Author Archives: Frank Salvato

The Danger of Granting Lerner Immunity

The House Oversight & Government Reform Committee has voted to advance a Contempt of Congress charge against Lois Lerner, the former Director of the IRS Exempt Organizations Division. The vote was 21 to 12, brought about by Ms. Lerner’s refusal to provide information about the IRS’s targeting of Conservative advocacy groups vying for 501c3 tax-exempt status, especially during the period before the 2012 General Election.

To say that this very legitimate issue has been politicized would be an under-statement. Both Republicans and Democrats – not to mention Progressives – see political capital to be gained from this issue. Democrats and Progressives will continue to advance the canard that any action against a member of the Obama Administration is based on racism and hate, while Republicans, Conservatives and TEA Partiers will continue to point out that crimes have been committed against the American people; crimes directly affecting rights guaranteed in the United States Constitution.

While committee chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), stated, “This is not an action I take lightly… [lawmakers] need Ms. Lerner’s testimony to complete our oversight work and bring truth to the American people,” Rep. Carolyn Maloney (P-NY), rebutted, “Guilty or innocent, Ms. Lerner has a constitutional right to remain silent on this issue,” and Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA), said smugly that the case would be “laughed out of court.”

To the latter points, yes, Ms. Lerner has the right not to incriminate herself under the Fifth Amendment rights afforded her in the US Constitution, but I seriously doubt that the political targeting of American citizens’ First Amendment rights to redress government would be “laughed out of court.” As to the hypocrisy of Ms. Lerner seeking protection from the US Constitution, even as she disregarded the protections the US Constitution affords her fellow Americans, that she should be rewarded with a pension and/or benefits stemming from her 32 years of federal employment – including service with the Justice Department and the Federal Election Commission, two positions that prove she knew better than to do what she is accused of doing – is a scandal in and of itself.

There are those who are willing to allow Ms. Lerner to “get away” with her politically-based ideological attacks on her fellow Americans by granting her immunity to testify, perhaps in an effort to spotlight others who may have been involved in the crimes committed. Many suggest that she is shielding US Attorney’s General Eric Holder, who himself has been held in Contempt of Congress for his unyielding obstruction of several investigations led by the House of Representatives: “the people’s house”; the direct voice of the people in federal government. Others suggest that Ms. Lerner’s direction originated in the White House, possibly by super-secret special adviser, confidant and political handler Valerie Jarrett. Of these two accusations we cannot be sure, purely for the fact that Ms. Lerner and her complicit underlings refuse to answer questions about their actions, their direction and their motives.

Those in favor of granting Ms. Lerner immunity, with the caveat that she gets to keep her pension and benefits if she provides information, say just such a move will facilitate the information necessary to determine where the order to violate the citizenry’s constitutional rights, in deference to political advantage, originated. But there is a huge flaw in that thinking…and perhaps two.

Should Ms. Lerner be granted immunity to provide information related to this crime against the American people, there would be no guarantee she would tell the truth. She has already proven that she cannot be trusted to do right by the American people on two levels. First, the very fact that she would oversee the usurpation of the citizenry’s First Amendment rights proves, in enough measure, that she is willing to deceive to achieve; she is willing to break the law to achieve a political outcome. And second, she has proven, through her refusal to cooperate with a congressional investigation, but, in defiance, cooperate with a rigged investigation by the US Department of Justice (and please, the Holder DoJ has proven time and time again that they are politically and ideologically motivated), that she will seek the safe haven of the corrupt over admitting to wrong-doing and serving the best interests of the people of the United States.

Additionally, should congressional negotiators be naïve enough to offer immunity to Ms. Lerner, should she perjure herself in the immunized testimony, she will most likely claim immunity to prosecution if found out. This very point almost entices the corrupt and the politically and ideologically motivated to “re-write” the history of the events in question, if not to save their sorry hides, to affect the very political and ideological “change” that was the goal in the first place. And, if you even have a cursory understanding of the Progressive Movement, you know they are prone to re-writing the facts and history to facilitate their narratives.

(As an aside, a good example of Progressives re-writing history to suit their immediate needs comes in President Obama’s lionization of LBJ as a great and insightful leader; the one who burned political to achieve Civil Rights legislation. The truth of the matter is that President Eisenhower, a Republican, first floated Civil Rights legislation only to have it derailed by three Democrat Senators; Sens. Strom Thurmond, D-SC, John F. Kennedy, D-MA, and Lyndon B. Johnson, D-TX. Further, the only reason LBJ was able to steal credit for Civil Rights legislation was due to overwhelming Republican support. Democrats stood in opposition to the bill. Yet today, Mr. Obama re-writes history to extol the greatness of LBJ, the man who ensconced us in Vietnam.)

The intentional and systematic usurpation of our citizenry’s constitutional rights is, to put it mildly, unacceptable. Ms. Lerner – and all involved – should be made to pay an incredibly high price for their misdeeds. But depending on the Eric Holder-led US Justice Department to affect justice in this case is just as much a fantasy as Obamacare being a beneficial legislation for the total of the American people.

Perhaps – just perhaps – Mr. Issa and his crew can do some outside the box thinking on this matter; crafting an effective course of action to affect truth and justice in this case. Perhaps they can figure out a way to empower this investigation to extend beyond the 2016 General Elections, when an Attorney’s General might be seated who would actually care enough about the law to pursue a legitimate investigation into, and subsequent legitimate prosecutions of, the violation of the citizenry’s constitutional rights.

Of course, that would mean that Republicans – and many establishment Republicans at that, would have to dispense with ego to better serve the people…and we don’t see a lot of that these days, from either party.

The BO Behind the Obamacare Numbers

If there was one thing that then presidential candidate Barack Obama had right it was his assertion that words matter. That understood, it has always seemed a bit odd to me that a man who presents and proudly proclaims himself a full blown Progressive – if not the quintessential Fabian Progressive – would have alerted the electorate to this fact. Why, you ask? Well, because Progressives are notorious for manipulating the meanings of words to suit their objective needs. Remember, Progressives are the ones who insist that the United States Constitution is a “living document,” meant to facilitate the needs of the times (read: allow government to morph into any authority that the elites believe is needed at any given time).

So, it is with a gigantic grain of salt – a Guinness Book sized grain – that I consume the declarations being made by the Obama Administration on the “numbers of people who have signed up” for health insurance through the federal health exchange. There is a stark difference between “signing up” for the website and purchasing health insurance. Even then, there is a lot of ground between applying for health insurance through the exchange and actually paying the premiums each month.

The truth is, we won’t know how many people have successfully attained health insurance coverage through the “Obamacare Exchange” until after the first month of coverage has completed. This is because for coverage to be in effect it must be paid for. To that end The National Journal reports:

“One of the biggest players in Obamacare’s exchanges says 15 to 20 percent of its new customers aren’t paying their first premium – which means they’re not actually covered.

The latest data come from the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, whose members – known collectively as “Blues” plans – are participating in the exchanges in almost every state. Roughly 80 to 85 percent of people who selected a Blues plan through the exchanges went on to pay their first month’s premium, a BCBSA spokeswoman said Wednesday.”

It would seem that some – oh, maybe 15 to 20 percent – of those who “signed up” for health insurance through Healthcare.gov have figured out that as long as it appears as though they have signed up for health insurance through the exchange they might be able to circumvent the inaugural Obamacare fine (read: tax, per SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts) for not actually having health insurance. Of course, this remains to be seen, but given that the Obamacare website is the laughingstock of the tech world, maybe – just maybe – they might get away with it.

And another facet of this totalitarian Progressive overreach of government – this unconstitutional encroachment into our private lives – is the question surrounding the employer mandate. To date, there have seen so many exemptions given to both organizations and corporations alike, the idea that this is actually a “mandate” is becoming laughable. Let’s face it, when a mandate becomes something only applicable to select factions and demographics, it is less a mandate and more a punishment, and a punishment for “not thinking correctly.”

This Progressive line of thinking is typical of an elitist faction that truly believes – truly believes – they know what is best for everyone, even if the overwhelming majority views the “opinion(s)” of said Progressive elitists as undesirable and oppressive. It is for this reason – the elitist narcissism of the Progressive Left – that a recent declaration by former Obama Press Secretary Robert Gibbs shouldn’t surprise anyone.

TheHill.com reports:

“Former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs predicted Wednesday that the oft-delayed Obamacare employer mandate will never go into effect.

“I don’t think the employer mandate will go into effect. It’s a small part of the law. I think it will be one of the first things to go,” Gibbs told a crowd in Colorado, according to BenefitsPro.com.

“The website described the audience as being surprised by Gibbs’s comments…

“Gibbs argued that most employers with more than 100 workers already offer health insurance, and only a relatively small number of companies have between 50 and 99 employees.”

Putting aside, for a moment, Mr. Gibbs’ contention that only a small number of companies have employees numbering between 50 and 99 employees, this is another example of the “words matter” bait and switch, and with ramifications.

We the People, were told – in no uncertain terms – that the employer mandate was essential to the success of Obamacare. The Obama Administration has been so obstinate about this point that they were willing to fight the Hobby Lobby Corporation all the way to the US Supreme Court in an effort to force them to provide “end-of-life-causing” contraception options to their employees – against the moral and religiously-based objections of the company owners. The Obama Administration even tried to strong arm Catholic charities operated by nuns to do the same. Yet now we have one of the “soldiers of the Obamacare Movement” shrugging his shoulders insisting that the employer mandate is no big deal? If that’s true, why coerce nuns and those objecting to the mandate on religious grounds?

