, they are now producing thousands of pages of new ones. With just ObamaCare by itself, you have a 2,000 page bill that’s probably going end up being 150,000 pages of regulations.

IBD: Washington has been consumed with debt talks. Is this the right focus now?

Marcus: They are all tied together. If we don’t lower spending and if we don’t deal with paying down the debt, we are going to have to raise taxes. Even brain-dead economists understand that when you raise taxes, you cost jobs.

IBD: If you could sit down with Obama and talk to him about job creation, what would you say?

Marcus: I’m not sure Obama would understand anything that I’d say, because he’s never really worked a day outside the political or legal area. He doesn’t know how to make a payroll, he doesn’t understand the problems businesses face. I would try to explain that the plight of the businessman is very reactive to Washington. As Washington piles on regulations and mandates, the impact is tremendous. I don’t think he’s a bad guy. I just think he has no knowledge of this.

IBD: Why don’t more businesses speak out?

Marcus: They are frightened to death — frightened that they will have the IRS or SEC on them. In my 50 years in business, I have never seen executives of major companies who were more intimidated by an administration.

IBD: What’s your message to the business community?

Marcus: It’s time to stand up and fight. These people in Washington are out there making your life difficult, and many of you won’t survive. Why aren’t you doing something about it? The free enterprise system made this country what it is today, and we’ve got to keep it alive. We are on the edge of the abyss.

We are the edge of the abyss, or perhaps already falling into it, but that only means that we have to fight even harder to return our nation to its founding principles which unleashed humanity in freedom and wealth.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher