Rep. Allen West: ‘Family Values, Not Government’ Needed for Economic Stability in Black Community

By Amanda Swysgood | June 20, 2012 | CNS News

Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.), a former Army Lt. Col. (AP photo)

(CNSNews.com) – Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.), a freshman conservative congressman and former Army officer, said that the “breakdown of the Black family” is one of the most important causes of the economic disparity facing the black community.

“We are here today to talk about economic freedom, as opposed to economic dependency,” West said at a Capitol Hill forum Monday addressing “Economic Empowerment in the Black Community.”

“‘Husband’ and ‘Wife’ in the black community are at 28 percent; that leads to a failure in education and that leads to a failure in urban statistics and revitalization,” West said.

A panelist at the forum, West said Black unemployment remains at almost 14 percent — almost double the rate for whites.

“This is a trend that has continued for the past 50 years, during both strong and weak economies,” he said.

The Socialist Mask of Marxism

By Ion Mihai Pacepa | June 4, 2012 | PJ Media

History usually repeats itself, and if you have lived two lives, as I have done, you have a good chance of seeing that re-enactment with your own eyes. In 1978, I paid with two death sentences from my native Romania for helping her people rid themselves of their Marxist dictatorship, carefully disguised as socialism. Thirty years later I witnessed how the same Marxism, camouflaged as socialism, began infecting the shores of my adoptive country, the United States, which had just won a 44-year Cold War against Marxism and against its earthly incarnation, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

In a 2008 column titled “Big Political Shifts Are Underway,” Joelle Fishman, chairman of the Action Commission of the Communist Party USA, strongly endorsed the Democratic Party’s candidate for the White House, appealing to all working people in the United States to back Senator Barack Obama, in order to provide “a landslide defeat of the Republican ultra-right.”

Exposed: Wisconsin Democrats’ Plan to Smear Conservatives and Governor Walker [Slideshow]

Exposed: Wisconsin Democrats’ Plan to Smear Conservatives and Governor Walker

Unlike Obama, Scott Walker delivers

By Sen. Ron Johnson | May 31, 2012 | Politico

Scott Walker has lived up to his campaign promises, author says. | AP Photo

Starting Wednesday, most of the folks I know in Wisconsin will be looking forward to a well-earned respite from what seems like a permanent campaign.

Instead of taking a break from politics between elections, Wisconsin has for months been dealing with fugitive legislators, ugly protests, legal challenges and a series of recall contests allegedly aimed at overturning Gov. Scott Walker’s legislative agenda. There’s virtually no possibility that his successful reforms will be overturned, so one has to wonder: What exactly is the point of Tuesday’s recall vote?

The simple facts are the governor’s reforms have worked, and Wisconsin is open for business.

Empowering Individuals or Bureaucrats?

By Rep. Paul Ryan | May 2012 | American Spectator

Also in Choice Symposium

• James Piereson – A Time for Choosing
• Stephen Moore & Peter Ferrara – The Road From Serfdom
• David N. Bass – The Millennial Perspective

The choice and the contrast in health care.

In March, as the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of President Obama’s partisan health care law, the American people saw an event that could mark the end of bureaucrat-controlled health care. At the same time, just across the street in the halls of Congress, they witnessed a powerful reaffirmation of the American Idea as the House of Representatives passed the Path to Prosperity—a budget for the federal government.

Winning Battles, Losing Wars

By Victor Davis Hanson | May 20, 2012 | PJ Media

Can We Still Win Wars?

Given that the United States fields the costliest, most sophisticated, and most lethal military in the history of civilization, that should be a silly question. We have enough conventional and nuclear power to crush any of our enemies many times over. Why then did we seem to bog down in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan? The question is important since recently we do not seem able to translate tactical victories into long-term strategic resolutions. Why is that? What follows are some possible answers.

No—We Really Do Win Wars

Perhaps this is a poorly framed question: the United States does win its wars—if the public understands our implicit, limited strategic goals. In 1950 we wanted to push the North Koreans back across the 38th parallel and succeeded; problems arose when Gen. MacArthur and others redefined the mission as on to the Yalu in order to unite the entire Korean peninsula, a sort of Roman effort to go beyond the Rhine or Danube. Once we redefined our mission in 1951 as one more limited, we clearly won in Korea by preserving the South.

Our Age of Anxiety

By Yuval Levin | May 28, 2012, Vol. 17, NO. 35 | Weekly Standard

Romney’s challenge is to address the deep uneasiness in America and point the way to a comeback.

There is something very strange about the 2012 presidential race so far. The election comes at a time of extraordinary public unease, which clearly demands some response from the political system, and especially from the men running for the highest office in the land. But the two presidential candidates are both running campaigns oddly detached from what is rightly worrying voters.

If you were to judge the state of the country by listening only to the Obama campaign, you would conclude that we are on the verge of the long-awaited triumph of the liberal welfare state, and that all that stands in the way is a gang of retrograde Social Darwinists who somehow manage to be simultaneously nihilistic and theocratic. That band of reactionaries ran the economy into the ground for the sake of their wealthy patrons, and now they’re coming for our social programs and for women’s freedoms. Only if they are held off can the forward march of history proceed.

If you were to judge the state of the country by listening only to the Romney campaign, you would conclude that all was well in America until we took a wrong turn four years ago and elected a president hostile to freedom and prosperity. If we just correct that error and undo what he has done, our economy will be ready to bloom again.

Progressing Toward Moral Darkness

By Gary Horne | May 19, 2012 | American Thinker

 A fashionable name for the left these days is “progressive.”  The use of this word hints that the progressive has already passed the rest of us and is moving on to some place where the normal rules of reality don’t apply.  Is it the Garden of Eden?  Atlantis?  Oz?

What will life be like in this destination?  Will the moral standards be compatible with the society we want?  How do progressive values compare with the traditional American ethical standards from the founding of the United States and from the major religions?

From the Founding:

The moral underpinnings of the United States of America were beautifully and concisely expressed in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Can we rely on the progressives to protect those unalienable rights derived from our nature as human beings?  Will they uphold the standards in the Declaration of Independence: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness?

Why Congress Must Confront the Administrative State

By Robert Moffit, Ph.D. | April 2, 2012 | Heritage Foundation

Abstract: The triumph of the administrative state has been made possible by the emasculation of the legislative power. Washington’s problem is not merely federal spending and debt; it is the arrogance of centralized power. The time is therefore ripe for a major national discussion not only about the size of government, but also about the processes of government. Americans have a choice: to be governed by the rule of law, as hammered out in open legislative debate carried on by elected representatives who are directly accountable to us, or the rule of administrators who are most certainly not accountable to us. The rule of regulators is arbitrary and unaccountable government—exactly what the Founders wished to prevent in crafting the Federal Constitution.

Steve Kroft of CBS recently interviewed President Barack Obama. In response to a question on his job performance, the President ranked himself fourth among America’s chief executives (behind Lyndon Johnson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln) in the production of policy initiatives.[1]

Critics quickly ridiculed his self-assessment as narcissistic nonsense. They’re wrong.

President Obama is transforming American government. Few Presidents have enjoyed more success in enacting such a large policy agenda in such a short period of time.

• Within weeks of his inauguration, the President signed into law a major expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and Medicaid.
• He quickly followed this up with the enactment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the “stimulus” bill), adding $831 billion to our deficits.
• In 2010, Congress passed the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd–Frank bill), providing for massive and far-reaching financial regulation.
• And on March 23, 2010, he signed into law the 2,800-page Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). It is the largest single piece of social legislation in American history, expanding federal control over one-sixth of the American economy and the personal lives of more than 300 million citizens.

Combine this massive legislative production with his zealous regulatory program. While Washington’s bureaucratic regime has been growing since the early 1900s, under President Obama its growth has exploded. In 2009 and 2010 alone, federal agencies issued 7,076 final rules.[2]

While the President insists that his regulatory output is less than that of President George W. Bush, a closer look reveals that his “major” regulations—those having an annual impact of at least $100 million each—were more numerous. Since President Obama took office in 2009, federal agencies have issued 75 major regulations with an annual additional cost to the economy of $38 billion.[3] Taken altogether, the Small Business Administration last year estimated that the total cost of America’s regulatory burden reached $1.75 trillion—more than twice what Americans pay in individual income taxes.[4]

The U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Treasury, and Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are at the center of this regulatory storm. They alone account for 43 percent of all rules in the federal pipeline.[5] Of the 43 major rules issued in 2010, 10 were based on EPA mandates.[6] With the President’s health and environmental initiatives alone, the Obama White House has dwarfed the regulatory agenda of its predecessors.

The national health law expands the administrative power of the HHS Secretary beyond anything previously attempted. The Secretary is required to act—indicated by the statutory language “shall”—1,563 times in the final language of the legislation, and 40 specific provisions of the law mandate or permit the issuance of regulations.[7] Senate Republican Policy Committee staff estimate that the new law creates 159 new agencies or entities, but the Congressional Research Service says that the exact number is “unknowable” inasmuch as certain powerful federal offices are created administratively without direct congressional authorization.

While the law’s schedule of implementation stretches out over eight years, the most far-reaching provisions—the mandates on individuals, employers, and states—take effect in 2014. Nonetheless, in less than two years, the national health law has already generated over 11,000 pages of rules, regulations, and guidelines and related paperwork in the Federal Register.

Just consider the law’s 15-member Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). The powerful board will make its initial recommendations for detailed and specific Medicare payment cuts in January 2015, and the Secretary is empowered to put them into effect unless Congress enacts an alternative set of payment cuts to meet statutory Medicare spending targets.[8] The board’s automatic recommendations are subject to neither administrative nor judicial review, and the law further requires a three-fifths Senate majority to block IPAB’s prescriptions.

Peter Orszag, President Obama’s former director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), has observed that the extraordinary power of this new board is “the largest yielding of sovereignty from the Congress since the creation of the Federal Reserve.”[9]

In 2010 alone, Congress enacted 217 bills that became law, but that same year, federal agencies issued 3,573 final rules covering a wide variety of economic activities.[10] Today, more than at any other time in our history, we are less and less governed by the rule of law, hammered out in legislative deliberations as the Founders intended, and more and more governed by the rule of regulation. We are subject to edicts promulgated by administrators—persons we do not know and will never know, persons protected by civil service law and tenure who are not accountable to us and will never be accountable to us. Nonetheless, the administrators’ detailed decisions have the force of law.

Regulation, as law, can and does directly affect whether or not we can start or run our businesses, determine how many persons we can or cannot afford to hire, how we may or may not use our land or dispose of our property. Not only do administrators publish thousands of pages of regulations, but our fellow citizens can sometimes also go to jail for violating them.

THE TRIUMPH OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE

Ladies and gentlemen, we are witnessing the triumph of the administrative state, but that conquest is only possible because of the emasculation of the legislative power. The Founders made Congress the lawgiver, as clarified in Article I, Section 1 of the Federal Constitution. So much of their focus, reflected in The Federalist and other writings, was on how to check and balance the predominant legislative power, to channel and contain personal ambition and factional interest, to restrain potentially tyrannical majorities and safeguard the rights of beleaguered minorities, to secure personal liberty and protect the rights of property.

Though federal power has grown steadily since President Washington took the oath of office, today the relationship between the individual and the government is changing in a qualitative way. Americans are increasingly the subjects of an administrative regime rather than the free citizens of a democratic republic with a limited government.

Picking Winners and Losers. This steady transfer of legislative power to administrators has another inescapable consequence: arbitrary rule. The champions of administrative power invariably couch their arguments in appeals to expertise. The more complex the economic sector to be planned or regulated, the more that strict uniformity in the application of the rules becomes problematic.

In broad congressional grants of power, lawmakers give administrators wide latitude in the development and enforcement of the rules, so those who make the rules can also unmake them by granting waivers and exemptions. In the case of the health care law, HHS has already granted over 1,722 temporary waivers to certain businesses, unions, and gourmet restaurants in San Francisco that don’t have to comply with national coverage rules that apply to other companies throughout the country.

Treating similarly situated Americans differently, either as individual citizens or as citizens of a particular state, amounts to arbitrary rule; and arbitrary rule is inherently unjust.

THE NEED FOR A HIGHER LEVEL OF PUBLIC DEBATE

Today’s debate over the powerful bureaucracy is usually framed in terms of economic impact: How will federal rules affect economic growth and job creation, the price of gasoline or electricity, the cost of health insurance or the quality of medical care? While this level of debate is necessary, it is insufficient. Yes, we cannot neglect the trees, but it is really the health of the forest that matters.

The big question is this: How does this bureaucratic ascendancy affect ordinary Americans? My answer: Our very civic life is at stake, not just our prosperity.

The current trend is an affront to our self-government. The tacit assumption: Millions of us are not smart enough to make our own decisions for ourselves. Rather, we need to be closely supervised by officials. They will prescribe for us, for example, what kind of light bulbs and washing machines we should use. The provision of nutritional or caloric information on restaurant menus, or food items dispensed through vending machines, is now a federal mandate under Section 4205 of the Affordable Care Act.

Our supervision, though distant and impersonal, becomes more precise and detailed. We are to become increasingly dependent on government for our well-being. Today, almost half of Americans (48.5 percent) live in households that are getting some form of government assistance, largely funded from federal revenues, but nearly half (49.5 percent) of our citizens pay no federal income taxes. But today’s Progressives are still dissatisfied. In their view, the many are to be even more dependent on the few, and the few (the hated “rich,” however they are defined) should be paying even more in taxes than they do today.

Over time, these dynamics will change the character of our people, with corrosive consequences for our political culture and our economic prosperity. America will have a progressively larger class of dependent citizens, and that spirit of freedom and independence for which the Founders risked their lives and fortunes will be broken.

It does not have to be this way. Our task is to paint the big picture, the overarching framework of American civic life. The great medieval philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas, the “First Whig,” defines law as an edict of reason, promulgated by the sovereign for the common good of the community.[11] The law instructs citizens in their rights and duties, and thus has a teaching function. That being the case, as lawmakers, you must become teachers of the Constitution, carriers of our rich political culture of republican government.

What must we do to preserve and protect the constitutional traditions of limited government, individual liberty, the separation of powers, and the unique advantages of federalism? James Madison, “the Father of The Constitution,” was not a lawyer, but he was a Congressman. And in that role, he was also a teacher: He routinely employed his formidable talents in the education of his colleagues and fellow citizens on the first principles of government.

In my reading of the public mood, you also have an eager audience. More and more Americans hunger for the wisdom of the Founders, are reading their biographies, and seek to understand their tightly reasoned arguments for the adoption of our Constitution. They are also becoming aware that there is something deeply wrong with the way in which they are being governed and that this process deviates from the intentions of the Founders. They correctly sense that modern government is ever more distant and disconnected from them. They are right.

HOW WE GOT HERE

President Obama, like President Woodrow Wilson, is a real “Progressive,” but what does that mean? In his recent speech at Osawatomie, Kansas, he recalled President Theodore Roosevelt’s “New Nationalism.”[12] A genuine Progressive, TR favored the imposition of inheritance taxes and the income tax and became the standard bearer of the Progressive Party in 1912.

Reflecting that tradition, President Obama and his ideological allies are also vigorous champions of aggressive executive power.[13] Commenting on President Obama’s governance, New York Times columnist David Brooks predicts, “When historians look back on this period, they will see it as another progressive era…. It’s a progressive era based on faith in government experts and their ability to use social science analysis to manage complex systems.”[14]

Welcome to the “100 Years War” of American politics. Progressivism, after all, was America’s dominant political movement from 1890 to 1920. While the Progressives are identified with social reform and the reining in of corporate interests and trusts, they focused intensely on structural reform of government, particularly civil service reform and the democratization of our politics.

No modern American political movement has been more successful. Within a relatively short span of time, progressives backed the adoption of four transformative amendments to the Constitution. They fostered the income tax (Sixteenth Amendment) and secured direct election of U.S. Senators (Seventeenth Amendment); many backed Prohibition (Eighteenth Amendment); and they allied with the suffragettes (Nineteenth Amendment). In the several states, they broke the power of the political bosses and enacted initiative and referenda and the recall of public officials.

Long before the New Deal of the 1930s, Progressives concentrated power in Washington. With the backing of the Progressives, Congress created the Federal Reserve System (1913) and the Federal Trade Commission (1914). Federal employment soared.[15] During the Great War, Congress (in the Overman Act of 1918) gave President Wilson enormous discretionary power to consolidate and rearrange executive offices and agencies. Meanwhile, dissent, especially criticism of America’s entry into the war, was suppressed.

“Permissiveness,” the hallmark of the Sixties, was never welcome among Progressives, old or new. Under the rule of the new Progressives, if you want to just “do your own thing,” you won’t. You will do what you are told. If you think you can just “turn on, tune in, and drop out,” think again. You will be forced, for example, to buy government-approved health benefits—including federally certified abortifacients—or pay a fine. You will behave. You will conform. You will comply. You will not march to a different drummer.

