Lamar Alexander (TN), Roy Blunt (MO), John Boozman (AR), Richard Burr (NC), Saxby Chambliss (GA), Dan Coats (IN), Thad Cochran (MS), Susan Collins (ME), Bob Corker (TN), Mike Enzi (WY), Deb Fischer (NE), Lindsey Graham (SC), Chuck Grassley (IA), John Hoeven (ND), Johnny Isakson (GA), Mike Johanns (NE), John McCain (AZ), Rob Portman (OH), Jeff Sessions (AL), Richard Shelby (AL), John Thune (SD), Roger Wicker (MS)

Ask them why they joined tax–and–spend Democrats and voted for the disingenuously named “Marketplace Fairness Act” that expands the size of government and extends crony capitalism by allowing states to force online and mail order retailers to collect sales tax from shoppers that don’t live in the state where the retailer is located.

When does a conservative philosophy include coercing retailers based in a state with no sales tax into collecting sales tax for states that do? How can the laws of Virginia apply to a company doing business in New Hampshire?

As of now a state can only require a company headquartered elsewhere to collect sales tax if the firm has a physical presence (a store, warehouse, distribution center) in the state that wants the tax collected. Obviously Wal–Mart, Sears, Home Depot and so on already collect sales tax because they are located nationwide. Amazon and eBay only charge sales tax in California where they’re located and a few states where distribution centers are located.

Consumers who buy from out–of–state online stores are supposed to send a check to their state revenue service each year in the amount of sales tax they would have paid locally, but the honor system for tax payments does not seem to be working.

States could withhold a percentage of your paycheck each year to cover the estimated amount you would pay in online sales tax. (Does term ‘withholding’ ring a ball?) At the end of the year you could file a return with receipts from online purchases and if you spent less than the state estimated, you would get two refunds, instead of just one!

Somehow state politicians don’t think this idea would be too popular. Instead they want the federal government to force online retailers who don’t have a location in their state, don’t use any services in their state and don’t have any representation in their state to collect taxes for their state. And if they don’t, the state will seize the company’s property through court proceedings in a state where the company isn’t located. It’s remote control taxation without representation.

I can understand why Democrats support this, it’s right up their alley. What I can’t understand is how a Republican that’s supposed to support limited government can vote for it. The rationalization they use is “fairness,” which is the handmaiden of “share the wealth.”

Proving he can string clichés with the best of them, Sen. Enzi says, “This bill is about fairness. It’s about leveling the playing field between the brick and mortar and online companies and it’s about collecting a tax that’s already due. It’s not about raising taxes.”

So the fact you will now be paying more tax is just an unfortunate byproduct that can’t be blamed on Enzi.

I’m with the folks at Catholic Online who describe the bill thusly: “There’s nothing fair about a tax whose sole purpose is to punish businesses that employ an efficient business model. The tax does nothing to improve consumer choice, rights, or value. It’s another case of big business using its influence in Washington to compete by legislation against small, private retailers.”

Enzi can spout “fairness” all he wants, but the bill is about revenue.

This bill will cripple smaller online operations that have created a niche business on eBay. The magnanimous potentates in the Senate have graciously agreed to exempt businesses that don’t gross $1 million in yearly sales, but that just proves how ignorant politicians are regarding the market. A business that grosses $1 million might net 10 percent of that amount if they’re lucky. There’s no room in $100,000 to hire someone to manage sales tax collection for the 50 states.

The bill also requires states to provide “free” software to help retailers become revenuers. We all know how well that’s going to go. For a look at Virginia’s adventures in software see here. And if the state can’t get the software to work, there’s no penalty. But if the company can’t get the software to work it wins a nice tax lien.

This bill is crony capitalism attracting Republicans who confuse being “pro–business” with being “pro competition.” They are dupes of businesses that want to limit competition rather than compete.

Local retailers already have an advantage over online retailers. The product is in stock. The customer can examine it. If the customer has a question, there should be an informed salesperson nearby ready to provide information (I realize you can fire a howitzer in Wal–Mart, Sears, Best Buy, Home Depot or Costco and not hit a salesperson, much less an informed one, but we’re talking an ideal competitive situation here). Even better there are no shipping charges when one buys locally. And if the product is defective or the buyer changes their mind, it’s returned locally.

Meddling in the market on behalf of favored businesses is second nature for Democrats, but you would think GOP members would know better. Here in Washington, DC an out of control city council is busy writing regulations to ruin the business of lunchtime food trucks in downtown DC. The justification is identical to that of the “Marketplace Fairness Act.”

Brick and mortar restaurants are complaining that food trucks are stealing customers and they don’t have to pay property taxes like the restaurants do. Sound familiar? But even if the council banned food trucks altogether — and with this council you never know — there would not be a boost in lunchtime restaurant business because the restaurants and the food trucks serve a different customer base.

Food truck customers are in a hurry. They line up; they grab the food and head back to the office. Or sit on a park bench and fight the pigeons and the homeless for their fish taco. The food trucks don’t take credit cards and the prices aren’t all that cheap. But the process is faster than a sit down restaurant and there’s no tip.

If food trucks vanish, customers will bring their lunch or visit a deli or sandwich shop that is faster than a restaurant. They won’t be filling a table at whatever uppity lunch spot is hot this month.

A conservative would hope the “Fairness” the bill is DOA in the House, but there are dupes everywhere. Rep. Steve Womack (R–Wal–Mart) explains, “Obviously there’s a lot of consumers out there that have been accustomed to not having to pay any taxes, believing that they don’t have to pay any taxes. I totally understand that, and I think a lot of our members understand that. There’s a lot of political difficulty getting through the fog of it looking like a tax increase.”

If the esteemed representatives really want to “level the playing field” with online merchants, then lets go all the way. Charge the sales tax but require local merchants to make the following changes:

• Customers in the store can’t actually hold the merchandise; instead they must examine a series of small photos.
• If customers have a question regarding a product, they are required to email or call customer service for information. Hold time must be at least five minutes and you have to press three numbers to guarantee an answer in English.
• Customers won’t be able to get buying advice from salespeople, but they can go through a box of 3X5 cards filled with poorly spelled recommendations from anonymous random people who may or may not actually own the product.
• Customers may buy the product at the store, but they must wait five days to pick it up and they must pre–pay a pickup fee. If the customer wants the product sooner, they must pay a larger pickup fee. In no case can the customer get the product in less than 24 hours.
• If the product is defective or the customer changes their mind, they must ship the product back to the store, rather than take it themselves.

Brick–and–mortar stores with high prices and disinterested staff deserve to lose out to online merchants. It’s what happens in a competitive marketplace, unless Big Government politicians start interfering.

The post Senate GOP Supports Remote Control Taxation appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

In a sane universe “immigration reform” would be specifically designed to benefit the citizens of the nation passing the law, rather than be a law that only benefits non–citizens who came here illegally at the expense of the citizens.

But that hasn’t stopped Sen. Marco Rubio (R–FL) from eagerly joining the Gang of Ocho’s efforts to pass a “comprehensive” amnesty bill. After being trapped in a room with both Sen. Chuck Schumer (D–Publicity) and Sen. John McCain (R–Media Loves Me, Unless I Run for President), Rubio has evidently developed Stockholm Syndrome. He claims this amnesty bill does not have any amnesty provisions. Instead is has a “path to citizenship” where the length of time before amnesty kicks in somehow makes amnesty more tolerable for conservatives.

Yet I have a simple test for supporters of any immigration reform bill. If removing the portions that deal with granting citizenship to people who came to the US illegally causes Democrat support to vanish, then what you have is an amnesty bill and not a “reform” at all.

During her testimony before Congress in support of the bill, Sec. of Homeland Security Janet Incompetano said the 844–page bill has many benefits, including stricter accountability for employers and improving border security. Yet you can accomplish both of those goals without legalizing 12 million illegal aliens and doing so might just reduce the number of illegals here now.

Opponents of actually enforcing immigration law claim the government can’t deport 12 million people, but no one I know is advocating that. In fact this is one of the areas where I prefer a libertarian solution: the illegals got here on their own without government assistance and they can leave on their own, too.

In a true magic beans moment, Rubio is so proud of the 13–year “path to citizenship” — as if a slow motion surrender to illegality is an improvement over an immediate surrender. Maybe he thinks during this cooling off period Republican outreach teams can contact the newly legal and persuade them they are really naturally conservative and should be voting GOP.

But I’ve got news for Marco: it’s not going to happen. His 13–year path is going to be the civil unions of the immigration fight. As soon as Rubio’s bill is passed Democrats will begin complaining about second–class citizenship for brown people. As Neil Munro has written, the bill already has 400 “exemptions, exceptions, waivers, determinations and grants of discretion and even better will be administered by the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION!

We will be lucky if the 13–years lasts 13 months.

Democrats will get their immediate temporary permanent status for the illegals and the increased border security will never happen. The same goes for employer sanctions.

We heard the amnesty and border security shuffle when Reagan granted amnesty to 3 million (Gee, wasn’t he a Republican?). Amnesty was immediate and border security was absent, which is why we are preparing to legalize 12 million now.

The fines Rubio dreams of (much like the $1,500 fines the Commonwealth of Virginia was going to impose of indigent drunk drivers) will never be collected and the English proficiency test will be found to be culturally insensitive. Instead, illegals will get a waiver for the fine and if they can look at two photos and distinguish George Washington from Simon Bolivar their English is good to go, too.

You think I’m exaggerating? Ha! The Democrats in charge of the District of Columbia are preparing to introduce legislation that would require pharmacies, and possibly doctor’s offices, to provide translators — at business expense — for any customer or patient who does not speak English. That in a nutshell (apt phrasing, that) is the Democrat philosophy on immigration.

And by the way, I was being conservative when I said 12 million illegals would join us. According to NumbersUSA it will be more like 33 million, because “comprehensive reform” doesn’t manage to reform one of the major failings of current immigration policy called “family reunification.”

You probably think unifying families makes sense, because parents should be able to bring their children into the country. But you are wrong, that policy would be the reform. Current Democrat policy defines “family” as grandfathers, grandmothers, uncles, aunts, cousins, kissing–cousins, step–relatives and BFFs. So 33 million may be a conservative estimate.

Tea Party favorite Rubio is flacking for a bill that will only encourage more illegal immigration in the future, will not provide increased border security, will cost taxpayers billions, will depress wages for lower income workers, will burden the welfare system and — according to a report from Emily Schultheis in Politico — give Democrats 11 million so new voters, which is about the voting population of Ohio.

This leaves conservatives with a choice of opinions regarding Marco Rubio. One, he’s either too gullible to ever be allowed in the Oval Office or two, he’s a Democrat sleeper agent.

The post Marco Rubio and the Magic Beans appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

Why is it that when Democrats govern like Socialist dictators they win, but when Republicans govern like Democrats they lose? The sad part is that both parties govern in such a similar capacity that it is hard to tell them apart these days. Both parties have an insatiable appetite for spending; and fiscal discipline in Washington is as rare as a snowstorm in Phoenix.

Neither party has shown the ability to govern the American people the way our Constitution originally intended. One could argue that we technically have not had a Democratic President in office since John F. Kennedy; or a true Republican President since Ronald Reagan. What we have had are a bunch of elitist globalists from both parties hell bent on relinquishing our sovereignty and leading us down the path to a New World Order.

Make no mistake about it, the Republican Party is still head and shoulders above the Communist sympathizing Democratic Party of 2013. Our current occupier of the White House creates a clear and present danger to the very survival of our nation; a Marxist law professor with enough common sense to fill the head of a pin.

This article is not intended to bash Democrats and the President; although that certainly is a favorite past time of mine. I will show my readers how the Democratic Party divides and conquers the Republican Party by pressuring the political class in Washington to go along with their agenda knowing full well it will anger the base of the Republican Party and help create long lasting divisions between the party brass.

Here is how it works.

The Republican Party has three distinct ideological wings. It is made up of social and fiscal Conservatives, social Libertarian and fiscal Conservatives, and socially Liberal and fiscal Conservatives.

The Democratic Party also has three distinct ideological wings. It is made up of social Conservative and fiscal Liberals, socially liberal and socially fiscal Liberals, and outright leftist Socialists; who never met a tax that was too high or an expenditure that was too low.

Each party has a political or establishment class and an activist grassroots class. The establishment classes for each party also tend to operate in very different ways.

For example, establishment Republicans tend to be much more moderate than the more conservative activist base they represent. The establishment Democrats tend to be more liberal than the people they represent too; however sadly that is changing.

America has always been considered a center right nation. Most people are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. This is why the share of Independent voters has increased in every election. The truth is 40% of America will vote Republican and 40% will vote Democratic. That leaves 20% of voters with the fate of the nation in their hands every four years.

Democrats understand this much better than Republicans and win elections because they know how to fool these voters with a false sense of security. The Democratic Party knows that most voters are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. That is why they continue to run on tax cuts for the middle class and abortion on demand. They understand class warfare and identity politics much better than Republicans do. They also know how to overwhelm Republicans in Congress and get them to submit to their iron will.

The definition of bi-partisanship in Washington is when a Republican checks their morals, convictions, and principles at the door in order to sign onto leftist legislation so they can tell their constituents they accomplished something. When establishment Republicans go over to the dark side they get an earful from their more conservative constituents. We let our so call republican representatives know how disappointed we are in their decisions by not contributing to their reelection campaigns and ultimately protesting them by staying home on Election Day.

This is how the Democratic Party wins.

A Democratic Candidate could run for office with a criminal record and strangle a live kitten on national television and because they have a D before their name could still win an election. The reason is it’s not about the person; it’s about the party. It is about the promise not the delivery. It is about the artificial safety nets they claim to spring; not the harsh reality of how government bashes you in the face and slams your head against the pavement. It is the romanticism, fairytale, and utopian vision of equality, prosperity, and shared responsibility that most voters fall for.

Republicans see their party much different. They are looking for something that does not exist in politics, and that is purity. There is no such animal in politics and it is about time Republicans finally realize and more importantly except this. We definitely want our representatives to align with us and be our advocates rather than our adversaries; however our first objective needs to be winning elections first.

The difference is that if Democratic voters do not agree with their candidate on the major issues it is not a deterrent for them to sit home on Election Day. The reason for this is they would rather vote for a Democratic candidate they disagree with rather than a Republican candidate they vehemently oppose.

Generally speaking, the Democratic Party has become an unprincipled, unscrupulous, and immoral party. The Republican Party has drifted so far to the left that it is getting harder to tell them both apart. There are still a few Republican members left in Washington that will put their principles before their party but unfortunately their numbers are dwindling.

From a purely strategically speaking standpoint, Republicans, Conservatives, and Independents need to start voting like Democrats. Our number one goal must be to win elections and wrestle away control of the purse strings from the tax and spend liberals in Congress.

This means we need to start voting for all Republicans regardless of what spectrum on the ideological wing they may be on. Once we gain power than we can start replacing the Republicans that do not support the ideas and values of the party. If we continue the infighting and the division we will continue to be in the minority for years to come.

We need to run candidates that will take bold but electorate friendly positions. Positions that are center right like term limits, auditing the Federal Reserve, and making Congress part time.

When it comes to wedge issues like abortion and Gay Marriage we need to understand that the Democratic Party is always going to try to use those issues to divide and conquer us. We need to start exposing the left on all the lies they have perpetrated on the American people. Healthcare is sky rocketing, the economy is in a constant downward spiral, and taxes and spending are at the highest levels in history.

There is so much for Republicans to use against Democrats that I could write an entire strategy guide myself. Why the Republicans in Congress have decided to remain silent is a mystery. They have become a disgrace and you would think they would be doing everything they could to expose this administration but they’re not.

In order to change the party we need to be back in the majority. You cannot change the party from a position of weakness. We will never get an opportunity to change the party from the inside out while we are looking from the outside in. A fractured party is a losing party, the Democrats know this and it is about time Republicans figure it out too.

Suggested by the author:
www.joshbernsteinpoliticalwriter.com
Dismantling Washington
Obama’s DHS: Drones, Hollow Points, and Secrecy
Obamacare is bad for business and your health
How the left uses identity politics and fear tactics to influence voters

The post A fractured party is a losing party appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

Intimidating pressure cookers like this will be a thing of the past after Democrat Terry McAuliffe becomes Virginia governor.

(A source within the McAuliffe for Governor campaign leaked a copy of this transcript from an interview with a New York Times Sunday Magazine reporter. I felt I owed it to my readers to give them an advance look at this latest development in the Virginia governor’s race.)

NYT REPORTER: Governor McAuliffe, ha, that’s a bit premature, Mr. McAuliffe I could not help noticing at today’s media event that you were surrounded by all the genders of the rainbow, all ages and all races. And what’s more, everyone was wearing jogging clothes and actually smelled a little sweaty. Do you think the symbolism was important for your new legislative agenda?

Terry McAuliffe (D–Flim Flam) candidate for governor in Virginia: (Laughs) Well President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg had already booked the famous Boston marathoners, so we made do with local volunteers and a few of the better kept homeless. I will say we had a few problems convincing the older gentlemen to put on those tiny running shorts, but everyone was a good sport and happy to do a few laps around my indoor track to get in character for the event.

NYT: Tell us about this new legislation.

McAuliffe: It’s very simple. This is a problem and I have a government solution. After I’m sworn in, during my first hour as Virginia’s new governor I intend to introduce legislation to implement what I call common–sense pressure cooker control that all American’s can support.

NYT: How will it work?

McAuliffe: The centerpiece of the legislation is a one–per–month limit on pressure cooker sales to civilians. Purchasers will be entered into a statewide Culinary Registry where their name will be matched against previous purchases. This is a painless process for shoppers, which we will begin in upscale department stores. If their name comes up as having purchased a pressure cooker less than a month previously, they will be directed to a nice toaster oven or blender. In fact, if they are willing to give us their email address, the state will notify them when they are eligible to again purchase a pressure cooker.

NYT: The program will be limited to Bergdorf Goodman and Neiman Marcus?

McAuliffe: Certainly not. I’m aware that good value can be found at Target and something called ‘Big Lots.’ In fact, I intend to close the so–called ‘second–hand loophole.’ We will regulate sales at flea markets and thrift stores. Just because you may ‘no hablo’ doesn’t mean you should not register your purchase. I’ll give the secretary of technology six months to come up with an ‘app’ that will allow Smartphone registration in smaller stores and at garage sales.

NYT: So the legislation is just a limit on the number of purchases?

McAuliffe: No, I should have said a comprehensive, common–sense approach. There will also be a limit on the size of pressure cookers. No one really needs one of those high–capacity pressure cookers. Herbert Hoover only promised a single chicken in every pot, not an entire flock. And at our house my cook, Consuela, has never had to use a high–capacity pressure cooker. And that includes the really big fund raising events Bill Clinton attended before he became a vegan.

My kitchen experts also tell me that with the shrinking size of the American family and the distaste professional women display toward cooking, pressure cookers of 3 or possibly 4-quart capacity will be sufficient.

In addition, we also have design guidelines for cookers sold in Virginia. We want manufacturers to cut down on the number of dials and vaguely threatening controls found on some pressure cookers. In my experience newlywed cooking is frightening enough without adding an ominous pressure device to the mix.

NYT: Will this legislation have any impact on the Virginia economy?

McAuliffe: Of course I don’t want to do anything that would harm job creation. That’s one of my most popular focus group tested talking points. We certainly don’t want an Obamacare situation here. So there will be a size limit exception for commercial establishments that may require a larger–capacity cooker for their clientele. Right now homeless shelters, soup kitchens, prisons and Old Country Buffett are exempt from both size and purchase limits.

NYT: But what about existing large capacity pressure cookers that are already owned?

McAuliffe: The size of the existing pressure cooker market is nothing like that of the gun market, thank goodness. Plus there is no National Cooker Association pressuring gutless legislators. I feel that as inexperienced newlyweds burn things in pressure cookers, divorce papers are filed and just the general wear and tear of moving occur, the large capacity pressure cooker inventory will be reduced to a manageable size.

NYT: What about the public health component of your program?

McAuliffe: That’s important, too. The director of the state department of health will be encouraging pediatricians to ask their minor patients if they live in a house that contains pressure cooker and if so where is it stored. It’s important to know who has access to the cookware. We are also considering including a few questions on the amount of salt used in cooking and the presence of trans–fats.

NYT: Do you feel these common–sense regulations will remove the threat?

McAuliffe: This will certainly reduce the threat that originates in the kitchen, but at the same time, I don’t want to overlook the delivery system used in the Boston attack. I think the day of large, military–style backpacks is over. Black, camo or other assault backpacks are simply not necessary for civilian transport. When we were all still reeling from the tragedy, I was leaning toward banning backpacks entirely, but when my daughter pointed out the crucial role backpacks play in our education system, I relented.

NYT: What backpacks will be allowed in the future?

McAuliffe: We are currently writing the new regulations, but I think most backpacks that feature licensed characters or come from OshKosh B’Gosh, REI or Victoria’s Secret will be allowed, particularly if the backpack has those sexy little stringy straps. I also intend for the state patrol to conduct “backpack buy back” programs where outlawed backpack owners can turn in illegal backpacks in exchange for reusable grocery bags.

NYT: How long before Virginians can expect to see a difference?

McAuliffe: As the War on Poverty has proved, no problem that government attacks is really ever solved, but I think this is an important first step. 

The post The Interview: Terry McAuliffe & the Boston Attack appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

An editorial in The Washington Examiner has more detail, but what’s important for my purpose is the total figure. If the savings recommendations in Coburn’s last three waste reports had been implemented, taxpayers could have saved almost $300 billion. That’s enough to pay for Obama vacations and Joe Biden’s shotgun shells for the rest of their term.

The problem with figures that large is it doesn’t bother the spenders because it’s not their money and it depresses the taxpayer because he can’t imagine how one would obtain such a sum or make a dent in paying for it.

But don’t despair. We have a waste and duplication situation in Prince William County, VA — where I live — that is easy to comprehend, since it’s one thousandth the size of the fed’s situation, and will give useful training in the art of not wasting taxpayer dollars, because the situation is replicated all across the US.

Currently the county pays almost $300,000 in annual dues to the Metropolitan Washington Council of Government. There are 22 governing bodies that participate and the organization is supposed to have a unified voice on area matters that include police, fire, transportation, homeland security, growth planning and environmental concerns. There is probably a similar organization near where you live.

The WaPost describes the group thusly, “Politically, the council’s members range from very liberal Democrats to tea party Republicans. It’s able to get things done by sticking to non-controversial issues. Those include collecting traffic data and improving communications among emergency personnel after shortcomings were revealed in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.”

What this means is the only projects COG supports are those no one in their right mind would oppose anyway. So why are PWC taxpayers sending $300,000 a year to an organization that does what PWC elected officials are already paid to do anyway? Can’t our homegrown pols represent our interests?

These area umbrella organizations (there’s an apt metaphor: taxpayers get soaked while the organization employees are high and dry) only serve as resume builders for politicians who are eager to move up the electoral ladder and “showing leadership” on a regional basis looks impressive to gullible reporters. COG only serves to increase the size of government and the busybodies it enables.

Until quite recently, if a PWC politician wanted to adhere to a genuine conservative philosophy and withdraw from COG he would have been roasted as a know–nothing reactionary. But that was then, COG, thanks to the hubris of its leftist Democrat members, has now given conservative jurisdictions an excellent reason to withdraw and stop paying dues.

Last month the COG board of directors — with three leftist Dems in charge — voted in favor of calling for a federal ban on assault weapons and armor-piercing bullets, a firearm purchase waiting period and tracing of guns. In MD, DC and Alexandria supporters broke out in drum circles to celebrate. But PW, Loudoun and Frederick counties and Manassas leaders were outraged and collectively threatened to withhold more than $500,000 in dues.

These Virginians said the board had overstepping its bounds and the policy was “inappropriate and disrespectful” of the views of individual localities. Regional cooperation did not include passing federal law and revising the Constitution and was not why COG was created.

It makes you wonder doesn’t it? For that matter, what is COG’s position on Joe Biden’s warning shot or Michelle’s bangs?

The PWC Board of Supervisors was angry enough to pass a resolution opposing COG’s gun control advocacy, with only one member voting against. Frank Principi (D–Ambitious) is one of two PWC members of the COG board and the former COG chairman. Principi didn’t bother to attend the meeting where the gun resolution was passed, but he did find time to vote against the county’s resolution condemning it.

Principi claims he supports the 2^nd Amendment — as long as it’s confined to a dusty old parchment — but he didn’t want the board to “pile on.” Principi — a noted profile in political courage in his own mind — blamed politicians who are angling for statewide office for making the COG resolution an issue. What Principi didn’t say was that if he had voted in favor of the county resolution it would have been the kiss of death in a Democrat primary, where the vote would be characterized as ‘caving in to the NRA.’

Feeling the heat, COG backtracked last Wednesday and rescinded the resolution and returned the issue to a committee for further study.  Principi was motivated enough to actually attend that meeting where he voted in favor of both. This is fine, a positive step, but PWC should still head for the door. There are plenty of areas in the county where 300 grand would be better spent.

Fairfax County Board Chairman Sharon Bulova (D–Left), still surprised by the uproar, commented, “I’m hopeful we can find some language, some middle ground, where COG can be a voice on this issue of gun violence, gun safety, safety in our schools and mental health. All of these are appropriate subjects for COG to discuss and come to some consensus on.”

I could not agree more. How about passing a resolution honoring a Fairfax County organization called the National Rifle Association? It’s been doing excellent work on all these issues for years.

The post Umbrella Organizations Always Leave Taxpayers Wet appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

By Sharon Sebastian

Forbes, FOX, Bloomberg, Congress – anyone? Do you see the pattern? America’s economy is not self-destructing, it is being dismantled. Amid bad unemployment numbers, high food and fuel prices, a devalued dollar, the already devastating impact of Obamacare on businesses and hiring, President Barack Obama is again pressuring banks to make bad housing loans to people with weak credit. Obama’s new push for substandard loans portends a repeat of the housing loan disaster that led to the 2008 crash that tanked the economy when the Democrats held full control of both the House and the Senate.

Obama’s policy of coercing banks to make questionable loans under-minds a still fragile U.S. economy and sabotages potential recovery. Zachary A. Goldfarb reports in the Washington Post that “…critics say encouraging banks to lend as broadly as the administration hopes will sow the seeds of another housing disaster and endanger taxpayer dollars.” Ed Pinto, of the American Enterprise Institute and former Fannie Mae executive is quoted as saying: “If that were to come to pass, that would open the floodgates to highly excessive risk and would send us right back on the same path we were just trying to recover from.”

To understand who and what originally sent the economy into a tailspin, details are laid-out in the article that I wrote on the topic, Bloomberg: DEMS Behind Housing Scam:

In regard to the devastating housing fraud that helped collapse the U.S. economy, a Reuter’s headline read: “U.S. Sues Bank of America for Alleged Mortgage Fraud.” According to Reuters, President Barack Obama’s Justice Department “filed a civil mortgage fraud lawsuit against Bank of America, accusing it of selling thousands of toxic home loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that went into default and caused more than $1 billion of losses.”

In reality, it is a prime example of President Obama and the Progressive Democrats’ adeptness at avoiding responsibility and deflecting blame. Democrats continue to elude culpability in initiating the housing collapse that thrust the economy into a nose dive. Liberals count on voters lacking enough information to connect-the-dots as they point accusingly at their partners-in-crime. Americans have been told by Obama’s sycophantic media that it was the fault of greedy bankers, mortgage brokers and Wall Street derivatives – some of which came into play once the set-up, the opportunity for greed baited the bad players into joint accountability.

The question the American people should ask is: Who were the masters of the economic collapse, the architects whose scheme worked so well that they virtually escaped the blame? Though they now deny it, Democrats led by Barney Frank (D-MA), Chris Dodd (D-CT), Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Greg Meeks, (D-NY) are on video, in effect, in support of gutting the housing market with unsustainable mortgages in the form of bad loans. Historically, it will go down as one of the liberal Democrats’ all-time big lies to the American people. In Capital, Azi Parbarah reported in 2011 that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg pointed the finger squarely at the Democrat-controlled Congress as instigating America’s financial collapse:

“If there is anyone to blame for the mortgage crisis that led to the collapse of the financial industry, it’s not the “big banks,” but Congress. [They] were the ones who pushed Fannie and Freddie to make a bunch of loans that were imprudent. They were the ones that pushed the banks to loan to everybody. And now we want to go vilify the banks because it’s easy to blame them and Congress certainly isn’t going to blame themselves.” Bloomberg added, “It was not the banks that created the mortgage crisis. It was, plain and simple, Congress who forced everybody to go and give mortgages to people who were on the cusp.”

What Bloomberg failed to mention is that Obama, himself, adamantly demanded that banks make more loans to low-income borrowers. Sub-prime loans became the great American rip-off. Obama and the Democrats strong-armed lenders to give loans to people who could not repay them. Grateful new homeowners were to then obligingly ply the Democrats with their votes.

The ugly and inevitable consequences forced the poor, mostly Hispanics and Blacks, out of their unaffordable homes through wide-scale foreclosures. Home prices fell, construction workers lost jobs, the housing industry began a free-fall and America’s AAA credit rating was downgraded for the first time since 1917. The result: The worst economy in recent memory. Today, America bears the brunt of the Democrats’ manipulation of the housing market resulting in lost homes, lost jobs, and a destabilized economy.

Obama is again pressurizing banks into questionable loans. The result will be déjà vu with a far worse ending. The administration may point to improved housing and stock markets, but both remain tenuous for the average American. The job market remains tentative and any veteran of the stock market knows that Wall Street is no longer in the hands of the Bulls and Bears, but the wolves.

Again, Forbes, FOX, Bloomberg, Congress – anyone? The captain of the Titanic did not have this much warning.

Sharon Sebastian (www.DarwinsRacists.com) is a columnist, commentator, author, and contributor to various forms of media including cultural and political broadcasts, print, and online websites. In addition to the heated global debate on creation vs. evolution, her second book, “Darwin’s Racists: Yesterday, Today & Tomorrow,” highlights the impact of Social Darwinism’s Marxist/Socialist underpinnings on the culture, the faith and current policy out of Washington. Critics are calling Darwin’s Racists, “Incredibly Timely” and “A Book for our Times.” Sebastian is a featured guest on broadcasts nationwide on topics ranging from politics, the economy, healthcare, culture, religion and evolution to Agenda 21′s global green movement. Sebastian’s political and cultural analyses on a wide range of national and global events are published nationally and internationally. Website: www.DarwinsRacists.com. “Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow” may be purchased at:www.DarwinsRacists.com, www.Amazon.com, www.BarnesandNoble.com and at bookstores online and worldwide.

The post OBAMA TORPEDOES ECONOMY appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

The new, focus–group tested GOP logo.

It’s remarkable that the political party allegedly joined at the hip with Big Business has such an incredible problem with a basic operational task like marketing. Somehow when it came time to divvy up the commercial sector, the Republicans got all the boring accountants, while the Democrats scooped up all the cool art directors.

Confining Republican outreach efforts to shareholder annual meetings and Daughters of the American Revolution gatherings is obviously not working. We’re going to have to get a “twitter” and compose some “twits” er, “tweets” if the GOP intends to become the happenin’ party.

Fortunately, great minds are at work on this project and they have arrived at a solution. Over the next few years the GOP will be including up a storm. According to Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, the party will be establishing “swearing–in citizenship teams” to approach the newly naturalized with the new, improved GOP message.

I have this mental picture of first contact that’s a combination of ‘The Andromeda Strain’ and ‘Alien’ but I’m sure that’s too harsh. No doubt the teams will be so earnest they squeak when they walk and they will have memorized an “elevator speech” for new citizens who get within range. Assuming Organizing for America and the SNAP people have not hogged all the good tables at the accompanying trade show.

But that’s not all, this “not your grumpy old man’s GOP” will also reach out to minorities who didn’t get here by crossing a river. Priebus says, “We will talk regularly and openly with groups with which we’ve had minimal contact in the past: LULAC, the Urban League, the NAACP, NALEO, La Raza. And we will take our message to college campuses, with an especially strong focus on Historically Black Colleges and Universities.” And I suppose if the communists were still around, Republicans would have coffee with the KGB.

What he expects to accomplish by reaching out to the already convinced remains to be seen. I don’t recall being approached by a Honda salesman as I drove off the lot in my new Infiniti. A more useful approach to me would be contacting minority homeowners in suburban neighborhoods that are mixed racially and politically. Your chances of finding an open mind are vastly greater there than at the NAACP or Urban League.

Still, even if you find an open mind, there is the problem of party beliefs that are still a source of embarrassment to many in GOP leadership.

Which is why Priebus’ handpicked committee has come up with a solution. All national Republicans have to do to achieve presidential success is become Democrats, or more specifically Southern Democrats, since we won’t agree to spend as much money as the Yankee Dems.

And current or holdover members of the GOP base will be permitted to retain some conservative social views, but we are urged to avoid discussing our feelings in polite company or any gathering that includes representatives of the news media.

It’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” applied to an entirely different demographic group.

Specifically, the Priebus group claims it is “not a policy committee” and then recommends “comprehensive immigration reform,” which is code terminology for amnesty; and a change in “issues involving the treatment and the rights of gays,” which is code for quit criticizing Adam and Steve if they want to get “married.”

This is beyond strange. NRC big thinkers want the party to work hard to accommodate the views of two demographic groups that have no interest in voting for us so we will what? Get kinder treatment on MSNBC? Meanwhile the people composing the base of the party are alienated by their betters.

Undocumented Democrats are not going to vote Republican after receiving amnesty. You can get the details here. And homosexuals are not going to give up the best tables at trendy restaurants so they can break bread with Ralph Reed at CPAC. And speaking of Ralph, who is the founder of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, he takes a dim view of the report, “If the Republican party tries to retreat from being a pro-marriage, pro-family party, the big tent is going to become a pup tent very fast.” And he adds, “I am concerned that some in the party are going wobbly on this issue,” which is putting it mildly.

As for amnesty, a Washington Post/ABC poll found that Republican party members opposed amnesty by a margin of 60 to 35 percent, with 5 percent refusing to answer since the question was not in Spanish.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, proposes to hit the GOP where it hurts when he says, “”I would not give my money to the national party, to the national Republican Party. I would not give it to the RNC, I would not give it to the Republican Senatorial Committee nor to the Republican Congressional Committee,” which pretty much covers all the bases.

Good advice, particularly when you consider the recent lawsuit filed over entertainment problems in connection with last summer’s Republican National Convention.

Now I’m not referring to the run–of–the–mill lawsuit involving some rookie advance man who plays an unauthorized version of In–A–Gadda–Da–Vida at a rally to get the crowd fired up. (Usually the 17–minute album version, since even the most ancient, establishment Republican officeholder can shuffle up to the stage in that length of time.)

When Tom Petty or Heart or John Mellencamp demands a GOP candidate stop using their song, it’s not necessarily due to a disagreement on the issues. (Buying weed has taught them all about the free market and specifically the theory of supply & demand.) It’s because they know if the public starts associating their music with the accountant party, instead of the art directors, any hope of a revival tour will dry up.

No, I’m referring to the lawsuit that reveals the people in charge of entertainment at the convention offered Lady Gaga $1 million to perform.

For those readers who still miss Anita Bryant and may not be up to speed on Gaga, here is a brief rundown of her background. She’s a homosexual activist who supports homosexual marriage, the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” enjoys performing in her underwear before large crowds and appears in blasphemous music videos.

And if that wasn’t enough, she thinks the rich don’t pay enough taxes!

There is no tactful way to say this. These people are idiots and have no idea what they are doing. Money given to them is by definition wasted. Even if by some stroke of misfortune Gaga had agreed to appear, there is no telling what she would have done once she was on stage.

That would have been a real two–fer: national laughingstock and object of scorn by the delegates. Besides convention delegates don’t go to hear Lawrence Welk or Wendy O. Williams. They go for the privilege of waiting in security lines, sitting on uncomfortable chairs, wearing silly hats, listening to obscure arguments and being bored by long–winded speakers.

Besides the panic currently being experienced by national GOP leadership is misplaced. As Michael Medved has helpfully pointed out the Republican vote among 18 to 29 year olds increased to 37 percent, a significant boost from 2008’s 32 percent. Voters under 30 of the white persuasion went for Romney over Obama by a strong 7 percentage points. It was minority Obama generating sympathy and solidarity among minority youth that won him that demographic’s vote. A situation unlikely to be repeated when the white brothers: Hillary or Joe, run in 2016.

Finally, if simple outreach and individual contact is the root of the problem, why don’t we try marketing the existing recipe before we start tinkering with the product?

Meanwhile, if Chairman Priebus wants to generate excitement and attract more and trendier youth to GOP conventions, do what they do in Trinidad: Serve rum backed with plenty of drums.

The post A Voter in the Hand Is Worth Two in the Focus Group appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

What has our Department of Homeland Security metamorphosed into? Our third largest government agency has been stockpiling weapons and ammunition at a very alarming rate. Since early 2012, DHS and its 200,000 employees have purchased so much ammunition that many of the top weapon and bullet manufacturers have had trouble keeping up with the increased demand.

So why is our government buying hundreds of thousands of tactical weapons and millions upon millions of bullets? Do they think that the Russians are going to invade us? Do they think the North Koreans are going to show up in Washington State and take over like in the remake of Red Dawn? Do they think hygienically challenged Iranians are going to power chute into the country holding dull bladed swords and wearing dirty night shirts yelling, “Allah Akbar”?

Hardly.

Our government would never loose a wink of sleep thinking about any one of those scenarios unfolding. Our government’s enemies are not foreign, they are domestic. They are the 60 million Americans who rejected this sorry excuse for a President and are completely against his entire agenda to remake America.

When assessing the Department of Homeland Security’s actions, there is no other logical explanation or reason other than to say they are preparing for civil unrest at the very least and all out civil war at the very best.

What is so alarming and has many Americans on edge is the type of weaponry and ammunition they have purchased; in particular 450 million rounds of hollow point bullets.

Hollow point bullets for those who are not familiar with them are very different than regular bullets, or what are called full metal jackets. Hollow point bullets are designed to fray or fragment upon impact. Regular bullets when they hit their target make a smaller hole but for the most part stay in one piece. Hollow points do the exact opposite. When they hit their target they create substantially more damage by fragmenting on impact.

When questioned by members of Congress as to their motivations for such ammunition purchases a DHS spokesperson said they were purchased for “training exercises” at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Artesia, New Mexico.

According to retired Marine Richard Mason’s interview with WHPTV in Pennsylvania, hollow point bullets are rarely used for training purposes. In fact, in the interview Mr. Mason said, “Never in my entire military career did I know of any Marines training with hollow point bullets.”

When pressed further on why DHS has purchased and continues to purchase massive quantities of weapons and ammunition there answer was also one to be desired. The best they could come up with is buying so many in bulk allows for them to get better pricing.

