Growth of the Police State

Reading this week about the 13 year old in Chicago who has been charged with a felony for throwing a snowball at a police officer and the California university student arrested for not identifying herself, I have become extremely dismayed at the extent to which law enforcement is overstepping their authority. Not only are they acting with ever-increasing levels of brutality and militarism, they are acting as though they are entitled to special, protected status. Gone are the days of your friendly neighborhood police officer that kids knew they could run to in times of trouble. Gone is the “Protect and Serve” ethos. Is it because local politicians and police chiefs have been enamored by the military “toys” they have access to that had previously only been available to SWAT? Or is it the caliber of people now wanting to become police officers? Bullies who want to feel like big shots? Our police forces are now looking like gangs of toughs rather than law enforcement.

 

My children and I had our own disturbing experience with the Ohio state police while on a cross-country road trip last summer, and I can tell you that my 9 year old son is now terrified of the police.  He saw his 17 year old brother threatened and he, his mom, and his brother locked in the back of a police car for over an hour while drug-sniffing dogs and 6 state police officers searched their home on wheels (RV) without any evidence of wrongdoing. Just because “we won’t know what we’ll find until; we look”. After not finding anything, we were sent on our way with the “we’re just doing our jobs” argument.  This experience gave my son nightmares for months and an ongoing, deep distrust of the police and of course, my complaint didn’t even get a response from the department.

 

I’m not sure what we can do about this trend, and I expect it is a symptom of the larger problem, the slow chipping away of our civil liberties, but I hope as more of these stories are heard and as outrage grows, we will see a backlash against the bullies. I am afraid though that this may not happen until we hit some critical mass tipping point where the people have more to fear from police than from criminals.

 

Obama the Fool?

I am tempted to go with the story that Obama wasn't told anything about anything and that he's the most incompetent president we've ever had.  I mean please, the man never held a real job in his life and certainly has had no experience leading or managing anything before being thrust into the position of leading the most powerful country on the planet.  And lets not forger that our President sure knows how to occupy his time with activities other than governing, like celebrity parties and golf.

But given the kind of Imperial Presidency Obama has attempted to pursue during his first term, I am not so sure he would leave every decision and action to his underlings.  He may not be able to surround himself with actually competent advisors, but I suspect they are all quite willing to provide him the cover and "reasonable deniability" he is now falling back on. 

Time will tell whether he will be given a pass on all the outrageous tactics his administration has used since he took office, or whether his management house of cards will fall and people will recognize him for what he is: an unscrupulous hack who uses Chicago-style tactics to intimidate and hamstring his opponents.

Four Outstanding Benghazi Questions

No matter who is doing the reporting, no one seems to include the full list of issues with the attack on our consulate in Benghazi resulting in the deaths 4 Americans. I want to make sure we don't lose track of any of the questions the Obama administration refuses to answer. 

#1 - Who made the stand-down order? Why didn't they send in the FEST to assist the personnel there?

#2 - Why was the security so light given the recent attack on the facility and on British facilities nearby, especially on 9/11?

#3 - a State Department whistleblower has been retaliated against by senior management. Who directed the demotion of Mr Hicks?

#4 - The talking points were deliberately prepared to mislead the American people. Who decided to falsely blame the attack on the YouTube video?

Patriot bloggers and members of the twitterverse have kept this story alive over the past 8 months.  They will not rest or drop this story until Americans get the answers we deserve.  

One reason why we need to fight for unrestricted gun rights

We have been hearing a lot lately about how we "gun nuts" are under the impression that we're involved in some sort of Mad Max breakdown of society situation because we oppose gun control legislation. As a matter of fact, economist Paul Krugman said that just last weekend, arguing: But we're the United States!  That couldn't possibly happen here.

The truth is, despots are never expected.  My father in law, who just celebrated his 90th birthday, and my mother in-law are Holocaust survivors, and I can tell you that they certainly never expected anything like that to happen in Europe.  In the 1920's, Germany was one of the most educated, cosmopolitan countries in the world.  There was a thriving education system, from kindergarten to university, they led the world in scientific exploration, and yet by 1933 a tyrant was able to come to power, to start a world war, and to murder millions.  They thought they were living in an enlightened society, but were disarmed by their government and led off to concentration camps.  By the time they were liberated from Auschwitz, my mother in law was left with only her mother and sister still alive and my father in law had lost his entire extended family. 

Do you really think that government abuse of power couldn't happen here?  Tell that to my in-laws who certainly didn't think it could happen to them.  Tell that to Native American children taken from their families and forced into government run indoctrination boarding schools.  Tell that to the Japanese Americans imprisoned in government run internment camps during World War II, and tell that to all the African Americans who saw friends and family members lynched throughout the south because they did not have the same access to firearms with which to defend themselves as whites. 

Frankly, the move to a totalitarian government is not as large a step as you would hope.  For Germany, it was an economic depression and a huge social welfare obligation that led many to a sense of hopelessness and a desire to "blame someone".  What is it that totalitarian governments do to protect their positions? We need only look to history.  It starts with the passing of laws to restrict the ownership of firearms and the institution of universal registration all in the name of "safety", then comes disarming the citizenry, and finally extermination. That is why our founding fathers included an unrestricted right to bear arms so prominently in the Constitution, right after the right to freedom of speech, association, and religion.  The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right and should not require a license – just as you cannot require a license to practice religion or express freedom of speech.

No Immigration Amnesty

This is the content of the letter on immigration reform that I have sent to my representatives in Congress and submitted as a Letter to the Editor to my local newspapers.

The President has made immigration reform one of the hallmark pieces of his new term agenda, and we've seen multiple new proposals presented this week. As you are gathering feedback from the people you represent, it is important to note that this is a topic about which people have very strong feelings.

There are approximately 1 million people here in the United States who have come to through legal channels but about 11 million who are here illegally.  The 1 million here legally have waited their turn, prepared the appropriate documentation, and are following the rules we have prescribed for those wishing to live and work here.  The 11 million here illegally have sneaked into the country through various dangerous and potentially costly mean while not having completed any paperwork, or checks of any kind.  Now most of these people are here to work in jobs that Americans will not perform or for wages that Americans will not accept, however some portion of them are costing the states and local communities in which they reside millions of dollars and security by participating in violent criminal activity, driving without licenses or insurance, or by utilizing government programs and services they haven't paid into.  Others may well include potential terrorists who wish to do us harm.

President Obama has proposed an immigration plan that includes amnesty for those illegal immigrants already here, which essentially means automatic citizenship.  What does that say to all the people who came to this country and played by the rules? Certainly not a level playing field.  The United States should not be providing amnesty in any form, including a special "path to citizenship". Rather than containing the flood across our borders, amnesty would be like opening the dam to all those contemplating coming to the US illegally in the future - don't worry, just come and you'll be taken care of - and would penalize the people who came here through the proper channels.  

Is it feasible to deport 11 million people?  Of course not, and multiple industries would be harmed by the loss of workers.  There is no way that the American people would be willing to pay for the significantly more expensive agricultural products that would result from raising wages high enough to make those seasonal jobs worthwhile to citizens.  We need those workers.  Let's create a Guest Worker program for which every person here illegally that wants to work would need to apply and register.  Let's restrict access to all federal, state, and local welfare benefits so as not to incentivize people to come here to take advantage of these programs.  Let's deport those we know have engaged in criminal activity.  And lastly, if those guest workers would like the opportunity to become citizens down the line after proving they are productive members of society, let's offer the opportunity to get in line and follow the same process as everyone else.  

Congress is all about compromise

I think some folks out there are not too clear on how the founding fathers intended our government to work.  There are three branches and 2 houses within the legislative branch for a reason.  The founders knew that pure democracy and majority rule was a death sentence for the liberties of the minority, so to protect individual freedoms, they planned for multiple counterbalancing forces.  They knew that it would be unlikely for all branches to be controlled by the same party, so that extreme ideological action would be harder to pass and be put into effect.

