The War at Home…

As Barack Obama continues to coast through the scandal gauntlet, it could be sadly reported the President’s “fundamental change” notion has firmly taken root. Mr. Obama and the Democrats have successfully managed to change the rules from ideas and debating the issues to simply demonizing ANY opposition as evil, hateful, and downright demonic. That practice has convinced the ever shrinking minds of so many Americans on practically any concern. An alliance with the media has been the largest component in convincing the weak and the willing that THIS President can do no wrong. Despite the reality of just how WRONG his administration is on so many fronts.

Barack Obama’s disdain and disregard for what used to be worthy aspirations of the nation as a whole is propped up by his claim that those values are so yesterday..so old fashioned..so close minded…so discriminatory.

Obama_Constitution

A. Barton Hinkle of the Richmond Times – Dispatch outlines how the President has declared war on the Constitution. You know..that document which WAS the basis for law in what USED to be a nation of laws…

OBAMA’S WAR ON THE CONSTITUTION

The President, who first campaigned on a claim to constitutional expertise, is now the document’s biggest threat.

“A physician’s expertise makes him capable of inflicting great harm, noted Plato a couple thousand years ago, and no one is better positioned to steal than a guard. So perhaps we should not be surprised that the most conspicuous foe of liberty and the Bill of Rights turns out to be a former professor of constitutional law.

As a general rule, politicians tend to whipsaw between two poles. Conservatives try to increase economic liberty but show less regard for civil liberties. Liberals care deeply about civil liberties while trying to restrict the economic kind.

But the Obama administration is remarkable for its degree of disdain for both.

The president’s principal first-term achievement was the passage of the Affordable Care Act. The law greatly increases government’s role in health care and includes an expansion of government power unprecedented in American history: a requirement that all citizens purchase a consumer good irrespective of their personal behavior.

obamacare-republican-denied

The administration also has pressed relentlessly – and successfully – for tax hikes, which shift control over economic resources from private hands to government. It also has indulged a regulatory binge, which shifts control indirectly, by cranking out burdensome new rules at a rate far faster than the Bush administration ever did. (This holds true even if you count only “economically significant” rules – those costing $100 million or more – and rely only on administration-friendly accounts.)

The result: Government not only is taking more of your money, it increasingly is telling you how to spend what’s left. A recent study estimates the cost of regulation at nearly $15,000 per household. This means the three principal drains on the family checkbook, in order, are: (1) taxes, (2) housing, and (3) regulation. And Washington is working hard to move regulation into the second slot.

While trends like these drive conservatives nuts, they gladden liberal hearts. Yet liberals are not happy with the Obama administration these days – for exceptionally good reasons.

Most saliently, the Justice Department has been trolling through the phone records of reporters for the Associated Press and, even worse, has accused a reporter (Fox News’ James Rosen) of acting as an un-indicted co-conspirator in the unlawful leaking of classified materials. Rosen’s offense was to do what reporters are supposed to do: break a story. This, too, is unprecedented, and it goes too far even for Obama’s most knee-jerk defenders. The New York Times views the investigation as “threatening fundamental freedoms of the press.”

eric-holder-idiot1

The Rosen matter alone would suffice to disqualify the administration from any Friends-of-the-First Amendment society. Yet it is only one of several such assaults. Others include the administration’s campaign, through its insistence on a contraception mandate underObamacare, against religious liberty, and the president’s suggestion after Citizens United that “we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process” to limit the free-speech rights of persons who incorporate their social organizations; and its thuggish targeting of its political opponents.

If the IRS’ treatment of tea-party groups were an isolated story, you could swallow the explanation that a few low-level bureaucrats went rogue. But that account does not explain why the EPA has been far more generous to freedom-of-information requests from liberal groups than from conservatives. Or why, shortly after the Obama campaign slimed Romney supporter Frank Vander Sloot as a disreputable fellow, he was audited three times – twice by the IRS and once by the Labor Department. Or why, after Texas resident CatherineEngelbrecht started a Tea Party group, she received scrutiny not just from the IRS but also from the FBI. And OSHA. And, just for good measure, the ATF. Or why the IRS took 17 months to respond to an initial tax-exempt status from the conservative Wyoming Policy Institute. Or why it shared confidential files from conservative groups with the liberal ProPublica. Or why. . .

Quickmeme-IRS-Wingnuts

Enough on the First Amendment. The president also has tried with considerable vigor to undermine the Second, and has succeeded in subverting the Fourth: Under Obama, who has gone to court to defend warrantless wiretaps he once condemned, warrantless “pen register” and “trap-and-trace” monitoring has soared to unprecedented heights.