Looking further down the list of forced mandates, what could we expect next? Should we get ready for the individual mandate to become expendable, but for, of course, the demographics that are “not thinking correctly”?

If words matter, as now President Obama claimed in the days before his presidency, why don’t they matter now, now that he is president? He promised that Americans could keep their doctors and the insurance plans they enjoyed “period.” Yet that turned out to be a lie, bald-faced. He and his cronies said that the mandates were non-negotiable. But now one of the primary mouthpieces who trumpeted the need for these mandates during this blatant coercion of the American people says the need to mandate employer participation is “not so much.”

Truth be told, there are some provisions of the Affordable Care Act that are beneficial to the American people (dealing with the purchase of health insurance across state lines and addressing pre-existing conditions being two). But the negatives of this legislation far, far out-weigh the positives. Additionally, if federally elected politicians weren’t playing the whore for the behemoth insurance companies and their heartless lobbyists on K Street (let’s remember who was “all in” on getting Obamacare passed) purchasing health insurance would have been open to a national market, thus lowering prices through competition and creating viable options to address the issue of pre-existing conditions.

Don’t look now, but Capitalism is the answer to high health insurance prices and accessibility.

Yes, worlds matter. And where Obamacare is concerned, the only applicable words that matter are these, spoken by then candidate Obama:

“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

It Is Time, Democrats, to Send Mr. Reid Home

In these ridiculous times, where transparency is clandestine, science proves instead of disproves, and falsely instilled self-esteem trumps real education, I truly don’t expect even the most honest of Liberal or Democrat – and certainly not any Progressive – to understand, or even hear, what I am about to say, but for the good of our country I pray that they do. Truth be told, we rank-and-file Americans cannot trust the “Frank Underwoods” who lurk inside the Washington Beltway – on both sides of the aisle – to do anything on behalf of their constituencies any longer. They are frauds and converts to the oligarch. It is time we start depending on ourselves to affect real, true and honest change.

The examples of just how power-centered and self-serving the oligarchs in the US federal government have become are too many to list, although, if push came to shove, we could start amassing a list, in and of itself worthy of entry into the Guinness Book for longest continuous list of political transgressions against a people. From the IRS coercion of Conservative non-profit groups, to the political payoff that the billion-dollar so-called stimulus was to Blue State governments and labor unions, to the “too-big-to-fail” redistribution of taxpayer dollars through TARP to the über-greedy financial elites for their irresponsible financial skullduggery, the Janus-faced disingenuousness of our elected class – a disingenuousness meant to stave-off the torches and pitchforks of the taxpaying public – knows now shame…and yet we continue to tolerate it.

Stunning. Have we become that self-loathing as a people?

But even while we tolerate the power-hungry manipulations of the elected class – the elitists, the Progressives, the oligarchs – they have always been careful to at least pretend to care about the people. The entire game Progressives play is based on the false-premise that the “better educated” know how to care for the masses better than the masses know how to care for themselves. The illusion foisted by a great many Inside-the-Beltway Republicans (read: establishment Republican…Ann) is that they are standing with and for “the people,” executing a pursuit of limited government, fiscal responsibility and individual freedoms. Yet we all know that government does everything (but for achieving military superiority) poorly and at a greater price than the private-sector. And we all stand witness as government keeps expanding, both in size and scope. Now we can add overt disdain for the American people to that list.

On February 26, 2014, United States Senator and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), stood on the floor of the greatest chamber of debate – or at least what used to be – and openly expressed his hatred for the American people. Once again, abdicating his responsibility to serve his constituents, while playing partisan politics at the expense of the nation, Mr. Reid said, in defending the Patient Protection & Affordable Healthcare Act:

“Despite all that good news, there’s plenty of horror stories being told. All of them are untrue, but they’re being told all over America.”

I will overlook – for the moment – the fact that the most powerful man in the US Senate can’t speak proper English when entering his testimony into the Congressional Record. Lord knows there are members of Congress guilty of more egregious butchery of the English language.

It is beyond dispute that millions of Americans have been adversely affected by this unconstitutional piece of legislation. Millions have been denied the medical insurance they prefer while millions more have been told they must either pay more or go without; left to pay an IRS extracted penalty. Still hundreds of thousands more are being put into life-threatening situations where medical treatment deemed necessary for survival is not either outside their capability to afford, not authorized, or both. The putridly ironic thing about all of this is that the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was imposed on the American people under the ruse of it being “for the common good.”

To say that Mr. Reid’s comment adds insult to injury is to affect injury to insult. And while it is serving as great fodder for the elitist Washington punditry, it is much more serious an issue than that, and two-fold.

For those whose lives have now been called into question; whose life-saving treatments have become too expensive to afford; or whose treatments have now been denied, this is a direct threat – and a government mandated threat, at that – to the guaranteed right, offered us as US citizens under the bedrock understanding of Natural Law, to “…Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” While self-serving, power-hungry, elitist manipulators like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi stare, wax-faced, into the television cameras extolling all of the “common good” that the Affordable Care Act is doing, millions face the prospect of dying for the Progressive Movement’s dream of a one-payer, nationalized health insurance system…health insurance, not healthcare, system.

While this faux benevolence is continuously presented as compassionate, needed and “the right thing” to get behind by the oligarchs and their toadies – the Progressive mainstream media, it is neither compassionate, needed nor the right thing to do. It is a redistribution of wealth that is literally costing people their lives…here…in the “land of the free.”

And what does Mr. Reid say about those who are facing the loss of their lives because of the ACA? What does he say about the real-life, fact-based stories of those who have been denied “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” because of Progressive benevolence?:

“…Tales…Stories made up from whole cloth…Lies, distorted by Republicans to grab headlines or make political advertisements…”

And as egregiously rancid as this reality is – and it is, the idea that the most powerful man in the US Senate would openly call those facing debilitated health and/or death because of his Progressive ideological zealotry “liars” is not only unacceptable, it should serve as the defining reason for why he should be: a) removed from Senate leadership by his Democrat colleagues immediately; b) reprimanded and censured but the whole of chamber immediately; and c) retired by the people of Nevada at the next election.

Our American system of government was based on the idea that those who would be elected to office – be it at the federal state, county, township or municipal levels – would be understood as those in the service of the public; public servants. Today, this notion – this foundational understanding of our American governmental system – has been grotesquely bastardized , done so with all the Progressive glory that could be mustered in its execution; destroyed at first by expunging the check and balance of States’ Rights through the ratification of the 17th Amendment all the way through to the imposition of having to purchase a private-sector product (health insurance) to be considered a true and faithful American citizen. Our country has been fundamentally transformed…“top-down, bottom-up, inside-out.”

George Washington, a man who could have been king would he have wanted the title, warned – warned – in his Farewell Address of the evils of “factions” (read: political party):

“However combinations or associations of [factions] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government – destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion…

“Let me now…warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy. The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.

“Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and the duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it…”

We, the American people, should not suffer the unbridled arrogance of Mr. Reid, evidenced not only by his lust for partisan faction, but by his open and overt disdain for our fellow citizens; fellow citizens now disenfranchised by the Progressive understanding of “the common good.” Mr. Reid is the perfect example of the “evils of faction.” He is a disgrace to his elected office. He is a disgrace as an American. And he is not suited to his station in the US Senate.

If Democrats in the US Senate – as well as in general – do not seize this moment to make an example of Mr. Reid, then from this day forward let the Democrat Party be known as the toady to the Progressive Movement; the entirety of which is unworthy to lick the heel of Mr. Washington’s boot.

When Disappointment Comes from The Right

As Republicans stand on the precipice of taking back the majority in the United States Senate – that is if (and that’s a mighty big “if”) they can achieve the remarkable feat of not snatching defeat from the jaws of victory – it is becoming painfully obvious that our rhetorical standard-bearers of the punditry have not only been absorbed into the beltway mentality, but have ingested so much of the elitist Kool-Aid that they are, themselves, becoming the poison that moves the foundation of the Republican Party – and, therefore, Conservatism – incrementally to the Left.

It was with great chagrin that I listened to Ann Coulter, appearing on FOX News Channel’s Hannity, depict those who are calling out “establishment Republicans” shysters (or scheisters, if you will). Ms. Coulter, a usually stalwart scion of the Conservative Movement (but for her affection for New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who hasn’t a clue about the serious threat our country faces from Islamofascism), while seemingly lauding the TEA Party, in the same breath took them to task for identifying Progressives who exist on the Right side of the aisle.

In part, Ms. Coulter opined:

“There are two ways of looking at it. The people out in America who call themselves TEA Partiers are fantastic. They’re the heart of America and I think they have made a huge difference; they did in the 2010 elections, which in the House, anyway, Republicans picked-up more seats than they did in the famous 1994 election…[U]nfortunately, as with any grassroots movement, I think there are a lot of con men and scammers coming in a tricking good Americans into sending them money claiming ‘we are fighting for you,’ and they aren’t fighting for you.”

Ms. Coulter later opined:

“Basically, anyone who claims to be going after ‘establishment Republicans,’ the key word here is ‘Republican’…if we don’t elect Republicans – I don’t care which Republican – we will not repeal Obamacare…The only way to repeal Obamacare is to elect Republicans. It is not to be fighting against Republicans.”

Evidently, and due to the fact that we live in a time when the electorate is about as evenly split as it ever has been; a five to ten percent of the population deciding elections, by Ms. Coulter standards, it is never a time to take a stand against the encroachment of Progressivism in the Republican Party.