Within the system today, Democrats have control of the Senate and the White House, and Republicans have control of the House.  In order for Congress to  accomplish anything at all, the two parties HAVE to negotiate and compromise.  Democrats will have to give in on things they want, and Republicans will have to give in on some things they want.  The fact is: the legislation that will come as a result of these rounds of compromise will not be all that Republicans would hope.  Nor will it match the Democratic wish list.  Minority Senate Republicans are particularly important right now in tempering Democratic proposals enough so that they can be supported by their counterparts in the House.  

Sure people want THEIR desires put into practice, but accusing principled legislators of abandoning their principles or selling-out ignores the fact that given the mix of opinions and political ideology we see in America, it would be virtually impossible for strict ideologues to ever get their way all the time.  We sent our representatives to congress to represent our interests and to work together to solve the problems of this country.  We want to see people sharing the same values and priorities we hold to be involved in those negotiations, so that those with the opposite views do not have the final say.  We cannot, however, expect them to achieve 100% of what we would like.  In negotiation, both sides must give up some of what they want so that both sides get most of what they want.  

Obama's Power Grab

Since his reelection, President Obama has been clearly showing the country what he intends his next term to look like.  All of his cabinet picks have been a slap in the face to most Americans and our ally Israeli, he has threatened unilateral action via Executive Orders to get around the lack of Congressional support for his proposals, and he has pointedly refused to negotiate with Congress on the budget.  Not worried about facing another election, he is ready to impose his rule as King Obama.  Are we really going to let this happen?

The election was a travesty.  How did Republicans manage to lose?  I still can't believe that the GOP was not even able to get as many people out to vote for Romney as for McCain!  Obama's first term was a complete mess and he country is in a worse state now than when he took office.  There are fewer people employed today than at the height of the recession and the national debt is well over $16 trillion.  What does it take to get people to sit up and take notice?

Republicans need to do two things: first, they need to take the gloves off and start fighting dirty.  There's no way to win this country back by playing nice when the Democrats have no trouble lying about their records and intentions; second, we all need to come together and press the Republicans in Congress to fight every move Obama makes.  It is much more important for this country that they do not give in.  We have to give up sparring within the party and present a unified front before we reach the point of no return.  The things that tend to divide us, like social issues and illegal immigration need to take a back seat to the far more pressing issues of wasteful spending, entitlement reform and protecting the Constitution.  Look at the Democrats. Obama is appointing a cabinet full of white men.  Do you see women's or minority groups saying a word about it?  Not a peep.  We need to show the same unity, but with a principled cause, and push our party leaders to work together to do the will of the people.

Chuck Hagel is the wrong choice

President Obama is providing us all with a clear indication of his views on the use of military power, our relationship with Israel, and his weak response to the threat Iran poses by nominating former Senator Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense.  

Senator Hagel has repeatedly indicated his unwillingness to put military action on the table when dealing with the threat from Iran, which would continue to demonstrate the US position of weakness to the Iranians. Why should they consider the demands of the US and other nations if they already disregard sanctions and continue to move forward with their nuclear program, unless they know the US is prepared to back up talk with action?  A nuclear Iran is a grave threat to the entire world and we need a Secretary of Defense who understands the gravity of the situation and is ready to do what is required to defend this country from that threat. 

Sen. Hagel may or may not be an anti-semite, but he has demonstrated his disdain for Israel over and over while in Congress, and we cannot afford to further damage the relationship with our one true ally in the Middle East Region. President Obama campaigned on his promise to remain a strong supporter of Israel, and while I did not believe him for a minute based on his actions during his last term, I'm sure many voters bought his message.  This nomination has clearly shown where he loyalties actually lie. Unfortunately many pro-Israel organizations, including AIPAC, have decided to remain quiet on this nomination.  That means the rest of us need to step up and press Congress to act where the President will not.

Although I disagree with many of the positions he has held, I do believe that Sen. Hagel served his country honorably both in war and in Congress, but that does not mean he is the right man for this job. Those of you who agree should write their Senator and ask that they vote No when asked to confirm Chuck Hagel's nomination for Defense Secretary.

But he didn't mean us!