The old Progressives were earnest and well-intentioned—old-fashioned “do gooders.” They were also stern and sober social reformers. During the Progressive Era, Congress suppressed the lottery business and interstate prostitution. They enforced prohibition on the sale and manufacture of alcohol,[16] and they imposed taxes on narcotics. Personal vice had become a public enemy. Professor Charles Beard, a leading Progressive historian, wrote in 1930: “Perhaps no country in the world, except Russia, places so many restraints on what is called ‘personal liberty,’ the right to do as one pleases in personal conduct and on the use of property.”[17]

Because Progressivism is an old and recurrent stream in our public life, its influence on public policy is so immense that it is a given: part of our national landscape. Progressive intellectuals generally had—and still have—a profound faith in social science, a conviction that scientific expertise was the key to social progress, especially in a social and economic order that was increasingly complex. Administration was to be the change agent. Again, Beard: “Thus, in our day, a new social science is being staked out and developed—the science of administration in a ‘great society.’ If the ‘great society’ is to endure, then it must make itself master of administration.”[18]

For Progressives, true liberty was not merely freedom from, or “negative” liberty, meaning freedom from arbitrary rule or tyrannical coercion, as embodied in the venerable natural rights tradition of the American Revolution. True liberty was the freedom to be, to act, to grow personally and to fulfill one’s potential.

This was “positive” liberty. It was to be achieved by the removal of economic and customary restraints, creating fairness in social and economic relations, liberating all persons, regardless of class or condition, from the unwelcome vicissitudes of the market and providing child care, education, universal health care, and pensions: in short, security. Justification for government action would be grounded, as Beard argued, not in power, but in service. This new liberty would be secured through broad-scale central planning and social and economic regulation.

Positive liberty, therefore, was to be achieved through the positive state. Think personal “growth” in a straitjacket.

Such ideological assumptions justified a federal role in health care and a national system of social insurance (based on the German model) for pensions in the Progressive Party platform of 1912. They explain the passion for centralization of power, particularly in the executive branch of national government, where scientific expertise would be able to work its will. “Progressivism,” wrote Professor Ralph Gabriel of Yale University, “was an aspect of the rising cult of science.”[19]

But Progressivism carries within it the seeds of contradiction. While Progressives long championed the democratization of our institutions, sunlight in government, and the elimination of the baneful influence of corporate interests, they clung stubbornly to a faith that public problems could be effectively solved through bureaucratic decision-making: little bands of experts appointed to an expanding number of government boards, commissions, or panels. That is at the heart of the Progressive conception of modern government.[20]

Populist rhetoric notwithstanding, the reality of Progressive rule is profoundly undemocratic, precisely because it takes crucial decision-making that directly affects the lives of millions of citizens “out of politics.” Thus, you have the administrative state: the rule of administrators.

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• Obama’s Second Term Transformation Plans (johnmalcolm.me)
• A New Declaration of Independence (johnmalcolm.me)
• White House Again Threatens SCOTUS on Obamacare (spectator.org)
• Dictator Obama Issues New Anti-American Decrees (gulagbound.com)
• Sen. Cornyn: Holder’s ‘arrogance knows no bounds’; Obama should force him to comply with Fast and Furious subpoena (dailycaller.com)
• How a bureaucratic dictate becomes a law (dailycaller.com)
• Obama Administration Regulatory Onslaught against American Energy Production Continues (canadafreepress.com)
• Obama administration heeds industry call to ease rail safety rules (kansascity.com)
• Romney’s EPA would look very familiar (politico.com)
• Making Regulation Smarter to Save Lives and Money (whitehouse.gov)
• Obama Gives Coal Miners the Shaft (gulagbound.com)
• Obama’s Narcissism: The Troops are Fighting for Me, Me, Me (wizbangblog.com)
• GOP attorneys general litigate, push back against Obama regulations (dailycaller.com)
• Federalizing fracking: a bad idea (dailycaller.com)
• Managing the Regulation Process will Define Barack Obama’s Success in Office (prweb.com)
• Conditional, Comprising, and Dereliction of Duty (onemorecup.wordpress.com)
• The Revolt Against the NDAA Hits Congress (mb50.wordpress.com)
• Dictator Obama Issues New Threat to Supreme Court over ObamaCare… (projectworldawareness.com)
• Obama’s Second Term Transformation Plans (mb50.wordpress.com)
• Will Obama’s Refi Plan Be on Congress’s To-Do List? (blogs.wsj.com)
• President Obama gives his wish list to Congress (fox6now.com)

The Road From Serfdom

By Stephen Moore & Peter Ferrara | May 2012 | American Spectator

Let workers choose: the New Deal, or a better deal?

Conservative leaders—from Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich, to Tea Party Republicans who stormed the House in 2010—have been trying to reform and transform failed government programs for nearly two generations now, with only limited and frustrating progress. Republicans argue that the recipients of social spending will be better off under a conservative approach, but the public remains skeptical. Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, public schools, and welfare programs might be run poorly, but they are a security blanket nonetheless. Voters don’t want to trade a devil they know for a devil they don’t.

Perhaps compulsion is the problem. The argument conservatives too often make seems to be: “Trust us; we know what’s best for you.” Yet when was the last time that voters trusted politicians of either party to make wise decisions on their behalf? With congressional approval now hovering in the teens, there is little likelihood the public will back fundamental reform of the $1 trillion entitlement system. But there is another way: Give individual citizens the freedom to either stick with the government-run plan, or choose a market-based option. Those who like Social Security and Medicare could keep them as they are. Those who think otherwise would have alternatives.

Just look at what happened when House Republicans proposed to fundamentally change Medicare and give seniors private insurance instead. Democrats ran TV ads—the campaign was dubbed “Mediscare”—telling seniors the GOP was trying to destroy Medicare. One commercial shows a man in a suit pushing the wheelchair of an elderly woman. The man leads her to the edge of a cliff and throws her off, while “America the Beautiful” plays in the background. Scary stuff.

But if Republicans gave seniors the choice, between the new Medicare and the old, could Democrats block that approach? Ultimately, we don’t think so. And political benefits are just the hors d’oeuvre. We also believe that choice-driven programs would achieve social-welfare goals more effectively, serve seniors and the poor far better, and cost just a fraction of what taxpayers pay for current programs.

Let’s examine how this model might apply. Baby boomers are now beginning to retire; eventually more than 75 million boomers will move onto Social Security and Medicare. For decades, the federal government’s own reports have shown that Social Security will be unable to pay boomers all promised benefits without dramatic, unsustainable tax increases. Medicare’s prospects are even worse.

Last year, Social Security ran an annual deficit for the first time since President Reagan and Congress raised the payroll tax back in 1983. Under government actuaries’ middling projections for economic and demographic growth, those deficits will continue until the Social Security trust funds run dry by 2037. After that, paying all the promised Social Security and Medicare benefits that are financed by the payroll tax will require almost doubling the tax from 15.3 percent today to nearly 30 percent.

Under more pessimistic growth projections, the Social Security trust funds will run out of money by 2029. In that case, paying all promised benefits to today’s young workers would eventually require a total payroll tax rate of 44 percent, three times current levels.

Social Security operates as a pure tax-and-spend system, so it has no real savings or investments anywhere. Even when it was running annual surpluses, close to 90 percent of the revenue that came in was paid out within the year. Remaining annual surpluses were lent to the federal government and spent on other programs, from foreign aid to bridges to nowhere. The Social Security trust funds received only internal federal IOUs, which promise the money will be paid back when it is needed for benefits. But those federal IOUs represent not savings, but actual additional liabilities for federal taxpayers.

Such a tax and redistribution scheme does not earn real market returns, as a fully-funded savings and investment system would. Consequently, over the long run the “trust fund” can pay only low, below-market benefits. Studies show that for most young workers today, even if Social Security does somehow pay all it has promised, those benefits would represent a real rate of return of around 1 to 1.5 percent, or less. For many, the effective return might even be negative. That’s like putting your money in a savings account, but instead of earning interest on it, you end up paying the bank for the pleasure of keeping your deposit there.

There is a better way. Workers could be empowered to save and invest the money they and their employers would otherwise pay into Social Security. Studies show that an average-income, two-earner couple would, over the course of their careers, accumulate close to a million dollars or more, given standard, long-term, market returns, and depending on what fraction of their Social Security contributions they are allowed to invest. Lower-income workers could regularly accumulate half a million dollars over their careers.

Those accumulated funds would pay all workers of all income levels and family combinations much higher benefits than Social Security even promises, let alone what it might pay. That includes one-earner couples with stay-at-home moms caring for the children. Retirees would be free to leave any portion of these funds to their children at death, further strengthening the family. Under Social Security, if you die, your heirs get a small death benefit, and Uncle Sam keeps the rest.

