Paul Endorser: Homosexuals Should Be Executed

By Proof

Not this guy.

Some might say that our coverage of Ron Paul has been a little lopsided of late, and there are a number of reasons for that. One, is his apparent placement in the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, despite approximately half of his support coming from other than Republicans. And two, Art Linkletter used to say that "Kids say the darndest things". Art Linkletter never met Ron Paul*.

I could write about the ...Jon Huntsman campaign, if that weren't as exciting as watching milk curdle. (I put in the ellipsis, since it usually takes me just a second or two to remember his name.) Remember that guy some years back, back before Tebow ever Tebowed, used to go to football games and sit on the end zone side of the stands, wearing a rainbow colored wig? Whenever a team would kick a field goal or an extra point in his direction, he would stand up with a sign that said "John 3:16"** on it. Hundreds of people in the end zone, but the guy getting the attention was the one in the rainbow wig. Which brings us to Ron Paul...Since Paul is generating the buzz about Iowa, and complained not that long ago that he wasn't getting as much coverage as he should, we are making up for lost time! (Moral: Be careful what you wish for!)

via the Huffington Post, Phillip Kayser, Ron Paul Endorser, Called For Executing Homosexuals Under 'Biblical Law'

Ron Paul's campaign is touting the endorsement of Phillip G. Kayser, an Iowa pastor who believes in imposing the death penalty on homosexuals, reports Talking Points Memo.

"We welcome Rev. Kayser's endorsement and the enlightening statements he makes on how Ron Paul's approach to government is consistent with Christian beliefs," said Paul's Iowa chairman, Drew Ivers, in a recent press release on Paul's campaign website.

Okay...it's not as if there's been any controversy at all about whom Paul accepts support from!

"Difficulty in implementing Biblical law does not make non-Biblical penology just," wrote Kayser in a recent pamphlet. "But as we have seen, while many homosexuals would be executed, the threat of capital punishment can be restorative." Kayser added that homosexuals could be prosecuted only after the law was enacted.

"many homosexuals would be executed" But not all! (Vote Ron Paul!)

H/T Memeorandum
Cross posted at Proof Positive




*I don't know this for a certainty. Ron Paul is older than dirt and he may have met Linkletter at some point in his life. However, it makes for a better rhetorical flourish if we say he did not. I, as always, am ready to post a retraction on the slim, outside chance that I am incorrect.

**John 3: 16 is a reference to the third chapter of the book of John, in the New Testament, the sixteenth verse:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Ron Paul's Own Operation Chaos?

By Proof

Remember back in 2008, when Rush Limbaugh tried to bolster Hillary's flagging campaign to sow discord among Democrats up until Obama had clinched the nomination, that he called Operation Chaos? Could be a little bit of that going ion in Iowa and New Hampshire...just from the other side. According to Byron York:

In a hotly-contested Republican race, it appears that only about half of Paul's supporters are Republicans. In Iowa, according to Rasmussen, just 51 percent of Paul supporters consider themselves Republicans. In New Hampshire, the number is 56 percent, according to Andrew Smith, head of the University of New Hampshire poll.

The same New Hampshire survey found that 87 percent of the people who support Romney consider themselves Republicans. For Newt Gingrich, it's 85 percent.

49% of Paul supporters in Iowa are Democrats and Independents? That would be a good thing, if Paul were truly broadening the base. I suspect, however, that every Democrat who votes for Paul in the primary will happily pull the lever for Obama in November.

So who is supporting Paul? In New Hampshire, Paul is the choice of just 13 percent of Republicans, according to the new poll, while he is the favorite of 36 percent of independents and 26 percent of Democrats who intend to vote in the primary. Paul leads in both non-Republican categories.

"Paul is doing the best job of getting those people who aren't really Republicans but say they're going to vote in the Republican primary," explains Smith. Among that group are libertarians, dissatisfied independents and Democrats who are "trying to throw a monkey wrench in the campaign by voting for someone who is more philosophically extreme," says Smith.

I believe it was cross over voting in open primaries that helped give us John McCain as standard bearer in 2008. If, God forbid, something similar happens next year, there needs to be some major house cleaning in the primary process to limit voting to registered Republican residents of the state.


Cross posted at Proof Positive
More at Memeorandum

Thoughts On Our Current Political Climate

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

Editors note: Given the issues we face today as a nation Rational Nation USA is re-posting this article. Originally posted on October, 22 2011 it defines the nature of, and danger in wedge politics.

Politics is a strange business. Politicians are without a doubt a breed apart from the rest of the nation. Well, maybe when a person enters politics in the beginning they are just like the average person and want to make a difference. But, inevitably it seems that they lose their principles. Influenced by special interests they become part of the problem they initially hoped to change.

Maybe it's just the times we live in. But doesn't it seem that we are a nation that has become so polarized by competing ideologies we are no longer able to discus issues of national concern in a civil and respectful manner? It is sad that politics, and political discourse has sank to the level of a sporting event. In the process the nation and its people lose the values the nation was founded on.

Americans have always had competing views. From its birth as a nation the United States of America has dealt with differing political philosophies. Throughout her history she has always found a path to resolve any challenge facing the nation. Yet today we cannot find the wisdom and courage to resolve the issues the nation faces at present.

Should it be any different today than it was during that hot sweltering summer of 1787 in Philadelphia when great men drafted our Constitution? The document that united us and has withstood the strain of over two and a quarter centuries. Our constitution is perhaps one of, if not the greatest political document in history. It set a nation on the path of governance whereby the government was responsible to the people. Rather than the other way around as it had always been up until that time in history.

There are those who will argue that the Constitution was flawed. And it was. The singular glaring flaw, one that still haunts us today, was the blight of institutionalizing slavery. It was a contradiction of the very principles Thomas Jefferson so eloquently spoke to when he penned The Declaration of Independence. But (as in all things), it is important to understand the political realities of the time when the nation was being formed. When drafting the Constitution compromises were made so that the United States of America would become a reality. For the delegates to the constitutional convention, as well as most of the people, establishing the United States was the highest priority.

As 2011 approaches the end of the year we are witnessing the greatest internal threat to our nation since The Civil War. The polarization of our people through the divisive use of wedge issues in politics is tearing at the very fabric of our nation. Our politicians {as well as corporate America and other special interest groups} seem only too willing to stand by and let it happen. Perhaps the interest of ideology and irrational self interest are more important to them than pursuing (rational) interests that will help strengthen the nation both economically and politically.

I am a conservative with strong libertarian leanings, and a fair amount of classical liberalism mixed in for good measure. As my readership knows Ayn Rand has held strong influence as well. Many Americans I believe share some of the principles and values discussed here at Rational Nation USA. I am equally as sure that the majority of Americans want our politicians to find a path that benefits the nation and all people, not just the few who hold the power.

