Fiscal Cliff: Acquiescense

obamakingIt looks like the Republicans Establishment has given the shaft to Conservatives…again. Last night, they accepted a deal to avoid the Fiscal Cliff, by signing off on legislation that adds $41 of taxes for ever $1 of Spending Cuts.

FoxNews.com has the story:

Congress gave its final approval Tuesday to a bill halting massive tax hikes and delaying a risky round of spending cuts, sending the package to the president’s desk and likely averting for now an economy-stalling fiscal crisis. President Obama said he would sign it.

The 257-167 vote in the House came after a day of high drama on Capitol Hill, during which conservative House lawmakers voiced serious concern about the Senate bill’s lack of spending cuts. Rank-and-file Republicans initially predicted they would tinker with the package, raising the possibility the Senate would abandon it and nothing would get done before the new congressional class is seated Thursday.

But House leaders soon learned they did not have a majority behind any spending-cut plan, and allowed the straight vote. Far more Democrats supported the final bill than Republicans.

The result, once Obama signs it, is that tax hikes that technically kicked in Jan. 1 for most Americans would largely be halted.

Obama, speaking at the White House shortly before midnight, thanked Vice President Biden for his role in negotiating with the Senate a day earlier on the compromise package. The president, as did Republicans on the Hill, cautioned that the bill will precede a broader debate in 2013 about deficit reduction.

“This law is just one step in the broader effort to strengthen our economy and broaden opportunity for everybody”, he said.

House Speaker John Boehner said shortly after the vote that Congress must now turn its attention to spending.

“The American people re-elected a Republican majority in the House, and we will use it in 2013 to hold the president accountable for the `balanced’ approach he promised, meaning significant spending cuts and reforms to the entitlement programs that are driving our country deeper and deeper into debt.”

The bill passed by Congress would nix the 2013 tax increases for families making under $450,000, while letting rates rise for those making above that threshold. It would also extend unemployment insurance for another year, while patching up a host of other expiring provisions and delaying automatic spending cuts for two months. Those cuts, which would hit defense heavily, will instead be offset with a blend of tax increases and other spending cuts.

Americans will still see a 2-point increase this month in their Social Security tax, as Congress did not opt to extend that payroll tax holiday.

Political Pundit Dr. Charles Krauthammer believes that the Democrats mopped the floor with the Republicans.

“Look, there are a lot of conservatives in the Republican caucus in the House who hate the bill for good reason. This is a complete surrender on everything,” he said about the ratio of tax hike to spending cuts.

On Fox’s “Special Report,” Krauthammer offered his prediction on how House Republican leadership will proceed.

”I think what is likely to happen is that the leadership is going to look to get the 218 that it could secure to send the bill back to the Senate with equal number of spending cuts,” he said. “If they don’t get it, (House Speaker John) Boehner will have an open vote, unwhipped, Republicans will vote as they wish. They will probably be enough with all the Democrats to pass this.”

Moderate Republican Pundit Bill Kristol thinks that Congressional Republicans should just take what they’re given and move on.

…Working Americans making less than $400,000 will be shocked when they find that, contrary to promises from both parties, their taxes are in fact going up (the payroll tax). And we will face another cliff when we hit the debt ceiling and the sequester again in two months.

The deal is a sad commentary on our politics today.

On the other hand, the deal is substantively better than going over the cliff and having all income and investment taxes go up, and having the defense sequester hit right away. And politically, Republicans are escaping with a better outcome than they might have expected, and President Obama has gotten relatively little at his moment of greatest strength. In particular, this should do it for new tax revenues, at a number lower than Speaker Boehner originally offered—and it should be pretty easy to have the next debate focus on spending and entitlements.

So, enough House Republicans should vote yes to get the bill passed. And then immediately move on. For Republicans and conservatives need to get serious about what, substantively, they want to stand for over the next few years; about what, practically, they think they can accomplish during Obama’s second term; and about what, politically, their strategy and tactics are for dealing with President Obama and for laying the groundwork for victories in 2014 and 2016. This is the task for the new year, once we get past this dog’s breakfast on New Year’s Day.

And, in the meantime, Skippy, your fellow Moderate Republicans are punishing the small business owners who actually create obs and employ Americans. How in the cotton-pickin’ world, do you Vichy Republicans think that “reaching across the aisle” and going along with this “Tax and Spend Some More” piece of garbage stopgap measure will accomplish anything, except embolden an ego-maniacal president to further tax America into a full-blown Depression?

I’m glad you guys weren’t at Bastogne during World War II. You would have surrendered.

As a member of the ignored Conservative Base, you know what I have to say about your spines of Jello and your acquiescence to the Democrats?

NUTS!

Until He Comes,

KJ

2013: The Year of Socialist Amerika?

2013So, here we are…2013. A New Year. A blank slate, if you will.A year that holds the promise of endless possibilities, whose outcomes are known only to the Almighty.

Politically, what does the New Year hold? We seemingly have a majority of voters in this country who want us to become what Norman Mattoon Thomas warned us about, back in 1944, when he said:

The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.

If you look at the events of 2012, which included a president who seems to hate everything that has made our country great, the Democratic Party having an Civil War, over whether to leave God in their Party’s Platform, a pious, Moderate GOP Establishment foisting a predetermined candidate upon their Conservative base, and the ensuing Class Warfare-driven Presidential Campaign, which the previously-mentioned Manchurian President won…ol’ Norm just may have been a prophet.