In 2011 the president signed a reauthorization of the Patriot Act with just one regret: Congress approved an extension of only one year, while Obama wanted three. He signed into law a defense reauthorization bill allowing the indefinite detention, without charge, of American citizens, thereby gutting the principle of habeas corpus. Granted, he issued an executive order promising not to exercise that power. But the order does not constrain future presidents or, technically, even him.

From a civil-liberties perspective, Obama has carried forward nearly every one of the war-on-terror powers that led liberals to denounce George W. Bush as a goose-stepping fascist, and in fact has made many of them worse. When he retires from public life, perhaps he will return to teaching the Constitution. That should be much easier work – given how little of it there will be left.

OBAMA-HATES-AMERICA-55887003700

This article originally appeared in the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

A. Barton Hinkle is senior editorial writer and a columnist at the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

Advertisements

Anyone?…..Anyone?…

 

tumblr_lfgs5qYWbW1qgxm4ao1_500

 

 

Is ANYONE ‘present’ out there?…ANYONE?…..

A question we should be asking everyday. I know I do!.

One of my favorite ‘teachers’, Ben Stein, has a take on the present state of affairs in our nation…He offers some thoughts on Hillary Clinton, ‘Bush 43’, and the current occupier of the White House….

DREAM SEQUENCES from The American Spectator

And Bush 43 looked great. Not so Mrs. Clinton.

Thursday
“Last night I dreamed I went to Manderley….where does that come from? Some famous movie. Rebecca? I think that’s it. Rebecca.

Anyway, last night I dreamed I was in Miami Beach, helping Tom and Kitty move out of a small house in South Beach. My father was still alive and he was helping, too. There were immense tropical insects, just monstrous crickets who breathed fog onto the windows where they landed. Now that I think of it, maybe I was in Palm Desert, California.

We had our dog, Susie, deceased, but alive in the dream, and she ran away. I chased after her and came to an immense department store, a bit like the Istanbul Grand Bazaar in Skyfall and a tiny bit like the Jelleff’s Department Store on Colesville Road next to the Silver Theater, where my sister Rachel used to shop in the 1950s.

There were woman fortunetellers and snake charmers and a whole host of glamorous looking people, sort of like the Beverly Hills Hotel when Phil DeMuth and I go there for brunch. It was wildly technicolored and gorgeous and lush with immense palm trees inside like the courtyard of the Pan-American Union long ago. Now it’s called the OAS.

I caught up with Susie and brought her out to our car, a pale blue 1955 Chevrolet 210 four-door sedan, which had been my family car through much of my youth.

(Finally, I persuaded my father to buy V-8 Fords, Chevies, and a Dodge — that was pure kindness on his thrifty part. He was a kind man.)

Then Phil DeMuth appeared to tell me I was not going broke after all, despite my fears and worries, and that I need not live in fear of poverty. He had charts and graphs to back up his claims.

As I talked to him, I noticed that Tom Cruise had pulled up next to him in a pickup truck. He talked to me in a friendly way, thanking me for the kindness I had shown him by writing so well about him in his role in Tropic Thunder. He told me he had been a fan for a long time. I was happy and walked with him as he walked into the huge store… maybe it was the Saks in Palm Desert… and then I told him I would stop following him and he walked away.

When I got back to our car, I saw that now Dustin Hoffman had pulled up next to our poor old Chevy, and he was in a pickup truck, too. He smiled and waved at me, and I felt happy.

I went back into our son’s former home and realized my father had left his sport jacket there. But my father was gone and that was when I woke up.

I cannot tell you how excited that dream made me. It was mostly the immense, gaudy store that did it. Also somehow, somewhere in the back of my mind was the thought that my father was there to help me.

Also, it was exciting to be friends with movie stars.

But I knew it was not real and so, back to sleep. When I awakened, to my shock there was Bush 43 speaking at the dedication of his library at SMU. He looked great, sounded great, deeply unpretentious, just a fine figure of a man. I felt deeply sad that he’s not in the White House any longer, although he made some horrible mistakes that he should have seen coming: mostly ignoring Afghanistan while he pursued a futile course in a sideshow in Iraq. Far worse that a mistake… a blunder. Who said that? Talleyrand? He also should not have allowed Lehman to fail. That had catastrophe all over it.

Still, it happened and it’s history now. Eventually, he bailed out Wall Street and saved the economy. So kudos for that. And mainly, he’s just a super likeable guy.

 

Bush Library Dedication  _DSC0450-0-0-550-528*304

Mrs. Hillary Clinton looks decidedly unwell. I wonder how her health is. I hope she is all right. She needs a long rest, dry out her weary brain.