Ok, I will admit that I am deriving some level of enjoyment from the fact that so many Obama supporters are shocked to see a cut in their paychecks as a result of the expired payroll tax cut. I mean gee, what did they think would happen? That he would really only support tax increases for "the rich"? 

Joseph Curl shares a number of amusingly ill-informed comments in his Washington Times article Obama supporters shocked, angry at new tax increases 

So this week, as taxes went up for millions of Americans — which Republicans predicted throughout the campaign would happen — it was fun to watch the agoggery of the left.

“I know to expect between $93 and $94 less in my paycheck on the 15th,” wrote the ironically named “RomneyLies.”

“My boyfriend has had a lot of expenses and is feeling squeezed right now, and having his paycheck shrink really didn’t help,” wrote “DemocratToTheEnd.”

“BlueIndyBlue” added: “Many of my friends didn’t realize it, either. Our payroll department didn’t do a good job of explaining the coming changes"

Part of me wonders how people can be so clueless about the workings of government in Washington - don't they read the news? - but I guess the fact that a majority of people did not even know what the fiscal cliff is, means I shouldn't be surprised.  Maybe this small tax increase will act as a wake up call to what will happen across the board in the not-to-distant future if the current spending track continues.  But I'm not holding my breath.

How long can we keep this up?

All of us should be absolutely terrified by this graph below.  Why?  Because it so clearly illustrates what kind of crazy mess we are already in, and what horrific magnification of this mess we will see in the next four years if President Obama and the rest of the Keynesian redistributionists get their way.

The most pressing question for Americans in 2013 is: are we a nation of free enterprise or of government intervention?  Case in point - almost 75% of the recovery jobs in the past 2 years are with the government or government funded entities (hint: propped up "green energy" companies don't count as private enterprise). We are looking at record levels of revenues but exponentially higher levels of government spending. Obama and most of the democrats are perfectly happy to continue on with this strategy, thinking that they will be able to tax "the rich" into submission, not really caring that even forcibly taking every cent of income from the rich will barely make a dent in the deficit spending and that we are mortgaging away our children's future to China. Ultimately, Obama would like as many people as possible dependent on the government, because that's what makes his redistribution plan possible, but the balance is tipping and soon private sector people won't be able to support everyone in made up government jobs.

How long can we keep going at this rate before there are not enough people to redistribute from?  If the current course is not changed, at some point we'll reach a point where no productive people will work in this country. It will become either Animal Farm or Atlas Shrugged.

And frankly the Republicans are little better than Democrats when it comes to spending.  Fortunately Tea Party Republicans are forcing the conversation in both houses, and now all Republicans are at least giving lip service to reducing spending.  It remains to be seen if they will actually follow through.  The debt ceiling discussions will be the perfect opportunity for Republicans to demonstrate that they are actually serious about massive cuts to spending and aren't just all talk.  They have already been embarrassingly willing to give in to Obama's "I won the election, so we'll do what I want" posturing.  Let's see if they are able to man up and grow a pair.  If not, then in 2014 it will be the rest of us that will be to blame if we don't elect representatives actually willing to stand up for the future of this country.  In the meanwhile, since all our elected representatives have shown themselves incapable of closing the checkbook (with the notable exception of Newt Gingrich's Contract with America congress under Clinton), American's need to actively lobby for a balanced budget amendment.  

Protecting the Constitution

I would hate to think that anyone was secretly wishing for the horrific tragedy last week in Sandy Hook, but the immediate response by a faithful cadre on the left leaves me wondering.  The reaction from liberals from the moments we first heard the story, has been to gleefully shriek that we must turn to the position they have been hoping for for decades - seize all firearms from private citizens.  Immediately!  For the children, of course.  The 2nd amendment be damned.  Their arguments go like this: our founding fathers could not possibly have intended for Americans to have handguns or assault rifles, they lived in the age of muskets and surely would want us limited to that option; madmen and criminals are able to get their hands on guns, so private citizens should not have them to "get them off the streets".  Some even claim we need to take them from the police as well.  Not only should we move quickly for a ban on the mysterious "assault weapons", we should seize them from every registered gun owner.  It's really been a disgusting display!