The question is: Why are we turning into a socialist country?

Sure…some of it is the Regime of Dear Leader, but, in all fairness, this whole mess started way before Obama. He was just the lit match that set Rome ablaze.

I believe it actually started with President-For-Life Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who came up with all those government programs designed “to get Americans working again”. Of course, this was the same president who put Americans in Internment Camps, also.

FDR very well may have had the best of intentions in what he did, but

The best-laid plans of mice and men oft times go awry.

Later, John F. Kennedy, spoke of commitment to our country, when he said,

Ask not what our country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.

With those words, a short-lived dedication to community service was launched on a global scale, as young Americans became enthused by Kennedy’s call to altruism. Unfortunately, “Camelot” was short-lived, as an assassin’s bullet struck down President Kennedy.

With the inauguration of Kennedy’s Vice-President, Lyndon Baines Johnson, (whose hand I shook as a child after his term as president at an event at his ranch, for what it’s worth) America’s flirtation with socialism became a serious romance, with the ushering in of “The Great Society”.

Here are a few of the government expansions that Johnson brought upon us:

  • The Wilderness Protection Act saved 9.1 million acres of forestland from industrial development.
  • The Elementary and Secondary Education Act provided major funding for American public schools.
  • The Voting Rights Act banned literacy tests and other discriminatory methods of denying suffrage to African Americans.
  • Medicare was created to offset the costs of health care for the nation’s elderly.
  • The National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities used public money to fund artists and galleries.
  • The Immigration Act ended discriminatory quotas based on ethnic origin.
  • An Omnibus Housing Act provided funds to construct low-income housing.

Additionally…

Johnson also signed the omnibus ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964. The law created the Office of Economic Opportunity aimed at attacking the roots of American poverty. A Job Corps was established to provide valuable vocational training.

Head Start, a preschool program designed to help disadvantaged students arrive at kindergarten ready to learn was put into place. The VOLUNTEERS IN SERVICE TO AMERICA (VISTA) was set up as a domestic Peace Corps. Schools in impoverished American regions would now receive volunteer teaching attention. Federal funds were sent to struggling communities to attack unemployment and illiteracy.

There was no need to strive to make Things better for yourself and your family, anymore. Uncle Sugar would take care of all your needs.

Fast forward to today.

At least 51% of the nation ( those who voted on November 6, 2012, anyway) wants Uncle Sugar to supply their needs And, they re-elected Baracky Claus to do just that.

Before I was blessed with my present job, I had the opportunity to work in the State Employment Office in our county. I described the experience in my post, “Overcoming Obama’s Economy”:

While at the Employment Office, I was able to observe folks down on their luck, struggling to find work and survive in this economy.

I also saw American families whose existance living on the Government Dole, had become generational.

It is these people whom Obama and the Democrats have hypnotized into believing that Uncle Sugar loves them, and is their only solution to surviving a stifling existence.

They are so, so wrong.

The strength and vitality of America does not come from the benevolence of a Nanny-state Federal Government.

As the greatest American President of our lifetime, Ronald Reagan said:

The nine words you never want to hear are:  I’m from the Government and I’m here to help.

Being enslaved to the Government Dole steals one’s ambition.  It takes away any impetus or desire to create a better life for yourself and your family, to challenge yourself to pick yourself up by your bootstraps and pursue the American Dream.  It makes you reliant on a politically-motivated spider’s web full of government bureaucrats who view you and your family as job security.

I watched American citizens trapped in this web of government bureaucracy,  so numbed of any initiative that they once had, that they seemed offended that they actually had to prove that they inquired about three jobs that week in order to keep their “benefits”.  Others seemed puzzled that they had to search through the state data base and pick out a job that they wanted to talk to an interviewer about receiving a referral to, and weren’t just simply handed a job when they walked through the door.

Little did I know, back in June, that I was describing the Americans who would prove essential to the re-election of Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm). 

All this being said, while I always have hope, as a child of God, I have little faith in the spineless GOP Establishment. 

I lift up my eyes to the hills.

From where does my help come?

My help comes from the LORD,

who made heaven and earth.

Psalm 121:1 (ESV)

Hang tough, Americans…and may we all have a prosperous New Year.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Obama Wants to Disarm America (Welcome to the Proletariat.)

gun rightsPresident Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) appeared yesterday on NBC (The National Barack Channel) on the program “Meet The Press”. During the program he told Americans, in no uncertain terms, that he’s coming after our guns.

Is this 1917 Russia?

Anyway, here are excerpts of what he said, courtesy of thehill.com:

I’m going to be putting forward a package and I’m going to be putting my full weight behind it. I’m going to be making an argument to the American people about why this is important and why we have to do everything we can to make sure that something like what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary does not happen again.

…I’ve been very clear that an assault-rifle ban, banning these high capacity clips, background checks, that there are a set of issues that I have historically supported and will continue to support.

…I’d like to get it done in the first year. I will put forward a very specific proposal based on the recommendations that Joe Biden’s task force is putting together as we speak. And so this is not something that I will be putting off.

During the interview, ol’ Scooter  said that he hoped to involve all “stakeholders” in the national debate over gun violence, but he expressed unease with the NRA’s proposal. (I’m shocked.)