 

clintons

How brave Bush 41 is. Just looking at him is deeply moving. Hero in so many ways.

Politics_HW_425_480x360

As to Jimmy Carter… well, he’s gotten the face he deserves.

 

jimmy_carter_edit--300x300

The weather here in D.C. is perfect today. Alex and I sat out on our deck and watched the clouds go by and the planes land at DCA.

Relaxing. Almost too good to be true.

I came inside and watched the news. Chemical weapons in Syria. But the rebels are worse than Assad. He’s a killer and a butcher, but not totally out of control like the fanatical Islamists. What a nightmare Arab Spring has become. IT WAS SO AMAZINGLY EASY TO SEE IT COMING. Who did we think would replace Mubarak? Mohammed Thomas Jefferson and Ahmed James Madison? And the media was praising the rebels as if they were John Adams and Tom Paine. THE REBELS SAID THEY WANTED TO KILL ISRAEL AND AMERICA! What did we think they would be like in office?

Now, it’s all turned to mud and it’s going to get a lot worse.

And there is poor Obama. He drew a “red line” for Iran. They evacuated their bowels on him. He warned North Korea and laughed. He was going to “reset” relations with Russia. They are in a total mess. Honor the Russians’ incredible courage, but they are not our pals.

Have we ever had a more pusillanimous foreign policy? Have we ever shown ourselves to be weaker?

When in history did weakness win the day? What kind of dream world does Mr. Obama live in?

 

1_123125_2161048_2208217_2225816_090821_spec_obamatn.jpg.CROP.original-original

I heard Senator McCain on the C-Span network say that we could no longer defend the nation. This is serious business. Is Mr. Obama listening? And what a cruel blow that Sen. McCain lost in 2008. What a different country this would be if he had won. Does Mr. Obama even bother to listen to his generals and admirals? Or is his goal to end America?

“Nothing matters now but Obama’s subconscious,” said Phil DeMuth in 2008. What is the subconscious of a man abandoned by both father and mother? Actually, maybe that was a good thing given who they were. And this country has turned itself inside out for Mr. Obama for his whole life. Maybe he likes America. But should we have a President about whom we say “maybe”?”

 

"I either don't have a clue...or I don't care...you decide!"

“I either don’t have a clue…or I don’t care…you decide!”

In case you missed it…

“Hmm…let’s see…about 100 days left to keep up this sh*t….damn, I hope these idiots will still be stupid enough to buy it come election day…”

While everyone is busy with the Chick-fil-a distraction, The American Spectator’s Peter Ferrara points out the President continues to LIE to YOU about the economy….

Obama’s Calculated Deception

The Obama Watch

How the Obama campaign is trying to deceive you on the economy.

Calculated Deception. That is the central theme of the Obama campaign. Calculated Deception is the term I use for Obama’s rhetorical practice of trying to take advantage of what he calculates the average person does not know, and his party-controlled, so-called mainstream media won’t report. And that can be seen over and over in the Obama campaign.

Obscuring the Worst Recovery Since the Great Depression
In Monday’s Wall Street Journal, Edward Lazear, former Bush chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors, notes, “A graph titled ‘Private Sector Job Creation’ on the Obama-Biden campaign website… announces proudly that 4.4 million private sector jobs have been created over the past 28 months.” But that factoid is meaningless out of any context, more like a pediatrician boasting to you that under his care your 16-year-old son has grown to 4 feet 4 inches. At the same point during the Reagan recovery, the economy had created 9.5 million new jobs.

Moreover, Lazear correctly adds, “there hasn’t been one day during the entire Obama presidency when as many Americans were working as on the day President Bush left office.” That’s right, contrary to the Obama campaign’s misleading claim of 4.4 million new jobs created, total jobs today are still half a million less than in January 2009 when Obama entered office.

Lazear continues, “Moreover, the unemployment rate, which we were told would not exceed 8% if we enacted Mr. Obama’s stimulus package…has never fallen below 8% during his presidency. The rate has averaged 9.2% since February 2009.” In sharp contrast, after Bush’s tax rate cuts were all fully implemented in 2003, the economy created 7.8 million new jobs over the next 4 years and the unemployment rate fell from over 6% to 4.4%. We won’t see that again until Obama is out of office.

President Obama and his chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, Alan Krueger, brag that private sector jobs have now grown for “28 straight months.” Obama and Krueger apparently think most Americans do not know that job growth is the norm and not the exception for the American economy. In the 62 years from January 1946, after World War II, until January 2008, jobs grew in 86% of the months, or 640 out of 744. Reagan’s recovery produced job growth in 81 out of its first 82 months, with 20 million new jobs created over those 7 years, increasing the civilian workforce at the time by 20%. Even George W. Bush oversaw 52 consecutive months of job growth, including nearly 8 million new jobs created after his 2003 capital gains and dividends tax rate cuts became effective (which Obama is dedicated to reversing).