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. - 2nd Amendment to the Constitution

The framers of the Bill of Rights saw the 2nd amendment as a basic right of a free citizenry and even as an obligation in order to defend against a oppressive government or external invasion.  The intent was not to just provide for people defending their homes against burglars   Remember. the Constitution was written for a newly free United States after a revolution against British rule.  An armed citizenry was responsible for the American Revolution.  That's what a militia is.  Would we be able to fight against a military insurrection or oppressive government using single-shot hunting rifles or shotguns?  Yes, but not very effectively given the state of today's military arsenals.  Citizens need to be able to have at least close-to-comparable firepower to that of the government.  That is the entire point of the 2nd amendment.  On the political talk shows we've heard the response, from conservatives even, that even with AR-15s we couldn't defend against the US military.  Really?  That's exactly what the British government thought about some farmers and merchants in the territories taking up arms against the renowned British army.  Every uprising against oppressive, tyrannical governments across the globe have been residents taking up arms against a much more powerful army.  


But what about the "public safety"?  Doesn't it trump our 2nd amendment rights?  Absolutely not!  The fact is that these incidents have been become less frequent, though with immediate, round-the-clock access to anything happening anywhere on earth it does not appear so.  While that does not in the least lessen the gravity of the act, we need to instead consider what contributed to the situation.  Why did the gunman's mother allow access to her legally obtained firearms by her mentally unstable son?  Why hadn't she received the support she needed to ensure he was properly treated?


Haven't we already given away too many of our rights in the name of "public safety"?  The government can tap our phones, indefinitely detain us, monitor our email, and assassinate us on foreign soil with no due process.  Presidents Obama has signed more "secret" Presidential Orders into effect than all other previous presidents combined, taking away more of our liberties with every stroke of the pen.  Haven't we given away enough without actually re-writing the Constitution?  As Benjamin Franklin so famously said,

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

I think we deserve both. 

Guns and Schools

I think almost everyone out there can agree that the killing of children is one of the worst things that can ever happen in a civilized society, and the killing of 20 kids at a the Sandy Hook Elementary School last Friday is one of the most heinous crimes this country has ever seen.  The question now is: what are we going to do about it?

It is extremely important to note that mass shootings occur almost exclusively in locations where guns are prohibited.  The Colorado movie theater shooter chose not the closest or largest theater to attack, he chose the one out of the four local theaters that specifically banned guns from the premises.  From schools to other "Gun free zone" locations, students and patrons are like fish in a barrel and easy marks.  

The Michigan legislature, in response to the mass murders in Connecticut Friday, passed a bill allowing conceal carry in schools that was vetoed by Governor Snyder today.  While the legislature was on the right track, I do not think that teachers or administrators should have to carry weapons if they are not comfortable doing so.  The best way we could protect our children is to provide each school with controlled entry and an armed guard.  Our children would no longer be sitting ducks, unarmed and defenseless, and cowardly madmen would not have the easy targets they have today.  The Connecticut shooter committed suicide as soon as he heard law enforcement responding to the scene.  Had there been a trained, armed guard at the door of the school, he would most likely not have even attempted the attack or would have been stopped before he could enter and do damage.

We pay to provide armed guards for Federal and State run facilities: courthouses, office buildings, even the Department of Motor Vehicles.  Don't our children deserve the same level of protection?  No matter what we do to law-abiding citizens, criminals and crazies are going to find away to get weapons, whether firearms or explosives or incendiary devices (the worst US school killings was in 1927 when 45 people were killed in a school bombing), so we need to have trained people on the ground able to address these situations if and when they arise.  We should all be contacting our state, local and federal government representatives and demand that every primary and secondary school building have an experienced, armed guard.  

A Crisis of Awareness

Where is the outrage from the American people over these ridiculous Fiscal Cliff "negotiations"?  Every conservative-leaning person in America should be writing their Senators and Representatives demanding that they cut spending and extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone. Or, we can continue to rack up even more massive debt than we have already. When our public debt has outpaced the growth of the private economy, we have a major problem. We have not been at this level of spending since WWII, and that spending immediately dropped post-war. For us, there is no end in sight, for the next four years at least, and the result is truly frightening.  