…I am not going to prejudge the recommendations that are given to me. I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools. And I think the vast majority of the American people are skeptical that that somehow is going to solve our problem.

…I think there are a vast majority of responsible gun owners out there who recognize that we can’t have a situation in which somebody with severe psychological problems is able to get the kind of high-capacity weapons that this individual in Newtown obtained and gun down our kids.

Here’s the thing:  Lanza, the Newtown Mass Murderer, attempted to buy guns a week before the shooting and was turned down. The system works.

It not the gun’s fault.  A gun is an inanimate object, incapable of  thought and in capable of pulling its own trigger. It’s the individual pulling the trigger.

Political Pundit, Dr. Charles Krauthammer, reminded us of this, in his op ed piece, published December 20, 2012:

Monsters shall always be with us, but in earlier days they did not roam free. As a psychiatrist in Massachusetts in the 1970s, I committed people — often right out of the emergency room — as a danger to themselves or to others. I never did so lightly, but I labored under none of the crushing bureaucratic and legal constraints that make involuntary commitment infinitely more difficult today.

Why do you think we have so many homeless? Destitution? Poverty has declined since the 1950s. The majority of those sleeping on grates are mentally ill. In the name of civil liberties, we let them die with their rights on.

A tiny percentage of the mentally ill become mass killers. Just about everyone around Tucson shooter Jared Loughner sensed he was mentally ill and dangerous. But in effect, he had to kill before he could be put away — and (forcibly) treated.

Random mass killings were three times more common in the 2000s than in the 1980s, when gun laws were actually weaker. Yet a 2011 University of California at Berkeley study found that states with strong civil commitment laws have about a one-third lower homicide rate.

…We live in an entertainment culture soaked in graphic, often sadistic, violence. Older folks find themselves stunned by what a desensitized youth finds routine, often amusing. It’s not just movies. Young men sit for hours pulling video-game triggers, mowing down human beings en masse without pain or consequence. And we profess shock when a small cadre of unstable, deeply deranged, dangerously isolated young men go out and enact the overlearned narrative.

…If we’re serious about curtailing future Columbines and Newtowns, everything — guns, commitment, culture — must be on the table. It’s not hard for President Obama to call out the NRA. But will he call out the ACLU? And will he call out his Hollywood friends?

What did our Founding Fathers have to say about our “Right to Bear Arms”, as found in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

“A free people ought to be armed.”

– George Washington

“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”

– George Washington

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

– Benjamin Franklin

“The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

– Thomas Jefferson

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”

– Thomas Jefferson

“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”

– Thomas Jefferson

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

– Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” – Thomas Jefferson

“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”

– Thomas Jefferson

“On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

– Thomas Jefferson

“I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence … I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy.”

– Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

“Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense.”

– John Adams

“To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.”

– George Mason

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe.”

– Noah Webster

Mr. President, I understand that you believe yourself smarter than all of the gentlemen I quoted, and, additionally, you believe that our Constitution is a “fluid” document, meant to be revised regularly. However, I would suggest you go do something about the 5o0 murders last year in your hometown of Chicago, a city with strict gun control laws, before you try to take away the guns of law-abiding Americans.

Try to confiscate the criminals’ guns, first. Good luck.

If you do wind up attempting to confiscate law-abiding Americans’ guns….

“There will be resistance” is putting it mildly, Scooter.

The War Against Christianity: Battleground: Hobby Lobby

obamadoctorUnless you’ve been living under a rock, like those guys in the Geico commercial, you have heard about the brave stand of Hobby Lobby, the national Arts & Crafts/Retail Chain. The Christian couple who own this very successful company are refusing to comply with the contraception mandate, found in Obamacare.

As of August 1, 2012, under this monstrous state-gun Healthcare Act:

All new plans must cover certain preventive services such as mammograms and colonoscopies without charging a deductible, co-pay or coinsurance. Women’s Preventive Services – including: well-woman visits; gestational diabetes screening; human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing for women age 30 and older; sexually transmitted infection counseling; human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening and counseling; FDA-approved contraceptive methods and contraceptive counseling; breastfeeding support, supplies and counseling; and domestic violence screening and counseling – will be covered without cost sharing.

On Jan. 1, Hobby Lobby will face a $1.3 million daily fine if they don’t comply with Obamacare. Todd Starnes reports on FoxNews.com:

“The Green family respects the religious convictions of all Americans, including those who do not agree with them,” the Becket Fund said in a statement. “All they are asking is for the government to give them the same respect by not forcing them to violate their religious beliefs.”

There are now 42 separate lawsuits changing the mandate, the Becket Fund said.

Conservatives praised Hobby Lobby for standing by their convictions.

“God bless this company,” columnist Michelle Malkin told Fox News. “It’s incumbent upon every conservative who believes in freedom of religion and freedom of conscience to support those businesses that are standing up and taking the slings and arrows of this discriminatory administration.”

“This is the most egregious violation of religious liberty that I have ever seen,” wrote columnist Denny Burk. “The first line of the Bill of Rights says this: ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ Obamacare prohibits the free exercise of the owners of Hobby Lobby. Who’s next?”

Conservative talk radio host Laura Ingraham said President Obama “must step in to stop this madness.”