If this country is to resolve the issues that have us bordering on becoming a second class democratic republic, as well as a second class world power, our leaders in Congress, the Senate, and in the one in the Oval Office had better get it together. For if they don't this heretofore nation of liberty and prosperity shall cease to exist as we have know it.

Ayn Rand said, "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." Putting this in the context of governance,... As long as our government protects the rights of the individual as enshrined in our Constitution and The Bill of Rights we should all be okay with opposing views on present day issue. In fact we should encourage opposing views. It has been said that the word {written} is mightier than the sword. And so it is. Through the use of words to describe rational concepts minds are changed, and so is society as a result.

If conservative and libertarians are to win the day then they must do so on the strength of their ideas. Ideas presented in such a way that people can first understand them. Then, if they determine the idea is a rational one be willing to ultimately accept and support it.

It serves no purpose, other than to divide, when politicians, the news media, and bloggers {on both the left and right}, use wedge issues to drive their point home.

The refusal to consider any opposing view with a active mind is not the mark of intelligence or wisdom. Rather it is the mark of a fool.

At the end of the day the future rests in the hands of those living in the present. What kind of future do you want for your children and grandchildren? It is up to each and every one of us to make it a better one.

Rational Nation USA leaves you with the following to consider. Written by Octopus a contributor at The Swash Zone in response to comments on a liberal blog.

This hyper-partisanship has damaged our country in ways too numerous to count. Let me elaborate. Hyper-partisanship translates into hyper polarization. It colors how we relate to one another. It turns neighbors and normal decent folk into the “other,” the enemy, those hateful liberals or those despised conservatives. It is a function of “identity” politics whose aim is to divide persons with common economic interests into warring factions. Divide and conquer. And a great many of us, liberals and conservative alike, buy into this bullshit and later pay a heavy price.

Hyper-partisanship colors how we think. It gives rise to ALL-OR-NOTHING THINKING, where a party, a group, a person are either all black or all white with no shades of gray. Very few people in life are either all good (saints) or all evil (devils); yet hyper-partisanship demands that you think this way.

No matter what a person may achieve, the game of politics commands you to ignore the accomplishments and focus on the flaws; or spin good deeds into failures or characterize all deeds as evil deeds, despite evidence to the contrary. Demonize your opponent, that is the way the game is played.

Suddenly, one of our readers says: “Hey, wait a minute! I’m pissed off at something but I don’t know why.” It is this hyper-partisan programming pulling, tugging, sucking you under until you gasp for air. Time to break the cycle.

We are living in an era of non-stop character assassination and defamation, of political hostage taking, and legislative gridlock at a time when millions of people are suffering. There are powerful corporate interests that want us to be this way – divided – so they can cash in their chips and turn into serfs. Unless we break this cycle and say “To hell with you, I am not buying this bullshit anymore, then they win, and our country will wither away as dry wind-blown leaves of Autumn.

Sorry folks! Either we get our act together, or we will have no future at all.

And this.

All of us guilty of allowing ourselves to get sucked into the vortex of hyper-partisanship, and I admit to being as rabid as any … especially when baited by “libtard” epithets or facsimiles thereof. Sometimes I run hot or cold trying to end the cycle of mutual recrimination.

Case in point: Almost two years ago (October 26, 2009), I posted this article: DEMOGRAPHIC CLUSTERING AND THE SELF-SEGREGATION OF AMERICA, which touched on some these points. The comment thread is even more revealing than the post (and you will recognize the names of our conservative friends). Here is a quote from the article:

“Over time, according to Bishop, a preference for living with like-minded neighbors in extreme homogeneous communities incubates ever more extremist views. Voters in landslide districts tend to elect more extreme members to Congress while moderate candidates shun public office. Among highly polarized lawmakers, debates degenerate into shouting matches as legislators engage in obstruction and gridlock. That is how our most urgent and pressing issues go unresolved.”

When I look at the current political situation, it seems the article was prescient: We are now more polarized and gridlocked than ever before, and the current slate of candidates are even more extreme to the point of caricature.

Recalling some of RN’s recent comments, he distrusts the corporate plutocracy as much as we do – for the same reasons – and you would think we would have common cause; yet, identity politics and old habits always get in the way – witness the hyper-sensitivity that always accompanies hyper-partisanship.

I am wonder if it would be worthwhile revisiting this subject again and see where it takes us.

Conservatives, libertarians, and classical liberals can and should remain true to our principles, so should modern liberals to theirs. However, it is time to back away from the wedge issues that both sides of the debate have used to polarize the nation.

I think Jefferson and Rand would understand.

Wall Street, Financial Meltdown, TARP, American Free Enterprise and Haman in the Book of Esther

By Frank Hill

Here's a personal story that should really capture your full attention and brand the whole sordid episode of the financial meltdown in 2008 deep into your brain so you can fully understand just how much you have been bamboozled by the financial 'wizards' and 'warlocks' on Wall Street and Main Street:

A friend of ours was at a party in New York City just over 3 years ago now in late 2008 on the weekend when all of the final negotiations were taking place about which investment banks to save and who to let die on Wall Street.

The New York investment banker, of course, had let it be known that he was 'worth in the vicinity of $100 million' prior to October, 2008. In pure money terms. Not personal integrity or valor, that is for sure.

Heading into that weekend, the deal to save AIG had been floated which was necessary since Goldman and other large investment banks had a lot of their capital tied up in the collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) and other guaranteed payments between all the large international investment banks.

If the deal was not completed that weekend, as it appeared on Friday evening, the debt liabilities of AIG would overcome all of the net assets of the large investment banks. By Monday morning at the opening of the day's markets, every one of them would be not only technically 'bankrupt' but officially bankrupt and unable to conduct any further transactions around the world.

'Joe' (names changed to protect the innocent) he said: 'Come with me out on the terrace and take a good look around!'

Our friend was more than a little nervous to accompany him for fear of watching him jump off the ledge as so many did during the Great Depression. The investment banker had been drinking heavily, and why not? Our friend was probably more than a little afraid that the investment banker would actually jump and possibly take him with him.

'Take a look around, {Joe}. All of this, all of my life's work is now gone. Kaput, P-tooey! Nothing is left. We are going to watch AIG take down the whole banking system on Monday morning and with it will go all of this, my wealth and my world!'

We think our friend may have shown some compassion for this so-called 'gentlemen'. Maybe. He probably poured himself and his Wall Street buddy another stiff drink to ease both of their collective pain.

Well, to make a long story short, the AIG deal was cut over the weekend and the financial system of America was put on the life-support system known as the first tranche of the Banking Bailout Plan Part I.

And guess what? This 'so-called gentleman' has now had ALL of his wealth restored through the recovery of the Goldman stock! His net worth probably has topped $150 million this year as a result of your generosity and largesse.