Read the full story here.

Related Articles

• Great news: Social Security going broke faster than we thought (theblaze.com)
• The Millennial Perspective (spectator.org)
• Paying for Medicare Part B (answers.iquote.com)
• More Bad News on Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds (dailyfinance.com)
• More Falsehoods About Social Security And Medicare (duanegraham.wordpress.com)
• Social Security statements now online (toledoblade.com)
• When Should You Start Taking Social Security Paymants (bankingmyway.wordpress.com)
• Social Security And Medicare Running Out Of Money (fox2now.com)
• More Bad News on Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds (dailyfinance.com)

Dictator Obama Issues New Threat to Supreme Court over ObamaCare

By Sher Zieve  | May 3, 2012 | Canada Free Press

In his latest display of his full USA federal government dictatorship over both the American people and the former co-branches of government, Dictator Obama is warning the Supreme Court to either rule in his favor or face severe consequences.

Fox News’ Martha McCallum advised Thursday that the Obama Administration has been quietly sending missives to the Supreme Court threatening that if it doesn’t rule in his favor on ObamaCare, Medicare will face disruption and “chaos.”  Therefore, if SCOTUS rules in favor of the US Constitution, Obama & Co will begin its campaign to either destroy Medicare or make those on it suffer greatly.  The Obama syndicate is said to be threatening to hold off Medicare payments to doctors and hospitals if SCOTUS does not comply with Obama’s demands and submit to him.

As an additional example of Obama’s illegal and (I believe) highly treasonous behaviors, on 1 May and 2 May Obama issued two additional unconstitutional and illegal Executive Orders.  The first E.O., issued 1 May 2012, makes the USA subject to “international regulations” as opposed to looking to and following the US Constitution.  Also, with this new E.O., the US FDA will now be able to be bypassed by International committees—thus, replacing the FDA with any international group which may be chosen.  In essence, Obama is quickly eliminating US Sovereignty and selling the USA to the international “community.”

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• Brit Hume: Obama’s SCOTUS fight ’embarrassing,’ ‘exceedingly ineffective’ [VIDEO] (dailycaller.com)
• Obama Demands SCOTUS become Rubber Stamp for his Policies (gulagbound.com)
• Here are the 5 possible outcomes for ObamaCare (theblaze.com)
• Unprecedented: Obama Begins Pre-Emptive Political Attack on Supreme Court’s Possible Overturning of ObamaCare, Branding That an “Unprecedented Extraordinary Event” (minx.cc)
• ObamaCare debate boosts approval ratings… (theblaze.com)
• Will SCOTUS punt to 2014 on ObamaCare? (hotair.com)
• Has NO ONE Read the ObamaCare Manifesto? (canadafreepress.com)
• And Now the Supreme Court Must Decide (canadafreepress.com)
• Good God: Supreme Court May Not Decide Constitutionality of ObamaCare Mandate Until… 2016 (minx.cc)
• Video: ObamaCare at the Supreme Court, Day One (theblaze.com)

Obama Campaign: Romney Would Ruin Life of Composite Woman

By Ben Shapiro | May 3, 2012| Breitbart

President Obama’s campaign re-election website has put up a public relations initiative called “The Life of Julia.” The goal of this initiative: to compare “how President Obama’s policies would help one woman over her lifetime – and how Mitt Romney would change her story.” It’s propaganda of the worst order. It’s a typical Obama scare tactic. And worst of all, it assumes that Julia will remain dependent on the government her entire life.

Julia’s story begins when she’s 3. Thanks to President Obama, the website says:

Julia is enrolled in a Head Start program to help get her ready for school. Because of steps President Obama has taken to improve programs like this one, Julia joins thousands of students across the country who will start kindergarten ready to learn and succeed.

Well, no. Head Start has been one of the worst failures of the federal government. The Department of Health and Human Services itself found that the government has invested $150 billion in Head Start since 1965 … and that has yielded precisely zero impact for the kids involved. But according to Obama, that dastardly Romney fellow would cut Head Start by 20%. The horror, the horror!

Apparently, nothing happens in Julia’s life until she’s 17. There’s a reason for that – America’s public school system is an utter failure, and Obama knows it. But Obama says that Julia at age 17 is flourishing (presumably she isn’t one of the approximately 25 percent of all students who drop out of school, or one of the 40 percent of black or Hispanic students who do so). Here’s Julia’s life under Obama at 17:

Julia takes the SAT and is on track to start her college applications. Her high school is part of the Race to the Top program, implemented by President Obama. Their new college- and career-ready standards mean Julia can take the classes she needs to do well.

Julia must be one of the lucky ones to get into a charter school. If she goes to one of America’s normal public schools, this is a pipe dream. But according to Obama, nasty Romney would cut funding for public education “to pay for tax cuts to millionaires.” Because what we need is more education spending, not less – even while districts like the Los Angeles Unified School District expend about $30,000 per year per student to achieve the worst results in the nation.

By age 18, Julia’s taking out college loans – with the help of the taxpayer:

As she prepares for her first semester of college, Julia and her family qualify for President Obama’s American Opportunity Tax Credit – worth up to $10,000 over four years. Julia is also one of millions of students who receive a Pell Grant to help put a college education within reach.

So Julia majors in lesbian dance at one of our nation’s colleges. Who pays? Obama doesn’t say.

At age 22, Julia undergoes surgery:

It is thankfully covered by her insurance due to a provision in health care reform that lets her stay on her parents’ coverage until she turns 26.

Because God knows that this independent young woman can’t buy her own health care, obtain it through her college, or find another way to pay for her surgery. Also, what kind of surgery is this? Is it elective? Is it required? Who knows? And let’s not mention that the average 22-year-old isn’t receiving surgery. Obamacare hurts Julia because she’s subsidizing her parents, since she has to pay higher costs once she obtains her own insurance.

At 23, Julia “starts her career as a web designer.” This assumes she will have a job in the private sector under Obama. Or, that she’s going to be hired to design programs like “The Life of Julia.”

Because of steps like the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, Julia is one of millions of women across the country who knows she’ll always be able to stand up for her right to equal pay.

She can sue people. Julia’s friends, the trial lawyers, are overjoyed!

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• The Life of Julia – a.k.a., how NOT to live (theblaze.com)
• Obama woos ‘Julia,’ other single women with promise of lifelong subsidies (dailycaller.com)
• Obama Administration Really Pitching Itself to Incompetent Women Needing Almost Constant State Assistance (minx.cc)
• Conservatives Are Flipping Out Over ‘Julia,’ Obama’s Mythical Poster Girl For His Policies On Women (businessinsider.com)
• Life of Julia Takes a Woman Through an Obama or Romney America (blogher.com)
• Who the hell is Julia and why am I paying for her whole life? (humanevents.com)
• Meet Julia, the new composite woman in Obama’s life (twitchy.com)
• DAVID HARSANYI: Who The Hell Is Julia, And Why Am I Paying For Her Whole Life? In the new Barack… (pjmedia.com)
• Obama ‘Julia’ web tool courting women draws GOP scorn on Twitter (thehill.com)
• The life of Barack Obama’s ‘Julia’ gets curiouser and curiouser! (twitchy.com)

Government’s Trump Card: The Use of Force

By Robert Ringer | May 3, 2012 | WND

Exclusive: Robert Ringer says going the way of Europe is least of our worries

The two most poisonous words in the English language are rights and entitlements. They mean essentially the same thing, and both are subjectively created in the minds of collectivist dreamers.

Though the notion of rights/entitlements has been around since the founding, and has been heating up at an accelerating pace since FDR first introduced Americans to the welfare state, it is Barack Obama whom historians will credit with bringing the issue into the debate arena.

His nasty, Alinsky double-down style has caused millions of heretofore sleepwalking citizens to wonder if his fundamental change of America is transforming it into the kind of country they really want for their children and grandchildren.

Right now, Republicans are obsessing about “reforming” entitlements, though few of them dare talk about taking away people’s artificially created rights (a right to an education, a right to a good job at a “decent” wage, a right to “affordable” housing, a right to free health care … a right to just about anything one can imagine).

Even though rights and entitlements are really one and the same, the word rights has a much stronger moral connotation. A right sounds very official, as though it were handed down from on high, while an entitlement has a twinge of victimization to it.

But whether one refers to involuntary gifts from his neighbor as rights or entitlements, the bottom line is that they are made possible only through the government’s never-fail trump card: the use of force. And it’s not a force for good, but evil.