“It turns out as many feared, the president’s religious exemption to the contraception mandate is so narrow as to be meaningless,” she said on Fox News. “Unless you employ and serve only those of your same religious faith you don’t receive an exemption. So under that standard, Jesus himself would not qualify. This is unconscionable and unconstitutional.”

Abortion supporters hailed Sotomayor’s ruling.

“I hope the government earmarks every cent of that fee money for Planned Parenthood, just to spite these ass****,” wrote one reader on the Jezebel website.

“Anyway, I’m all for Hobby Lobby (and all other organizations that think birth control is totes gross) ignoring the law,” wrote Erin Gloria Ryan in a column titled, “Whore Pill-Hating Hobby Lobby Will Have to Pay a Buttload of Fines for Ignoring Obamacare.”

The website Think Progress said Hobby Lobby is ignoring two points.

“First, that Plan B is not an abortion-inducing drug, as Hobby Lobby claims, and second, that the company may well end up paying more to avoid covering contraception than they would simply providing access,” the website reported. “It also takes a twisted view on the ‘Freedom of Religion’ argument; the company is actually forcing its owner’s religious beliefs on all employees, no matter their personal religious views.”

Ingraham pointed out that in a previous case Sotomayor ruled in favor of a Muslim inmate who was denied Ramadan meals. She held that the meal was subjectively important to the inmate’s practice of Islam.

Malkin called it a selective double standard.

“Religious liberty for some, none for others,” she said.

Per usual, “The Boss” is right.

The First Amendment to the  United States Constitution states:

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

By attempting to force Christian businesses, hospitals, and schools to observe the Contraception Mandate in Obamacare, the Obama Administration and Congress, by virtue of their passing the bill that fateful night on Capitol Hill, are in violation of the First Amendment.

Regarding the statement by those Liberal Obama sycophants (but, I repeat myself) at the George Soros-funded website, Think Progress, that the owners of Hobby Lobby were trying to “force their religion” on their employees:

Seems to me, that it’s the Obama Administration attempting to force their secular socialist belief system on Hobby Lobby.

As an American Business Owner, they have the right to do business as they seem fit, and , if they are in a “Right to Work” state, they can hire and fire whom they want to as well. It is way beyond the purpose and scope of government to tell Americans how they can practice their faith.

In the Message from John Adams to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts, written on October 11, 1798, the Second President of these United States laid it out very plainly:

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Perhaps their own lack of these virtues is the reason that Obama and his minions do not seem to care that they are ignoring Our Constitution.

…Funny though. These same people who claim to the “the Smartest ones in the romm” are those very same hippies, who, in the 60s and 70s, where whining and screaming to anyone who would listen, that their Constitutional Rights were being violated.

Fiscal Cliff: A Study in Crisis Management

chickenlittleThe definition of the term “Crisis Management” is just as it sounds: the ability of a leader to react appropriately to a crisis situation. Regarding America’s looming plunge over the Fiscal Cliff, however,   Political One-Upmanship is ruling the day, as the President Obama and Congress pose for the cameras, and, in less-than-good-faith, negotiate a deal regarding the biggest tax hike in U.S. History.

ABCNews.go.com has the story:

Political brinkmanship appears to have created a last minute chance for the White House and Congress to agree on a plan to avoid sending the country over the fiscal cliff.

President Obama emerged from an Oval Office meeting with Congressional leaders this evening to say “we had a constructive meeting today” and that he was “moderately optimistic” that they could devise a federal budget proposal ahead of a Jan. 1 deadline that would otherwise automatically trigger a wide range of tax increases and spending cuts. Economists fear that such a combination could throw the country back into a recession.

He said Senate Majority Leader Harry, a Democrat, and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, were trying to quickly fashion a deal.

“Sens. Reid and McConnell are discussing a potential agreement where we can get a bipartisan bill out of the Senate and over to the House in a timely fashion so that we meet the Dec. 31 deadline,” Obama said in a hastily-arranged statement. “But given how things have been working in this town we always have to wait and see to see whether it actually happens.”

Admitting the weekend could ultimately prove fruitless, the president said as a backup plan he had instructed Reid to deliver the Democratic proposal to the Senate floor for a straight up-or-down vote. That would boost taxes for couples making more than $250,000.

“I believe such a proposal could pass both houses with bipartisan majorities as long as those leaders allow it to actually come to a vote,” Obama said. “If members of the House or the Senate want to vote no, they can, but we should let everybody vote. That’s the way this is supposed to work. If you can get a majority in the House and you can get a majority in the Senate, then we should be able to pass a bill.”

The president lamented that a deal is coming down to the final hours.

“The American people are watching what we do… (their) patience is already thin,” the president said. “It’s deja vu all over again.”

He added later that for Americans the repeated last second efforts to dodge economic crises “is mind boggling to them. It has to stop.”

Translation: You Redneck Congresscritters representing the Bitter Clingers better do it my way or I’ll throw a Hissy Fit!

And, as Grover Norquist reminds us: that ain’t exactly the best solution.

As the “fiscal cliff” of tax hikes and spending cuts draws closer, anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist repeated his call on CNBC’s “Closing Bell”for spending cuts instead of tax increases to deal with the country’s fiscal problems.

“If you put tax increases on the table, there’s never any spending restraint,” Norquist said, citing examples where taxes went up under previous administrations but spending continued unfettered.