Each and every one of those so-called “Conservative” pundits (including Ms. Coulter, I am quite sad to say) who attack the TEA Party – which is just as much a part of the Republican Party as Progressive-Leftists are a part of the Democrat Party – should forever refrain from singing the praises of President Ronald Reagan for their complete abandonment of Reagan’s 11th Commandment, originally declared by Gaylord Parkinson, “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.”

The demonization of those who the TEA Party grassroots elected to office – be it on the local, county, state or federal level – is inexcusable, as is their defense of those who have made being federally-elected a career, instead of a duty. By defending the status quo in the “establishment GOP,” Ms. Coulter and her fellow “top level” pundits, either inadvertently or knowingly, facilitate the incremental political slide to the Left from which our country currently suffers. They do so by their support for those in elected leadership who abdicate the founding principles of the Republican Party for retention of power.

As I stated back in a 2009 article titled, The Path to the Future Requires a Return to the Roots:

“In summary – and to paraphrase – the platform stood for protecting the rights of individuals as outlined in the Charters of Freedom, the right to unfettered government recourse and due process in the event those rights were challenged. Further, it embraced only specific and limited measures that would provide opportunity for individual achievement and advancement. And lastly, it set forth a welcome mat for men of all ideas and affiliations who ‘believe in the spirit of our institution as well as the Constitution of our country.’

“In other words, the original platform of the Republican Party was one of protecting the rights of individuals so that they could advance their individual beliefs and causes in society. What it did not establish was a platform of positions on special interest issues and litmus tests for those who would be put into nomination to lead the party, both in government and organization.

“Today’s Republican Party has abandoned these founding platform commitments. Instead, today’s GOP finds itself naively acquiescing to false challenges put forth by our political opponent parties; taking concrete positions on special interest issues that divide the electorate into two camps. The Republican leadership of today has fallen prey to a political tactic that forces declared positions on special interest issues. Because of this the party has become a haven for special interest groups instead of being a pure political organization that protects the fundamental rights of all Americans, including special interest groups.”

Each time our modern day national GOP leadership engages into “compromise” with the Progressive leadership of today’s Democrat Party; each time they break-off into “gangs” of eight, twelve or sixteen; each time they make excuses not to hold to the promises they made to the electorate during campaigns or try to explain why they voted directly against the founding principles of the party they lead, they prove to care more about retaining power than doing the work they were elected to do: representing their constituents and executing their charge with fidelity to the platforms they ran on.

Even a cursory understanding of the tactics used by the Progressive-Left sheds light on the fact – the fact – that they use the word “compromise” in situations where they already have the advantage, so as to “begin” “negotiations” from a position left of true political and ideological center. In using this tactic, they are assured that any perceived “compromise” will always – always – move the issue’s end point further to the ideological Left. A perfect example of this is “hate crime” and “hate speech” legislation.

As addressed in a recent article, who is the arbiter of the definition of “hate”? Hitler, Stalin and Guevara all had their own definitions of “hate” and those definitions resulted in the mass murders of millions of people. But Progressives manipulate the electorate – and their political opponents – by tapping into “feelings,” therefore, a fickle national GOP; a federally-elected Republican Party leadership more concerned with how they are perceived than the principles they were sent to Washington, DC, to defend, will always lose – always, and do so incrementally.

Today we have a federal Republican leadership team – or, an “establishment Republican” leadership team (a moniker at which Ms. Coulter grimaces), that:

▪ …has promised tax reform for decades but has never delivered said reforms, almost always tapping the excuse that it would never fly in an election year, even though Democrats promise the same;

▪ …has promised a decrease in the size and scope of government but has, instead, presided over a grotesque expansion of government, including the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (just for snicks-and-giggles, look-up the literal translation of Gestapo or “Geheime Staats-Polizei,”);

▪ …has consistently, since the enactment of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), openly and overtly pledged to do “everything possible” to de-rail, de-fund and repeal the law, yet refused to use the full power of the purse allocated to the US House of Representatives by the Constitution to do so;

▪ …has abandoned the law – the law – that says the southern US border is to be secured physically; instead entering into another round of immigration reform “compromise” that will – again – see the Progressive-Left achieving a mass amnesty for those who violated our laws to exist in our country.

I could go on and on and on but I will simply address one more:

▪ …has abandoned and abdicated their constitutional mandate to provide for the common defense. They have so egregiously abdicated this responsibility that we exist at the point where we cannot, by all accounts formulated by military leadership, wage and win two major conflicts simultaneously. Would the same level of ineptitude have existed in 1941, we would have lost World War II to either the Nazis or the Imperial Japanese…maybe both.

Yet, Ms. Coulter and her “establishment Republican” pundit brethren, and it gives me no pleasure to say this, continue to support the status quo incremental slide to the Left by facilitating the mentality of the career elitist Republican politician; the Progressive who has infiltrated the GOP; those who seek to legislate by “gang” and oligarchic elitism. It is for this reason that this statement of Ms. Coulter’s is so very misguided and, in fact, dangerous, and it bears repeating:

“…the key word here is ‘Republican’…if we don’t elect Republicans – I don’t care which Republican

Ms. Coulter, I certain do care about which Republicans are elected. Consider this: a Senate full of Lindsay Grahams and John McCains…It should send shivers down your spine.

The Unbridled Hate of Hate Speech Laws

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” This quote, often attributed to Voltaire, is at the heart of our First Amendment right to free speech, at least where the authority of our government is concerned. A free society, and, in fact, a free people, must be able to speak freely in order to challenge power, ideological aggression or the coercion of faction. To limit or eliminate this fundamental right; this essential check to balance, is to limit or eliminate freedom in its most cursory form. Put succinctly, limiting free speech rights is tyranny in its most basic form.

It is for this reason that the Progressive Movement’s continued assault on free speech rights – both here in the United States and throughout the free world – is of such immediate concern.

On January 16, 2014, TheHill.com reported:

“Thirteen House Democrats have proposed legislation that would require the government to study hate speech on the Internet, mobile phones and television and radio.

“The bill, sponsored by Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (P-NY) and 12 other House Democrats, would look at how those media are used to ‘advocate and encourage violent acts and the commission of crimes of hate.’

“The Hate Crime Reporting Act, HR3878, is meant to update a 20-year-old study from the National Telecommunications & Information Administration. That study, delivered to Congress in 1993, looked at hate speech on radio, TV and computer bulletin boards.

“Jeffries says the NTIA needs to see how hate speech is transmitted over the various new modes of communication that have sprung up over the last two decades…

“‘This legislation will mandate a comprehensive analysis of criminal and hateful activity on the Internet that occurs outside of the zone of the First Amendment protection.’”

The other co-sponsors of this bill include: Reps. Gregory Meeks, (D-NY); Ann Kuster, (D-NH); Michael Honda, (P-CA); Judy Chu, (P-CA); Bobby Rush, (P-IL); Carolyn Maloney, (P-NY); Pedro Pierluisi, (D-PR-At Large); Tony Cardenas, (D-CA-29); Mark Pocan, (P-WI); Eleanor Holmes-Norton, (P-DC-At Large); and Ron Kind, (D-WI).

Again, the entirety of the issue of “hate speech” is predicated on who is defining “hate.” Put another way, one person’s “hate” is inevitably another person’s “free speech.” Cases in point: Nazi, Soviet and Communist Chinese censorship.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (Emphasis added)

So, the desires of the sponsors of HR3878 – and, in fact, the whole of the Progressive Movement – are juxtaposed to the guarantees of the United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights. If the US Constitution guarantees that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech,” then no speech – no matter how offensive, societally unacceptable or politically incorrect – can be abridged, sans speech that directly incites violence toward another or which directly calls for the violent overthrow of the United States government.

Therefore, assurances made by the sponsors of HR3878, that only “criminal and hateful” speech occurring “outside of the zone of the First Amendment protection,” are presented disingenuously at the proposal’s genesis because no speech can be considered – short of speech that directly incites violence toward another or which directly calls for the violent overthrow of the United States government – “criminal” and/or “hateful” by constitutional measure.

Understanding this as fact, it is not out of line to charge that the sponsors of HR3878 are either, constitutionally illiterate, deceptive in their intentions or both. Only the constitutionally illiterate would fail to understand the First Amendment free speech clause was meant to prevent factions from silencing dissenters of the majority, thus executing one of the pinnacle purposes of the Charters of Freedom: protecting the rights of the minority. Conversely, if the sponsors of this piece of legislation do understand the unconstitutionality of their proposal, they advance the measure for nefarious reasons; reasons antithetical to true freedom and liberty for all.

But this shouldn’t surprise anyone who has been paying attention to Progressive Movement from its inception.

In a recent analysis entitled, It’s Not a War on Christmas, I make the observation:

“If the elitist oligarchs of the modern day Progressive Movement are to assume complete control; complete authority to execute social justice, economic justice and redefine the many ideas of equality, then they must dispense with the idea that they – themselves – are not at the top of the power pyramid; at the top of the intellectual ‘food chain’…

“By playing on emotions – the most potent tool in the Progressive arsenal – and painting those who hold true to their…beliefs as being “un-inclusive,” “intolerant of others,” and “insensitive”…, Progressives aim to ‘shame’ the truly tolerant and inclusive… By shaming or making the majority of Americans ‘uncomfortable’ for the accusations of intolerance and insensitivity, Progressives aim to force an abdication of traditional American values and beliefs. In doing so they inch closer to their goal of expunging the notion of Natural Law from the societal and then governmental lexicons, successfully achieving elitist, oligarchic and totalitarian control over the defining of rights, the common good, and the role of government in our lives.”