Once again, this is a suspicious and ridiculous answer. First of all, hollow point bullets are almost twice as expensive as regular bullets. So why would DHS buy the most expensive, most dangerous bullets possible to save money? Furthermore, if hollow point bullets are typically not used for training purposes than why did DHS feel compelled to purchase 450 million rounds of hollow points rather than full metal jackets?

It doesn’t stop there.

They have also purchased 2,700 armored tanks that are designed to withstand ballistic arms fire, mine blasts, and improvised explosive devices. These tanks were not ordered to be used on the battlefields of Iraq or Afghanistan. These tanks were ordered to be used on our city streets and in quiet towns all across America. In fact, many Americans have already spotted them in their neighborhoods.

So why does DHS need 2,700 ballistic arm and mine resistant military tanks patrolling our neighborhoods and towns? What do they plan on using them for? Who do they plan on using them on? These are the questions that every single American should be demanding their elected representatives in Congress ask the Department of Homeland Security.

Here is a partial list of their purchases since 2012:

450 million rounds of 40 caliber hollow point bullets, 175 million rifle ammunition rounds .233 caliber (the same ones used by NATO forces), 7,000 fully automatic assault rifles, (you know, the same ones Dianne Feinstein and the Obama Administration are trying to ban), and so far over 2 billion with a capital B in total rounds of ammunition.

So now that we have the facts let’s discuss the possible reasons for all this provocative behavior by our government. You don’t have to be a Republican or a Democrat to know that Barack Obama is a big government liberal. In fact, he is so far to the left he makes Jimmy Carter look like Ronald Reagan. Never in our nation’s history have we seen a more radical President.

The first thing any good leftist leader does when they come to power is try to get their military to go along with their agenda. If they find any major resistance to what type of change they are trying to implement they will usually resort to minimizing their strength or neutralizing it by creating a more loyal parallel force. Barack Obama’s goal has always been to create a loyal civilian army to help implement his type of transformational change.

In July of 2008 Barack Obama said, “We cannot continue to rely on our military to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We have got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, and just as well funded.”

We already have a civilian force Mr. President; it’s called the National Guard.

Zombie-like salivating yes we can sheeple will have you believe that the President wants to create a civilian army to help fight terrorism. The non kool-aid drinking folks on the right and many in the middle understand this is not the President’s true intent.

First off, the American military is the most powerful, most tactical, and well trained fighting force in the world. Our military is more than capable of fighting terrorism and doesn’t need a bunch of Communist radicals with Billy clubs and switchblades running around the country pretending to be patriotic freedom fighters. The only thing this coalition of Obama supporters would be terrorizing are the people that didn’t follow the President’s orders, mainly Conservatives.

Many fear that this may have been this administration’s goal all along. History has shown that during periods of major civil unrest and forcible revolutionary change many governments prepare themselves by insulating and arming their leaders while simultaneously depleting the resources of their adversaries.

So how do you make your resisters less resistant?

By purposely buying up as much ammunition as you can. Then you make sure law abiding citizens do not have access to ammunition they will need to defend themselves. Additionally, you make sure that local police departments sworn to protect and to serve their citizens suddenly do not have the tools needed to do so. Last but not least you strategically exploit a tragedy like the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting to pass draconian legislation that restricts the Second Amendment under the guise of public safety.

If millions of ammunition purchases and thousands of tactical weapons don’t keep you up at night maybe unmanned aircraft capable of eliminating United State citizens will.

Drones have been typically used in the war on terror to eliminate potential terrorist threats in other countries. Both George W. Bush and Barack Obama have used these unmanned aircraft to kill many high profile targets such as former Al-Qaida leader Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi in Iraq; and American born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen. This type of aircraft is highly effective at eliminating specific targets while creating very little in collateral damage.

Our government would never use these types of weapons on American soil to eliminate American citizens would they?

On March 5, 2013 Attorney General Eric Holder actually said this, “Drone strikes against American citizens on US soil are legal.” He actually uttered these exact words from his lips. This should make every single American very nervous, especially the ones who vehemently disagree with this administration.

After Senator Rand Paul’s filibuster, Eric Holder sent him a letter backtracking from his statement. The fact that he said it at all is what is so scary. This administration could and would still use drones against Americans citizens regardless of what the attorney general says.

After more questioning and pressure from some members of Congress to clarify his prior statement Eric Holder than went on to say, “Using lethal force against American citizens on US soil is highly unlikely. We hope no president will ever be faced with that decision. However if there was an imminent threat such as a domestic terror attack on the country similar to a Pearl Harbor or 9-11 it is conceivable that the use of an unmanned aircraft could be used as a viable option.” That sounds like a whole lot of wiggle room to me.

Suppose the President is walking from his motorcade one day to the White House. He is surrounded by his security detail and the Secret Service. There is a sniper within range ready, willing, and able to take him out. The sniper is spotted and a drone is dispatched to eliminate the threat. How is this legal? How does this even constitute as an imminent threat to the nation?

The answer is it’s not legal and it doesn’t qualify as a threat to the nation. It qualifies as a threat to the President. Luckily for him he has the Secret Service and his personal security detail to protect him.

Whether or not we as Americans wake up one day and find out that the President is no longer with us doesn’t constitute as a national emergency or an imminent threat. Did the world stop when John F. Kennedy was assassinated? Did time stand still when Ronald Reagan was shot? None of these events stopped the country’s everyday routines and if these events should transpire once again in the future nothing will change how we live our daily lives.

Our Constitution was set up this way. We have a line of succession when it comes to events such as assassinations. The American people will go on with their lives and the Vice President will take over.

So let’s recap.

Our Attorney General says it is legal to kill American citizens on American soil. Barack Obama has cut the military and wants to reduce our nuclear weapons capability even though many rogue nations want to destroy us. Barack Obama wants to create a 1 million member strong civilian security force to “help defeat terrorism”. DHS has refused to answer questions under oath in judiciary hearings as to the intent of their purchases, only giving lame excuses such as training and bulk pricing discounts. And finally the Democrats in Congress and the Obama Administration are trying to strip law abiding citizens of their right to protect themselves by undermining the Second Amendment. Even Stevie Wonder can see what is happening.

So what do we do?

If our government is going to make provocative purchases over and over without reason or explanation I suggest we prepare for the worst and hope for the best. I would implore all Americans if they haven’t done so already to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

I think it is time for all Americans to purchase as many firearms as they can get their hands on. Handguns, rifles, assault rifles, M-16’s, hunting rifles, shotguns, carbon rifles, AK 47’s, Mac 10’s, etc.

If most Americans decided to “arm up” than maybe our government will see that as a deterrent. We need to neutralize the potential threat from this administration by showing them we are not going to go quietly into that good night. We need to make sure that our government knows that if they decided to travel down this road that we the people will guarantee it will be a very bumpy ride.

Suggested by the author:
www.joshbernsteinpoliticalwriter.com
Dismantling Washington
Dreams from my surrogate father
URGENT: How to beat Barack Obama’s executive orders on gun control
How the left uses identity politics and fear tactics to influence voters

The post Obama’s DHS: Drones, Hollow Points, and Secrecy appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

It is an illusion that toll roads are a free market way to solve a growing government expense. Toll road contracts are set up as public-private partnerships, which are not the same thing as privatization. Public-private partnerships (PPPs) result in government-sanctioned monopolies granted to one or more favored companies, essentially crony capitalism. It is easy for the government to write specifications for projects so they will only fit select businesses. The PPPs may last from 30 to 100 years, granting an extremely long monopoly without competition. Government continues to oversee the projects, interfering with the private company’s ability to fully maximize revenues. Even libertarians who promote toll roads admit the government still owns the toll roads.

The most expensive highway project in the U.S. was paid for by tolls, and so mismanaged that taxpayers filed a lawsuitagainst the state of Massachusetts over being required to pay tolls for the enormous expense. The Big Dig toll project in Massachusetts resulted in criminal prosecutions, ran 600 percent over cost, and took an extra six years to complete. It will not be fully paid for until the year 2038. Fortunately there were some consequences. The consortium that oversaw the project ended up paying out $407 million in restitution, and several smaller companies agreed to pay a combined sum of approximately $51 million. This experience should have served as a warning.

Tolls are inherently inefficient. There are reports that 80 percent of the money raised from tolls goes to the company managing the toll roads. Up to one-third of the revenues goes to tollbooth operators. Even many of the toll roads that have electronic pass options still have a costly tollbooth option.

Tolls rarely disappear after enough money has been raised to pay for a project. Proponents admit this, but defend the perpetual tolls by stating that the money goes to ongoing maintenance. Isn’t that what gas taxes are for? Tolls aren’t just initiated to create new roads; often they are put into place for maintenance only.

Toll road proponents admit the increased revenues will go for additional environmental projects that normally would not be affordable with just a gas tax; projects such as the complete undergrounding of roads in environmentally sensitive areas and light rail.

The traffic diversion that results from toll roads increases congestion on roads in other locations. This leaves too few motorists on the toll roads to make them efficient. Proponents argue that there is always an alternative road that motorists can use instead of the toll road. However, they fail to point out that the alternative road is usually miles away and congested, making it an unrealistic solution for most commuters. There is no realistic practical alternative, otherwise virtually everyone would avoid the toll road.

Those who do not pay the tolls, for whatever reason, are treated practically like criminals and fined incredible amounts of money. Not to mention the state may suspend their driver’s license and registration. The state of Texas charges per mile in some areas, such as 15.3 cents per mile in North Texas. The state humiliates toll violators by listing their names and amounts owed on a website. Some owe as much as $153,000. It seems preposterous how one person can be responsible for owing that much simply for the privilege of driving on the public roads for a few years. The toll on the 520 bridge from Bellevue to Seattle costs anywhere from $1.13 to $5.13, but if not paid within 80 days, will likely beassessed a $40 late fee per unpaid toll, plus costs. This averages out to at least 1300 percent more than the original toll! Where is the outrage over a small civil fee increasing this much? Clearly, the punishment is grossly disproportionate to the crime.

The way toll roads were forced on the public in parts of Texas without a real vote sparked a documentary exposing the unfair maneuvering called Truth be Tolled. Since 2004, Texans have been loudly fighting toll roads. Toll roads are administered under regional mobility authorities (RMAs), which are not held directly accountable to the public. The contracts are negotiated in secret, and there is no cap on the spending nor end dates set. A San Antonio Toll Party emerged to fight the toll roads imposed undemocratically upon that area of Texas.

There is a deafening silence from the left about the disparate impact toll roads have on the poor. The left is also noticeably silent regarding the extra wasted fuel that is used and dispersed into the environment as motorists drive extra miles to avoid the toll roads. The poor, who are most likely to drive gas-guzzling, older, polluting cars, will be the ones driving extra miles to avoid toll roads.

There is equally deafening silence from libertarians about the excessive surveillance that is required to track drivers on toll roads. Drivers in Texas are tracked on so many highways now it is possible to tell where Texans are multiple times throughout the day. To rack up $253,000 in fees, how often was Texas’s top violator tracked by surveillance?

Toll roads sound good in theory, especially to libertarians sitting in ivory tower think tanks. But practically they don’t work. Toll roads wouldn’t be quite as bad if government would adopt them in place of gas taxes. But government will never get rid of gas taxes. The right generally dislikes gas taxes, which are poorly correlated to their purpose of funding road maintenance. Gas taxes and tolls onlyprovide a third of state and local road spending.

Bexar County, Tex. Commissioner Lyle Larson, who opposes toll roads, revealed on a radio show a few years ago that the state highway fund lost $10 billion over 20 years, because funds were diverted to non-road related purposes. More than half of the money went to fund the Department of Public Safety, $115 million went into the state’s general fund, several million went for a computer system for the state comptroller’s office, and the rest to the Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, arts commissions, and various politicians’ pet projects.

Texas State Representative Garnet Coleman said he believes the Texas Department of Transportation sits on road construction that has already been authorized, in order to keep traffic congestion bad in Houston so people will welcome toll roads.

The problem can be fixed by ensuring that revenues go directly to road maintenance, perhaps through a sales tax or mechanism other than gas taxes if necessary, not by adding another level of revenue generation that gives government more money to waste.

David Ellis, a researcher at the Texas Transportation Institute at Texas A&M, came up with a way to fund highways that would not require tolls or raising gas taxes. Index the gasoline tax to inflation and put the incremental revenue in the mobility fund, where it can be used to pay off bonds. Gas taxes may not be a perfect way to fund roads, but they aren’t much more of a tax than toll roads. People can avoid gas taxes by choosing not to drive as much, driving electric cars and bicycles, or taking cheaper public transportation.

Toll roads do nothing but enable a new layer of irresponsible spending by the government. The public ends up paying for roads twice, plus additional environmental projects. Libertarians overlap with the left on social issues, not fiscal issues. Libertarians should look long and hard at why they agree with the left on double taxation here.

The post Toll Roads and Double Taxation: The Left and Libertarians Converge appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

U.S. Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) still doesn’t get it. He can’t fathom the reality that the freedom-loving Mountaineers of West Virginia are livid about his unwavering support of Barack Obama and his left-wing Democrats in their unconstitutional quest at further restricting the free exercise of Americans’ Second Amendment rights. Both are shamefully taking a tragic event and using it to further their political agendas by grandstanding and self-aggrandizing.