“All Obama has done for the last four years is clamor for higher taxes to spend more money,” the president of Americans for Tax Reform told CNBC. “The only time we’ve beat him back on spending at all was during the debt-ceiling crisis.”

Norquist said Obama was “willing to save $1 trillion by not occupying Iraq for the next decade. He wanted to count that like not continuing the War of 1812 was his budget cut.”

He added that raising taxes isn’t a compromise because the problem is spending.

He also called on the Senate to pass a budget, which it has failed to do for years. “Then we could compare it to the Republican budget and perhaps we could compromise on how much spending we need to bring down,” Norquist said.

When we get past the cliff, any hike in the debt ceiling should be accompanied by similar cuts in spending, Norquist said.

“[Speaker John] Boehner and Sen. Mitch McConnell have made clear if the president wants a dollar of debt-ceiling increase, we need to cut spending a dollar. That goes for $1 trillion,” Norquist said. “That kind of spending restraint is exactly the kind of thing we need to do in the future for any debt-ceiling increase —period.”

Just as there are different general Management styles, there are different styles of Crisis Management: altruistic and self-serving.

What Obama and our Congresscritters are attempting to do, is come up with some sort of last-minute whoop-te-do stop-gap measure, in a feverish attempt to stave off the consequences of being bad stewards of our money.

With President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) leading the way.

The whole situation reminds me of a Director, whom I reported to, when I was working as a Media Specialist at one of the country’s largest and most prestigious hospitals. This lady, (an Ed.D.) would wait until the Ninth Hour, as the deadline for a major project for her superiors approached, and then she would turn the office upside-down, in a scene reminiscent of the pie fight scene in the Tony Curtis/Peter Falk Classic, “The Great Race”.

The conference room table would be stacked with all her paperwork, while our two Admins flew wildly around, attempting to organize her mess,  like their hair was on fire and their rear ends were catching.  Meanwhile, my manager would be conspicuously gone from the general vicinity all day, leaving the rest of us at the mercy of the dear lady.

The president, like my former director, seems to be relishing the power he holds during the chaos of these Ninth-Hour Negotiations.

Which just proves the old chestnut:

If you can keep your head, while those around you are losing theirs…then you obviously don’t have a clue as to what is going on.

Until He Comes,

KJ

A Convenient Concussion

Hillary2It was announced yesterday that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will return to work next week, after being off the job for 3 weeks, with what is being described as a “stomach virus” and a concussion from a fainting spell.

TheCable.com reports that

Clinton’s ongoing recovery will still prevent her from flying abroad, but will allow plans to move forward for her to testify in open hearing on the Sept. 11 attack on Benghazi, testimony that she was unable to give — as per her doctor’s orders — on Dec. 20. Her return to a public schedule could also end the weeks of conspiracy theorizing and wild speculation about whether or not she was faking or misrepresenting her illness to avoid testifying.

“The secretary continues to recuperate at home. She had long planned to take this holiday week off, so she had no work schedule. She looks forward to getting back to the office next week and resuming her schedule,” Clinton aide Philippe Reines told The Cable.

Reines declined to say whether Clinton was at her Washington home or her house in Chappaqua, New York, but he said she did spend the holidays with her family. There’s no definite schedule for her Benghazi testimony, but she has pledged to appear before both House and Senate foreign relations committees in January.

Since Dec. 9, when Clinton’s stomach illness was first disclosed as the reason she pulled out of a planned trip to the Middle East and North Africa, a torrent of conservative pundits and media outlets have suggested or outright accused her of avoiding the public eye. Insinuations that Clinton was faking or exacerbating her illness to avoid the Benghazi issue came from the Weekly Standard, the New York Post, the Daily Caller, hosts on Fox News’s evening shows, Rep. Allen West (R-FL), the conservative website Pajamas Media, the Investors’ Business Daily website, conservative blogger Lucianne Goldberg, and others.

The National Enquirer actually claimed that Clinton was suffering from brain cancer. “Considering the source I can’t believe we even have to say this. But it’s absolute nonsense,” Reines said.

Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton became the highest-ranking former government official to publicly accuse Clinton of faking her illness on Dec. 18.

“Every Foreign Service officer in every foreign ministry in the world knows the phrase that I’m about to use. When you don’t want to go to a meeting or a conference or an event, you have a ‘diplomatic illness.’ And this is a diplomatic illness to beat the band,” Bolton said.

“I certainly hope it’s nothing serious, but this was revealed in a way that I think that was not transparent, and I think there is an obligation here, especially if Secretary Clinton decides to run for president, to indicate what happened,” Bolton said. “She may beat testifying this week, but she’s not going to escape it forever.”

Bolton’s accusation came three days after Clinton’s doctors, Lisa Bardack of the Mt. Kisco Medical Group and Gigi El-Bayoumi of the George Washington University, issued a detailed statement about the secretary’s injuries.

“Secretary Clinton developed a stomach virus, leading to extreme dehydration, and subsequently fainted. Over the course of this week we evaluated her and ultimately determined she had also sustained a concussion. We recommended that the Secretary continue to rest and avoid any strenuous activity, and strongly advised her to cancel all work events for the coming week,” they said.

But Bolton accused Clinton of a pattern of avoiding the public that predated her illness and concussion. “The secretary has stayed out of the limelight ever since the attack of Sept. 11,” he said.