The relevant streak of Obamanomics was extended in the June jobs report. That report established that under President Obama America has suffered 41 straight months of unemployment over 8%, which the Joint Economic Committee of Congress confirms is the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression almost 75 years ago. Indeed, the last time before Obama unemployment was even over 8% was December 1983, when Reaganomics was bringing it down from the Keynesian fiasco of the 1970s. It didn’t climb back above that level for 25 years, a generation, which is a measure of the spectacular success of Reaganomics.

But Krueger tells us about that June jobs report, “It is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” The Obama Administration, however, has said the exact same thing for each of the last 30 months, as documented July 6 by Bryan Preston for PJMedia.

How Stupid Does He Think We Are?
President Obama keeps telling us his economic program should be judged by comparison to the worst of the recession. Look, we have turned the corner, he says, and the economy has started growing again, just like your teenage son. But the correct comparison is to prior recoveries from past recessions. As Lazear explained, “Yet we know that all recessions end and that labor markets recover eventually. What distinguishes this labor-market recovery is not that jobs are finally being created but rather the growth rate is so slow that it will be 2016 before we return to pre-recession employment levels.” Obama is campaigning as if he were certain that a majority of Americans do not know that all recessions end and that labor markets recover eventually.

American recessions since the Great Depression previously have lasted an average of 10 months, with the longest at 16 months. But this latest recession began in December 2007. The June labor report showed that the most commonly cited U3 unemployment rate remains stuck at 8.2%, with the number of unemployed Americans actually rising over the last 3 months by 76,000, 54 months after the recession started, and 3 years after it was supposedly over, the longest period of unemployment that high since the Great Depression.

Barack Obama knows that history, even though he is sure a majority of you don’t. That is why he was confident enough to tell Matt Lauer and the nation in February 2009 regarding economic recovery: “If I don’t have that done in three years, then this is going to be a one-term proposition.” And it is why the Administration so confidently labeled the summer of 2010 “Recovery Summer,” as by historical standards the recovery was already way overdue by then.

Obama’s tragic jobs record reflects the dismal economic growth under his administration’s throwback, Keynesian economic policies. For all of last year, the economy grew by a paltry real rate of 1.7%, only about half America’s long-term trend. The average so far this year has been no better. That dismal growth is further reflected in the Census Bureau reports of falling real wages under Obama, kicking median family income back over 10 years, with more Americans in poverty today than at any time in the more than 50 years that Census has been tracking poverty.

In sharp contrast, in the second year of Reagan’s recovery, the economy boomed by a real rate of 6.8%, the highest in 50 years. Real per capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in those first 7 years of the Reagan boom alone. The poverty rate, which had started increasing during the Carter years, declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak. That is the proper comparison for Obama’s economic performance.

Obama cannot explain away the disgraceful failure of his Keynesian economic policies by arguing it is because the recession he inherited from Bush was so bad. The American historical experience is that the worse the recession, the stronger the recovery, as the American economy snaps back to its world-leading, long-term, economic growth trend line. Based on this historical record, we should be enjoying the third year of a raging economic recovery boom right now.

But the dismal economic performance we have suffered instead, with no real recovery from the steep 2008-2009 recession at all, is because Obama has so thoroughly followed the opposite of every policy of Reaganomics. I first argued in the Wall Street Journal in February 2009 that Obamanomics was going to produce the opposite of Reaganomics as a result. That is what is now just beginning to happen.

“The Rich” and Their Fair Share
We can see the same Calculated Deception in regard to President Obama’s tax policy, where he has been barnstorming the country for three years now telling us that “the rich” (whatever that is supposed to mean) do not pay their fair share of federal taxes, and the middle class pays more as a result. But the CBO issued a report last month that proves him grievously wrong.

The Distribution of Household Income and Federal Taxes, 2008 and 2009,” issued by CBO on July 10, reports that the top 1% of income earners paid 39% of federal individual income taxes in 2009, while earning 13% of the income. That means their share of federal income taxes was three times their share of income.

And that is down from 2007, before President Obama was even elected. In that year, after 25 years of Reagan Republican tax policies, the top 1% paid 40% of federal individual income taxes. That was more than double the 17.6% of federal individual income taxes paid by the top 1% when President Reagan entered office in 1981.

Also in 2007, again before Obama was even elected, and after 25 years of Reaganomics, the bottom 40% of income earners on net as a group paid less than 0% of federal income taxes. Instead of paying at least some income taxes to help support the federal government, the federal government paid them cash through the income tax code.