Gives you sort of a 'tingly feeling' all up and down your leg like Chris Matthews, right?

We all know that the financial system of America was about to blow sky-high by the fall of 2008.

Years of extraordinary excess in the form of debt, speculation, greed, contempt and deceipt by the investment bankers on Wall Street and the regular bankers and mortgage bankers on Main Street, along with the usual suspects of real estate speculators, financiers and manipulators set the table for such a magnificent meltdown in October of 2008. (it happens every single time there is a financial panic on America...or anywhere else in the last 800 years. See 'American Financial Panics' and read Kenneth Rogoff's book, 'This Time is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly')

Couple this with extremely lax regulation, supervision and oversight by Capitol Hill and the White House from 2001-on (yes, that includes the W White House and the GOP-controlled Congress in both the House and Senate) and the stage was set for the American financial system being one short weekend away from completely melting down like Chernobyl or Three-Mile Island or the Fukushima Nuclear Reactors in Japan.

Perhaps less than 24 hours according to some accounts.

Read 'On the Brink' by Hank Paulson; 'The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine' by Michael Lewis; and 'Too Big To Fail' by Andrew Ross Sorkin if you haven't done so already. A small budget B-level movie producer truly could make a great slasher horror movie series based on these 3 accounts of those dark days in late 2008 which would rival any trilogy of Freddy Krueger, Leatherface and Michael Myers. Combined.

Why does any of this matter to us in 2011?

Well, because many, perhaps a majority of the Wall Street financiers and big-bank presidents profiled in these horror stories are still working in their chosen fields of 'mismanagement', er, 'malfeasance', er... 'work'!

And guess what? They have had almost all of their wealth regenerated and restored to them by the good folks of the United States of America. Namely you. The American Taxpayer. In the form of the TARP bailouts among other machinations of the federal government and the Federal Reserve over the past 3 years.

If it wasn't 100% solely the gift of you, the Great American Taxpayer, then the balance of the funds used to restore the wealth of Croesus to King Croesus himself came from the unknowing and/or unwitting government of Red China who provided funds in the form of more lending to our profligate ways of governance in America again.

Ultimately, how these things always have ended in history, the inflation that inevitably occurs following such financial debacles will provide the ultimate 'way out' for the federal government to get out of paying off these massive debts dollar-for-dollar. Inflation is not going to be friendly to your standard of living, or your children's future, nor to your savings which will be eroded downward in a commensurate manner.

These guys might just be the 'Hamans' of the 21st century. Haman the Agagite was the manipulative Prince under King Xerxes who not only wanted to kill Mordecai in the Book of (Queen) Esther for failing to kneel before him but to destroy the entire Jewish people to boot. Haman plotted and connived and schemed to get poor innocent Mordecai to step up on the gallows and have that noose slipped around his neck but in the end, Haman got his just due comeuppance on the very same gallows he built to hang Mordecai.

Our modern-day financial manipulators just have not been called to account yet for their actions in the worldly sense.

Maybe they will in the spiritual, moral and justice realms one day.

We are assuming there must be some honest, God-fearing people on Wall Street and in the Main Street banking system somewhere in this great land of ours. Someone who actually has taken their responsibility to manage depositors money seriously and at least tried to do the right thing when making money the easy way seemed to take precedence over doing it the right way.

But These Wall Street Bankers and Financial Services Execs. They plotted and schemed and connived their way into protecting their wealth and way of life instead of doing 'the right thing' and just declaring bankruptcy in 2008.

Which would would have wiped out their personal wealth but it would have also allowed a planned reorganization of the assets of Goldman Sachs et.al. to continue doing business so the rest of the financial system would not have completely collapsed around us all.

It would have been the right thing to do. For them and for our country.

(Editor's Note: Frank Hill's resumé includes working as chief of staff for Senator Elizabeth Dole and Congressman Alex McMillan, serving on the House Budget Committee and serving on the Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform. He takes on politics from a fiercely independent perspective at the blog Telemachus).

Wal-Mart: Christmas Greetings to the Men in Uniform

Not endorsing Wal-mart, but bringing a little needed Christmas cheer to the front page!

Merry Christmas!

Cross posted at Proof Positive

Move On Dot Org: Flaming Hypocrisy or Selective Amnesia?

By Proof

Got an email from Moooove On dot org this AM. And "Flaming Hypocrisy or Selective Amnesia" (or both) came to mind. Actually, there was an "L" word in there too, but in the Spirit of the Season, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt!

Dear MoveOn member,

Yesterday the tea party-led House voted mostly along party lines to increase taxes on 160 million people starting January 1.1 In other words, "Happy Holidays from the Tea Party." Bah, humbug!

Republican members of the House have caused the "Tea Party Tax Increase" of 2012 by ignoring the needs of the 99% in order to score political points. They rejected a bipartisan Senate compromise that extended the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance, and prevented cuts for doctors who care for Medicare recipients.

Now they've left Washington for their holiday vacations, giving middle class families a tax increase for the holidays. It's critical that Rep. LaTourette hear from you today before his office closes for the holidays. If he doesn't act, the Tea Party Tax Increase of 2012 goes into effect on January 1.

But, let's jump into the Way Back machine and go all the way back...twelve whole months ago and try very hard to remember if there was a similar amount of faux outrage directed towards...Barack Obama.

Barack Obama, if you recall, was leading the charge to let the Bush tax cuts expire, so that he could raise taxes on the rich, but incidentally, on everyone else as well. The fig leaf he tried to use for cover was, "Oh, he's not raising taxes, he's merely letting the 'tax gift to the wealthy' expire!" Yeah. Right!

So, let's examine the principle that Move On is using (stop laughing!):

Obama letting a tax cut expire is not raising taxes, but Republicans letting a tax cut* expire is raising taxes. Got it! No hypocrisy there! But if this is the Tea Party Tax Increase, then what did you write about the Barack Obama Tax Increase of 2011? *crickets chirp*

I put an asterisk next to the "tax cut" today, because there is some debate that goes all the way back to FDR on whether or not this is really a tax. For big government types like FDR and BHO, it's a tax when it's in their best interest to be a tax and not a tax when rhetorically it doesn't fit the populist BS they feed their constituents.

If the payroll "tax" is the means for funding one's Social Security account, then taking money away from an already underfunded system doesn't sound like a long term solution to insure your retirement funds will be there. But, let's give them the benefit of the doubt again, and say that SS is so screwed up, a few million here or there won't be missed and we really need to stimulate the economy. (Again, funny how Obama gave lip service to this, yet tried to raise taxes let tax relief expire last year anyways!)