Mao had it right: Political power does, indeed, grow from the barrel of a gun. Patriotic Americans like to delude themselves, but the reality is that government can do anything it wants to you, your children, or your property through the threat force – and the use of force, if necessary.

Even so, most people – including some of the most sophisticated media types – tend to ignore what government’s essentially unrestricted use of force means in real terms. Their normalcy bias tells them that we have checks and balances via our three branches of government, so a Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Castro, or Chavez could never happen in today’s America. Alas, they are hopelessly naïve.

Whether it’s Waco, Ruby Ridge, taxes, silencing free speech, or regulating activities individuals want to engage in, government’s use of force is always the trump card. This was made evident yet again when a video of another Obama far-left appointee, Alfredo Armendariz, went viral last week.

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• Rights, Entitlements, and the Government’s Trump Card: The Use of Force – by Robert Ringer (robertringer.com)
• Pentagon trumps poverty programs (politico.com)
• The Life and Death of the Old Right (johnmalcolm.me)
• Liberal Imperialism (spectator.org)
• John Stewart’s 19 Questions for Libertarians Answered by a Constitutional Conservative (texaslynn.wordpress.com)
• Why I don’t Call Myself a Libertarian (rossbot.wordpress.com)
• Non-aggression is not pacifism (dailycaller.com)
• Left-Libertarianism, Utopian Pipe dream? (lurdblog.wordpress.com)
• New World Order? (spectator.org)
• Time for a return of the Cypherpunks, Crypto-Anarchists & Techno-Libertarians? (jroller.com)
• The Injustice of Modern Warfare – Part I (libertarianreview.us)
• What is libertarianism? – Part I: principles (politicsontoast.com)
• Why I am Not a Libertarian – A Libertarian Response (youngcatholiclibertarian.wordpress.com)
• Anne Wortham: American Conservative/Libertarian (gadabout-blogalot.com)
• Today’s Occupier is Tomorrow’s Teapartier ? …. Hmmm (youviewedblog.wordpress.com)
• The Good Arguments Against the Kochs’ Using Their Property Rights Over Cato Are All Burkean and Communitarian. They Are Not Libertarian (delong.typepad.com)
• White House expands reach of sanctions on Syria, Iran (stripes.com)
• Obama Quietly Seeking to Cede U.S. Oceans to U.N. Law (johnmalcolm.me)
• Panetta caught in one-world scheme Defense secretary says ‘international permission’ trumps Congress (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
• Alarms over Obama coup against Constitution surging (wnd.com)

25 Horrible Statistics About The U.S. Economy That Barack Obama Does Not Want You To Know

Staff Report | April 27, 2012 | End of the American Dream

The human capacity for self-delusion truly is remarkable.  Most people out there end up believing exactly what they want to believe even when the truth is staring them right in the face.  Take the U.S. economy for example.  Barack Obama wants to believe that his policies have worked and that the U.S. economy is improving.  So that is what he is telling the American people.  The mainstream media wants to believe that Barack Obama is a good president and that his policies make sense and so they are reporting that we are experiencing an economic recovery.  A very large segment of the U.S. population still fully supports Barack Obama and they want to believe that the economy is getting better so they are buying the propaganda that the mainstream media is feeding them.  But is the U.S. economy really improving?  The truth is that it is not.  The rate of employment among working age Americans is exactly where it was two years ago and household incomes have actually gone down while Obama has been president.  Home ownership levels and home prices continue to decline.  Meanwhile, food and gasoline continue to become even more expensive.  The percentage of Americans that are dependent on the government is at an all-time record high and the U.S. national debt has risen by more than 5 trillion dollars under Obama.  We simply have not seen the type of economic recovery that we have seen after every other economic recession since World War II.

The horrible statistics about the U.S. economy that you are about to read are not talked about much by the mainstream media.  They would rather be “positive” and “upbeat” about the direction that things are headed.

But lying to the American people is not going to help them.  If you are speeding in a car toward a 500 foot cliff, you don’t need someone to cheer you on.  Instead, you need someone to slam on the brakes.

The cold, hard reality of the matter is that the U.S. economy is in far worse shape than it was four or five years ago.

We have never come close to recovering from the last recession and another one will be here soon.

The following are 25 horrible statistics about the U.S. economy that Barack Obama does not want you to know….

#1 The percentage of Americans that own homes is dropping rapidly.  According to Gallup, the current level of home ownership in the United States is the lowest that Gallup has ever measured.

#2 Home prices in the U.S. continue to fall like a rock as well.  They have declined for six months in a row and are now down a total of 35 percent from the peak of the housing bubble.  The last time that home prices in the United States were this low was back in 2002.

#3 Last year, an astounding 53 percent of all U.S. college graduates under the age of 25 were either unemployed or underemployed.

#4 Back in 2007, about 10 percent of all unemployed Americans had been out of work for 52 weeks or longer.  Today, that number is above 30 percent.

#5 When Barack Obama first became president, the number of “long-term unemployed workers” in the United States was 2.6 million.  Today, it is 5.3 million.

#6 The average duration of unemployment in the United States is about three times as long as it was back in the year 2000.

#7 Despite what the mainstream media would have us to believe, the truth is that the percentage of working age Americans that are employed is not increasing.  Back in March 2010, 58.5 percent of all working age Americans were employed.  In March 2011, 58.5 percent of all working age Americans were employed. In March 2012, 58.5 percent of all working age Americans were employed.  So how can Barack Obama and the mainstream media claim that the employment situation in the United States is getting better?  The employment rate is still essentially exactly where it was when the last recession supposedly ended.

#8 Back in 1950, more than 80 percent of all men in the United States had jobs.  Today, less than 65 percent of all men in the United States have jobs.

#9 In 1962, 28 percent of all jobs in America were manufacturing jobs.  In 2011, only 9 percent of all jobs in America were manufacturing jobs.

#10 In some areas of Detroit, Michigan you can buy a three bedroom home for just $500.

#11 According to one recent survey, approximately one-third of all Americans are not paying their bills on time at this point.

#12 Since Barack Obama entered the White House, the price of gasoline has risen by more than 100 percent.

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• President Obama Will Lose the 2012 Election (ewrossblog.com)
• Oh Yeah! Obama’s Oblique Little Singing U.s. President Sets Out Critically Acclaimed Performance in Front of Students (socyberty.com)
• Video: CBO predicts no U.S. economy by 2027? (theblaze.com)
• U.S. economy slows down (cbc.ca)
• Support Republican Candidates Mitt Romney So The U.s (socyberty.com)

Why the Supreme Court Will Strike Down All of Obamacare

By Peter Ferrara | April 5, 2012 | Forbes

Barack Obama made a national laughingstock out of himself with his recent comments on the Obamacare law now before the Supreme Court. Obama said on Monday, “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” (emphasis added).

President Obama is not stupid. But he thinks you are. He knows the Obamacare health care takeover was not passed by a strong majority. But he figures you’re so dumb he can rewrite recent history in plain sight. The law passed a House with a huge Democrat majority at the time by only 219-212. It did not get a single Republican vote, but the opposition was bipartisan.

The law also barely squeaked past a Senate filibuster despite an overwhelming 60 Senate Democrats, and even then humiliating buyoffs were necessary. Public opposition was so strong that the ultraliberal Democrat controlled Massachusetts, the only state to go for George McGovern in 1972, elected a Republican in a special election for Sen. Ted Kennedy’s seat, to terminate the Democrats’ filibuster-proof majority. That required final passage of the law improperly in violation of Congressional rules as a reconciliation measure, which is only to be used to clean up the budget and so cannot be filibustered.

And given that Obama is so certain you can’t remember what happened just two years ago, he is more than certain that you have never heard of the ancient history of Marbury v. Madison, where the 14-year old Supreme Court in 1803 took the then unprecedented step of overturning a provision of law adopted by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress, in the Judiciary Act of 1789. That case was where the Supreme Court first recognized its power of judicial review, under which it is empowered to strike down laws found unconstitutional. As the Wall Street Journal observed on Tuesday:

“In the 209 years since, the Supreme Court has invalidated part or all of countless laws on grounds that they violated the Constitution. All of these laws were passed by a ‘democratically elected’ legislature of some kind, either Congress or in one of the states. And no doubt many of them were passed by ‘strong’ majorities….probably stronger majorities than passed the Affordable Care Act.”

As a former constitutional law professor and President of the Harvard Law Review, Obama no doubt knows all about Marbury v. Madison and judicial review. But he figures he can safely assume a majority of you know nothing about it, and his party controlled media will not tell you anything concerning it at this inopportune moment. Hence, another classic example of what I have called Calculated Deception.