This reality applies to the false-flag concept of “hate speech” laws. It can also be applied to the totalitarian “double-jeopardy” of “hate crime” laws as well. To the latter, a crime is either a crime or it is not a crime. By creating a more severe punishment for a “class,” “demographic” or “preferred faction” of people, Progressives seek to artificially elevate the severity of a crime only when that crime is committed against the few, while citing the crime as less severe when committed against all others.

In the end, it is the Progressive Movement’s modus operandi to manipulate the citizenries of free nations through emotion and “feel good” sounding pieces of legislation, all sold to us as a bill of goods addressing the “common good.” In reality, these false-flag, emotion-based pieces of legislation – these “social justice” initiatives – serve to usurp the freedoms guaranteed to us in the US Constitution and The Bill of Rights.

They are exercises in soft tyranny meant to create power for – and deliver power to – the elitist oligarchs and the tyrannical.

They serve to pollute the airs of freedom; to smother Lady Liberty; and to, eventually, oppress the masses into subjugation.

Of course, to Progressives, those are words of “hate.”

Roberts Rules Again…Poorly

Now comes news that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has doubled down on his middle finger to the American citizenry by turning away – without comment, which the SCOTUS gets to do – an emergency stay request, filed by the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons and the Alliance for Natural Health USA, to block the implementation of Obamacare.

In an almost ignored story, FOX News reports:

“Chief Justice John Roberts turned away without comment Monday an emergency stay request from the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. and the Alliance for Natural Health USA.

“They asked the chief justice Friday to temporarily block the law, saying Congress had passed it incorrectly by starting it in the Senate instead of the House. Revenue-raising bills are supposed to originate in the lower chamber. They also wanted blocked doctor registration requirements they say will make it harder for independent non-Medicare physicians to treat Medicare-eligible patients.

“Still pending is a decision on a temporary block on the law’s contraceptive coverage requirements, which was challenged by a group of nuns.”

With an overwhelming number of Americans standing against the implementation of this law, an ever increasing realization of consequences that make the law he most expensive entitlement program ever launched, and the Obama Administration’s unconstitutional manipulation of the law’s provision via executive caveat, Chief Justice Roberts had a golden opportunity to rectify his atrocious ruling that allowed for this law to become binding to the American people. Again, Mr. Roberts has cheated the American people from the benefits of constitutional justice.

Article I, Section 7 of the US Constitution states clearly:

“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills…”

That The Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) originated out of the US House of Representatives as the Service Members Home Ownership Act (HR3590), which has absolutely nothing – nothing – to do with health insurance mandates or so-called reforms. Per the Obama Administration’s own Justice Department rebuttal to a suit brought on the same subject by the Pacific Legal Foundation:

“…attorneys for the Justice Department argue that the bill originated as House Resolution 3590, which was then called the Service Members Home Ownership Act. After passing the House, the bill was stripped in a process known as ‘gut and amend’ and replaced entirely with the contents of what became the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

“Using HR3590 as a ‘shell bill’ may be inelegant, but it’s not unconstitutional, according to the government motion.”

So, the Obama Administration admits that the bill was foisted on the American people disingenuously and nefariously, Justice Roberts ruled it a tax, and yet Roberts refuses to allow the Supreme Court to hear a case that examines and rules on the constitutionality of exactly the unconstitutional aspects everyone says exist.

The big question is this. Why is Chief Justice John Roberts running interference for the Obama Progressives?

Article III, Section 1 of the US Constitution states:

“The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”

One has to ask, with the caveat that Supreme Court Justices “shall hold their offices during good behaviour” we should all be asking – and asking our elected officials: What shall be done about Chief Justice Roberts; “bad behaviour”?

American Capitalism & The Illusion of Laissez Faire

To draw from an opening phrase, in the beginning, there was capitalism. More accurately, at the beginning of our Constitutional Republic, government was committed to limiting – drastically – it’s footprint in the new American marketplace. Americans were free from the tyranny of government interference leveled at the former colonists at the hand of King George III. Our Founders and Framers sought to secure the right of the individual not only to property, but to commerce in a form lightly touched by government. My, how far we have fallen from the Framer’s original intent.

The original intent of the Framers where commerce was concerned – and especially under the Articles of Confederation – was to leave the new American people to reap the benefits of their crafts and labors. The Framers embraced a laissez faire system of capitalism. Laissez faire capitalism is defined as:

“…a doctrine opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights.”

A system of government’s only responsibility in a laissez faire capitalist system, where commerce was concerned and if adhering to the original intent of the Framers, was:

“…to protect the rights of the individual, by banning the initiation of force, thus making all relations between men peaceful, i.e., free from the threat of violence and fraud…

“…a system of checks and balances so ordered to protect the rights of the individual, from criminals and most importantly from the democratically elected voices who claim to speak for the ‘public good.’”

Today’s American “free market system” is actually anything but a laissez faire capitalist system; a free system.

Starting a small business today requires that the aspiring entrepreneur incur significant start-up costs including fees, costly regulatory acquiescence, licensure requirements, taxes, tariffs, diversity quota hiring and other associated costs, taxes, actions and/or fees. Add to that the impossible task of acquiring necessary to-market development capital from a financial institution – many of which were afforded lifesaving financial infusions of taxpayer dollars, courtesy of crony capitalists in Washington, DC – and you have a formula for a stagnant economy and high unemployment for the “producers,” and the selective enrichment of the connected, the elite and the “chosen few.”

This was not the case so long ago. And as little as 30 years ago, starting a small business meant reaping the rewards of ingenuity and hard work. Someone with a dream; someone with a “good idea,” was able to acquire capital to launch small business initiatives based on that tangible idea; based on a well-crafted business plan and model. Sadly, today, no one “invests in ideas” anymore. Financial institutions and capable venture capitalists balk at the “good idea”; recoil from the uncertainty of start-up entrepreneurship because of the non-guarantee of return on investment, even as many of them have been deemed “too big to fail” when they make bad business decisions of their own, only to receive government-funded (read: taxpayer-funded) bailouts. This all happening while the “good idea” start-up concepts wither on the vine for lack of start-up capital.

Additionally, many a creative entrepreneur is neutered – or hamstrung – by the fact that the “powers that be” have declared they did not jump through the traditional “educational hoops”; did not attain the necessary piece of paper and the required student loan debt to be considered “competent” or “intelligent” enough to conceive of the “next big thing.” Of course, this certainly must come as a surprise to Bill Gates, or to the late Steve Jobs, two pioneers of the computer age who dropped out of college. So, too, must is be shocking news to the many “gangsta” rap moguls who possess a depth of language proficiency usually reserved for those with a single or low double-digit intelligence quotient, and most of whom know the assembly of automatic weaponry better than algebraic theory.

And while the successful navigation of the “educational hoops” does not guarantee entrée into the realm of the financially anointed, sometimes the connections and friendships acquired at many upper-echelon secondary education establishments can serve to circumvent the ties that bind “producer Americans” to the grind of the average. Yes, I am talking about elitist crony capitalism.

Case in point: Toni Townes-Whitley.

According to TheDailyCaller.com:

“Toni Townes-Whitley, Princeton class of ’85, is senior vice president at CGI Federal, which earned the no-bid contract to build the $678 million [failed] Obamacare enrollment website at Healthcare.gov. CGI Federal is the US arm of a Canadian company.

“Townes-Whitley and her Princeton classmate Michelle Obama are both members of the Association of Black Princeton Alumni.”

Coincidentally, George Schindler, the president of CGI Federal’s Canadian parent CGI Group, became an Obama 2012 campaign donor after his company gained the Obamacare website contract. What a coincidence…

What does all of this have to do with laissez faire capitalism? Well, actually, nothing. It has nothing to do with laissez faire capitalism. And that’s the point.

Considering that our economic system has turned into a fiscal bordello of short-cuts for the Progressive chosen few, bailouts for the “too big to fail” financial institutions, and a playground for the crony capitalists, is it any wonder the financial markets have ceased reflecting the health of the American economy? How are investors supposed to know when the next major economic disaster is approaching when risky investments and questionable financial schemes are always rewarded in their failures and losses with government-backed (read: taxpayer-funded) bailouts? For the “chosen ones,” where is the “risk”?

The original intent of the Founders and Framers was to have an “American capitalism”; a system of commerce and investment based on achievement, investment, hard work, production and, yes, failure. The American system of capitalism was designed to leave the evolution of society and the decisions about the “common good” to the people. Today’s “anything but free market system” is a disingenuous scheme establishing pre-determined winners and losers; a manipulation of the laissez faire capitalist purity that promotes equality in outcome over an equality of opportunity: economic and social justice.

In an economic system enslaved by the Progressive ideology, economic and social justice is of a paramount importance, trumping the small business, the innovator, the entrepreneur and the producer; trumping and extinguishing opportunity for all, opportunity guaranteed in the United States Constitution.

An economic system enslaved by the Progressive ideology dictates who will win and who will lose; who will acquire wealth and who will live just above poverty, all according to an oligarchical elites’ idea of what is fair, what is not and who is worthy.

Under a Progressive economic system, opportunity is dead and the American Dream, but for those chosen by the Progressive masters, swings from a rope off a branch of a socially engineered (read: Socialist) tree, long-standing on the Progressive plantation.