Okay, the economy is in bad shape, and letting people keep a little more of their money earmarked for retirement is a good thing, (unless you're talking about letting them keep a little more of their money earmarked for retirement and directing that investment themselves. Then it's the End of Civilization as We Know It!), then why, if Obama is asking for a two month extension does it mean the Republicans are intransigent if they offer him a deal for six times as much? If two is good, wouldn't twelve be better? It certainly would be for those having to track these changes and rewrite software to make the proper deductions for a brief two month period**, not to mention all those middle class families Mooove On was lamenting over.

We have noted in the past the schizophrenic tendencies of Barack Obama. And we know he is also famous for berating Congress to pass an imaginary jobs bill that hadn't been written yet, because "there's no time to waste" in putting Americans back to work!

On the Canadian pipeline project, that would immediately create 20,000 jobs, with more to come over the years, Obama didn't want to sign, saying the jobs would be there in a few years. Really? What happened to "we can't wait"? And the very real possibility that the Canadians might build the pipeline in another direction and sell that oil to someone else means that the jobs deferred would be more jobs lost under this president.

So, if the House Republicans coupled the win/win of new jobs, less dependence on Middle Eastern oil, with tax relief six times greater than the president asked, why are they the bad guys in this scenario? And if Obama will only accept bills that are submitted to him with his own very narrow minded views of what is acceptable, no more no less, why is it the Republicans who refuse to compromise?

Last time I looked, compromise went both ways. Or is Mooove On's agreement with the president not hypocrisy at all, but rather a folie à deux - a delusion shared by two?

**People have been telling BO for three years that one of the biggest things crippling the economy is the uncertainty of what a business's cost might be for the next twelve months, much less a time frame that would accurately allow them to project profit and loss for say five years. Having to waste resources preparing for a change in payroll taxes that might hit them in sixty days or might be renewed again indefinitely only adds to that uncertainty.

Cross posted at Proof Positive

Supreme Court issues ruling which might prevent Obama reelection

By the Full Metal Patriot

Good news: the Supreme Court has upheld legislation allowing states to require voters to produce a photo ID before being allowed to cast their ballots.  [emphasis added below]

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws.

In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana's strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to prevent fraud.

It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore dispute that sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush. But the voter ID ruling lacked the conservative-liberal split that marked the 2000 case.

The law "is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,'" Justice John Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy. Stevens was a dissenter in Bush v. Gore in 2000.[…]

More than 20 states require some form of identification at the polls. Courts have upheld voter ID laws in Arizona, Georgia and Michigan, but struck down Missouri's. Monday's decision comes a week before Indiana's presidential primary.

The decision also could spur efforts to pass similar laws in other states.

Ken Falk, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, said he hadn't reviewed the decision, but he was "extremely disappointed" by it. Falk has said voter ID laws inhibit voting, and a person's right to vote "is the most important right." The ACLU brought the case on behalf of Indiana voters.

The case concerned a state law, passed in 2005, that was backed by Republicans as a way to deter voter fraud. Democrats and civil rights groups opposed the law as unconstitutional and called it a thinly veiled effort to discourage elderly, poor and minority voters — those most likely to lack proper ID and who tend to vote for Democrats.

Expected to be hardest hit — dead voters and illegal immigrants…who tend to vote for Democrats.

I'm glad to see the SCOTUS ruled in favor of common sense (note: yes, this was a 2008 ruling — bear with me). Most things in our society require a person to produce photo ID to prove one's identity. We should require no less for our most important civic duty.

Someone might want to update Attorney General Eric Holder to stop demonizing states that pass and uphold laws to reduce voter fraud.

You know it's election season when the political left starts attacking voter identification laws as racist measures that have nothing to do with ballot integrity. Last week the Obama administration and civil rights leaders once again were sounding this theme.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder told an audience in Austin, Texas, that photo ID requirements hurt minorities. "Are we willing to allow this era -- our era -- to be remembered as the age when our nation's proud tradition of expanding the franchise ended?" said Mr. Holder. "Call on our political parties to resist the temptation to suppress certain votes," he added. "Urge policy makers at every level to re-evaluate our election systems and to reform them in ways that encourage, not limit, participation."

Ben Jealous of the NAACP, which has been pressuring the Obama administration to oppose voter ID laws, told National Public Radio on Saturday that these requirements are akin to Reconstruction-era poll taxes. "You look historically, you look presently, and what you see is that when our democracy expands, somebody turns around and tries to contract it," said Mr. Jealous. "You saw it after the Civil War. You see it now after the election of the first black president."

The reality is that voter ID laws preceded Barack Obama's election, and in places like Georgia and Indiana, minority turnout increased after the laws were passed. A 2007 study by the Heritage Foundation concluded that "in general, respondents in photo identification and non-photo identification states are just as likely to report voting compared to respondents from states that only required voters to state their name." The findings applied to white, black and Latino voters alike.

My point is, the SCOTUS has already examined this issue and found Voter ID laws to be completely constitutional and legal. Eric Holder is beclowning himself by throwing down the race card yet again.

---

Cross-posted at Full Metal Patriot

Mittens: Will He Become the Statist Republican Establishment 'Shoe In'?

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

Mitt Romney - Republican Statist

(Public Policy Polling) - Romney leads Obama

For the first time in PPP's monthly national polling since July 2010 Mitt Romney's taken a lead, albeit a small one, over Barack Obama. He's up 47-45.

Romney has two main things going for him. He leads the President 45-36 with independents. And he's also benefiting from a much more unified party with 88% of Republicans committed to voting for him while only 83% of Democrats say they'll vote for Obama.

Our national survey confirms the wide electability gap between Romney and the rest of the Republican candidate field. Obama leads both Newt Gingrich (49-44) and Ron Paul (46-41) by 5 points, Michele Bachmann (50-41) by 9, and Rick Perry (50-40) by 10. It continues to look like if GOP voters really want to defeat Obama they pretty much have to nominate Romney. {Read More}

Principles matter. Or at least they should if one fancies themselves a leader.

Conservatives, especially republican conservatives salivate at the prospect of a Obama defeat in 2012. Which I suppose when considered in the narrow context of present realities would be a good thing.

It is appearing more likely Mittens Romney will be the republican nominee. Why? It is certainly not because he is the "best and truest conservative." Ron Paul is that man and wears the label with consistency.

Given his track record as the architect of "RomneyCare", and the model for "ObamaCare" it seems as Mittens is merely "Obama Lite." But when the ultimate goal is to "knockout" the incumbent at all cost only that goal becomes important.

So, once again conservatives and republicans will back away from the principles of limited constitutional government and liberty to support, endorse, and elect a candidate that in reality scoffs at the very principles they purport to hold near and dear. They will do so and because... "voting for the lesser of two evils" is somehow considered a virtue.

As Rand said many years ago, and I paraphrase here... 'When good compromises with evil, evil wins.' Statism being the evil in this case. And so it has been progressing for many a year.

Folks, I ask you, what does that tell us about the majority of the American public? What do they really want?