President Obama won't meet with Republican congressional members and we're not sure he's even been meeting with his own party members. He has met with Rachel Maddow and Al Sharpton however, so we know he's getting good advice on the economy. It's also interesting to note that in the Obama budget proposal Geitner was sent out to sell, Obama is freely spending the "savings" from bringing the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan and has proposed billions in new "stimulus" spending.  

The fact that people on the street are either unaware of these issues or think the government needs to "do more" http://bit.ly/YAjhtP is a sad commentary on the Republican party's inability to promote free market principles.  Republicans need to get their act together and inform the American people about the coming bankrupting of the country and why the current course is unsustainable.  This crisis is also a test for the current Republican members of congress.  They need to understand that they will be held accountable come 2014 or 2016 election time for the positions they take during the fiscal cliff negotiations their votes on the budget ultimately put forward.

You STILL didn't build that

Obama is still holding steadfast to his demand that tax rates be raised on the "rich" (and again I point out that "rich" in his mind means families earning $250K).  Why?  Republicans have given in and are open to raising the same level of revenue through the closing of loopholes rather than straight up changes in rates.  Because he wants to punish success.  Obama wants to clearly label successful people as evil and not deserving of their wealth - they didn't build that! 

This is a fundamental difference in philosophy from the country our founding fathers envisioned.  It is the same view that enabled the administration to portray Mitt Romney as explicitly morally inferior, and implicitly guilty of some crime or wrongdoing, because he is a successful man. This has been accepted and embraced by the Democratic congress in stark contrast to how John Kerry was received as the party's nominee for President, and his net worth was significantly higher.  Of course John Kerry wasn't guilty of earning his money, he married into it.  Maybe that's a forgivable sin. 

And the liberal guilt for making money must not be assuaged by voluntary charitable works, as the pitiable philanthropic efforts of the Obamas and Bidens can attest, they prefer to take wealth by force.

Are Republicans seeing the light?

You know you're in trouble when Nancy Pelosi says you now "see the light", as she said of Republicans in an interview Thursday.  

Asked if the GOP would buckle, Pelosi said, “I wouldn’t say buckle. See the light might be a better term.”

Yikes!  And to add insult to injury, the Democrats not only expect Republicans to cave on taxes in the Fiscal Cliff negotiations, they are demanding a massive new stimulus package!  The fact that Republicans have not just walked away from the table on this is outrageous.  

Democrats feel emboldened by Obama's win, the increase in Republican Governors and a strong Republican hold on the house, being cleverly ignored.  There has been a lot of discussion on blogs and Twitter about the ramifications in the next election cycle if Republicans don't hold firm on taxes and spending cuts.  If only that were true.  When have Republicans ever really had their feet held to the fire when they have voted against conservative fiscal principles?  We keep electing the same wishy-washy bunch over and over again.  We should be demanding accountability for the decisions they make in the name of "bipartisanship".  

Grover Norquist was on the right track with the tax pledge, but he did not go far enough - we need a similar pledge on spending - and we need to follow up at the fundraising dinners and voting booth to hold responsible those who choose to renege.

Should we just let the sequestration happen?

Watching the Sunday morning new shows over the weekend, I was stunned to see that while there was much discussion about whether taxes on millionaires, that now includes families making over $250,000 by the way, but none on what spending to cut.  Not one of the members of the House or Senate, or even the pundits for that matter, were calling on the President and Congress to cut spending.  

It seems that all the concern around the Fiscal Cliff negotiations is extended only to taxes, not the out of control spending that is driving the country toward bankruptcy.  All of the participants, regardless of party, spent their time lamenting how this tax rate increase or removing that loophole would increase revenues.  I heard plenty of Republican's willing to dishonor the Norquist pledge saying it doesn't matter in this time of trillion dollar deficits, but I did not hear Democrats pledging to play their part and reduce entitlements. This is the story we've heard from big government for far too long -- no matter how much revenue the Federal Government is able to collect, they will be able to easily spend it all.  Keynesian Democrats have been convinced they can spend their way out of the recession, and see where that's gotten us.  And no matter what lip-service we've heard over the years from Republicans on big spending, both parties are complicit, but we are in WAY over our heads with no end in sight.