“Not houses finely roofed or the stones of walls well builded, nay nor canals and dockyards make the city, but men able to use their opportunity.” – Alcaeus

Re-Writing Benghazi for Political Purposes

In typical Progressive fashion, the New York Times set itself to re-writing the events of al Qaeda’s 2012 attack on the US embassy compound in Benghazi, Libya; an attack that took the lives of four Americans, including a US ambassador. At any other point in the history of our country, the assassination of a US ambassador by a foe that launched an attack against American citizens the magnitude of September 11, 2001, would be greeted with a united front; embraced as tantamount to an act of war. But the United States has been co-opted by the Progressive Movement and when one of their own is in the White House – or when one of their own is positioning for the White House – history is subject to revision.

Incredibly, the New York Times – long understood by “the aware” to have ceased being a provider of truth and fact, in deference to position and ideology – has issued a “report” that not only flies in the face of the facts (facts acknowledged not only by State Department officials intimate with the events, but by factious elements of al Qaeda in Libya) but go well beyond any semblance of credibility in its conclusions:

“The investigation by The Times shows that …Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs.

“The violence, though, also had spontaneous elements. Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters. Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack, according to more than a dozen Libyan witnesses…”

This accounting completely disregards many facts that congressional hearings have brought forth from State Department and CIA operatives knowledgeable on the events of September 11, 2012. It also defies testimony by those with infinitely more knowledge on military capabilities than a lone researcher at the New York Times, including elected intelligence committee members from both sides of the political divide:

“‘I dispute that, and the intelligence community, to a large volume, disputes that,’ Michigan GOP Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told FOX News Sunday.  He also repeatedly said the story was ‘not accurate.’

“Rogers was joined on the show by California Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff, who said, ‘intelligence indicates Al Qaeda was involved.’”

That said, the efforts by New York Times researcher David D. Kirkpatrick are not centered in confronting the facts of the events of Benghazi, they are focused on changing the narrative ahead of the 2016 General Election.

It cannot be denied that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – now the Progressive front-runner for the Democrat nomination for president two years out from the 2016 General Election – was considerably marginalized by not only ineffective stewardship of the embassy compound in Benghazi in the days prior to the attack, but by the almost non-existent  response during the attack and the incredibly  inept response to the slaughter when called on the carpet by those elected to represent the people. This “triple whammy,” if left “un-spun,” would cripple the candidacy of even the most connected of Progressives – even with the support of a favorable mainstream media.

Enter the New York Times and David D. Kirkpatrick. Devoted sycophants to the Progressive cause, they have embarked on the rejuvenation of Ms. Clinton’s political reputation by attempting to re-write the facts of the event, already proven, in an effort to move her out of the ring of responsibility; in an effort to remove the stain of culpability and responsibility from the fabric of her candidacy. Sadly, even those in the mainstream media who exist on the Right side of the political divide, are tunnel-visioned in their focus; focused on the report and the reports conclusions rather than the motives behind the creation of the report – a work of fiction in its conclusions.

If the establishment Right – both inside the beltway and in the mainstream media, along with the Conservatives in the new media, fail to spotlight this blatant attempt to re-write history; fail to spotlight and explain the motives behind this manipulation of the truth, then we, as a nation, will have fallen – once again – for the Progressive tactic of re-definition of words, facts and events, in their quest to advance the Progressive agenda – and agents who would advance that agenda – into the accepted American lexicon.

The fact of the matter – and this cannot be denied when the facts are acknowledged and accepted – is this: Ms. Clinton failed to answer the “emergency 3am phone call” and because of that people died and an act of war against the United States by our global foe – al Qaeda and the radical Islamists who fuel the movement – was executed. In Ms. Clinton’s failure to act as an adequate steward of the US State Department, and in her refusal to resign for President Obama’s completely disingenuous excuse for the catalyst for the attacks – an excuse that Mr. Kirkpatrick and the New York Times have advanced – she has exposed herself as just another Progressive political minion who will do anything and say anything to gain power; who will lie, cheat, steal and deceive to advance the Progressive cause.

But then, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

It’s Not a War on Christmas

SAMSUNG DIGITAL MOVIE

As the season of “peace on Earth, goodwill toward men” goes forward, so too do the disingenuous protests of the secular activist Progressives; protests against anything that might be construed, interpreted and/or seen as the religiously based, existing in the public square, be it the government square or the private-sector square. Many Americans find the objections of these secular Progressive activists to be not only in bad taste, but an assault on reasonable sensibilities and traditions. But to the secular Progressives, this annual “offensive” is a necessity; a “nudge,” if you will. And it has a lot more to do with an overall ideological goal than it does with removing Christ from Christmas.

It is true that, whether you believe Christmas is centered on a celebration of the birth of the Christ Child or not, Christmas is a federally recognized national holiday. Christmas was designated a federal holiday by the United States Congress and President Ulysses S. Grant in 1870, however this only applied to federal employees in Washington DC, the designation expanding, applying to all federal employees in 1968. To this legal end, Christmas is codified. But even before the holiday’s official recognition by the United States government, Christmas was a culturally recognized holiday around the world:

“Christmas is an annual commemoration of the birth of Jesus Christ and a widely observed cultural holiday, celebrated generally on December 25 by billions of people around the world. A feast central to the Christian liturgical year, it closes the Advent season and initiates the twelve days of Christmastide, which ends after the twelfth night. Christmas is a civil holiday in many of the world’s nations, is celebrated by an increasing number of non-Christians, and is an integral part (central event) of the Christmas and holiday season.”

Given that the Founders and Framers of the United States of America rooted the entirety of our Founding Documents in the Natural Laws found in the Judeo-Christian philosophy, the recognition of a day designated to celebrate the Alpha and the Omega of this philosophy is not only fitting, but serves to offer up an opportunity to embrace a retrospect of what the root philosophy of all Americans is and should be.

To be sure, the United States is, in fact, a nation of immigrants; a diverse collection of cultures that over time have infused our unique American culture with rich and honored traditions. But, in each of these cultures, as part of each of these traditions, has always been, at their core, a celebration of thanks to the Deity, to God, to a Higher Power over the flawed egos of man. Perhaps that is what makes the traditional season of Christmas one that transcends cultures and languages; lines on a map; and political ideologies…all but for Progressivism’s most zealous.

At the core of turn-of-the-century Progressivism lays the notion that man can be perfected, nay, must be perfected if, in fact, there was to be a “Second Coming.” In an excerpt from The Social Gospel at DiscoverTheNetworks.org, authors, Daniel Flynn and Jonah Goldberg are credited with exposing:

“Flourishing in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Social Gospel Movement was a Protestant intellectual phenomenon headed by clergymen who sought to reconcile Christianity with a Progressive social agenda; who saw the state as the instrument by which God could intervene in human affairs and promote the collectivism supposedly advocated by Jesus. This collectivism, said exponents of the Social Gospel, held the keys to the eradication of all manner of societal ills: inequality, alcoholism, crime, racism, poverty, ignorance, exploitation, and violence.

“Whereas Conservative theologians saw redemption and reconciliation strictly as matters between each individual and God, Progressives in the Social Gospel Movement held that redemption could only be achieved collectively, by means of unified, social and political activism. They maintained, moreover, that the Second Coming of Christ could not occur until humankind had eliminated all social evils by means of such activism. One notable mouthpiece of the Social Gospel was the Baptist minister and theologian Walter Rauschenbush, who said: ‘Individualism means tyranny.’”

Today, with the injection of hyper-secularism into Progressivism, an almost atheistic tenet has taken hold of the modern Progressive Movement. 21st Century Progressives (or modern day Progressives) are more inclined to believe that man – not a Higher Power, a Deity; not God – is the issuer of rights; that the rights we enjoy not only as Americans, but as “citizens of the world,” are derived from governments and not from Natural Law; from elitist oligarchs and bureaucratic experts and not by Intelligent Design.

So it is that modern Progressives need to expunge the idea of a higher power from the American (and, in fact the world) lexicon. If the idea of God, or Deity or Higher Power is to exist, then the authorities of man to establish right from wrong, good from bad, normal from abnormal, tolerance from intolerance, can always – always – be questioned. If the elitist oligarchs of the modern day Progressive Movement are to assume complete control; complete authority to execute social justice, economic justice and redefine the many ideas of equality, then they must dispense with the idea that they – themselves – are not at the top of the power pyramid; at the top of the intellectual “food chain.” The only way to do this is to eliminate the idea of the Higher Power; the Deity; God.

When one understands the need for secular Progressives to directly attack the idea of God; of Christ as the Son of God, it makes sense to take the fight to the opposition on their home turf, in this instance, Christians and Christmas (although Easter is actually the holiest day in the Catholic/Christian faith).

By playing on emotions – the most potent tool in the Progressive arsenal – and painting those who hold true to their religious beliefs as being “un-inclusive,” “intolerant of others,” and “insensitive” for their wont that Christmas include the idea of the Christ Child, Christianity and Judeo-Christian ethos, i.e. The Nativity in the public square; Christmas Carols that feature Christian lyrics; and even merchants saying the salutation “Merry Christmas” for its root word of “Christ,” Progressives aim to “shame” the truly tolerant and inclusive (any true understanding of Christianity reveals that Christians, and not Progressives, are the truly tolerant and inclusive). By shaming or making the majority of Americans “uncomfortable” for the accusations of intolerance and insensitivity, Progressives aim to force an abdication of traditional American values and beliefs. In doing so they inch closer to their goal of expunging the notion of Natural Law from the societal and then governmental lexicons, successfully achieving elitist, oligarchic and totalitarian control over the defining of rights, the common good, and the role of government in our lives.