Manchin continues to reassure West Virginians that nobody is after their guns, while doggedly working with the anti-gun extremists to limit the size of clips and expand background checks. He and the Obamaites preach that we must have ‘reasonable’ rules.

The battle now is to ban so-called “assault weapons” and high-capacity clips. The radical left obviously believes lawful Americans cannot be trusted. Weapons are only “assault weapons” when in the hands of criminals. When in the hands of law-abiding American citizens, they are “defensive weapons.” These are some of the weapons Manchin said we must look at to stop the killing of innocents. We all know what he meant by the term “look at.”

It is obvious to even the densest anti-gun zealot, that criminals will pay no heed to ANY gun-control law. Therefore, it’s apparent that the quest for more anti-gun legislation is aimed at disarming lawful citizens and does nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. The facts are irrefutable; gun-control legislation disarms or makes criminals of lawful Americans, but does nothing to disarm criminals or reduce violence or murders of innocent people.

Criminals depend on government to disarm the public, thus allowing thugs and gangs unrestricted domination in our streets, neighborhoods, and cities. U.S. cities with the strictest gun laws have the highest crime and murder rates. Witness the cities of Chicago, Washington, DC, Detroit, Baltimore, and on, and on.

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted to ban 157 different models of defensive weapons, as well as magazines containing more than 10 rounds. However, the liberals and the media, including the Senator from the Mountain State, claim that nobody is trying to take away our guns. Every Democrat on the committee voted for the ban, while every Republican voted against the ban.

Americans must face facts, it’s apparent over the last several years that the New Democratic Party is a mortal enemy of gun owners and the Second Amendment. The NRA should also take heed when they endorse a Democrat for office when there is another candidate with an excellent record on gun rights. Endorsing candidates like Harry Reid and the Senator from West Virginia is shortsighted and the NRA actually undermines the very rights that they otherwise so feverishly defend because they add to the Democratic majority.

The West Virginia Senator supports backdoor registration of guns through background checks at gun shows and private sales or purchases. Background checks at gun shows are little more than background checks for private sales and trading of guns and ammunition, which he favors. He knows none of these laws will reduce gun violence or murder rates in this country. Yet, under Manchin’s plan, if one wants to purchase a gun from a neighbor, one must pay for a background check and get approval from the federal government. These extended background checks are another back door, roundabout attempt at registration that allows government to know who owns guns, what type they are, and where to find them.

Not a word emanates from the mouths of Manchin, Obama, Feinstein, or any other left-wing anti-gunners about the real causes of crime and murder rates in this country. Most violence comes directly from inaction and misguided programs by federal, state, and local governments.

The free exercise of American rights under the Second Amendment does not cause violence.

Here are just a few of the shortcomings, incompetence, and corrupt bureaucracies of government that do result in lawless, senseless violence.

• The failure of the liberal courts and the justice system in general to PUNISH criminals.
• The failure to build more jails and prisons.
• Early release and catch-and-release of criminals; including violent felons.
• Plea-bargaining and reductions of sentences.
• Left-wing lawmakers, state and federal, who consistently and shamefully go out of their way to twist, manipulate, and distort, every societal issue to bestow the victimhood label on criminals, and not on the real victims; law-abiding citizens of our country.
• Failure to address criminal, illegal aliens pouring over our border with drugs, guns, and human cargo.
• Overcrowding, then release from jails of illegals to reduce the excess numbers.
• A corrupt government-controlled educational system that, especially in the inner cities, fails to give young people even a rudimentary education and then dumps them out on the streets without sufficient skills to compete in the world.

Much of the debate for years in this country has centered on handguns. For decades, nobody talked about long guns of any kind. To the leftists, handguns represented everything that was evil about the Second Amendment. The unvarnished truth is that the left-wingers believe the very existence of the Second Amendment is evil.

Concealed permits are under constant attack. By declaring gun-free zones and limiting where one can legally carry a weapon, the tyrants hope to make it so restrictive as to make concealed permits worthless. One such limit in declaring schools as “gun-free zones” to prevent shootings, could only be imagined, and implemented by the most naive and ignorant of liberal minds.

Some notable quotes by Obama, the anti self-defense chief, should tell everyone where the leftist-in-chief stands:

• “I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry.”
• “I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities.”
• “It’s a scandal that Bush didn’t renew the ‘assault weapon’ ban.”
• If you need 19 rounds to shoot a deer, you probably shouldn’t be hunting.”

Here are some notable votes by Obama:

• Voted to uphold civil actions and lawsuits against gun manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of guns and ammunition.
• Voted to ban hundreds of common rifles and shotguns.
• Voted to uphold local gun bans in Illinois.
• Voted to uphold prosecution of people using guns in self-defense.

Now, let’s examine some Joe Manchin quotes and excerpts from the Senator’s own writings:

•  “I’ve never had more than three shells in a clip. Sometimes you don’t get more than one shot anyway at a deer. It’s common sense. It’s time to move beyond rhetoric. We need to sit down and have a common-sense discussion and move in a reasonable way.”
• “We must look at the use of high-capacity ammunition magazines and military-style assault weapons.”
• “I truly appreciate President Obama’s intentions to ‘push without delay’ a set of recommendations to address the kind of madness we witnessed in Newtown.”
• “I don’t know anyone in the hunting or sporting arena that goes out with an assault rifle. I don’t know anybody that needs 30 rounds in the clip to go hunting. I mean, these are things that need to be talked about.”
• “I think everything should be on the table.” “I think everything should be looked at.” In response to MSNBC’s question of do you think the gun laws should be changed?

One will notice Sen. Manchin never once points out that the Second Amendment never mentions hunting and not one word crosses his lips about self-defense. He obviously thinks the Second Amendment should be on the table for discussion, and it’s all about hunting.

It’s always easier for lazy, corrupt, and ideological politicians to take the easy path. They use manipulative hyperbole, and emotional rhetoric to push for legislation that has proven repeatedly to be ineffective, and destructive. Like vultures, these zealots circle after every despicable shooting by an outlaw or insane person and then use the tragedy and suffering of others to gain an upper hand to implement their anti-gun tyranny.

They know they cannot ban all gun rights at once any more than a boa can instantly kill and devour its prey. They do it slowing, one contraction at a time.

Little-by-little, Obama, Manchin, Feinstein, and their left-wing ilk formulate their “reasonable rules” which are, in reality, slow narrowings and constrictions designed to squeeze the life from our Second Amendment and devour our guns.

Knowing what Obama and this West Virginia liberal hunter have said publicly, and knowing the history of the anti-gun radicals, does anyone believe them when they say, “Nobody is coming after your guns?” Disarming America is not a solution for violence; rather it is one of the chief determining factors for the violence raging through the streets of this country. An unarmed nation is a nation on its knees, and that is exactly where the leftist tyrants want Americans. The free exercise of American rights under the Second Amendment does not cause violence.

For one to see the tragic results of liberal politics and gun control that disarms lawful people, one needs to look to the cities in the control of the New Democratic Party. Here, guns are banned outright from lawful Americans or restricted to such a point as to make their right to own guns and defend themselves, a cruel joke. They are microcosms of what liberals want for the rest of the country.

When liberal-progressive government is in control of peoples’ lives, they keep citizens disarmed, uneducated, indoctrinated, and dependent. When will we cease to allow our government to cast their tyrannical, liberal, magic spell over this great land?

Jim Mullen

Parkersburg, WV

http://freedomforusnow.com

Follow at https://twitter.com/freedomforusnow

http://www.examiner.com/x-54993-Parkersburg-Conservative-Examiner

The post West Virginia Joe Manchin (D) with Obama on gun grab appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

Since the 1890s the Progressives have worked to change our American Experiment from a federal republic operating on democratic principles that recognized our God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness into a democracy where the government grants rights and pursues its own happiness.

Inch by inch, step by step they have worked to change one aspect and then another until today the cacophony of minute changes has become a centrally-planned federally orchestrated symphony playing Hail to the Chief.

We have transitioned from federal republic into an imperial bureaucracy controlled by a Chicago raised Alinsky style outfit determined to reduce us to abject obedience.  This is the direct result of an education system captured by the Progressives delivering generations of uninformed voters and of the entitlement society delivering a near majority of citizens who get more than they give from the federal trough.

This should be no surprise to anyone.  A country once famous for the political engagement of its citizens has raised generations on the dictum that neither religion nor politics were the subject of polite debate.  The culture of media-hyped sports addiction and hedonistic indulgence has produced millions who know more about their favorite team or about the latest fashion than about their own government.

I don’t know about you but I’m so tired of being lectured by people who get their news from Leno, Colbert, or the Daily Show that I have all but stopped speaking of anything of substance with most people.  We have all developed ways to identify fellow patriots.  We listen for anyone to say anything that will give us an indication that here is another American who realizes where we are and from where we have fallen.  Then we have great conversations, comparing observations and trying to encourage each other that the United States as we have known it will survive four more years of America’s Chavez.

Often I wonder, are we just singing to the choir, lighting a candle in the dark, or sticking our thumb in the dyke?  Will our clandestine discussions on the fringes of a complacent society make any difference?  Or are we merely whistling in the wind as our beloved country changes forever into the dead letters of a living constitution?

We have to admit that the Progressives have out maneuvered and out organized those dedicated to limited government.  They have turned the world upside down.  They captured the Corporations Once Known as the Main Stream Media turning them into a propaganda arm dedicated to suppressing the truth and giving the government party all the cover they need to do anything they want.  They radically empowered the federal bureaucracy ceding it powers granted to Congress to set policy and make law.  This red-tape machine has grown to become the largest organization in the world.  It is ever-expanding and filled with career people dedicated to enlarging their private kingdoms and increasing the power of the nomenclature at the expense of the people.

The courts have been packed, the banks have been bought off, and the unions use legally mandated dues to support candidates and policies their unwilling members don’t want.  Check and check-mate.  The situation has become so dire and the hour so late that it appears the only line of defense we have left between the USA and the USSA is a House of Representatives controlled by Progressive Republicans.

These Progressive Republicans want the same things as their Democrat counterparts: bigger government and more power even if they may want to drive us to the poor house a little slower.

There are a few younger ones who have been elected by the Tea Party such as Rand, Lee, and Cruz who are trying to make a difference.  At every step the Progressive establishment in their own party tries to ridicule them into toeing the party line of compromise and surrender.  The old bulls talk conservative to get elected then join hands across the aisles in a marriage of despotism with deceit.

The further we get from the puzzle factory in Washington one would think the closer we would get to our American heritage of government of the people, by the people, and for the people.  However, the same uninformed disengaged voters form the majority all the way down to the precinct level.  The community organizers have done their jobs very well.  Try to name a state that isn’t in debt.  Try to name a county that isn’t working to install Agenda 21, promote sustainability or cram its Master Plan down the throat of an unsuspecting public.  Try to name a city, town, or village that doesn’t have its good old boy network that manages to stay in power year after year.

Several years ago after an unsuccessful attempt to unseat an entrenched state senator from a gerrymandered district my wife and I decided to become involved on the local level to try and make a difference.  We spent several years battling Agenda 21 while watching the good old boys win by hook or by crook either ignoring or fooling the voters.  Maybe it’s because I grew up in Chicago and was raised on the milk of “You can’t fight City Hall?”  Maybe it’s because I have seen bribes work and honest petitions fall on deaf ears?  Maybe I’m just a cynic at heart?  Maybe it’s true that a pessimist is what an optimist calls a realist?

Although we shall not go gently into that good night it appears we are in the twilight of our Republic and about to enter the sunset of liberty and the dawn of an America with a living constitution, a herd mentality, and a cradle-to-grave welfare state.  If the bell has not tolled yet it is about to.  Even if the Obama Zombies don’t flock to the polls as directed and return Nancy Polosi as Speaker of the House so that a one party state can drive the final nail in Columbia’s coffin, the swelling debt will eventually bring collapse.  This is of course the end result of the Progressive’s long march towards the realization of the Cloward-Piven Strategy for forcing political change through orchestrated crisis.  After the collapse these social planners believe they can impose any type of system they want on a public clamoring for relief.

Ready or not here it comes………………………..

So what can we do now that it has been done?

First of all we have to educate ourselves about American History and the principles of limited government.  Principles which formed the cornerstone for our two century experiment with personal liberty, individual freedom, and economic opportunity so that we can educate future generations about who we were and what we hope someday to be once again.  We can’t teach what we don’t know.

Then we have to build a library of books and DVD’s that tell the story of America.  For books look for reading lists at Tea Party sites, also check out conservative media people such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck for suggested readings.  For DVD’s the History Channel has produced many great series on such things as the Revolution, the Constitution, the Founders, etc.  Individually or in local groups create an asset that our people can use to immerse themselves in the heritage of freedom.

Finally we need to stay engaged in the political process.  Become involved with likeminded people and figure out what, where, and when is the best place for you to spend our political capital.  None of us is as smart as all of us so if we all look for the way back to limited government eventually a spark will be ignited that will burn with the intensity of a thousand suns and a new chapter in freedom will begin.