Does that reality sound like what you hear in President Obama’s deceiving speeches?

CBO further reported that in 2009 the top 20% of income earners, those earning more than $74,000, paid 94% of federal individual income taxes, virtually all of the net total. That was 85% more than the share of national income they earned.

Yet, in that same year, the middle 20% of income earners, the true middle class, paid 2.7% of total federal individual income taxes on net, while earning 15% of before-tax income. And the bottom 40% of income earners, instead of paying some income taxes to support the federal government, were paid by the IRS cash equal to 10% of federal individual income taxes on net.

That means altogether the bottom 60% of income earners, which includes the middle class, paid less than 0% of total federal individual income taxes as a group on net. Instead, as a group, they received net cash payments from the IRS on net.

Ignorant or Lying?
The Obama campaign continues its Calculated Deception in saturating the Internet with advertising alleging that Mitt Romney’s “tax plan” would raise taxes on the middle class and working families. Not only has Romney proposed no such thing. House Republicans have already voted for Rep. Paul Ryan’s tax reform plan that would cut the federal income tax rate for all families earning less than $100,000 to 10%, and Romney has endorsed that as well.

Indeed, the whole history of Republican tax policy going back to Reagan is that Republicans have never raised income taxes on the middle class and working people. Quite to the country, Reagan and his Republicans abolished federal income taxes on what the Left calls the working class, and almost abolished them for the middle class, as the official data discussed above shows.

That began with the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which grew out of then Governor Ronald Reagan’s famous testimony before the Senate Finance Committee in 1972, where he proposed exempting the working poor from all Social Security and income taxes as an alternative to welfare, with the credit serving as a way to offset payroll taxes for the poor and low income workers. As President, Reagan cut federal income tax rates across the board for all taxpayers by 25%. He also indexed the tax brackets for all taxpayers to prevent inflation from pushing working people into higher tax brackets.

In the Tax Reform Act of 1986, President Reagan reduced the federal income tax rate for middle and lower income families all the way down to 15%. That Act also doubled the personal exemption, shielding a higher proportion of income from taxation for lower income workers than for higher income workers.

Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America adopted a child tax credit of $500 per child that also reduced the tax liabilities of lower income people by a higher percentage than for higher income people. President Bush doubled that credit to $1,000 per child, and made it refundable so that low-income people who do not even pay $1,000 in federal income taxes could still get the full credit. Bush also adopted a new lower tax bracket for the lowest income workers of 10%, reducing their federal income tax rate by 33%.

That is how we reached the point by 2007 where the bottom 40%, or even 60%, of income earners as a group on net were being paid by the federal income tax code instead of paying federal income taxes. So when then candidate Obama said in 2008 that Republicans cut taxes for the rich, but haven’t “given a break to folks who make less,” was he ignorant or lying?

Obama’s lying allegation regarding Romney flies in the face of that reality. Rather, it is Obama who has raised taxes on the middle class, in gross violation of his 2008 campaign pledge not to do so. That has been held, in fact, by the United States Supreme Court, which ruled that the individual mandate in Obamacare is constitutional precisely because it is a tax. And that individual mandate tax applies to the middle class, and working people. Moreover, Obamacare includes several other tax increases that apply to the middle class, and working people, such as the new tax on medical devices, the new tax on health insurance, the new tax on prescription drugs, and others.

Blame Obama on the Democrat Party
The Obama campaign is trailblazing new realms of dishonesty in the history of American politics, bringing to America for the first time Soviet-style propaganda that flies in the direct face of reality, buttressed by dishonest, party-controlled media operations. Moreover, it is a classically abusive Saul Alinsky trick to accuse your opponent of planning to do exactly what you have done, as Obama does in continually accusing Romney of proposing to raise taxes on the middle class. Only an idiot can fail to see that the entire Democrat party’s spending plansrequire sweeping tax increases on the middle class.

The bottom line is that the entire Democrat party needs to be held responsible for Obama, the abusive dishonesty of his campaign operation, and the accelerating downward spiral of America his neo-Marxist policies are producing. Those policies in fact are not unique to Obama, but represent the heart and soul of today’s Democrat party. This is a Paul Revere moment for the American people. The only way to save your country is for each of you to rally your friends, neighbors, and relatives this fall to come out in force and defeat the entire Democrat party root and branch.

More reading:

Class Warfare: Sequestration Edition

ABOUT THAT CBS/NYT/QUINIPPIAC POLL

Powerline Blog

Just Open Up Your Eyes And Look – 65 Signs That The Economic Collapse Is Already Happening

The Economic Collapse Blog