To wit, this is not a “war on Christmas,” as Bill O’Reilly would say. This is a war on the very notion of the existence of God.

Merry Christmas, everyone.

The Opportunistic Politics Rolls On

Just as the American people begin eying the torches and pitchforks, readying their maps of Washington, DC, the establishment politicos have set themselves to brazenly cover their butts yet again. This time, they are proposing a way to absolve themselves from tough votes on raising the debt ceiling.

In the aftermath of our current President’s disingenuous declaration that raising the debt ceiling “doesn’t necessarily mean adding to the debt,” and his infantile temper-tantrum about the government being held “hostage” because House Republicans wouldn’t let him have the federal credit card for his “date with destiny,” it isn’t surprising that the usual suspects are floating a fiscally irresponsible, but politically advantageous, plan to avoid the ugliness of actually governing where the debt and debt ceiling are concerned.

RedState.com reports:

On Meet the Press, Chuck Schumer, who has enthusiastically praised [Senate Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell, (Ri-KY), for doing his bidding, announced that he would introduce legislation echoing the “McConnell rule.”

“Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) will propose legislation that would make permanent a plan to take the decision to raise the country’s debt limit out of Congress’s hands.

“By making the so-called “McConnell rule” permanent, the president would have ultimate authority to raise the debt limit and prevent the United States from defaulting.

“Congress would still have power to oppose raising the debt ceiling, but would not have to vote to increase the borrowing limit.

“‘If we were to do that, the chances of going up to the brink again, the chances of this kind of debacle, will decrease,’ Schumer said on NBC’s ‘Meet the Press’ on Sunday.”

The politics is brazen. The abdication of constitutionally mandated obligation absolute.

It is not negotiable – aside from passing a constitutional amendment – that the US House of Representatives is tasked with the exclusive – exclusive – authority to generate legislation having to do with the raising of revenue. This means that no piece of legislation emanating from the Senate, no executive order, no agreement amongst a “Gang of Idiots,” has the constitutional authority to raise revenue, including the expansion of our nation’s level of debt.

Raising the debt ceiling so that the federal government can continue to operate in the red expands the expenditures of government. This can only be viewed as authorizing the need to extract revenues from the only constitutional source of revenue the federal government has: the American people via taxation.

Perhaps the American people have forgotten this critical point. The United States government does not produce a product. Therefore, the United States government cannot produce a revenue stream outside the realm of taxation, or, at least this was the way it was supposed to be before the federal government got into backing “winners and losers” (read: every Energy Department funding initiative) through government-backed special interest subsidies and the quasi-nationalization of certain private-sector companies (read: GM and Chrysler).

It is for this reason the generation of revenue legislation – and later legislation authorizing the extraction of taxes from the American people – rests solely with the US House; the elected body closest and most vulnerable to the people. It is for this specific reason that US Representatives are elected every two years instead of four or six, and why they represent the least number of people, by comparison, in our federal system of government. The Framers wanted these people – these elected representatives – to be vulnerable to their constituents. This was the “stick” to the carrot of elected privilege.

Creating a mechanism by which our elected representatives can simply remain silent in order to allow the Executive Branch (read: the President) to mandate the raising of revenue – in this case the debt ceiling and along with it the ability to spend – is literally unconstitutional. Additionally, that Senators are even broaching this subject presents as unconstitutional because the US Senate is not vested with the power of the purse, only the US House has that power.

People like Mitch McConnell and Chuckie Schumer get away with floating unconstitutional political mechanisms like “The McConnell Rule” because our citizenry exists as constitutionally illiterate and selfishly apathetic to their role in government: engaged oversight. Until the American people start to consistently and constantly embrace a jealous appreciation for limited government – and through that jealously an elevated addiction to freedom and responsible individualism – political reprobates like McConnell and Schumer will continue to destroy the Constitution and, along with it, our freedoms; your freedom.

How Obamacare Screws the Working Class…Hard

Now that it is becoming clear that the establishment House Republicans are about to capitulate to the Senate Democrats and Obama Progressives, it is clear that, short of Republicans taking the Senate in 2014 and the White House in 2016, Obamacare is set to sink into the flesh of the American entitlement system not unlike a bear’s claws sink into the flesh of its prey. Regardless of whether or not the federal healthcare exchange website functions adequately or not (get used to it, it’s government inferiority at work), the bureaucracy has just expanded and your wallets are about to do the opposite.

One of the things that people are going to have to come to understand is how the Internal Revenue Service – yes, the same Internal Revenue Service currently under investigation for targeting Conservative political groups – will be assessing the penalties (read: enforcing Obamacare) on those who choose not to “participate.” The fact of the matter is that it is both less ominous, yet more disturbing, than people think.

The penalties levied under the Affordable Care Act, under the usually heavy hand of the IRS, is not so much under the ACA. In fact, the pathway for extracting the Obamacare penalty from non-participants is exclusive to the garnishment of any federal tax refunds due. If one chooses not to acquire qualifying health insurance, the IRS will withhold the amount of the penalty that must be paid from any federal tax return refund that is owed an individual in violation of the statute.

According to BusinessInsider.com:

The IRS will not have the power to charge you criminally or seize your assets if you refuse to pay. The IRS will only have the ability to sue you. And the most the IRS can collect from you if it wins the suit is 2 times the amount you owe. So if you want to thumb your nose at the penalty-tax, the IRS won’t be able to do as much to you as they could if you refused to pay, say, income tax.

So, unlike when an individual fails to pay their federal income taxes, there won’t be a cadre of black uniformed federal agents armed with fully-automatic weapons kicking in your door in the middle of the night. You won’t be “frog-marched” out of your house in irons, past your disenchanted neighbors, to face the swift righteousness of redistributive social justice (I am being sarcastic, but less so than I would have been just a few years back).

But one question that eludes the thoughts of most people where this matter is concerned is this. What happens if you don’t “participate” in Obamacare but you aren’t due any federal tax refund? What if you are one of the 47 percent who does not pay federal income tax? What if you are über-wealthy and can afford a wizard tax attorney who can figure out how you can “zero out” on your federal taxes each year?

Well, the short answer is this. If you don’t pay federal income tax, technically, you don’t have to pay the fines under the Affordable Care Act. If you are one of the hard-working Americans who has federal taxes withheld from your paycheck – oh, you know, like Middle-Class, blue-collar and union workers not covered by the Executive Branch union carve-outs of the law – you will have to pay the penalty out of your tax refunds. If you are one of the 47 percent of the American public who doesn’t pay federal income taxes, you get to “skate” the Obamacare penalty. Ditto for the “One Percenters.”

One has to wonder whether H&R Block is going to be flooded with new clients trying to figure out how to pay their federal income taxes to the penny throughout the year so that they “zero out.”

And let’s be honesty, the IRS is not going to come after every person who “skates” the $95 dollar (or 1 percent of earnings) penalty being assessed in 2014, even if they did seek to hire upwards of 16,000 new IRS agents since the passage of this freedom-crushing law.

So, when one comes to understand this very stark reality, the obvious question is this. If the indestructible demographic (the 21 to 32 year-old demo) doesn’t sign-up for the Obamacare exchanges in droves – and droves upwards of 80% of their demographic, and 47 percent of the country doesn’t pay federal income taxes, who actually pays for the expanded coverage mandated under the Affordable Care Act? Who is on the hook for Obamacare?

The answer – again – is the Middle-Class, blue-collar and union workers not covered by the Executive Branch union carve-outs of the law…and new taxes on everyone. Again, BusinessInsider.com reports:

Here are some of the new taxes you’re going to have to pay to pay for Obamacare:

A 3.8% surtax on “investment income”( dividends, interest, rent, capital gains, annuities, house sales, partnerships, etc.) when your adjusted gross income is more than $200,000, $250,000 for joint-filers. What is “investment income?” (WSJ)

A 0.9% surtax on Medicare taxes for those making $200,000 or more, $250,000 joint. (WSJ)

Flexible Spending Account contributions will be capped at $2,500. Currently, there is no tax-related limit on how much you can set aside pre-tax to pay for medical expenses. (ATR.org)

The itemized-deduction hurdle for medical expenses is going up to 10% of adjusted gross income. (ATR.org)

The penalty on non-medical withdrawals from Healthcare Savings Accounts is now 20% instead of 10%. (ATR.org)

A tax of 10% on indoor tanning services. This has been in place for two years, since the summer of 2010. (ATR.org)

A 40% tax on “Cadillac Health Care Plans” starting in 2018.Those whose employers pay for all or most of comprehensive healthcare plans (costing $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for families) will have to pay a 40% tax on the amount their employer pays. (ATR.org)

A”Medicine Cabinet Tax” that eliminates the ability to pay for over-the-counter medicines from a pre-tax Flexible Spending Account. (ATR.org)

A “penalty” tax for those who don’t buy health insurance.

A 2.3% excise tax on medical devices costing more than $100. (Breitbart.com)

So those are some of the new taxes you’ll be paying that will help pay for Obamacare…

Note that these taxes are both “progressive” (aimed at rich people) and “regressive” (aimed at the middle class and poor people).