1947-2012 Federal Government Tax Revenues vs. Spending

Federal Government Tax Revenues vs. Expenditures

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

October 4, 2012

We need to take a serious look at ALL spending, and right off the bat, begin means testing for Social Security and Medicare.  Is it theft to exclude payments to rich seniors who have paid into the system their whole working lives?  Yes, but it has to be done.  Frankly, social security is a drop in the bucket for wealthy people who can afford their retirement without it, and those same people should not be partaking of government sponsored healthcare.  I know they have paid into it, but they are screwing their grandchildren out of a lot more by expecting to receive it.  The current senior population is not "the Greatest Generation" for nothing; they would do what's right and accept the means testing.  Baby Boomers, on the other hand, are selfish enough to not care what kind of legacy they are leaving and would fight it, but again, it must be done as part of comprehensive cuts in all spending.

And what of the "sequestration" that is no longer generating discussion?  Let it happen. We are currently spending about $3.6T a year and bringing in $2.5T.  Sequestration is an idea that has been around for decades, but his statements in the 2nd presidential debate notwithstanding, was promoted by the Obama administration in order to serve as a "stick" during budget negotiations.  It will enforce an automatic, $1.2T cut to spending to both defense and non-defense spending in order to meet a balanced budget.  

However we do it, the people of this country need to fight for cuts, to force Congress to turn from the path we've been traveling and give back the promise of a strong America for our children, not a bankrupt one.

Liberal War on Women

Why do liberals see everyone as victims?  Could it be that this approach increases the number of people who need "protecting", thus those who are dependent on Big Brother for that "protection"?   It has also turned out to be an effective way of deflecting any criticism of the actions and positions of those on the left.  

This past week Republicans began to back off their critique of Susan Rice's refusal to speak truthfully in the weeks following the despicable terrorist strike on our consulate in Benghazi, having been accused of being racist and/or sexist for questioning Ms. Rice's testimony to Congress about the attack.  As a woman, I am deeply offended that liberals think Rice (and, by extension, all women) is too fragile to withstand criticism as she executes her role as US ambassador to the UN and Obama administration and foreign affairs spokesperson.  Susan Rice is an accomplished woman who has held a variety of national security and foreign policy roles in the US government; she is not some tittering sorority girl requiring protection from big bad bullies questioning her judgement.  

I do not believe Rice sees herself as a victim; however, this tactic has been used increasingly by those on the Left as a way to deflect attention away from actual policy matters.  Liberals will scream from the rooftops when the stated positions or job performance of anyone of color and/or women are questioned.  If you voted for Romney over Obama you're a racist.  If Congress questions why Susan Rice presented an inaccurate briefing, clearly intending to deflect acknowledgement of acts of terrorism before the election, then they are both racist and sexist.  Far from acknowledging that she was set out as a sacrificial lamb and put in that position then hung out to dry by the administration, they decry the questions as sexist.  Maybe Nancy Pelosi isn't woman enough to take criticism, but the rest of women in America certainly are.

Unfortunately, this tactic is working.  Over the weekend on the Sunday morning news shows, John McCain was definitely reacting to the Democratic name-calling when he clearly tempered his comments on Rice's potential nomination for Secretary of State.  If Republicans are going to give into this nonsense and back off, then off course it validates the Left's position and strengthens this line of attack.  Republicans need to man up and refudiate these claims for the outrageous and spurious accusations they are, and condemn Demorats for the scurrilous vagabonds they are.  

Say Hello to the Police State

I am hoping that Patrick Leahy's Senate bill allowing a plethora of federal agencies to have warrantless access to Americans' email is defeated, but given recent history, I am doubtful.  This would just be the latest violation of our civil liberties to be written into law by elected representatives with only the interests of the state and making the jobs of law enforcement easier.  Rather than forcing them to go through the process of collecting enough evidence to support a warrant, they'll have open access to our email accounts and Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter messages.