President Obama further assailed any Supreme Court decision ruling his Obamacare health care takeover unconstitutional as “judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.” Alexander Hamilton disagreed over 200 years ago in Federalist 78, writing, “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. . . .”

Or, as the Wall Street Journal explained on Monday:

“Judicial activism is not something that happens every time the Supreme Court overturns a statute. The Justices owe deference to Congress and the executive, but only to the extent that the political branches stay within the boundaries of the Constitution. Improper activism is when the Court itself strays beyond the founding document to find new rights or enhance its own authority without proper constitutional grounding.”

The Journal added, “Far from seeking an activist ruling, the Obamacare plaintiffs aren’t asking the Court to overturn even a single commerce clause precedent.”

In my role as General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union, I filed 3 amicus curiae briefs with the Supreme Court in the Obamacare litigation. I also filed amicus briefs in the lower federal courts in the cases in Virginia and Florida.

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• Obama to the Court: I’m Following FDR’s Playbook (johnmalcolm.me)
• Judicial Review v. Judicial Activism (johnmalcolm.me)
• What’s Obama Thinking? Wickard, not Marbury (johnmalcolm.me)
• The Vetting: Obama Channels Derrick Bell in Attack on Supreme Court (johnmalcolm.me)
• Marbury v. Madison Debate Sparked by Obama’s Supreme Court Health Law Remarks (blippitt.com)
• Overturning ObamaCare Isn’t ‘Judicial Activism’ – WSJ.com (libertyorequality.wordpress.com)
• 5th Circuit Lays the Smackdown on Obama (fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com)
• Supreme Court moves to center of presidential race (wcnc.com)
• The Supremes may strike down ObamaCare but it will remain constitutional in Obama Bizzaro World (fishygov.wordpress.com)
• Obamacare and the Relevance of Marbury v. Madison (coppellpianoshop.wordpress.com)

Democratic Socialism

By Mark Alexander | March 10, 2011 | The Patriot Post

The Democrat’s Design to Demolish Free Enterprise

“I place economy among the first and most important virtues and public debt as the greatest dangers to be feared.” –Thomas Jefferson

Paraphrasing the esteemed classical liberal economist, Friedrich von Hayek, Future Freedom Foundation President Jacob Hornberger wrote, “There is no difference in principle, between the economic philosophy of Nazism, socialism, communism, and fascism and that of the American welfare state and regulated economy.”

Not only is there no economic distinction between socialist systems in different political wrappers, ultimately there is no consequential societal distinction between Marxist Socialism, Nationalist Socialism, or the most recent incarnation of this beast, Democratic Socialism. The conclusion of socialism by any name, once it has replaced Rule of Law with the rule of men, is tyranny.

Noted Russian dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn, no stranger to the consequences of statism, wrote, “Socialism of any type leads to a total destruction of the human spirit.”

Democratic Socialism, like Nationalist Socialism, is nothing more than Marxist Socialism repackaged. Likewise, it seeks a centrally planned economy directed by a dominant-party state that controls economic production by way of taxation, regulation and income redistribution. The success of Democrat Socialism depends upon supplanting Essential Liberty — the rights “endowed by our Creator” — primarily by refuting such endowment.

Notably, regardless of the populist variant of Socialism, the consequences of of all three are tyranny. For those who are offended by the comparison of Democratic Socialism to Marxist and Nationalist Socialism, neither Stalin nor Hitler were guilty of exterminating “enemies of the state” until they had ascended to political positions affording consolidation of power in their respective Socialist states. The terminus of Socialism under any label, is tyranny. As Von Hayek observed, “Many who think themselves infinitely superior to the aberrations of Nazism, and sincerely hate all manifestations, work at the same time for ideals whose realization would lead straight to the abhorred tyranny.”

So what do these observations have to do with the current state of economic and political affairs in our great nation? Unfortunately, more than most Americans currently realize.

However discomforting this fact might be, there is abundant and irrefutable evidence that Barack Hussein Obama and his socialist cadre are endeavoring to “fundamentally transform the United States of America” with a debt bomb, the future shockwave of which, they surmise, will break the back of free enterprise. From the ashes of that cataclysm, Obama and his ilk envision restructuring our national economy as a Democrat Socialism State.

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• FRSFreeStateNow: “Socialism and Social Darwinism”: The Meaning of Socialism in America (frsfreestatenow.wordpress.com)
• Time To Junk Internationalism? (robertlindsay.wordpress.com)
• There’s no room for snobbery in socialism (akindofalexness.wordpress.com)
• About that socialism… (macleans.ca)
• Romantic Socialism, Marxist Materialism, Modernism (losthighwaytimes.com)
• Reform & Revolution: A New Socialist Approach (marxistdrivel.wordpress.com)
• New political rules open way for old Gorbachev project (rt.com)
• Finland’s left has become a victim of its own success | Laura Saarikoski and Saska Saarikoski (guardian.co.uk)
• Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman: Social Democrats? (professorbainbridge.com)
• Pirates are now the third most poplar political party in Germany (venturebeat.com)

Andrew Klavan and Bill Whittle on The Founding Fathers and the Future of America [Video]

Related Articles

• Bill Whittle: Why We Suck (johnmalcolm.me)
• Andrew Klavan: Liberalism Exposed – Beyond the Elitist, Preening America-Hating Stereotypes (johnmalcolm.me)
• Bill Whittle: How to Steal Power (johnmalcolm.me)
• ANDREW KLAVAN ON NBC’S EDITGATE: The Big Double Standard. UPDATE: Reader Jeff Johnson writes: … (pjmedia.com)
• Andrew Klavan Book Series Optioned by Hurt Locker/Twilight Filmmakers (prweb.com)
• Leading Hollywood Conservative Andrew Klavan Rips New Health Care Bill (prweb.com)
• Teen Review – The Final Hour by Andrew Klavan (hcplteenscene.org)
• New York Times #1 Best Selling Author Andrew Klavan’s Hot New Book Series Optioned by Twilight Filmmakers (prweb.com)
• Conservative Hollywood Screenwriter, Novelist, and Cultural Commentator Andrew Klavan Coming to Washington, DC and New York City for Live and In-Person Interviews (prweb.com)

You Don’t Get 1/2 of What You Earn. [Video]

Related Articles

• Live on YouTube today: Many questions ahead of Google’s Q1 earnings report (nextlevelofnews.com)
• Dangers of Continuing in Sin Creflo Dollar (nuggets4u.wordpress.com)
• Earnings Expectations for First Quarter are Modest (AA, GOOG, JPM, WFC) (247wallst.com)
• REMINDER: This Coming Earnings Season Will Be Different Than Every Other One Since The Recovery Began (businessinsider.com)

Reaping the Rewards of a ‘Progressive’ America

By Frank Salvato | April 8, 2012 | Breitbart

 As the nation directs its attention to the events taking place at the United States Supreme Court, specifically, the oral arguments surrounding the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, now may be a good time to evaluate some of the “progress” we have made, both as a country and as a culture, where the Progressive Movement’s efforts are concerned.

I say that now may be a good time for this evaluation because as the Justices of the Supreme Court debate the merits of the case before them, we stand on the precipice of the largest expansion in government authority since the institution of the income tax. And while both Republicans and Democrats; Conservatives and Liberals, have all had a hand in the expansion of government, no other group has celebrated that expansion over our liberties, over our freedoms, more than Progressives.

Now, I am not an overly religious man. As regular readers understand, my Mother would be very happy if I attended church more often. But even I can see that at the hand of the Progressive Movement the idea of secularism has become totalitarian. In a nation built, in part, as a sanctuary for the religious (this is the onus behind the First Amendment’s right to “Freedom of Religion”), people of the cloth are being placed under arrest for preaching on public grounds.

In Hemet, California, the Rev. Mark Mackey, a preacher with the Calvary Chapel, was arrested for “preaching to a captive audience” as he read passages from the bible outside a still closed Department of Motor Vehicles building. The arresting California Highway Patrol Officer said to Mackey, as he was leading him away in handcuffs, “You’re not allowed to preach here because this is a captive audience…You can preach on your own property.” One so-called constitutional attorney said Mackey was “creating an intimidating situation.”