Until that time do what you can do.  It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness.

Keep the faith.  Keep the peace.  We shall overcome.

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion.  He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2013 Robert R. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com  Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens

The post A Slow Motion Revolution Gathers Speed appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

Sen. Rand Paul gives hope to the curly–haired.

The 40^th annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) held this week in National Harbor, just across the river from Washington, DC, did not appear to be a depressed gathering of Republicans and conservatives still reeling from last November’s presidential loss. There was friendly rivalry between supporters of Sen. Rand Paul (R–KY) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R–FL), but I saw no evidence of divisive infighting and vicious internal attempts to gain mainstream media publicity at the expense of fellow party members.

But then again an impressive contingent of off–duty police officers was probably more than enough to keep John McCain and Lindsey Graham from attending the conference.

The opening day of CPAC 2013 evolved into a faceoff between two potential Republican presidential candidates: the aforementioned Rand Paul and Marco Rubio.

Judging by the crowd’s reception, Paul was the winner.

Rubio — America’s foremost spokesman for regular hydration — did not address immigration, the issue he’s been most associated with this year. Instead the bulk of Rubio’s speech, once we got past the H2O jokes, was fairly standard — although he did touch on the call for a remodeled Republican party.

Rubio said the goal of the Republican Party should be to “create an agenda to apply our time–tested principles to the challenges of today” because average Americans are asking, “who is fighting for them?”

Specifically, Rubio believes the US should be the best place in the world to create middle–class jobs and to facilitate that the country must solve the federal government’s debt and spending problem. Republicans should stress pro–growth energy policies that include both oil and gas. On the home front, he wants every parent to have an opportunity to send their children to “the school of their choice.” And we need real heath care reform that empowers Americans so they can buy insurance from any company, regardless of where the company is headquartered.

The young senator also addressed leftist critics and predicted they will downplay his speech and claim that he didn’t offer any new ideas. “We don’t need a new idea. The idea is called America and it still works,” Rubio responded as the audience applauded.

It would have been the best conservative speech of the day, if Rand Paul had not made an appearance.

It was a standing–room only crowd that anticipated Paul’s appearance and it erupted in applause as he brandished the binders he used during his drone filibuster in the Senate and declared, “I was told I only had ten measly minutes, but just in case I brought 13 hours worth of information.”

Paul — who gives hope to the curly–haired since no one will ever call him ‘blow dried’ — began by explaining that the motivation for his filibuster was to question whether presidential power has limits: “We want to know will you or won’t you defend the Constitution?”

As an audience member called out, “Don’t drone me, bro!” Paul explained that the president’s good intentions are not enough. “No one person gets to decide the law,” he said. And that’s his philosophy in a nutshell: leaders must defend and abide by the Constitution even when it’s not convenient.

Paul then moved to compare his conservative philosophy with that of Obama’s, which has proven to be you can have your cake and eat your neighbor’s, too. He quoted Ronald Reagan who said, “As government expands, liberty contracts.”

With that in mind he proposed a five–year plan to balance the budget. Paul’s blueprint cuts the corporate income tax in half, creates a flat personal income tax of 17.5 percent, erases the regulations “strangling American business” and eliminates the Department of Education entirely giving the power and the money back to the states.

Paul observed without mentioning names that the GOP “of old has grown stale and moss–covered.” His new GOP will need a big tent because it will “embrace economic and personal liberty. Liberty needs to be the backbone of the Republican Party and I ask everyone who values liberty to stand with me.”

And the crowd did, giving him a standing ovation that easily eclipsed the response to Rubio’s earlier speech.

The post CPAC 2013 Stands With Rand appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

When I say criminals I am not just talking in the abstract; I am referring to real criminals.

According to a study from the online publication Capitol Hill Blue, the American people have elected a bunch of politicians that are better at breaking laws than making laws. America’s low information voters have chosen some real class acts to represent them.

Just how bad are some of our members of Congress?

29 members have been accused of spousal abuse, 7 have been arrested for fraud, 19 have been accused of writing bad checks, 117 have bankrupted at least 2 businesses, 3 have been arrested for physical assault, 71 have such bad credit that they can’t even qualify for a credit card, (yet with their special clearance as a member of Congress they get an Amex card without having a credit check.) 14 have been arrested on drug related charges, 8 have been arresting for shoplifting, and at least 84 members of Congress have been stopped for drunk driving but subsequently let go once they showed they were members of Congress.

If all that hasn’t made you lose your lunch this sure will.

According to the 2013 Congressional schedule, Congress will take 239 days off! That means they will only “work” 126 days of the year. If that wasn’t bad enough these hardly working, drunk driving, womanizing, bad credit, criminals get paid a minimum of $175,000 a year. Not bad for 126 days of so called work. They have worked themselves so hard that they don’t even have the strength to create a budget. The last time our dedicated public servants passed a budget was April 29, 2009. That is an unbelievable mind boggling 1,415 days without a budget, and counting.

This article’s intent is not to highlight the ineptness and unprincipled actions of our corrupt Congress; instead its purpose is to illustrate just how incidental and unnecessary Washington, DC has become. Former Republican Presidential nominee Rick Perry may not have been able to talk his way out of a paper bag; however he had the political will and courage to tell the American people that if he were to be elected President he would make Congress a part time job.

I couldn’t agree with him more. In fact, I’d like to take his suggestion a little further and dismantle Washington, DC altogether; and here is how we can do it.

We live in a virtual and digital society in which nothing seems impossible. The constant advancements in technology have created a very mobile society. We live in a world where you can start your car, turn the lights on and off in your house, and check your blood pressure, all by using your I-phone. There is no reason why Congress can’t conduct official government business from their respective state Capitols. Think about how much money they could save in travel expenses and housing alone?

With email, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, video conferencing, and websites such as gotomeeting.com; there is no shortage of technology that could be utilized to perform the everyday functions of Congress from outside of Washington, DC.

According to census.gov, 1 out of 10 workers over the age of 65 works from home. This is a growing trend that is only going to continue as more businesses look for ways to cut operating expenses and increase productivity. With so many older workers still in the workforce due to the Obama economy; many of these workers work from home.

Companies that employ workers who telecommute save on expenses such as office space, equipment, furniture, and supplies. Employees who work from home are able to save money on such expenditures as clothing, childcare, parking, and gasoline. Also, some studies have shown that workers who telecommute are more effective and efficient at their jobs than those who work in the office. Why not extend that same invitation to members of Congress?

According to statistics from the 112th Congress, the average age of a member of the House of Representatives is 57 years and the average age of a member of the Senate is 63 years. These folks should be required to work remotely from their respective states and only come into Washington a few times a month to cast votes.

Washington, DC is 68.3 square miles of influence, corruption, and centralized power. The only way to change Washington is to remove the influence, corruption, and power from it; and that starts with Congress. The only way to do this is by forcing members of Congress to not congregate permanently in Washington, DC.

A suggestion would be to pass a law in which no member of Congress is allowed to have permanent residence within 100 miles of Washington, DC. By doing this you automatically decentralize the influence and power, and make it harder for lobbyists and power brokers to influence fiscal policy. This is how you change Washington, DC.

To some who are reading this I understand it may sound a bit Orwellian. Telling free people where they can and cannot live may seem a little extreme. What is more extreme is having career politicians drunk with power spending future generation’s money on programs they can’t pay for. We are at a time in our nation’s history in which the only real solutions require real drastic measures.

The truth is that absolute power corrupts absolutely. If we take away Congress’s power we can return it to its rightful owners; we the people. Most Democrats who read this will think I’m crazy. Even some Republicans will think this is a bad idea; however most limited government Conservatives will love it. My only hope is that those members of Congress who believe in freedom, liberty, and limited government read my article and introduce legislation based on this idea. A good idea can only become a great idea when it is acted upon.

As a political strategist, commentator, and radio talk show host my job is to give solutions, not talking points. I may not always be right, but I am always thinking outside the box about different ways to make America a better, stronger, and freer country. If we are serious about saving this country and truly believe in a limited government it is time we put our money where our mouth is and dismantle Washington, once and for all.

Suggested by the author:
www.joshbernsteinpoliticalwriter.com
Dreams from my surrogate father
Now that Pope Benedict XVI has resigned who should replace him?
How the left uses identity politics and fear tactics to influence voters
The puppets of Pyongyang

The post Dismantling Washington appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

Summary: Our government’s runaway borrowing is risking runaway inflation.  One way We the People can limit that risk is to practice, in advance, the use of optional, alternative currencies — specifically those based on gold or silver coin and bullion.  Starting with coins in our pockets and moving to gold- and silver-bullion debit cards, it’s a way for the states to survive the Federal Reserve’s debasement of the dollar.  It’s legal, it’s Constitutional, and some states have already taken the first steps.

——————–

They just can’t help themselves.  Governments and their central banks around the world just can’t stop creating and printing new money at a pace that far exceeds their country’s production of new goods and services.  This is an open invitation to severe inflation, and it’s coming soon to a country near you — like the one you’re in now.

In America, a mushrooming entitlement state, a gargantuan debt that is rising exponentially, and a complicit Federal Reserve Bank are the culprits.  But similar practices are doing their damage in countries all around the world.  In Argentina, more advanced versions of America’s policies have have led to a currency inflation that is now raging at over 26% per year.  America may only be a few years behind Argentina.

This is serious stuff — really.  The world needs stable currencies because it is only money that makes it possible for human beings to deal with one another peacefully and voluntarily for mutual benefit.  Without it, the world would revert to coarse barter, theft, violence, chaos, and anarchy — followed swiftly by dictatorships.  (Read a related, modern-day, harrowing account from Bosnia at this link.)

As Ayn Rand’s character Francisco D’Anconia put it in Atlas Shrugged (1957):

So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another – their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun.
…
Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men’s protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. … Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it bounces, marked, ‘Account overdrawn.‘
…
When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns – or dollars. Take your choice – there is no other – and your time is running out.

(This is only a small excerpt from D’Anconia’s iconic “Money Speech”.  The full version is worth reading and re-reading — at least once per year.)

So what can citizens around the world do about irresponsible money supply expansion?  Complain?  Sign petitions?  Demand that new-money creation cease?  Demand that the money supply be rolled back?

Good luck.  In Big Governments everywhere, virtually all the incentives favor still more new-money creation, faster and faster, seemingly without limit.  After all, newly created money can pay off (“monetize”) government debts, buy votes with expanded social services, and reward cronies with contracts for everything from paper clips to aircraft carriers.

So what’s the harm in all this? 

The systemic harm is inflation. We all know that prices for gasoline, electricity, eggs, meat, bread, and other necessities have been rising, despite Big Government’s manipulation of the Consumer Price Index in a vain attempt to hide it.  For seniors, the purchasing power of a lifetime’s worth of retirement savings is bleeding away, slowly at present, but much faster in the future.  In the words of Paul Volcker, the former Fed chairman widely credited for clamping down on the runaway inflation of the 1970′s:

[Inflation is] a cruel and maybe the cruelest tax, because it hits in an unexpected way, in an unplanned way, and it hits the people on a fixed income hardest.

And yet Big-Government politicians, especially those that loudly proclaim to “care” about the poor and elderly, are implicitly robbing their citizens blind through the hidden tax of inflation.  And it’s only going to accelerate.

So — are we helpless?   In our earning years, of course, we can try to save more and invest our savings in ways that will try to keep pace with inflation. But if our own Federal Reserve Bank continues to produce new dollars at a rate that far exceeds the growth of new goods and services (GDP), severe inflation is virtually inevitable.

There is, however, something we can do as a fallback protection measure: prepare.

We can prepare for a currency crisis, and the devastation that may come of it, by having alternate, sound, competitive currencies already in circulation.  We can practice using those currencies ahead of time so that as citizens, we come to understand and accept alternate currencies.  And we can implement modern electronic means of using those currencies, thereby having the infrastructure all in place if and when inflation spirals out of control.

We can start small, on a state-by-state basis, with each state learning from the experience of others. One way would be to use already-existing silver and gold coinage from the US Mint.  For example look at the image (at right) of a sign posted in a general store.  There, the proprietor is offering to sell gasoline for only 20 cents per gallon, provided that payment is made in US coins minted in 1964 or earlier.  Wow — 20 cents per gallon?  Is the proprietor crazy?  At my local gas station in Arizona, today’s gasoline costs $3.97 per gallon!

It turns out that the proprietor is not crazy.  The silver content in two dimes, date-stamped 1964 or earlier, is actually worth more than $4.00.

Dimes, quarters, half-dollars, and dollar coins minted in 1964 or earlier have a silver content in troy ounces that is equal to 0.715 times the face value of the coin in dollars.

So two dimes have 0.715 x 0.10 x 2 = 0.143 troy ounces of silver in them.  As of the date of this writing, the spot price of silver is $28.58 per troy ounce.  Thus the silver value of those two old dimes is 0.1430 * 28.58 = $4.09.  If anything, the proprietor is actually charging a premium for his gasoline!