As you can tell by reading, “The Cable” definitely leans to the Left.

About the so-called “speculation”….on 12/16/12, Breitbart.com explained that

This is the second time Clinton will not be able to answer key questions about Libya because of her health. Susan Rice, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, said Clinton was first asked to go on the Sunday shows after terrorists attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi but was too worn down to do so. Rice ultimately went on the Sunday shows in Clinton’s place and parroted the administration’s lies about how an anti-Muhammad video caused the attacks. Those Sunday show appearances would be largely responsible for Rice having to withdraw her name from consideration as Obama’s next Secretary of State.

On December 10, the State Department announced Clinton would cancel an important trip to Morocco due to a stomach virus.

“Since she’s still under the weather, we’ll be staying put this week instead of heading to North Africa and the Middle East as originally planned,” State Department spokesman Philippe Reines said in a statement on December 10.

Reines’ comments that Clinton was “still under the weather” indicated Clinton had been sick for some time. It has since been revealed Clinton caught the stomach virus on a trip to Europe, but Reines gave murky answers when initially pressed about the severity of Clinton’s condition.

Last Thursday, reporters asked Reines if Clinton had been hospitalized, and Reines simply responded that “she had seen her doctors and was home, without additional details.”

Clinton, as Secretary of State, not only holds the most senior position in the cabinet but is also fourth in the line of succession after the vice president, Speaker of the House, and president pro tempore of the Senate. But Reines still declined to answer why he was not as forthcoming last week about Clinton’s health.

On Saturday, Reines, according to Politico, finally answered reporters by telling them that Clinton “was not and never had been hospitalized” but still “did not respond to questions about why Clinton’s fainting was not disclosed sooner.”

Madame Secretary is not the first person to pretend to be sick, in order to get out of taking a test which they knew they would fail.

However, schoolchildren and college kids don’t have the power of a U.S. President and his Administration, along with a sycophantic Media, to back up their story.

But just like Hillary, they wind up having to take a Make-up Test.

Hillary’s will be graded “Pass/Fail”.

Romney: A Failure to Communicate

romney4Conservatives, such as myself, were presented a raw deal by the GOP in the past election. Their chosen one, Willard Mitt Romney, was no Conservative. He was a Moderate, who, regarding many Social Issues in his past history, took stances to the Left of the Political Spectrum. On top of that, “Romneycare” in Massachusetts, was the Godfather of the State-run Healthcare Monster known as Obamacare.

That was an awful lot of baggage for a Republican candidate to be carrying.

When the Conservative Base raised questions about the GOP Elites’ predetermined candidate, were their concerns met with empathy?

Hardly.

Shut up!

the GOP Establishment and New England Moderate wing explained.

So, dutifully, out of love for our country, Reagan Conservatives held our noses and voted for Mitt Romney…because anyone would be better than the present occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC.

…And…he lost.

Why? How could he? Obama was, and is,  an anti-American, Muslim-sympathizing, political-pandering, class warfare-preaching, tax-the-rich, spread-the-wealth, card-carrying Communist.

Michael Barone, writing for the Washington Examiner, presents the following theory:

In both elections [2004, 2012], each candidate concentrated on a more or less fixed list of target states, and in both elections the challenger depended heavily on outside groups’ spending that failed to achieve optimal results.

The popular vote margins were similar — 51 to 48 percent for George W. Bush in 2004, 51 to 47 percent for Barack Obama in 2012.

The one enormous difference was turnout. Turnout between the 2000 and 2004 elections rose from 105 million to 122 million, plus 16 percent. Turnout between the 2008 and 2012 elections fell from 131 million to 128 million, minus 2 percent.

Turnout is a measure of organization but also of spontaneous enthusiasm.

In 2004 John Kerry got 16 percent more popular votes than Al Gore had four years before. But he lost because George W. Bush got 23 percent more popular votes than he had four years before.

Kerry voters were motivated more by negative feelings for Bush than by positive feelings for their candidate. They disagreed with Bush’s major policies and disliked him personally. The Texas twang, the swagger, the garbled sentence structure — it was like hearing someone scratch his fingers on a blackboard.

Bush voters were more positively motivated. Political reporters had a hard time picking this up. His job rating was weak, but Bush voters tended to have a lot of warmth for him.

He had carried us through 9/11, he had confronted our enemies directly, he had pushed through with bipartisan support popular domestic measures like his education bill and the Medicare prescription drug benefit.

His criticism of his opponents was measured and never personal, and he blamed none of his difficulties on his predecessor (who had blamed none of his on his).

This affection evaporated pretty quickly, in the summer of 2005, with scenes of disorder in the streets of Baghdad and New Orleans. But it was there in 2004 and you can see it in that 23 percent turnout increase.

The 2012 election was different. Barack Obama got 6 percent fewer popular votes than he had gotten in 2008. And Mitt Romney got only 1 percent more popular votes than John McCain had four years before.

In retrospect, it looks like both campaigns fell short of their turnout goals. Yes, examination of election returns and exit polls indicates that the Obama campaign turned out voters where it really needed them.

That enabled him to carry Florida by 1 percent, Ohio by 3 percent, Virginia by 4 percent, and Colorado and Pennsylvania by 5 percent. Without those states he would have gotten only 243 electoral votes and would now be planning his presidential library.