When the majority of the people will sacrifice the principles of limited constitutional government, and the liberties that go hand in hand with it the nation is in fact realizing the statism (socialism) that crept into our national body politic about one hundred and fifty years ago.

Like the uncontrolled locomotive it is picking up steam as we continue to look through our rose colored glasses.

Via: Memeorandum

Cheerleader for Statism...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee

Cheerleader for the Statist in Chief Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, (D-Texas) says President Obama should extend unemployment benefits and the payroll tax cut by Executive Order. Or, put more accurately by Presidential Decree.

(The Hill) - Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) said Tuesday that President Obama "absolutely" should use his executive power to continue the unemployment benefits and payroll tax cut extension and said she hoped to discuss the option with the White House later in the day.

"It is extraordinary, don't get me wrong. But I'm feeling the pain of the constituents I left [at] home," Jackson Lee said, speaking on the progressive Ed Schultz's radio show. "I consider this a crisis. I consider leaving Americans without unemployment insurance for January and February a crime. I consider not extending the payroll tax cut ... a crime."

Jackson Lee slammed the move by House Republicans to call for a House-Senate conference as a "ridiculous procedural calamity."

House Republicans called for a vote on the motion Tuesday, which passed without any Democrat votes. {Read More}

For some the exercise of power {as corrupt as it may be} is more important that recognizing that our democratic republic and the rule of law must prevail. If we are to retain the liberties in inherent in our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

When the foundation crumbles so will go the rule of law and liberty as we have known it for well over two and a quarter centuries.

Via: Memeorandum

Is There a Real Choice?... Does America Really Want a Choice?... One Can Only Hope...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

Please forgive my cynicism. Well, actually don't bother. You see we live in the 21'st century where the 30 second soundbite is all important.

Substance and clarity of purpose and principle no longer matter. Today's mantra is to "satisfy the immediate desires no matter the ultimate cost or logical end may be."

We will as a nation reap exactly that which we have so callously demanded. Not to fear, big brother/sister state will after all solve all of our problems. Right?

When the producers have stopped producing, what then?... Blank response.............

Perhaps when it is too late, after our American manufacturing infrastructure {I've worked in manufacturing management all my adult life} has been sold to the highest bidder, maybe then America will get it. Don't hold your breath.

As we move into a new election cycle the comedy of errors, and the clown like candidates continue to amuse me. But, such is the 30 second soundbite. That and the sheeple mentality.

But hey, who needs to actually exercise a cogent thought process? The MSM {aka: LSM} will do all that for us, Right?

Okay, it's late. Time for all to have our fun. In the meantime the clock is ticking. Tic-Toc, Tic-Toc- Tic-Toc...

... and the beat goes on.

Good Night.

Via: Memeorandum
Via: Memorandum
Via: Memorandum

#MovieMonday - HBO John Adams Miniseries

By: Wes Messamore

So I guess technically, this is a “Miniseries” Monday post, but I absolutely had to share just how incredible this cinematic offering of David McCullough’s book (of the same name) is. If you haven’t seen it, get thee to your nearest Blockbuster (if it hasn’t been closed) and rent it, or else hop on Amazon and treat yourself to a libertarian stocking stuffer for the holidays.

One thing to remember about the American War for Independence is that it was a war of rebels fighting for their independence from the perpetual and costly warfare of an imperialist regime in London, with Thomas Paine arguing in his famous pamphlet Common Sense that as long as America remained under the rule of England, it would be drawn into her costly wars and become a target for her many enemies. The American rebels were also fighting for their monetary and economic independence from the powerful financial sector in London and its various machinations, as the John Adams miniseries makes especially clear in this exchange between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. The sage of Monticello contended in favor of a sane monetary policy and against financial slavery:

Read the rest of my movie review at The Silver Underground.

Will the Real Newt Gingrinch Please Stand Up?... {Is Facism Coming to America?}

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

Newt Gingrich has always been a scary dude. Narcissistic, divisive, out of touch with democratic republican principles, and he is one power-hungry dude. Read his latest and be fearful of this lunatic ever sitting in a position of power again in America.

(THE HILL)- GOP presidential frontrunner Newt Gingrich said Congress has the power to dispatch the Capitol Police or U.S. Marshals to apprehend a federal judge who renders a decision lawmakers broadly oppose.

Gingrich says if there is broad opposition to a court decision, Congress should subpoena the ruling judge to defend his or her action in a hearing room.

When asked if Congress could enforce the subpoena by sending the Capitol Police to arrest a judge, Gingrich assented.

“If you had to,” Gingrich said. “Or you’d instruct the Justice Department to send the U.S. Marshall.”

Gingrich made his remarks during a Sunday appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation” where he defended his position that the president has the power to eliminate federal courts to disempower judges who hand down decisions out of step with the rest of the nation.

Gingrich cited the 9th Circuit’s decision that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional as an example of a decision drastically out of step with the values of the country.

Gingrich noted the Federalist Papers describe the judiciary as the weakest of the three branches of the federal government and that Thomas Jefferson abolished 18 of 35 newly created judgeships.

“I got in this originally for two things: the steady encroachment of secularism through the courts to redefine America as a non-religious country and the encroachment of the courts on the president’s commander-in-chief powers, which is enormously dangerous,” Gingrich said.

Indeed a vote for the Newtie is a vote for fascism. For anyone who doesn't recall we defeated fascism in 1945 when when Italy's fascist regime and Nazis Germany fell to the Allies. Need any more be said?

Via: Memeorandum

Congressional Salaries: Too High? Or Too Low?

By Frank Hill

LegisStorm has just announced the first successful electronic publication of all Congressional staff salaries for the past 10 years.

Go ahead. Click on the link and type in a few names of people you have known who worked on Capitol Hill since 2000. LegisStorm seems to think they have uncovered the Holy Grail lost since antiquity.

Big deal. Congressional staff salaries and office expenses have been public knowledge ever since the first Congress sat in 1789.

Did you know that 2/3's of the 14th Congress were voted out of office in 1816? 'Why?' you might ask.

Because the 14th Congress voted themselves a hefty pay raise to the lofty sum of $1500 per year. Henry Clay, the Speaker of the House, got the gargantuan (for then) salary of $3000.

Mr. Clay almost was defeated himself in 1816 in which case, the nation may never have come to know just how brilliant he was as a legislator and the 'Uncompromising Compromiser' as the authors of the great book, 'Henry Clay: The Essential American', Daniel and Jeanne Heidler, chose to characterize him. Read it over these holidays and learn more about how our government matured into the form it is today under his leadership in the early days of the Republic.

Here's the problem with the reporting of congressional salaries nowadays: There is never any context in any reporting about them to provide the public any idea of what our elected representatives, senators and staff do on a regular day in Congress.