Is a transaction like this legal?  Yes, it is.  Under our Constitution, states can declare a currency legal in their state provided that the currency is “gold or silver coin.”  Article I, Section 10, “Powers prohibited of States”, reads as follows:

No State shall … coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; … 

Several states have already drafted or passed legislation that would explicitly (re)declare silver and gold coin to be legal tender within their state. In particular, in Arizona, the Senate has just passed Senate Bill SB1439 that would make gold and silver legal tender in Arizona.  The bill is mercifully short — barely half a page.  It includes these key features:

1. Unless expressly provided by contract, a person may not compel any other person to tender or accept gold or silver as payment.
2. The exchange of one form of legal tender for another does not give rise to liability for any form of tax.
3. Gold and silver coin or bullion is money and is not subject to taxation or regulation as any kind of property other than money.

Note that use of gold or silver would be completely voluntary, which is as it should be. Those who do not fear inflation and have full faith in paper Federal Reserve Notes (which are no longer backed by anything other than the paper they’re printed on), can go right on saving and spending their wealth that way.

So where can one find these old silver-content coins?  Not surprisingly, they disappeared from general circulation shortly after 1964, but they can still be purchased and sold as “junk silver” from many sources, including online sources.

Using these old coins is a good way to get started because it doesn’t require the states to mint any new coins. But it’s clumsy. The smallest US silver coin (the dime) is worth over $2.00 today, and the smallest US gold coin is worth over $150.  How does one make change?

The post Surviving Inflation with Silver/Gold Bullion and Debit Cards appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

So I turn to a story by Matt Connolly that makes me optimistic regarding the nation’s future. The headline reads, “Poverty rates plummet for D.C. Asians, Hispanics.” Now that is good news! In spite of a sluggish Obama economy, the American Dream is still available for those willing to work. Upward mobility is still possible. What’s more, less poverty means less need for big government welfare programs, which is always appealing to a small government conservative like myself.

According to Connolly, new census data shows “the percentage of D.C. Hispanics under the poverty line dropped from 20.5 percent in the 2000 census to 14 percent in the 2007 – 2011 average.” And in Maryland’s Prince George’s County the rate “dropped from 14.1 percent to 11.7 percent” in spite of the fact the overall Hispanic population more than doubled in that time period. In Fairfax County, VA and Montgomery County, MD the rate remained “relatively stagnant” but did not get appreciably worse.

Even better, “poverty rates for Asians…dropped across the board” plunging from 22.8 percent to 14 percent. More good news, even though the ingrates aren’t voting for Republicans — the people who keep your taxes low and try to grow the economy.

But then I made the mistake of turning to the WaPost and there I see a headline that complains, “Poverty rates higher for blacks and Hispanics than whites and Asians.” Damn, The Man is still keeping the pigmented people down! So much for my misplaced optimism.

Naturally I want to see where reporter Carol Morello came by this depressing evidence of conservative inhumanity to man. (After all it has to be our fault, since we are not in favor of Obama phones, Sandra Fluke’s rubbers and no–work–required welfare.) But wait, the data came from the exact same census report that Connolly persuaded me was packed with good news!

Instead of congratulating Asians for pulling themselves out of poverty, Morello implies they are now in league with The Man and it looks suspiciously like these calculator jockeys have forgotten all about minority solidarity and are trying to pass for white.

In fact, Morello says absolutely nothing about the reduction in poverty rates that Connolly found so newsworthy, and instead focuses on nationwide poverty rates and then singles out that noted economic basket case D.C.’s Ward 8 for black poverty numbers. Statistically this is like complaining about mortality rates in a mortuary.

So why is Morello such a Debbie Downer? American leftists and their cheerleaders in the mainstream media have a pigment problem: There’s a black man in the White House.

It’s becoming increasing difficult to condemn America as a hopelessly racist society when there is this black guy jetting around the country on Air Force One. Since the Marines are saluting him, he can’t be passed off as the butler. And how does one complain about institutional racism when a black guy is in charge of the institution? And how can Virginia be a bigot benighted outpost of the Confederacy when Obama carried the state twice?

A favorite MSM ploy is to pick and choose your statistics, which is the path Morello has chosen. Focusing on persistent black poverty in the abstract implies there is no upward mobility for blacks unless government steps in to make the situation “fair.” Yet black poverty is often a self–inflicted wound as black Prince George’s Councilman Mel Franklin points out in the WaPost “Root” section.

Franklin writes, “In short, no program, either government or nonprofit, can replace the void created by the absence of a good father in a household.

“Annually, as you probably know, over 70 percent of births in the black community nationwide are out of wedlock. Study after study demonstrates (and our common sense tells us) the dramatic effect that this collapse in our family structure has had on education, the economy and criminal justice outcomes for youth, especially the absence of a good father in his son’s household.”

Pointing out the harm black men and women do when they choose to bear children in the absence of marriage is not blaming the victim. You can criticize a suicide whether it’s physical or fiscal. And I compliment Councilman Franklin for pointing out the obvious. But I also note he was not quoted in Morello’s story.

Implying personal responsibility is not method of creating demand for more government. Leftists believe individuals are at the mercy of forces beyond their control, like a termite in a tidal wave, and the only source of help is government. And since leftists dominate the MSM, you get stories like Morello’s.

Which is why I only read the WaPost after I’ve been inoculated by the Examiner and the Washington Times. I suggest my conservative readers do likewise.

The post In the MSM Every Silver Lining Is Obscured by a Cloud appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

Has it always been this way?

At the dawn of the Republic our first Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton issued several reports which in many ways set the tone and pointed the way for the development of America in the economic sphere.  His first report on the public credit recommended that the new central government not only honor the debts contracted under the original government as established under the Articles of Confederation but that it also assume the war debts of the States.  This recommendation was followed by Congress and the Washington administration created what has evolved into a permanent national debt.

In 1790 Hamilton submitted his second report which asked Congress to charter the Bank of the United States.  Several aspects of the bank Hamilton proposed will sound familiar and it can be seen that they provided the mold for the Federal Reserve.  His plan was closely modeled after that used by Great Britain’s Bank of England.  According to Hamilton’s vision the Bank of the United States would be a public/private hybrid.  It would have an exclusive charter for twenty years.  Its initial capitalization would be ten million dollars consisting of eight million from private investors and two million from the government.  Congress would give the Bank the right to print paper money up to the ten million held in deposit.  Most importantly the central government would declare that the notes issued by the Bank would be the only notes which would be accepted in payment for taxes.  This would give the notes of the Bank of the United States credibility and value, which none of its state chartered competitors could match.  This was Hamilton’s proposal.  Now all he had to do was get it passed into law.

The report was introduced into Congress in 1790 and by February 1791 it passed both the House and the Senate and arrived on the desk of President Washington.  This is when the battle of the Titans really began.  Leading Anti-Federalists and strict constructionists such as James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Edmund Randolph, argued that the Constitution did not grant the government the power to incorporate a Bank.  According to their line of reasoning It was not an enumerated power and therefore it was reserved to the States or the people.  Those arguing for a strict interpretation of the newly minted Constitution, which Madison and Randolph had helped write, urged Washington in a written report not to sign the bill.

Ever the fulcrum between his philosophically divided advisors Washington presented Hamilton with the argument opposing his plan and asked him to present his argument in favor.  Hamilton using his excellent reasoning and communication skills presented President Washington with the original argument for the implied powers granted to the central government by the Constitution.  This report appealed to what is now known as the “Necessary and Proper” clause.  He argued that the government was inherently empowered to do whatever was necessary to implement the laws required to use the enumerated powers.  President Washington accepted Hamilton’s argument, signed the bill, and the first Bank of the United States was born.

Beginning on July 4, 1791the first thing the new Bank did was inflate a financial bubble by offering the largest initial stock offering the nation had ever seen.  Investors showed their confidence in Hamilton’s plan by quickly buying the options on the first issue of stock.  Many of these initial investors were members of Congress.  The initial price for the options was $25.  This was soon bid up to over $300.  It soon crashed to $150.  Thus within days of its first action this original central bank inflated a bubble that soon burst.  However, Secretary Hamilton setting the example for the central bankers to follow, stepped into the breach and averted a general financial panic by purchasing government securities with public funds thus stabilizing the markets and rewarding those who had initially speculated and “Too big to fail” was born.

The bank opened for business in December of 1791.  All manner of people, landowners, manufacturers, merchants, politicians, and most important of all, the government of the United States lined up to deposit money and to obtain the new Bank script.  Within months the Bank was the single largest economic enterprise in the nation.

Beginning a pattern that would be repeated over and over the bank which had been created to ensure a firm foundation for the American economy inflated another bubble and caused another crash.

First the Bank flooded the market with easy loans and a massive issue of paper dollars.  This move added liquidity pushing the new securities market into a sharp rise.  However, then the Bank reversed course and began calling in many loans.  Investors and speculators were especially affected as they were forced to sell securities to pay the loans.  When the largest of the speculators William Duer was forced to declare bankruptcy the markets collapsed.  This in turn caused the financial markets to freeze up putting a stop to much of the nation’s credit and commerce.  This is known as the Panic of 1792.  The crash didn’t last long, because Secretary Hamilton once again stepped in and bought government securities with public funds injecting much needed capital into the economy.

Over its 20 year life the first Bank of the United States functioned as the central bank.  It worked to regulate state banks, closing those that issued too much paper.  It attempted to guide the entire economy through its monetary and interest policies.  It coordinated all its branches up and down the east coast to project a united front in its economic policy by either tightening or loosening credit.

By the time it came for a renewal of the bank’s charter the Federalists were no longer in the seats of power and the newly ascendant Democratic Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson, defeated its bid for another twenty years, and the first bank of the United States, America’s initial experiment with central banking, was over.

Does any other country do this?

Yes, many other countries have central banks.  Today it is considered a hallmark of an advanced economy.

How did the Federal Reserve get its power over our currency and our economy?

There were subsequent attempts to re-establish central banking in the United Sates.  There was a Second Bank of the United States chartered in 1816, but after being blamed for a series of bubbles and crashes its charter was not renewed and it ceased operations in 1836.  In 1863 in the depths of the Civil War Congress passed the National Banking Act which chartered numerous Federal Banks.  This law also taxed paper money issued by State banks but not paper money issued by the Federal Banks giving them a decided advantage.

In 1913 the Federal Reserve System was born.  It established what is known as a decentralized central bank in that it has semi-autonomous branches.  It was given the power to control the currency, issue bonds, and set interest rates for those bonds.  It was established as a public/private concern and actually owned by stock holders.  Who are these stock holders?  They are private banks, and ownership of stock is required to participate in the system.  The system was instituted to provide the foundation for a stable banking industry and an elastic currency that could be used to smooth the rough edges of the business cycle.  Whether this latest experiment in American central banking has fulfilled its mission each citizen should judge for themselves.

Is the Federal Reserve constitutional or merely legal?

The first Bank of the United States was never challenged in court as to whether or not the government had the power to create a central bank.  But the second Bank was.   The Supreme Court in 1819 ruled in McCulloch v. Maryland that it was in fact constitutional due to the implied powers clause.  Thus looking to precedent, and unless the Supreme Court reverses itself, the Federal Reserve is considered to be authorized within the confines of the broadly interpreted Constitution.

There was an important constitutional issue born with the creation of America’s first Central Bank. With the birth of the First Bank of the United States the acceptance and use of implied powers became the central government’s method to expand its powers beyond those expressly delegated in the Constitution.   This in turn paved the way for our acceptance of things that are clearly unconstitutional just because they are legal.

The argument of Madison, Jefferson, and Randolph upholding a strict constructionist view would be codified and added to the Constitution in the same year the Bank was charted, and perhaps in response to it, in the 10^th Amendment, but this did not end the appeal to implied powers as a means to the government’s ends.  In theory this sounds good.  In practice it has turned our limited government into an out of control leviathan crushing the free out of our free market and sucking the liberty out of the American experiment.

As my favorite American philosopher, Yogi Berra once said, “In theory there is   no difference between theory and practice.  In practice there is.”

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion.  He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2013 Robert R. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com  Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens

The post Federal Reserve Constitutional or Merely Legal? appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

We are warned that in the event of sequester, massive TSA layoffs will result in airline passengers waiting up to three hours before they can be groped by a highly–trained government sex harasser. Slashing the budget by two cents on every dollar will also mean TSA guards won’t be changing rubber gloves between touchy–feely sessions.

Female passengers, who undergo nearly nude full–body scans, will be relieved to learn this drastic reduction torpedoes the ink budget. TSA can no longer afford to print particularly comely images for posting in the lunchroom. And since it’s too costly to store the pictures on government hard drives, TSA will ask remaining employees to work overtime and upload the images to their Facebook accounts for safekeeping.

According to the White House, you aren’t even safe on board the aircraft. Air traffic controllers will be awakened from their control tower naps and told to go sleep at home. The few remaining will be grumpy and sleepy, with a consequent slowdown in takeoffs and landings.

Assuming one gets in the air, passengers will be shocked to learn airlines will no longer offer free in–flight meals and instead expect passengers to pay handsomely for sandwiches wrapped and catered by 7/11. Wait, that’s already happened. Sorry, false alarm.