Do Americans understand that there are federal laws in place that enable the government to track your cell phone and the GPS in your car without a warrant?  Fortunately, the Supreme Court ruled that warrantless GPS car tracking is unconstitutional.  We can expect the email access case to be, like that of warrantless cell phone tracking, challenged in the courts, and they may or may not be judged constitutional.  How chilling that these laws are passed with almost no objection or coverage by the mainstream press.  Are we that willing to give up our most basic privacy for the sake of "safety", or is it disinterest?  Either way, it is a disturbing step down the path opposed to anything our founding fathers envisioned for a free people

Walking the Obamacare plank

With Obama's re-election and a split Congress, Obamacare is now the law of the land and there is no chance of repeal.  Companies like Papa John's have already courted criticism for announcing they will lay off workers and/or cut workers' hours in response to the tax increases Obamacare will bring in 2013.  Many other business are or will be following suit.  

According to a list of of new 2013 taxes compiled by Americans for Tax Reform, the new taxes will include:

Investment Surcharge - What this has to do with healthcare has not been explained, but it will apply a 3.8% increase to capital gains and dividends for households making over $250,000.  This hits small business disproportionately hard as many small business owners fall in this category, and I'm not talking about Donald Trump. 

"Special Needs" Tax - Caps the amount that can be saved in Flexible Spending Accounts at $2500 per year.  It is called the "Special Needs" tax because it particularly hurts families with special needs children as they spend proportionally more on health care and tuition for special education.  

Medical Device Manufacturers Tax - A 2.3% excise tax on medical devices worth more than $100.  An excise tax is one that is imposed on a manufacture of goods rather than on the consumption of that item.  It is a "hidden" tax as most people don't see the tax, only an increase in costs.  This has already hit the devices industry hard and multiple employers have announced layoffs. 

Medical Spending Deductions Cap - The new tax increases the threshold for the amount of medical spending above which the spending can be deducted from 7.5% of their income to 10% of their income.  People with ongoing medical expenses that fall under the threshold can no longer file for the deduction, and people with higher expenses lose out on 2.5% of what they had previously been able to deduct.  

Medicare Payroll Tax - Employers already pay an existing payroll tax for each employee.  The rate employers must pay will increase.  With raises and bonuses already squeezed by the stagnant economy, employers will be even less able to offer raises when the cost of affected employee goes up. 

How is the economy supposed to recover when the cost of doing business increases like this?  Small businesses employing 49 people or fewer will be incentivized NOT to hire that 50th person as they will then fall under the Obamacare provisions.  And keep in mind penalty calculations for lack of compliance for companies with more than 50 employees are made using the number of full-time staff; part-time employees are not included.  This effectively incentivizes companies to maximize the number of employees working 30 hrs a week or fewer.  Underemployment is already a significant problem right now and Obamacare disincentives will make the situation even worse.  We've just seen the tip of the iceberg. 

These taxes will go into effect no matter what the results of the "Fiscal Cliff" negotiations are, as they are not part of the Bush era tax cuts, and the ones I've discussed above are only those slated to go into effect in 2013.  There is another set that will take effect in 2014 and 2015.  It appears that the last nail has ben driven into the coffin holding any hopes we may have had of reversing the economic downturn any time soon.  

Critical thinking anyone?

A friend of mine shared this image to her Facebook page, and I saw it in my news feed.  I assume many of you have seen this over the past few days as well.  What does it tell you about people who share it?  What has happened to the power of critical thinking?  The President is credited with things he had no part of, while ignoring the things for which he is actually responsible, many of which are contrary to "liberal" values, including killing American citizens with no due process using drone strikes, initiating military actions in foreign countries (like the drone strike bombings in Yemen the day after the election), and broadening the governments powers of surveillance and indefinite detention.  The states passed referenda on gay marriage and the legalization of marijuana.  In fact, the DEA, a federal agency accountable to the President, has already said they will be enforcing federal drug laws, thereby overriding the state laws.  I just don't get it.