I have always challenged people who harrumph 'congressional pay was too high!' or staffers 'get paid too much' to either run for office or apply for a job on Capitol Hill and see what they think then.

Not one person has ever taken me up on my challenge. Not a single solitary person.

Why is that? Let's go to the video tape.

Let's set the record clear from the get-go. Every Member of Congress and US Senator is paid the same base salary. This year it is $174,000. Majority Leaders and Speakers get paid additional amounts to account for their leadership responsibilities.

Which is more than a little 'weird' since a US Senator covers an entire state and a US Congressman 'only' represents the 690,000 or so constituents in one congressional district in the same state. Maybe Senators should be paid at least double for their work or maybe 10 times as much in a large state such as California or Texas. After all, when a state such as California has 37 million people living there as opposed to 563,000 people living in Wyoming, the 2 California Senators have about 74 times as much work to do representing them, correct?

There is no 'magic' pension plan or medical benefit package available 'only' to Members of Congress and US Senators as one particularly idiotic email about the '28th Amendment That Should Be Passed!' which seems to have circled the globe in cyberspace at least 100 times asserts that 'they do!'

They don't. And here's the place for you to go to find out more: The Congressional Institute's great website called 'Mythbusters'.

Prepare to have all your preconceived notions about Congressional benefits popped like a balloon.

But getting back to Congressional and Senate salaries, everyone of them have to use those funds to:

1. pay for their expenses to maintain their home in their home district;
2. pay for a place to live in the very expensive Washington market;
3. put their kids through school and college like other people in our country;
4. raise their families during the time they leave their other line of work in the 'real world' to enter politics and help try to save this republic of ours.

So it is more like they get paid $87,000 per year to maintain a home and support a family in their home district or state and $87,000 per year to pay for a home in Washington, DC.

Those are big numbers for millions of people struggling in this extended recession that just will not go away. But if you think you have the experience, background and training to go to Washington and solve the complex immense problems of the budget, financial reform and foreign affairs, try working out a household budget sometime based on the numbers above.

Bet you come to the conclusion you won't do it in about 15 seconds.

I took a job as chief of staff to a congressman from North Carolina in 1985 (which I was thrilled and honored to do); took a 40% pay cut from the job I had in North Carolina to move to Washington, DC in less than 2 weeks time and eventually bought a townhouse in Arlington, Virginia that had less than half the space of the home I had in Durham, North Carolina...and which cost 3 times as much to boot.

There is a cost associated with working as a public servant, especially a young person working on Capitol Hill.

Which brings us to the congressional salaries LegisStorm has now announced the electronic publication thereof.

We would have ZERO need to pay ANY staffer if all of the following were not asked of them to do:
(By the way, most of the congressional staffers are fresh out of college. The average age of congressional staff people is around 23 today and perhaps 25 in the Senate. So how does that make you feel today when you are concerned about having experienced people on Capitol Hill help balance the budget?)

1. Get a lost Social Security check for your grandma
2. Get a visa and passport overnight for you since you 'forgot' to get one for your next trip to China or the Maldives
3. Write legislation on any issue of concern to you
4. Answer ANY of the 10,000 pieces of mail that come into a US Senate office each week or the 5,000 emails that come in each night or the 3000 automated faxes or answer any of the 1000 phone calls per day, multiplied times 10 when an issue is on the floor for a vote
5. Help you get tours set up for your family when you visit Washington
6. Take you on a personal tour of the US Capitol during said-same trip
7. Help get information from the Pentagon on a relative who might be wounded in Iraq
8. Balance the budget
9. Push for the passage of the Greyhound Racing Act that you are so concerned about
10. Argue with you about whether or not a bazooka or a Stinger missile should be re-categorized as a 'firearm' so you can own 1 or 2 of them in your local hometown under the freedoms guaranteed you in the Second Amendment. (Don't laugh. It happened. On more than one occasion)

So, any takers yet to go up on Capitol Hill as a congressional staffer? If I was still a chief of staff, I might could offer you today a starting salary of perhaps $25,000 right out of graduating from Duke University or Harvard, maybe $30,000.

If you had any relevant extensive experience in the field of interest my boss had interest in, such as banking since he was on the banking committee, I might be able to offer you $45,000 to start as his banking legislative assistant so you could spend hundreds of hours going to committee briefings and hearings to hear more testimony about Dodd-Frank, Glass-Steagall and God-Knows-What-Else.

Any takers? Send me your resume through the comment section below and I will forward it to anyone I know in Congress. I promise.

Congressional member and staff pay is one of the easiest things to focus on and 'hate' about our wonderful democratic republican form of government. Sure, there are some excesses in the legislative branch that could and should be culled back just like in every other part of the US budget today.

But it is not the boogeyman many try to make it out to be. 95% of the people on Capitol Hill, members and staffers alike, are well-meaning, serious, principled, motivated people trying to do what they think is right for the nation.

Just because Congress has failed to balance the budget, for example, is not reason to get mad at them and hurl insults their way over their pay. Just vote their bosses out of office in 2012 and then see if you can help find better people to take their places and try it your way.

If anyone still wants to do any of those jobs for those salaries we have just now highlighted and given you some insight into the work you will be doing for the public interest, that is.

Let me know if you apply to take a job in Washington after learning these facts. It is either that or stop complaining about how much they are being paid. They are doing us all a big favor by offering to work as a public servant even for a short while.

(Editor's Note: Frank Hill's resumé includes working as chief of staff for Senator Elizabeth Dole and Congressman Alex McMillan, serving on the House Budget Committee and serving on the Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform. He takes on politics from a fiercely independent perspective at the blog Telemachus).

Obama Destroys Romney's Health Care Argument

Mitt Romney has defended his expensive, ineffective, coercive health care program by stating that while he had hoped each state government would do to its citizens what he did to Massachusetts, other states were ultimately free to reject his approach.

When Obama copied Romney's plan and the Democrats forced the controversial ObamneyCare health insurance scheme on all 57 states, Romney hastened to declare that his godawful plan was intended for one state and one state only:

As I have stated time and again, a one-size-fits-all national plan that raises taxes is simply not the answer. Under our federalist system, the states are “laboratories of democracy.” They should be free to experiment. By the way, what works in one state may not be the answer for another.

[emphasis added]

Now Obama has undermined Romney's flimsy argument:

In a major surprise on the politically charged new health care law, the Obama administration said Friday that it would not define a single uniform set of “essential health benefits” that must be provided by insurers for tens of millions of Americans. Instead, it will allow each state to specify the benefits within broad categories. 

The move would allow significant variations in benefits from state to state, much like the current differences in state Medicaid programs and the Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Obama's shrewd move is in perfect sync with Romney's purported values, allowing each state to experiment with crony health care statism in its own way.