In Florida, as the details of a highly publicized crime are still coming into focus, a volunteer neighborhood watch captain, George Zimmerman, is in hiding because the New Black Panther Party has put a $10,000 bounty on his head, along with a “dead or alive” precursor, for the shooting death of Trayvon Martin (and we all thought vigilantism was a thing of the past). And as race-baiting activists – the likes of self-anointed Revs. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, both whom have become quite wealthy in their pursuits of keeping the nation divided along racial lines, and elected officials call for – and incredibly so – the arrest of a man before an investigation into the event is even concluded, racist organization La Raza (“The Race” in Spanish) has issued a statement questioning his ethnicity. “His background is not clear…Is he Latino? Is he white? Is he both? Who knows?,” La Raza spokeswoman Lisa Navarrete said in an interview with The Daily Caller. Zimmerman’s Mother is Hispanic.

Speaking of the New Black Panthers, as the men and women of our military fight and die to liberate whole national populations from the tyranny of Islamofascist oppression, our own Justice Department, led by Eric Holder – who is turning out to be not only a racist but a racial activist by proof of both his actions and inactions, refuses to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, paramilitary-clad, night-stick wielding New Black Panther racists who stood outside a Philadelphia polling place during the 2008 General Election intimidating every Caucasian voter who tried to enter. J. Christian Adams, a former Justice Department Voting Rights Section attorney, who served in the Holder regime, has testified that orders were given not to prosecute any Black defendants…period.

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• Holder Loves Black Panthers? (dewgeneral.wordpress.com)
• Reaping the Rewards of a ‘Progressive’ America (papundits.wordpress.com)
• Zimmerman Family Member To Holder: Hey When Are you Going to Do Something about Those New Black Panther Threats? (nicedeb.wordpress.com)
• George Zimmerman Is Like The Guy In “To Kill A Mockingbird” (ken_ashford.typepad.com)
• New Black Panthers call for Race War (thedaleygator.wordpress.com)
• Zimmerman family challenges Holder on New Black Panthers, says no arrests ‘based solely on your race’ (wyldgoose.wordpress.com)
• Where in the world is Al? – Tea Party Nation (gds44.wordpress.com)
• New Black Panthers call for Race War (genomega1.wordpress.com)
• Black Panther Leader Jailed on Weapons Charges (trommetter.com)

The 2012 Index of Dependence on Government

Abstract: The great and calamitous fiscal trends of our time—dependence on government by an increasing portion of the American population, and soaring debt that threatens the financial integrity of the economy—worsened yet again in 201 and 2011. The United States has long reached the point at which it must reverse the direction of both trends or face economic and social collapse. Yet policymakers made little progress on either front since the 2010 Index of Dependence on Government was published. Today, more people than ever before—67.3 million Americans, from college students to retirees to welfare beneficiaries—depend on the federal government for housing, food, income, student aid, or other assistance once considered to be the responsibility of individuals, families, neighborhoods, churches, and other civil society institutions. The United States reached another milestone in 2010: For the first time in history, half the population pays no federal income taxes. Related to these disturbing trends, publicly held debt continued its amazing ascent without any plan by the government to pay it back. As if those circumstances were not dire enough, the country is about to witness the largest generational retirement in world history by a population that will depend on currently bankrupted pension and health programs.

Source: The Heritage Foundation

		
View this document on Scribd

Related Articles

• Report: Dependence on government up 23 percent under President Obama (hotair.com)
• Rex Nutting: Heritage Foundation is wrong about welfare state (marketwatch.com)
• Morning Bell: Dependence on Government Highest in History (genomega1.wordpress.com)
• Unsustainable – 49.5% of Americans don’t pay income taxes (fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com)
• Dependency Index Shoots Up 23% Under President Obama (tarpon.wordpress.com)
• Vote Obama If You still Do not want to work! (wdednh.wordpress.com)
• Dependency Index Surges 23% Under President Obama (thedaleygator.wordpress.com)
• Open Thread: Foodstamp Nation? (newsbusters.org)
• Government Dependency (5ptsalt.com)
• Prison Planet.com ” Chart of the Week: Nearly Half of All Americans Don’t Pay Income Taxes (gunnyg.wordpress.com)

The Supreme Bureaucrats’ Decision on ObamaCare

By Scott Lazarowitz | April 6, 2012 | Lew Rockwell

Recently by Scott Lazarowitz: Can America’s Descent Possibly Be Reversed?

No, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on ObamaCare and the individual mandate will not matter, especially when, as protected by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the states have a right to nullify the individual mandate – or all of ObamaCare if they want to.

The statists who rule over us, and their apparatchiks and propagandists, want to assert that the “Civil War settled everything” on issues of nullification and state secession. Those authoritarians suggest that President Abe Lincoln’s U.S. government war on the seceding states “settled” the states’ (and their individual inhabitants’) attempts at independence and the freedom to exercise their right to self-determination and the right to control their own lives.

The statists say that the federal government is supreme and the entire population must obey the will of our high-and-mighty federal rulers. But such an assertion goes against the principles of the American Revolutionaries.

Economic Historian Thomas Woods addressed these issues in his book, Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21^st Century. In an article that appeared last year, Woods addressed specific points made by the critics of nullification.

Of course people have a right to buy or to not buy health insurance. And yes, that right to choose is just as inherent and God-given a right as are the rights to self-defense and free speech. Just because the Bill of Rights does not list such a right to choose to buy or not to buy health insurance does not mean that such a choice is not a right.

Some people believe that the federal government is empowered to tell the people what to do, and that federal bureaucrats are our bosses. But the reverse is true. The states had formed the federal government as an agent to act on behalf of the states’ interests. The federal government is employed by the people of the states. The people of the states are the federal government’s boss.The Bill of Rights could not possibly enumerate all the rights we as individual human beings have, or such a list would never end. This was addressed by the Ninth Amendment to the Bill of Rights, which states: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

And it was especially Lincoln’s war against the people that reinforced the reversal of that original relationship into a centralized, federal dictatorship. President Barack Obama’s communist-like recent Executive Order to seize all of America’s resources, including food, agriculture, water and labor resources during non-emergency peacetime was a huge step further down America’s descent into totalitarian tyranny.

Obama’s recent Executive Order – in addition to Obama’s command that all Americans must buy health insurance – was just the most recent in a long list of federal power-grabs since Lincoln’s War on Independence. Here are just a couple more examples:

• The order via legal tender laws that all Americans must use only U.S. government-issued currency as their sole medium of exchange. And this despite the fact that the Federal Reserve‘s central planning manipulators have distorted prices, caused massive swings in the business cycle, caused constantly high unemployment levels, and devalued the dollar and its purchasing power. Such authoritarian dictatorial policies have greatly diminished freedom and enhanced the bureaucrats’ power to steal from us poor slobs.
• The order that all Americans must participate in the federal government-run retirement scheme known as Social Security, against the will and better judgment of individuals. The promises made by the government could not possibly be kept in such an inherently flawed and treacherous scheme. It is immoral for anyone to interfere with an individual’s right to save, spend or invest one’s earnings or wealth however one wants.

Regarding the Supreme Court, just how has this gang of nine protected our liberty or our rights (particularly, as noted in the American Declaration of Independence, the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness)?

Just recently the Supreme Bureaucrats approved of police strip-searching arrestees of minor technical violations such as parking tickets and so forth. In a typical judicial monopoly departure of common sense and in statist loyalty to police power, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that “people detained for minor offenses can turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals.” Obviously, Kennedy isn’t aware of how local police neanderthals are known to arrest as many civilians as they can in the name of revenue collection quotas (and for jailer pervs to get off on power trips strip-searching innocent people).

In his apparent love for the TSA and his reference to all Americans as potential terrorists, Justice Kennedy went on to state that, “One of the terrorists involved in the Sept. 11 attacks was stopped and ticketed for speeding just two days before hijacking Flight 93.” Hmmm. So we therefore better let the police strip-search Grandma or some teenager on her way to a part-time job, to use Kennedy’s obediently childlike reasoning.

And last year, in an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Bureaucrats approved of police criminally breaking into private property, and without a warrant, based on an officer’s belief that residents are flushing marijuana down the toilet (“destroying evidence”). “Oooo, someone has marijuana in his own home, we better break in and get him!” This decision shows just how much government schooling has influenced even the highest public officials in the land.

The common sense opinion by Justices would be to nullify the actual law that police are illegally trying to enforce, such as laws against harmless and victimlessdrug possession. And this common sense approach should apply to the Court’s decision on ObamaCare as well.

I am assuming that a President Ron Paul’s Supreme Court Justices would not only strike down bad laws or policies such as ObamaCare based on violations of particular Constitutional protections, but that they would also outright nullify bad laws based on common sense, the Constitution notwithstanding.

After all, the U.S. Constitution itself has been a flawed document from the beginning, and the product of Hamiltonian centralists who got the Leviathan monstrosity they wanted, despite the Anti-Federalists’protests. As we have seen, from Lincoln to Wilson to Roosevelt to Bush/Obama, and from the Supreme Court, the FBI, the CIA and police departments all over America, the Constitution has been ignored time and again. As Hans-Hermann Hoppe has observed, the Constitution is itself “unconstitutional” in its multiple self-contradictions.