But the conservative bloggers who argued that the Obama campaign’s early voting numbers were below target may have been right. If Mitt Romney had gotten 16 percent more popular votes than his predecessor, as John Kerry did, he would have led Obama by 4 million votes and won the popular vote 51 to 48 percent.

Romney, like Kerry, depended on voters’ distaste for the incumbent; he could not hope to inspire the devotion Bush enjoyed in 2004 and that Obama had from a diminished number in 2008.

But, to continue this counterfactual scenario, if Obama had won 23 percent more popular votes this year than in 2008, he would have beaten Romney by 85 million to 69 million votes and by 54 to 44 percent.

Unfortunately, if “ifs” and “buts” were candy and nuts, we all would have had a Merry Christmas!

The reality is, Mitt Romney lost. And, now, his son, Tagg Romney, tells us, his Dad never really wanted to be president, in the first place.

Okay, kid. Thanks for telling us…after the election is long over.

I have a couple of questions, then.

1. If he did not want to be president, why did he run?

2. If he did not want to be president, why did he attack the other primary candidates, especially the Conservative Republicans, with a fury reminiscent of Johnny Weissmuller as Tarzan, rolling around in an African river, as he killed a humongous crocodile with his knife?

Was he put up to this by the GOP Elite, so desperate for an easily-manipulated Washington Insider, that they overlooked Romney’s failures as a candidate in previous elections?

If you will notice, immediately after the man-made disaster, known on November 6th, 2012, the GOP Elite were calling for the direction of the Party to move even farther Left, in order to “be more competitive”.

Sorry, boys. All that backroom cigar smoke has rotted your brains.

The majority of Americans, except for those little blue dots in the urban areas, denoting Democrat voters, on the map showing the election results, remain Conservative.

If you would have presented a Conservative candidate, who could articulate Conservatism and the Party Platform, and thereby, connect with us average Americans, living here in the Heartland, then that Republican would have beaten the Manchurian Candidate, Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm).

Instead, what we had heah, was, failure to communicate.

Obama’s Presidency: Very Taxing…For All of Us

obamagolf122512I hope you all got what you wanted for Christmas. I, personally, would have liked my sanity back…but, that ain’t happenin’ anytime soon.

The nation’s economy remains in the toilet, while the largest tax hike in American History is only 5 days away.

But, hey…up in DC, the fiddle business is doing great…while Rome burns.

Per Reuters.com:

Though Republicans and Democrats have spent the better part of a year describing a plunge off the cliff as a looming catastrophe, the nation’s capital showed no outward signs of worry, let alone impending calamity.

The White House has set up shop in Hawaii, where President Barack Obama is vacationing.

The Capitol was deserted and the Treasury Department – which would have to do a lot of last-minute number-crunching with or without a deal – was closed.

So were all other federal government offices, with Obama having followed a tradition of declaring the Monday before a Tuesday Christmas a holiday for government employees, notwithstanding the approaching fiscal cliff.

Expectations for some 11th-hour rescue focused largely on Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, in part because he has performed the role of legislative wizard in previous stalemates.

But McConnell, who is up for re-election in 2014, was shunning the role this year, his spokesman saying that it was now up to the Democrats in the Senate to make the next move.

“We don’t yet know what Senator Reid will bring to the floor. He is not negotiating with us and the president is out of town,” said McConnell’s spokesman, referring to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat. “So I just don’t know what they’re going to do over there,” he said.

Two-day-old tweets on leadership websites told the story insofar as it was visible to the public.

House Speaker John Boehner’s referred everyone to McConnell. McConnell’s tweet passed the responsibility along to Obama, saying it was a “moment that calls for presidential leadership.”

eid’s tweet said: “There will be very serious consequences for millions of families if Congress fails to act” on the cliff.

The next session of the Senate is set for Thursday, but the issues presented by across-the-board tax hikes and indiscriminate reductions in government spending, were not on the calendar.

The House has nothing on its schedule for the week, but members have been told they could be called back at 48 hours notice, making a Thursday return a theoretical possibility.

So, just how big is Obama’s proposed Tax Increase?

NationalReview.com reports that

When we look at just nominal dollars, the president’s plan would, unsurprisingly, be much bigger than any tax increase ever, at $189 billion in the fourth year after implementation, topping the Affordable Care Act, which Tempalski calculates will raise $76.8 billion in revenue in its fourth year of implementation. (The CBO doesn’t find that level of revenue until 2020.) The largest increase before this was the 1993 budget act, which raised $66 billion in the most expensive year Tempalski measured, its fourth.

But more meaningfully, the president’s proposal is also the biggest tax increase since 1940 when adjusted for inflation. If you convert the revenue estimates from 2017 into 1992 dollars, the year that the original Treasury paper uses, the president’s plan raises $108 billion. No plan that Tempalski considered raised a higher amount, and it is possibly the highest amount ever. The second-biggest tax increase overall since 1940, after Obama’s, is the Revenue Act of 1942, which raised $73 billion in 1992 dollars. The second-biggest increase since 1968 was the 1993 tax hike, which in its fourth year raised $62 billion.