All in all it’s a horrible foretaste of privation and delay, yet not a single Republican Congressman is hanging from a lamppost. In fact there is so much indifference here that Obama has taken his nationwide Hyperventilation Tour on the road.

The reason for our calm in the face of the impending storm is that Metro, our local DC subway system, has essentially been sequestered for the past two years and life has continued. It’s more inconvenient, spontaneous and ad hoc — at least when it comes to arriving on time — but it is life.

I’ve long contended Metro is the only mass trans system run by an improv group, but now the passengers are joining in the fun. Take this week for instance: Tuesday morning on the Silver Line (this is DC, so everything has to do with money) crack Metro crews were testing equipment. As the WaPost reports, one of the brakes began to lock up. Like the spinster on the way to church who assumes a flat tire will heal itself, the crew continued operating the train trying to get off the track before rush hour or looming obsolescence caught up with them.

They didn’t make it. The wheel wore down to a nub, a pantoodler fell off and sliced through 60 cables and the system ground to a halt. The only thing left to do was call AAA and wait for the tow truck.

Metro officialdom predicted repairs would be complete by noon, but it took a total of nine hours. Metro sent alerts to passengers twice and then their thumbs got tired. So between 7 AM and 2 PM Metro passengers were on their own, which is a not uncommon condition. Then a train malfunctioned on the Yellow Line. There was a track problem on the Blue line. And another train shot craps on the Green Line.

And those are just the unplanned shutdowns.

The system regularly closes entire stations on the weekend and as a matter of fact the Reagan Airport station will be shut for three days beginning March 1^st. (I guess they figured what with the sequester and all, no one will be flying anyway.)

Metro limits the number of trains on holidays and shuts escalators for months at a time forcing passengers to trudge upward toward daylight from the bowels of the system. Recently on a single day Metro passengers suffered seven electronic thefts and every last one of them was during daylight hours! Thieves evidently rest during the night so they can read the manuals and learn how to download apps.

The reason Metro ‘service’ is such a gamble is management didn’t bother with routine maintenance for the past 15 or so years. I’m guessing the thinking was: We’re the government, what could go wrong? So current passengers pay for the mistakes of past incompetent management, a situation young people are soon to encounter with regard to Social Security taxes.

Frankly, I’m hoping the full effect of the sequester hits when the majority of members of Congress are out of town. That way if they can’t get back, they can’t resume spending.

The post We Were Sequestered Before It Was Cool appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

Ever since Obama got his clock cleaned by Paul Ryan in February 2010, he has tried his best to avoid repeating such embarrassments.  The president has little substantive knowledge and virtually no talent for anything outside of demagogic teleprompter arias.  He knows it, he knows his opposition knows it, and worst of all, he knows most Democrats now quietly suspect it.  If he were to preside at another such meeting over the sequester “cuts”, he would risk removing all doubt. Can you imagine him sitting there again with that deer-in-the-headlights look?  He simply can’t afford that.

So what’s a president, who rose to power by dodging responsibility at every turn, to do in this most recent self-inflicted dilemma?

It’s really easy. Just avoid responsibility once again!

Namely, Mr. President:

Call on Bill Clinton to run a bi-partisan negotiation of targeted “cuts” to the modest reduction in 2013 budget increases known as the “sequester.”

Why?  Just think of the advantages, Mr. President:

1. If Clinton succeeds, you can easily take credit for it, and the press will help.  After all, you will have chosen the right man for the job, no?  Brilliant!

2. If Clinton fails, it’s Clinton’s fault, not yours — at least not directly.  Your servile, supine press can easily cover that outcome too by blaming Republicans.  And you can join in.  No problem.  You do it all the time.

3. You don’t actually have to do much of anything — you won’t have to “bone up” on boring budget details or to learn how to manage a budget in a downturn the way any business owner has to do.  Just sit atop your lofty perch and offer occasional bland statements of confidence in the participants. Play some more golf. Just keep “voting present” and avoid any direct participation. You know what I mean. It’s your stock in trade.

4. Bill Clinton will love it.  He’s been pining to get back in the game for years, and this would do it for him — big time.  He could become a modern-day version of Henry Clay, aka the Great Compromiser.  I remember learning about Clay in a US History class taught from a traditional perspective — not the more modern proctological perspective of a Howard Zinn textbook.

5. After four years of your leadership style, most Republicans will welcome Bill Clinton.  His work on bipartisan welfare reform in the 1990′s was both brave and brilliant. It delivered real results, including self-sufficiency and self-respect for many former welfare recipients.  We’ve seen no Democrat leadership like that since.  It could work again.

6. Perhaps most important, you could delay once more your own defrocking as an ideological demagogue with no talent for leadership in a country that runs on free markets rather than “free stuff”.  You could continue your celebrity presidency unabated.  In other words, you could squeak by yet again.

Oh, to be sure, one day, some bold Democrats are going to proclaim that the emperor has no clothes (an especially apt metaphor in this case), and the whole thing is going to come crashing down on your head.  But there’s no need to risk hastening that process now, is there?

If Clinton does well with the sequester negotiations, treat the experience as a pilot test for even bigger negotiations like the debt ceiling, tax reform, and entitlements reform.  We could make some real headway, and you would surely benefit.

Are you still doubtful?  Conduct a private anonymous poll among Democrats and Republicans.  Ask how many would like the idea of having Bill Clinton be your surrogate in these crucial negotiations.  What do you think they’d say?

So save yourself, Mr. President.  And help the country.  Call on Bill Clinton!

The post Memo to Congress and the President: Call on Bill Clinton appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

Sequestration is nothing new, it first appeared in the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Act of 1985. Yet Obama is using it to scare people and make the Republicans look bad. Obama falsely claims the sequestration was Congress’s idea. PolitiFact.com analyzed that and other statements Obama has made about the sequestration and found them to be false or half-truths.

Obama wants to frighten Americans into believing the Republicans are about to shut down government again as happened in the 1990s. If sequestration takes place, he will claim that it could have been avoided if the Republicans had agreed to increase taxes. He is hoping that by declaring sky is falling scenarios, Congress will agree to pass tax hikes and avoid making some of the cuts. This would do nothing but postpone the problem again.

Although sequestration is described as drastic cuts, it will barely slow down the rate spending is increasing, cutting just 2.4 percent of total spending. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) told Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace, “It is a terrible way to cut spending, but not to cut 2.5 percent over the total budget over a year when it is twice the size it was 10 years ago? Give me a break.” Spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security represent over 60 percent of the federal budget, yet the sequestration will not touch them. Sequestration is merely a band-aid that does not address the bigger looming financial disaster of mandatory entitlement spending. During the summer of 2011, it seemed like Obama was going to agree to increase the age for Medicare eligibility, but has has since backed away from that position, pressured by liberal Democrats in Congress.

While it is good the Democrats are finally being forced to make cuts, since they control the Senate and the presidency, they are in charge of picking what gets cut. A study from George Mason University projects a loss of 2.14 million jobs if sequestration takes effect, and almost half of those would come from small businesses. Obama can pick and choose which cuts to make in order to make the Republicans look bad. Last week, Obama spokesman Jay Carney warned that the Border Patrol would be reduced, allowing more illegal immigrants to enter the country.

With the Democrats calling the shots on sequestration, defense spending will take the biggest hit. Half of the cuts will be made to defense spending. The Department of Defense will be required to cut its budget 11 percent each year. More than $500 billion in Pentagon cuts will kick in automatically, including a $46 billion cut between March 1 and October 1. This is pretty drastic considering defense spending leveled off after Obama took office, unlike the spiraling costs of Medicare and Social Security. The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments reports that around 108,000 defense civilian employees could lose their jobs this year if sequestration takes effect. Pentagon money chief Robert Hale warns, “Two-thirds of the Army active combat brigade teams, other than those that are currently deployed, would be at below acceptable levels of readiness. It could affect their ability to deploy to a new contingency, if one occurred, or if this goes on long enough, even to Afghanistan.”

Sequestration cuts will mean fewer federal food inspections, airport delays and government worker furloughs. Some cuts would be phased in over time, and certain items including Pell Grants, food stamps and the welfare program Temporary Assistance for Needy Families will be exempt from sequestration.

Many of the programs on the chopping block do need to be trimmed. These include grants for renewable energy research, the bloated Department of Justice with its politically motivated selective prosecutions, the Internal Revenue Service, the politically correct Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDCP), the overreaching Federal Drug Administration (FDA), a second welfare program for women and children, the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), and aid to foreign countries that simply goes into the pockets of ruthless dictators. The bloated Department of Education will be cut 7.8 percent cut this year, followed by smaller cuts in the future.

The sequestration should have cut more. Pell grants – free government money for students in college – should be axed. There are vast areas of waste within the Pentagon that need to be scrutinized. The Pentagon has never undergone a full audit, and continues to delay such efforts. Many government employees are overpaid and instead of temporary furloughs their salaries should be permanently decreased to market levels. Columnist Wayne Allen Root points out that “the average government janitor is paid $600,000 more over his lifetime than a janitor working in the private sector.”

This “dire”scenario is due to repeat itself again on March 27, when the Continuing Resolution that temporarily funds the government expires. As government is repeatedly forced to shrink in size, will Americans finally realize the Republicans were right about reducing the size of government, or will they continue to elect Democrats? The Democrats and liberal media have become so skilled at spinning fiscal crises to blame Republicans that the Democrats may remain in power, putting band-aids on the problem for years to come instead of fixing it.

The post The Sequestration Scare appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

Barry, Harry, and Nancy knew they had to take us through-the-looking-glass in four short years.  With no effective break on their power for the first two years, Congress moved so fast their yesterday became our tomorrow.  That tomorrow is now today.  The ruling party rammed their agenda through without one opposition vote.  Every revolution needs an emergency to justify radical surgery and the economy is the emergency available. Consequently, these descendants of FDR and LBJ shoved a raw deal down the throat of a great society.

Almost everyone is in agreement that the first stimulus failed.  According to MSNBC, “In January, Obama’s economic team predicted unemployment would rise no higher than 8 percent with the help of $787 billion in new government spending.”  However, according to the LA Times the unemployment rate in May reached a 25-year high of 9.4 percent.  The President may see glimmers of hope but Say-it Ain’t-So Joe said he couldn’t rule out a second stimulus telling us the administration which ran on the slogan, “The worst economy since the Great Depression” misread how bad the economy was.  How bad is it?  What’s worse than the Great Depression?  What’s their answer to this baddest of bad economies?  What’s their Plan B?  Try Plan A again, and again, and again?  I think what our leaders need as they drive the largest economy the world has ever known over the cliff is Economics 102, Macroeconomics or how an economy works.

Most people, including the best-government-money-can-buy, look at the economy as if it were controlled by magic having no idea where the rabbit goes or where the doves come from, and since I doubt I’ll convince any of our all-knowing leaders to enroll in freshman macroeconomics I want to offer a crash course in Economic Reality.

1. Government regulations distort markets and inflate bubbles.
2. Every generation experiences at least one bubble and at least one bust.
3. Every bubble bursts.
4. Every burst bubble is followed by a panic.
5. Panics inspire economic regulations.
6. Economic regulations reflect political ideologies not economic realities.
7. Economic regulations always regulate the excesses of the last bubble.
8.  Economic regulations are always blind to the excesses of the next bubble.
9. Since consumption is the purpose for production any economic regulation that ignores this fact always leads to the misapplication of resources and the misdirection of effort.

10. Depressions are recessions with government help.

11. It is impossible to spend yourself into prosperity.

12. It is impossible to tax yourself into prosperity.

13. Higher taxes lead to smaller revenue and black-markets.

The New Economy leads straight to the Second World, from freedom to conformity from capitalism to Obamanomics.  Instead of a fair race with the rapidly transforming economies of Asia, America runs hobbled like a child in a three – legged race strapped to the stiff-legged ideas of collectivism.

Why would our leaders want us economically hobbled?  What would they gain if we fall into the swamp of poverty engulfing most of the world?  Wouldn’t they be right there with us?  Go to any Second or Third World country and you’ll see the rich and powerful behind walls in gated-communities where they live in the First World while everyone else sits in the dust eating leaves.  In America, we avoided this fate with the growth of a massive middleclass.  Under assault with stagnant wages, rising prices, and disappearing jobs the middleclass is being outsourced.  How is this being accomplished?

Remember the mantra of the Clintons?  “It’s the economy stupid!” That’s still the Liberal’s strategy, riding like a flea on a rat cradle-to-grave social engineering in the guise of economic policy.  The Progressives drive the economy into the ditch all the while saying it is someone else’s fault and shrieking that we need more of what is causing the problem: bloated government and runaway spending.  A lack of basic economic understanding is destroying the greatest economy ever forged.  A zero sum game causes divisions and arguments about who gets what when we used to all strive for the same thing: success.

America is splintering as the melting pot becomes a smelting pot.  What is its cause?  The divisiveness of class-warfare encouraged by the only people who win through America’s split between red and blue, rich and poor, us and them.  Who are they?  If it isn’t us I guess it’s them.

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion.  He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2013 Robert R. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com  Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens

The post Economics 102 appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.