Obama's community occupiers are not impressed:

The first thing you note is that this move is one more step towards Mitt Romney, who argues that RomneyCare might be fine for Massachusetts, but each state should be free to decide for itself how best to provide health coverage — or not.  The White House political geniuses ... apparently think moving towards Mitt’s incoherent position will leave one less reason to vote against Mr. Obama; others might conclude it’s one less reason to vote for him.

Obama's loyal minions are missing the point.  This is an easily reversible move that has one very important immediate consequence: It neuters Mitt Romney:

By giving states the discretion to specify essential benefits, the Obama administration sought to deflect one of the most powerful arguments made by Republican critics of President Obama’s health care overhaul — that it was imposing a rigid, bureaucrat-controlled health system on Americans and threatening the quality of care. Opponents say that the federal government is forcing a one-size-fits-all standard for health insurance and usurping state authority to regulate the industry.

 [emphasis added]

The Obama administration temporarily lends some of its newly-acquired health care power to the states while stealthfully destroying Mitt Romney's weak but crucially important argument on health care reform...

That's very clever.

Liberty and Integrity to Concepts... No Longer in America

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

The Statue of Liberty

The United States of America, a land built by pioneers, free and independent thinkers, men with vision and the understanding of what it means to be free.

The United States of America, a land where men of common principles and values, yet holding fiercely differing opinions as how to arrive at the "common good" found the integrity and strength to form a great nation.

The United States of America, a land whose founders understood that freedom is not free and that liberty, like a well kept\t garden must faithfully be attended to.

The United States of America, a land whose founders left a road map that would insure continued freedom and the individual liberties that brave men gave their lives for so that their own, as well as succeeding generations may be free.

The United States of America, a land whose people once understood the value of hard work and that expecting something for nothing was unethical, indeed immoral.

America, the once proud beacon of freedom, strength, integrity, ethical values, and tolerance for the divergent ideas of intelligent men whose purpose it was to further the greatness of a nation that was great because of the principles and values that were articulated during the Enlightenment. AKA, the Age of Classical Liberalism.

Today we have a nation whose populace sorely lacks in a basic understanding of the concepts of freedom and liberty.

The difference between the two parties in America today {democrat and republican)is but the difference between a blonde or a brown hair. Which is just another way of saying virtually none.

Today America is on the verge of foregoing its heritage and the legacy of its founding principles. The principles millions of young men have died for since the land we now occupy became the United States of America.

The United States of America will be going to the polls in November 2012. It is currently experiencing a painful period of circus watching as the republican party parades its field of candidates across the national stage.

A stage that will eventually pit the current President of these United States against the republican nominee for the same elective position.

For the individual with a sense of history, a understanding of what freedom and liberty mean, a active and free thinking mind, and a love of country and what American exceptionalism really means it is looking as though the choices will be bleak.

To spell it out... Red {republican} statism or blue {democratic} statism. Statism is statism. The only difference lies in the color {red or blue} and the flavor.

There is one candidate in the room who dares defy the statist mold of both the democrat and republican party. Rational Nation USA leaves it to each individual "free thinker" to grasp just who that might be.

Via: Memeorandum
Via: Statism
Via: Freedom and Liberty

Ron Paul: Not Ready for Prime Time

By Proof

...much less President!

Ron Paul and his followers are on the record quite strenuously that Paul is not an "isolationist", but a non-interventionist. Which makes his exchange with Bachmann that much more odd.

"If she thinks we live in a dangerous world, she ought to think back when I was drafted in 1962 with the nuclear missiles in Cuba. And Kennedy calls Khrushchev and talks to him and talks him out of this and we don't have a nuclear exchange."

First of all, thank you for your service, Dr. Paul, even though it may have been reluctantly on your part.

Second, the impression you are trying to leave, that the Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved with just a little jawboning from JFK, is more than a little misleading.

For starters, why would there have been a nuclear exchange to be talked out of? Oh, yeah. Kennedy launched a military blockade in international waters to stop Soviet shipments of arms to Cuba. But! But! Cuba and the Soviet Union were two sovereign nations! If the Soviets agreed to let Cuba "borrow" some of their missiles, isn't it their business? I mean, for JFK to put a blockade around Cuba and demand that the Soviets dismantle and remove their missiles, why that sounds an awful lot like...intervention!

And if there was a nuclear confrontation to be avoided, it was provoked by JFK's military actions. Whatever "jawboning" took place, it was only after a number of Soviet ships had been interdicted on the high seas. It was after Kennedy had intervened in the affairs of two sovereign nations, telling Cuba what it could not do within its own borders and telling the USSR what they could or could not export or transport in international waters.

So, Kennedy was an "interventionist" in Paul's terms and Paul praised him for it? Will wonders never cease? Extra points if you can guess who this statement refers to:

He calls the blockade "atrocious", "an act of war".

(Hint: It was in reference to Israel interdicting weapons such as missiles to be fired into Israel.)

JFK blockade = good. Israeli blockade = bad. Any questions?

And incidentally, Paul asked what a drone was doing overflying Iran? Well, there's a possibility that he was mistaken there. The drone may have been downed or stolen in Afghanistan and transported to Iran. But, from the tone of his question, he seems to be questioning the need for intelligence on what our enemies may be planning. But, again, to cite the example Paul himself put forth, it was U-2 overflights that revealed the presence of Soviet missiles in Cuba. Would a Paul administration shut down intelligence surveillance around the globe as "interventionist"?

Add to that his defense against an argument that no one was making, that we "declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims", and you have a muddled at best, contradictory, naive and dangerous outlook on foreign policy.

Calling Paul "not ready for prime time", is being generous.

Cross posted at Proof Positive

Celebrating Bill of Rights Day by Waving Goodbye to Your Rights

By Grant Davies


Do you think the title to this piece is over the top? I'm sure some of you do. But I can assure you that I'm serious. And as you celebrate Bill of Rights Day today (12-15) you might want to give some thought to the irony of what is going to happen to one of those rights as things unfold on the glorious national holiday that no one has ever heard of.


There are quite a few fundamental rights that we all used to take for granted because we lived in a "free" country. Many of those rights have been watered down so much by various laws that they have effectively been taken away from us. The list is pretty long, but even if there were just one item on it, it would be too long for crazy, inflexible people like me.


The President is about to sign into law a power he has coveted for some time. You can read what others are saying,The Guardian in the UK has an excellent piece.  The vast majority of Americans are clueless about what just happened in congress and even if they did know, I'm not convinced they would care. 


Just as many were not opposed to rampant wiretapping in the past, because "if you don't do anything wrong, you have nothing to fear", many will not be alarmed by this new law because, "I'm not a terrorist, so the government won't revoke my right to a fair trial by a jury of my peers."


In case you were distracted by events in the Russian elections recently, I'll tell you what you missed here at home that might remind one of what happens routinely in Russia. The right of Habeas Corpus was just suspended.