A final measure of the size of President Obama’s proposed tax increase is the increase as a percentage of total federal receipts. The president’s budget would raise that total by 5.1 percent in 2017 relative to the revenue baseline the document provides. That’s more than all but two increases since 1968: again, the 1982 act, which raised tax revenue by 7.2 percent in its fourth year (and 5.7 percent over its first four years), and the 1968 bill, which raised tax revenue by 6 percent over its first two years. These numbers all pale in comparison with some increases from the 1940s and 50s, six of which increased federal receipts by more than 9 percent. (The Revenue Act of 1942 raised receipts by 71 percent. Remember when we used to do big things, America?)

True, the nominal size of President Obama’s tax increase, like that of the taxes contained in the health-care law, dwarfs anything the U.S. government has ever raised from a tax proposal, though this comparison is almost meaningless. But his ten-year revenue plan is big enough to rank up there on the Mount Rushmore of revenue: It is the third-biggest tax increase as a percentage of GDP since 1968 and, in dollars adjusted for inflation, the biggest since 1940.

Now, doesn’t that just give you the warm fuzzies?

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. – Ronald Reagan

If these idiots, who are supposed to be working for US, not THEMSELVES overtax those who actually provide jobs for Americans, how is that supposed to “get our nation’s economy up and running again”?

Seems to me, all Obama’s plan will do is tax our nation’s economy into another Depression.

…And, maybe that’s what he wants.

The Celebration of the Greatest Gift of All

Luke 2: 8-14 (ASV)

8 And there were shepherds in the same country abiding in the field, and keeping watch by night over their flock.

9 And an angel of the Lord stood by them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.

10 And the angel said unto them, Be not afraid; for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be to all the people:

11 for there is born to you this day in the city of David a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord.

12 And this is the sign unto you: Ye shall find a babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, and lying in a manger.

13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,

14 Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace among men in whom he is well pleased.

In 1912, C.P.J. Mooney worked as  the editor for the Commercial Appeal in Memphis, TN.  He wrote an editorial that has become a yearly tradition, not only in Memphis, but around the world.  Here it is, as my Christmas Gift to you, my much appreciated readers.

Jesus, The Perfect Man

There is no other character in history like that of Jesus.

As a preacher, as a doer of things, and as a philosopher, no man ever had the sweep and the vision of Jesus.

A human analysis of the human actions of Jesus brings to view a rule of life that is amazing in its perfect detail.

The system of ethics Jesus taught during His earthly sojourn 2,000 years ago was true then, has been true in every century since and will be true forever.

Plato was a great thinker and learned in his age, but his teachings did not stand the test of time. In big things and in little things time and human experience have shown that he erred.

Marcus Aurelius touched the reflective mind of the world, but he was as cold and austere as brown marble. …

Thomas a Kempis’ ”Imitation of Christ” is a thing of rare beauty and sympathy, but it is, as its name indicates, only an imitation.

Sir Thomas More’s ”Utopia” is yet a dream that cannot be realized.

Lord Bacon writing on chemistry and medicine under the glasses of the man working in a 20th century laboratory is puerile.

The world’s most learned doctors until 150 years ago gave dragon’s blood and ground tails of lizards and shells of eggs for certain ailments. The great surgeons a hundred years ago bled a man if he were wounded.

Napoleon had the world at his feet for four years, and when he died the world was going on its way as if he had never lived.

JESUS TAUGHT little as to property because He knew there were things of more importance than property. He measured property and life, the body and soul, at their exact relative value. He taught much more as to character, because character is of more importance than dollars.

Other men taught us to develop systems of government. Jesus taught so as to perfect the minds of men. Jesus looked to the soul, while other men dwelled on material things.

After the experience of 2,000 years no man can find a flaw in the governmental system outlined by Jesus.

Czar and kaiser, president and Socialist, give to its complete merit their admiration.

No man today, no matter whether he follows the doctrine of Mill, Marx or George as to property, can find a false principle in Jesus’ theory of property.

In the duty of a man to his fellow no sociologist has ever approximated the perfection of the doctrine laid down by Jesus in His Sermon on the Mount.

Not all the investigations of chemists, not all the discoveries of explorers, not all the experiences of rulers, not all the historical facts that go to make up the sum of human knowledge on this day in 1912 are in contradiction to one word uttered or one principle laid down by Jesus.

The human experiences of 2,000 years show that Jesus never made a mistake. Jesus never uttered a doctrine that was true at that time and then became obsolete.

Jesus spoke the truth, and the truth is eternal.

History has no record of any other man leading a perfect life or doing everything in logical order. Jesus is the only person whose every action and whose every utterance strike a true note in the heart and mind of every man born of woman. He never said a foolish thing, never did a foolish act and never dissembled.

No poet, no dreamer, no philosopher loved humanity with all the love that Jesus bore toward all men.

WHO, THEN, was Jesus?

He could not have been merely a man, for there never was a man who had two consecutive thoughts absolute in truthful perfection.

Jesus must have been what Christendom proclaims Him to be — a divine being — or He could not have been what He was. No mind but an infinite mind could have left behind those things which Jesus gave the world as a heritage.

So, on this Christmas Day, as you spend time with family and freinds, remember the we have an Advocate in Jesus Christ the Righteous…and Rejoice!  For unto us a child is born…unto us a Son is given.  Hallelujah!

I know I posted this one yesterday, but, hey…I like it! God Bless you all…and Merry Christmas!