The cost of this program will not be affordable for the individuals – almost every story but for those who get taxpayer-funded subsidies is one of tripled premiums and deductibles, and it won’t be affordable for the country, especially when the bureaucrats and elitist political class put the price tag of the whole Obamacare ball of infected earwax at approximately $2 trillion dollars.

Now, President Obama is quoted as having said, in an interview with the Spanish-Speaking television network Univision, that:

Once [the budget impasse is rectified], you know, the day after – I’m going to be pushing to say, call a vote on immigration reform…And if I have to join with other advocates and continue to speak out on that, and keep pushing, I’m going to do so because I think it’s really important for the country. And now is the time to do it.

And as the “indestructible” demographic (21-32 years of age) fails to sign-up for the Obamacare exchanges, pro-amnesty Progressives will begin insisting that illegal immigrants (I’m sorry, I mean undocumented uninvited guests) be added to those eligible for Obamacare. Understanding that the 47 percent of those who do not pay federal income tax cannot be fined, and that the One Percenters can affords to have their taxes “zero out,” how long will it be until Progressives scream “crisis” and demand massive, Middle-Class killing. economy destroying, Cloward-Piven-styled tax increases?

Who is John Galt?

A Disgrace Worthy of a Resignation

10092013

It is unconscionable. It is rude, insensitivity, callus and unacceptable. With the news that family members of fallen soldiers killed in Afghanistan are not only being denied death benefits, but are being denied transportation to Dover AFB for the arrival of the caskets containing the remains of their loved ones, the Obama Administration has crossed a “red line” with the American people. Progressives in Washington and across the nation, you are now on notice: We – regular, rank-and-file, hard-working American every-men and -women – are not going to take the “pain” of your ideological agenda anymore.

Few things are sacrosanct among all Americans, the proper treatment and respect of the men and women of the Armed Forces – and their families – one such thing. But Mr. Obama, his administration, and the sycophants who voted for and support them have disrespected and caused unnecessary pain for these patriots, both fallen and family. Just as in the 1960s, these very same people and people of the same mindset, are once again spitting in the faces of the American soldier, this time extending that vile discontent to the survivors and their children.

FOX News reports:

It’s another ugly symptom of Mr. Obama’s partial government shutdown — and this time it impacts the families of soldiers who are dying for their country.

The Pentagon confirmed Tuesday that, as long as the budget impasse lasts, it will not be able to pay death benefits to the families of troops who’ve been killed in combat.

“Unfortunately, as a result of the shutdown, we do not have the legal authority to make death gratuity payments at this time,” said Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen, a Defense Department spokesman.

House lawmakers, though, are planning to vote Wednesday on a bill to restore funding for the payments. And Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), on Tuesday accused the Obama administration of needlessly withholding the money…

The Pentagon says it has specific instructions from its budget office not to make payments for deaths that occurred after 11:59pm on Sept. 30, 2013.

And that’s about enough…We should all demand – demand – the name of the imbecile who made this decision (I am certain that it came from Mr. Obama’s inner-circle) and demand – demand – that person’s resignation, terminating that person’s governmental career complete with withheld benefits.

President Obama is the Commander in Chief and that position mandates a responsibility to care for the whole of the military family. This responsibility is absolute and non-discretionary. That this situation even exists must – must and without question – rest on Mr. Obama’s shoulders personally.

In fact, if one of the duties of the Presidency is being Commander in Chief, this abdication of responsibility to our soldiers and their families (they are considered military families and many live on military bases, shop at military base PXs, etc.) for political purposes should be deemed an impeachable offense; disavowing any aspect of the position of Commander in Chief must be considered a “high crime and misdemeanor.”

We, as a nation, have been subjected to the arrogance and bully-tactics of Mr. Obama’s Chicago Progressive political mindset long enough. We have been subjected to the sycophancy of a Progressive mainstream media continuously lobbing softball questions to this president; ignoring not only the execution of poor government, but scandals that – in more than one case – have cost Americans their lives. I contend that this is too high a price for a country to pay just because Progressive ideologues insists on executing the politically correct, “social justice,” Marxist transformation of our nation, purely for power, fame and fortune.

It is time to define Progressivism for what it is: a destructive force that is antithetical to our Founders’ vision of a limited government and a free people. It is also time to confront Progressivism at every level, in every governmental chamber, on every street corner and in every individual.

Progressivism is not unlike Islamofascism in that the ideology is not – not –compatible with the Natural Law right to individual liberty and the overall concepts of self-reliance and freedom. It also stands as just as lethal a threat to our nation.

That Mr. Obama has not already addressed the subject of getting the fallen soldiers’ families their promised death benefits and respectful transportation to Dover AFB for the arrival of the caskets is beyond disgraceful. If Mr. Obama had a shred of decency; an once of honor, he would have already ordered a solution to this problem from the available Pentagon funding (and yes, there is money there to satisfy this situation). That he hasn’t should result in his resignation from office…immediately.

Yes, it is that much of an issue.

Federal Government: Embarrassing to the Point of Painful

As the so-called “government shutdown” drags on, one thing is hard not to admit: the Obama Administration is acting in a manner that is attempting to extract the maximum amount of pain on the American people. While many are wondering how it came to this point, those of us who actually paid attention in Social Studies, Civics and American History classes – school subjects that are, today, given little, if any, attention –
understand it’s because the US Constitution and the purity of the original governmental process has been raped by the opportunistic political class.

Our nation has always had a robust political discourse, commencing from before we were even a documented nation. We have always been represented by a passionate, spirited political class; strong in their beliefs, but educated and knowledgeable enough to legislate and govern for the good of all the people. Today, this is not the case.

Today, we have a political class that insists on the importance of ideologically motivated political “achievements” over the honest representation of the American people; loyalty to political faction – of which each and every Framer and Founder warned – over loyalty to those who delivered them to power via the ballot box.

Today, we literally have people in the political class that have an inferior command of the English language, an inferior and under-performing understanding of the principles of the Constitution and the Charters of Freedom, and a devotion to Progressivism; a non-indigenous, Marxist-based ideology that believes the State is the Alpha and the Omega; the giver of rights and the final arbiter of freedom and liberty.

Today, we have a government that does not – does not – serve the American people, evidenced – in a singular point – by the overwhelming and sustained majority of Americans who do not want the Affordable Care Act implemented on any level.

FOX News reports:

Is the Obama administration employing a make-it-hurt strategy to gain political leverage in the budget battle on Capitol Hill?

Republicans are making that charge as the stalemate drags on, and point to the Pentagon furlough of 400,000 civilian staffers — even though Congress passed and the president signed a bill to supposedly keep them on the job…

Republicans argue that the intent of the law was to keep them on the job, and that the Obama administration “narrowly interpreted” it against congressional intent in order to furlough more employees.

It’s one example of how, Republicans say, the administration is making the partial shutdown of government services worse than it needs to be. Many have complained about the National Park Service cordoning off even open-air monuments in Washington, DC, such as the World War II Memorial.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), responded to criticisms by saying, “It is time for Speaker Boehner to stop the games.”

Shamefully, FOX also reported that correspondence on this situation has stalled because, as Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA), stated, “Unfortunately, most of the staff who draft congressional correspondence are furloughed.”

A few notes on this shameful situation.

First, and to be equally critical to both sides, if “staffers that draft congressional correspondence” have been furloughed, perhaps those elected to Congress should learn to (and actually) write their own correspondence.

Second, to the Progressives, Democrats and our embarrassing President, it is never “game-playing” when the taxpayer’s money is being spent. It is “game-playing” when members of our military who have been maimed and permanently injured can’t get medical care because the politically opportune refuse to entertain appropriations passed through a traditional method (not every spending bill has to be an omnibus package, in fact traditionally, the 12 appropriation bills have been passed separately).

House Republicans “screwed the pooch” when they didn’t advance ACA funding as a separate, stand-alone appropriations bill from the start. When House Speaker Boehner stated that this Congress would operate under “regular order” he should have stated that the House would be de-bundling all legislation into stand-alone pieces, shining the light of truth and accountability on everything that passed across the House floor. Sadly, traditional, inside-the-beltway pork politics prevailed and the practice of bundling legislation to appease the politically greedy has delivered us to this point.

Truth be told, had the political class not blindly followed the Progressive Movement into ratifying the 17th Amendment, none of this would have ever come to pass. But, then, the Commerce Clause wouldn’t have even come close to allowing much of what the Federal government has done that encroaches into our daily lives.

Additionally, if Harry Reid would have operated lawfully, the omnibus appropriations package would have already been legislated, as he is – is – bound by law to have produced a budget by April 15 of each year. He has not done so since before Republicans took control of the House.

The sad, but glaringly true, fact is this. Our government has become too big and too bureaucratic. Our government has manipulated and strayed from the boundaries of the US Constitution, which is a mandated blueprint for limiting government.

Until We the People insist on repealing the 17th Amendment so as to re-employ constitutional protections for the States, and until Congress re-visits the Federal government’s grotesquely over-reaching interpretation of the Commerce Clause, it will be up to the States to save the nation, either by Constitutional Convention (which in and of itself is very dangerous were the original words of the Constitution to be manipulated by the opportunistic) or by, God forbid, secession.

And it is with tears in my eyes for our country; for freedom; for liberty itself, that I acquiesce to the notion. Buy, my God, are we to allow the greatest achievement of freedom in the history of the world be extinguished at the hand of ideological bullies?