As part of the defense authorization bill that funds the US military, the President himself can decide to detain anyone, American citizens included, indefinitely - perhaps at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba - if he suspects that they are a terrorist.  And he would use the military itself to do so. On suspicion alone, no formal arrest, no rights given, no attorney, no arraignment, no trial, no judge, no jury. 


People as diverse as Senator Rand Paul and Senator Dianne Feinstein opposed this bill, the latter saying; "Congress is essentially authorizing the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens, without charge," she went on, "We are not a nation that locks up its citizens without charge."


But those that prevailed, led by Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, argued otherwise. The latter saying; “It is not unfair to make an American citizen account for the fact that they decided to help Al Qaeda to kill us all and hold them as long as it takes to find intelligence about what may be coming next,” remarked Graham. “And when they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them, ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.’”


Even Comedy Central got this one right when they summed it up by saying; "while the Bush administration just assumed that the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force empowered them to imprison people without charges, the Obama administration will have these provisions formally codified. Rule of law, baby!"


So, happy Bill of Rights Day. You needn't worry too much right now about whether you personally will be detained indefinately and denied your rights as an American citizen. Most likely, you will not be. What will happen in the future is anyone's guess.
  
But if you are as concerned about this as I am, and if someone asks you what state you live in, just answer, Police. That way you can go "over the top" with me without taking the trouble to explain it all.

Obama: "Where Congress Is Not Willing To Act, We're Going To Go Ahead And Do It Ourselves"

By the Full Metal Patriot

So much for the Constitutionally-mandated limitations on the Executive Branch (skip ahead to about 2:05 in the video). Via Real Clear Politics: [emphasis added]

In an interview with KOAA-TV, a local news channel from Colorado Springs, Colorado, President Obama says if Congress is not willing to pass legislation he wants, he will do it himself in order to win another term. Read the transcript below.
Rob Quirk, KOAA-TV: "And one year from today we will know if this a one-term or two-term president. So, I asked the president what will it take from now until then to not only win Colorado again, but reelection as well."
President Obama: "Well, what we're going to have to do is continue to make progress on the economy over the next several months. And where Congress is not willing to act, we're going to go ahead and do it ourselves. But it would be nice if we could get a little bit of help from Capitol Hill."

Now all he needs is the uniform.

According to the United States Constitution, the duty of the Executive Branch is to enforce the laws of the United States. He should "take care that the laws be faithfully executed," but he may not create whatever laws he wants just because he isn't getting his way. Congress holds the sole responsibility of making the laws of our nation, and they are empowered to hold the Executive Branch in check when necessary.

There are specific words that describe the kind of power-grab that President Obama is suggesting.

dic·ta·tor

1. a person exercising absolute power, especially a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in
   a government without hereditary succession.

des·pot

1. a king or other ruler with absolute, unlimited power; autocrat.
2. any tyrant or oppressor.

tyr·an·ny

1. arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.
2. the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler.
3. a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute ruler.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
~C. S. Lewis

---

Cross-posted at Full Metal Patriot

Team Obama: Give The Gift of Spite This Christmas

In a nasty fundraising effort for Barack Obama, OFA has sunken to an incredible new low, recommending spiteful Christmas gifts for conservatives:

Friend --

Everyone's got that special conservative in their life.

Maybe it's your dad, who forwards you every chain email about the President's birth certificate, or your neighbor, who just put up a Mitt Romney sign.

Dealing with these folks can be ... frustrating.

This holiday season, we're giving you a chance to have a little bit of fun at their expense. Let a Republican in your life know they inspired you to make a donation to the Obama campaign -- chip in $3 or more today.

When you give to the campaign, simply enter your Republican friend's email address and they'll get a note letting them know that they motivated you to donate -- which will surely make their day.

Not only that, but when you donate today, you'll be entered to win a chance to have dinner with the President and First Lady. Just picture how good it'll feel to let your honoree know about those dinner plans...

Give your conservative friends the gift of knowing they've inspired you to donate. After all, actions speak louder than words.
Please donate $3 or more today:

https://donate.barackobama.com/Your-Inspiration

Thanks,

Julianna

Julianna Smoot
Deputy Campaign Manager
Obama for America

P.S. -- Really want to fire up your GOP friends? Buy them a gift from the 2012 store. I recommend the birther mugs -- they get the message across pretty well.

Even on Christmas, Obama wants supporters to find conservatives and "get in their faces."

via email (screenshot)

Jobless Benefits Increase Joblessness

By Grant Davies

Kudos to Dan Mitchell over at International Liberty for finding this letter to the editor in the Marietta Times from an employer who was actually trying to hire people to expand his business, but has been thwarted by the state government's unemployment insurance program (which recently turned into a federal giveaway program). Dan wrote a blog post about the phenomenon this morning, and it's well worth the few moments spent reading it because it has some excellent links to information about what he describes as the "perverse impact" that unemployment "insurance"* has on actual employment.


As I have previously explained in an earlier, well read piece titled  The Best Place to be Poor,  anecdotal evidence can be used to mislead people. But it always has some truth to it as well, and it's often a good way to illustrate a point. In this case, the letter describes what happened to one construction company when it tried to expand last year and hire some new workers to do so. Here are some excerpts to start you off:

"The plan was initiated, the additional contracts were signed up and then we set out to hire the employees. Little did I know that attempting to hire the employees needed, which I had thought to be the easiest part, would turn out to be a nightmare if not impossible. I'm sure that reading this you will be almost as surprised as I was directly experiencing it.

My experience: Before 2009 if our company advertised for an open position, on average we would get 20 to 30 applications, interview six to eight of the applicants, and hire one or two, based on the quality and potential of the candidates. This process has been deteriorating dramatically since 2009 and now at the end of 2011 it has completely hit bottom. Of all the applications that we have received this year, when asked why they were seeking a job with us, one out of three answered: my unemployment is running out and I have to go back to work. Earlier this year after I hired two new full-time employees, went through our company's orientation process, fitted them with our work clothing and booked them to start within a week, they both quit. One called ahead of the start date to apologize but wanted to inform us he would not be coming in because the government had just extended unemployment benefits again. The second one just did not show on his first day and when I called him he said he couldn't come in now because unemployment had been extended and he was making almost as much as we were planning to start him out with. 


If this is not frustrating enough to those of us that provide jobs and pay taxes let me give you my last two attempts this year."  Read the rest here ...

As you can see, no matter what you read that informs you to the opposite, common sense tells you that people would rather sit on their ass (if they are getting paid to) than answer to a boss and be held accountable for their contributions. It's just easier. And when it comes to sense, the common type is usually the best kind.

It's just one reason that government benefits, while trying to make things better, often make them worse.

* (quotations on the word, insurance, are mine)