What the Constitution actually did was, instead of being a document whose rules and provisions were to protect the rights and liberty of the individual, it empowered a centralized, federal government to rule over the masses, and gave such an institution monopoly powers. Those monopoly powers go against the very core of the rights of the individual and the individual’s freedom to choose amongst various competitors in various industries, in health care, retirement planning, food and nutrition, and many other areas.

19^th Century individualist Lysander Spooner observed that the Constitution has “no inherent authority or obligation,” and that the Constitution’s alleged contractual obligations are to those who signed such a document, but not to others. (Members of the “Supreme” Court need to read more Lysander Spooner and less Barack Obama and Paul Krugman.)

Now, regarding Obama’s SovietCare and the idea of insurance mandates or government takeovers of the medical care industry (which has been Obama’s intention all along), Lew Rockwell noted that this socialized medicine is really “subsidizing sickness.” To me, health insurance discourages people to take care of themselves toward prevention of illnesses in the first place. An insurance mandate orders people to not act preventatively, and it implies that they should increase risky behaviors and lifestyles.

Unfortunately, rather than advocating personal responsibility and removing governmental restrictions on our medical freedom, politicians such as FDR, LBJ, Obama and Nancy Lugosi have gone the other way in diminishing our medical freedom and becoming more and more intrusive in our private personal matters.

But Hans-Hermann Hoppe had this better four-step solution to the health care situation in America:

1. Eliminate all licensing requirements for medical schools, hospitals, pharmacies, and medical doctors and other health-care personnel. Their supply would almost instantly increase, prices would fall, and a greater variety of health-care services would appear on the market…
2. Eliminate all government restrictions on the production and sale of pharmaceutical products and medical devices. This means no more Food and Drug Administration, which presently hinders innovation and increases costs…
3. Deregulate the health-insurance industry. Private enterprise can offer insurance against events over whose outcome the insured possesses no control. One cannot insure oneself against suicide or bankruptcy, for example, because it is in one’s own hands to bring these events about…
4. Eliminate all subsidies to the sick or unhealthy. Subsidies create more of whatever is being subsidized. Subsidies for the ill and diseased promote carelessness, indigence, and dependency. If we eliminate such subsidies, we would strengthen the will to live healthy lives and to work for a living. In the first instance, that means abolishing Medicare and Medicaid.

As Hoppe noted, “only these four steps, although drastic, will restore a fully free market in medical provision. Until they are adopted, the industry will have serious problems, and so will we, its consumers.”

But, regardless how the Supreme Bureaucrats decide, and in addition to our exercising our right to nullify federal dictates, the real solution to protecting ourselves from clueless bureaucrats and their totalitarian medical intrusions is this: DON’T GET SICK!

Scott Lazarowitz [send him mail] is a commentator and cartoonist, visit his blog.

Copyright © 2012 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Related Articles

• State Nullification (johnmalcolm.me)
• Hoppe or the ‘Supreme Court’? (lewrockwell.com)
• ObamaCare May Be in Legal Trouble, But the New Deal Is Not (reason.com)
• Weekend Reflections: Nullify Obama Now ~ 10th Amendment Codifies In Law That ‘We The People’ Of The States Created The Federal Government. (politicalvelcraft.org)
• Santorum on Nullification (outsidethebeltway.com)
• Obama Backtracks From Attack on ‘Non-Elected’, ‘Judicial Activists’ on Supreme Court Over ObamaCare (sfcmac.wordpress.com)
• LearnVest: The Great Debate: Is ObamaCare Constitutional? (wire.kapitall.com)

President’s Health ‘Reform’ [Obamacare] Grows Unfunded Obligations By $17 Trillion

		
View this document on Scribd

45 Signs That America Will Soon Be A Nation With A Very Tiny Elite And The Rest Of Us Will Be Poor

Staff Report | April 2, 2012 | End of the American Dream

The middle class is being systematically wiped out of existence in the United States today.  America is a nation with a very tiny elite that is rapidly becoming increasingly wealthy while everyone else is becoming poorer.  So why is this happening?  Well, it is actually very simple.  Our institutions are designed to concentrate wealth in the hands of a very limited number of people.  Throughout human history, almost all societies that have had a big centralized government have also had a very high concentration of wealth in the hands of the elite.  Throughout human history, almost all societies that have allowed big business or big corporations to dominate the economy have also had a very high concentration of wealth in the hands of the elite.  Well, the United States has allowed both big government and big corporations to grow wildly out of control.  Those were huge mistakes.  Our founding fathers attempted to establish a nation where the federal government would be greatly limited and where corporations would be greatly restricted.  Unfortunately, we have turned our backs on those principles and now we are paying the price.

When you have great concentrations of wealth and power, the economic rewards of a society tend to go to just a few.

In the United States today, big businesses and wealthy individuals fund the campaigns of our politicians, and in turn our politicians pass laws which rig the game in their favor.  It is a symbiotic relationship which is very bad for America.

Sadly, most conservatives tend to cheer on the big corporations, but this is not how our founding fathers envisioned our capitalist system working.  Our founding fathers envisioned large numbers of similar companies competing against one another for customers.  They did not envision a very small number of giant corporations buying up all of their competitors or smashing them into oblivion with their giant piles of money.

True conservatives should want to see more competition instead of less competition.  Competition helped make America great, and we need to get back to that.

Instead of an economic landscape dominated by monolithic predator corporations, we need an economic environment where millions of small businesses can thrive and compete directly with one another.

Our founding fathers never intended for us to have the kind of system that we have today.  As I have discussed in previous articles, our founding fathers greatly restricted the size and scope of corporations in early America.  The following is how author Stephen D. Foster Jr. described the attitude toward corporations in the early years of the United States….

The East India Company was the largest corporation of its day and its dominance of trade angered the colonists so much, that they dumped the tea products it had on a ship into Boston Harbor which today is universally known as the Boston Tea Party. At the time, in Britain, large corporations funded elections generously and its stock was owned by nearly everyone in parliament. The founding fathers did not think much of these corporations that had great wealth and great influence in government. And that is precisely why they put restrictions upon them after the government was organized under the Constitution.

After the nation’s founding, corporations were granted charters by the state as they are today. Unlike today, however, corporations were only permitted to exist 20 or 30 years and could only deal in one commodity, could not hold stock in other companies, and their property holdings were limited to what they needed to accomplish their business goals. And perhaps the most important facet of all this is that most states in the early days of the nation had laws on the books that made any political contribution by corporations a criminal offense. A giant central government that spends more than 20 percent of our GDP is a collectivist institution.

Enormous predator corporations that are constantly sucking up even more money and power are collectivist institutions.

Our founding fathers did not intend for our society to be dominated by collectivist institutions.

Very large institutions tend to reward the people that own and run them at the expense of everyone else.

And you know what?

A lot of these giant corporations have figured out that they don’t even need American workers anymore.

Instead, many of them are shipping our jobs to the other side of the world where it it legal to pay slave labor wages.  That means bigger profits for them but less jobs for the rest of us.

In America today, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, and big government and big corporations are the mechanisms by which this is happening.

Posted below are 45 signs that America will soon be a nation with a very tiny elite and the rest of us will be poor….

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• Meet the Global Financial Elites Controlling $46 Trillion In Wealth (magpiegazette.wordpress.com)
• JB Williams – Does the Constitution Matter or Not? (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
• ‘The Constitution Is a Charter of Negative Liberties’ (mikesright.wordpress.com)
• Founding Fathers Were ‘Wrong And Immoral’ (johnmalcolm.me)

The Ryan Test: Demagoguery Versus Ideas

August 12, 2012 By John Malcolm Leave a Comment

By Jonathan S. Tobin | August 11, 2012 | Commentary Magazine As John wrote earlier today, liberals are convinced that Mitt Romney’s choice of Paul Ryan to be his running mate offers them a golden opportunity to savage the Republicans about the Wisconsin congressman’s budget plans. Predictably, the New York Times delivered one of the first such salvos in its editorial posted […]

Smoking Obama’s Crack and Yearning for the Mud

August 12, 2012 By John Malcolm Leave a Comment

By Vanderleun | August 10, 2012 | American Digest [From 2008. Only the names have been changed because the target has changed.] This downward flight of intellectuals has been going on ever since the Romantic movement began its counter-revolution a couple hundred years ago. No matter how much they flap their lips it’s a fall, not […]