The words of Patriot Patrick Henry said so very seriously then, are just as cogent today:

“Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! — I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

The Fomentation of a Government Shut Down

Well, it is upon us, the dreaded government shutdown. And yet the Earth still spins, the water still runs, the electric is on and Harry Reid is still tossing verbal grenades at anyone who dares represent an opposing view to the lock-step Progressive agenda. Imagine that! Our daily lives didn’t come to a grinding, catastrophic halt because the big government nanny state was sidelined by the fruits of their own discontent. In fact, to paraphrase an often heard chant at any Leftist-leaning protest march, “This is what not spending looks like!”

Truth be told, if our nation would have stayed true to our Founding Documents, the crisis that delivered unto us this dastardly government shutdown would never had existed. Indeed, if we would have executed government with fidelity to the Constitution, to governmental process and to the legislated laws instead of capitulating to the Progressive’s fundamental transformation of the United States of America (a transformation launched at the turn of the 20th Century), World War II veterans wouldn’t have had to push aside hastily erected barriers meant to shut down the World War II Memorial on the Mall in Washington, DC, Tuesday simply to experience the memorial erected in their honor.

I mention a lack of fidelity to the US Constitution and the rule of law because had two specific established protocols – Article I, Section 3 of the US Constitution and The Budget Control Act of 1974 – been honored, not only would the environment in Washington, DC, been devoid of gridlock, but regular order would have mandated the annual delivery of appropriations to the various departments and agencies.

When our Framers crafted the US Constitution they included Article I, Section 3, which reads:

“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.” (Emphasis added)

Where the members of the House of Representatives were to serve as the “voice of the people,” the Senate was supposed to act as the protector of States’ Rights. The check-and-balance between the co-equal branches of government was to have a check-and-balance within the Legislative Branch to assure that both the voice of the people and the rights of the States were balanced in any legislation that would emanate from that branch of government. By constructing this internal check-and-balance, the Framers enshrined the power to both force compromise with the Executive Branch and protect the rights of the minority (Read: States’ Rights) in the Legislative Branch.

But with the Progressive Era’s 1912-1913 achievement of the 17th Amendment, that check-and-balance, along with the protection of States’ Rights was obliterated, and a gigantic move toward a centralization of government power at the Federal level was achieved.

The 17th Amendment reads, in part,

“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.” (Emphasis added.)

So, by effectively transforming the US Senate from a protector of States’ Rights to a redundant chamber catering to the voice of the people, Progressives created two chambers vulnerable to political faction; two competing political entities that could gridlock because their tasks were the same – their authorities derived from the same source.

Today, had the 17th Amendment not existed, the US House of Representatives would have advanced their bill to defund the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the Senate – given that 38 States have indicated they do not support the ACA – would have concurred, sending a Continuing Resolution to fund the whole of government but defunding the ACA to President Obama. The President would have almost certainly vetoed the legislation which, by virtue of the Senates’ loyalty to their respective State Legislatures, would have been overturned by the whole of the Legislative Branch. Of course, this is predicated on the ACA ever having had become law in the first place, which, under the original intent of the US Constitution, would be questionable.

Additionally, had the United States Senate, under the disingenuous and corrupt political hand of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), not insisted on existing in defiance of a federal law – The Budget Control Act of 1974, the entire Continuing Resolution process wouldn’t have taken place.

The Budget Control Act of 1974 mandates that,

“…Congress pass two annual budget resolutions (it later was decreased to one) and set timetables for finishing budget work. The budget resolution specifies spending levels in broad areas and may direct congressional committees to find ways to save money. Initially the date for completing the budget resolution was May 15, but later the deadline was changed to April 15.

“It’s a deadline Congress seldom has met. Since 1974, Congress has only succeeded in meeting its statutory deadline for passing a budget resolution six times. Sometimes it’s months late. Sometimes, as in Fiscal 2011, Congress doesn’t pass a budget resolution at all.

“Another section of the Budget Act of 1974 states that Congress cannot consider any annual appropriations bills until it adopts an overall budget blueprint…In Fiscal 2011 there should have been 12 appropriations bills.”

So, had Senate Majority Leader Reid actually adhered to the law by advancing a budget resolution to be reconciled, this “showdown” might never have come to pass. But, because there are automatic increases built into each annual budget to account for inflation, etc., it was to the benefit of the spendthrifts in Congress to refuse to advance – or even negotiate – a budget resolution. By using a Continuing Resolution they didn’t have to cut any spending in the face of repeated requests from President Obama to raise the debt ceiling even as the citizenry – and the elected GOP – screamed for fiscal responsibility and debt reduction.

Of course, we shouldn’t be surprised that Mr. Reid had an underhanded and completely partisan reason for not following the law. We should have come to understand that the Progressives of the 21st Century are vicious, win-at-all-cost, slash-and-burners when then-House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi (P-CA), dismissed the idea of legitimately legislating the ACA by saying,

“We will go through the gate. If the gate is closed, we will go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we will pole-vault in. If that doesn’t work, we will parachute in. But we are going to get health care reform passed for the American people for their own personal health and economic security and for the important role that it will play in reducing the deficit.”

And we should have known that 21st Century Progressives would scald their own Mothers to submission to advance their cause when we were subjected to the over-the-top and venomous assaults they made on duly elected officials who dared to disagree with their political agenda:

“It is embarrassing that these people who are elected to represent the country are representing the TEA Party, the anarchists of the country…” – Sen. Harry Reid, (D-NV)

“Obama will not – he cannot – negotiate with a roving band of anarchists who say, ‘Build our oil pipeline or the troops don’t get paid.’” – Former Obama Speechwriter Jon Favreau

“I have never seen such an extreme group of people adopt such an insane policy.” – Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)

“These people have come unhinged.” – Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (P-FL)

“I believe it’s terrorism…This is an attempt to destroy all we know of the republican form of government in this country.” – Chris Matthews, MSNBC

“What we’re not for is negotiating with people with a bomb strapped to their chest.” – Dan Pfeiffer, White House Senior Adviser

“I call them ‘legislative arsonists.’ They’re there to burn down what we should be building up…” – Nancy Pelosi (P-CA)

I could go on but you get the picture.

The bottom line here is this. Progressives will do anything and say anything; they will lie, cheat and steal, to achieve their goals; their agendas. They will alter the Constitution, create new behemoth entitlement programs, spend, raise taxes and amass debt from which there is no return, in any and all efforts to advance their nanny-state, centralized government vision for our country. And if those who believe in Constitutional law, States’ Rights, individualism, personal responsibility the free market and liberty don’t take a stand – now…well, it will all be over very, very soon…at the hands of the Progressives’ ideological death panel.

Of course, these are just the ravings of an “unhinged, roving legislative arsonist touting an insane terrorist policy, a bomb strapped to my chest,” don’t you know…

Durbin Thinks the Gov’t Has Profits to Spend

In a perfect example of Progressive thinking, Sen. Dick Durbin (P-IL), has taken issue with the idea of lawmakers and congressional staff having to be subjected to the mandates of Affordable Care Act, a.k.a., Obamacare. As people like Durbin, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid throw around rhetoric like “hostage,” “extortion,” “legislative arson,” etc., they are – at the very same time – carving out incredible perks for themselves and their staffs, paid for them on the backs of the taxpayers, while creating a super-privileged class.

Since the US Supreme Court, under the direction of SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts, over-stepped their function in literally re-framing the
law as a tax — even as Progressive lawmakers debating the law stated without doubt that is was not a tax, it is fair to assume that this “tax” is covered by the authority of Article I, Section 8, of the US Constitution, which mandates all taxes, “… shall be uniform throughout the United States.”

Specifically:

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;…”

Before the rhetorically challenged chime in, an “impost” is, by definition, a “tax.” But I am getting off track on the issue of tax inequity…\

In attempting to create – or, to be more accurate, further the privilege of the elitist political class, Mr. Durbin has suggested that government be treated on an even plane at the private sector.

The Washington Times reports:

“‘If Obamacare is going to force Americans all over this country to lose their employer-provided health insurance, be forced onto the exchange with no subsidies, then the men and women who serve in this body should feel that pain exactly the same,’ said Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who on Tuesday staged a filibuster to block the chamber floor and draw attention to his fight to defund the health law.

“Sen. Richard J. Durbin (P-IL), though, said if members of Congress lost their taxpayer subsidies for health insurance, would Mr. Cruz want all workers to be stripped of support from their companies.

“‘You better think twice about this. If you want to stop the employer contribution to health insurance, that is the headline for tomorrow,’ Mr. Durbin, the second-ranking Democrat in the chamber, said.”

When Sen. “Dickie” Durbin (P-IL), took to the floor during Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-TX), elongated floor speech to advance this ridiculous notion, he tried to slough off the underwriting of Congress’s health insurance, making a subsidy of 72% sound like Congressmen and their staffs were shouldering some sort of burden. Then he equated it to what large corporations do for their employees.

Note to Mr. Durbin: Corporations make profits out of which they pay for the benefits they provide their employees, or at least they used to before Obamacare, which is making them abandon their employees.

The Federal Government doesn’t make a product by which to create a “profit.” Government “profits” are taxes extracted from taxpayers. So, because government doesn’t create profits they can’t use those profits to pay for your health insurance benefits, or those of your staffs.

That said, there should be no federal health insurance benefits with the advent of Obamacare. All federal – all – should be in the Obamacare exchanges; each and every federal employee – union or not, regardless of branch – should be forced onto the exchanges.

Suddenly Obamacare doesn’t sound so hot, eh, Mr. Durbin?

« Older Entries Recent Entries »