Cartoons of the Day

I'm pressed for time today. Here's a couple of items to hold you over while I scurry around doing errands.

This one is from Glenn McCoy.

And this from Michael Ramirez.

Y'all have a great day!

Continuing on the theme

I wrote about Culture Clashes yesterday. The struggle for supremacy between the "traditional" American culture, the statist/dependency culture and the invading islamic culture.  The expansion of that last culture is being actively aided and abetted by the statists.  They believe they can use islamics against the traditions that built this country.  So far, they have been successful because we, the members of that traditional culture have been complacent.

Continuing with this theme, I bring you a column written by Dr. Milton Wolfe, Obama's cousin.  The subject? Control Freaks and how they attack our traditional culture.

WOLF: Is this still America?

Control freaks assault the land of the free

By Dr. Milton R. Wolf - The Washington Times, Monday, February 27, 2012 

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction,” warned the late President Reagan. It’s probably a good thing the Gipper hasn’t been forced to witness what the current generation of authoritarian rulers has done to the land of the free and home of the brave.

Public schools in San Antonio have installed video cameras, not to monitor for foul play or intruders, but to spy on kids’ eating habits. Federal food police in North Carolina have begun confiscating preschoolers’ homemade lunches because they didn’t meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines. Aghast parents have noted that one 4-year-old’s confiscated lunch of a turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips and apple juice sounds more nutritious than the state-provided chicken nuggets. But that entirely misses the point. In America, parents are free to give their kids pizza and pudding with Twinkies and Twizzlers, and the government has no right to intrude.

Under the sweeping powers of Obamacare, the state has forced Catholic institutions to choose between their God and their government by demanding that they violate their own beliefs and provide birth control to their employees. Their insulting rationalization? Most Catholic women are bad Catholics and don’t follow the teachings of the church anyway. What’s more, the government has deified itself to determine which organizations are Catholic enough to be exempt. What’s next, mandated pork-chop night at the synagogues? Bacon should be a right.

Brace yourself; I’m just getting warmed up.

Armed federal agents of the Department of Education conducted a pre-dawn SWAT-style raid on the home of a Stockton, Calif., man. Read that again: The Department of Education has taken up arms against the citizenry. Meanwhile, federal Transportation Security Administration officials routinely grope our 6-year-olds and conveniently arrange that attractive women are subjected to their full-body porn cameras. Not even George Orwell’s 1984 dystopian police state went that far.

So the same federal government that waved the white flag in southern Arizona by posting signs warning American citizens to avoid American soil - effectively surrendering an 80-mile swath of our border to Mexican drug cartels - at least has the wherewithal to secure your child’s private parts.

But the heavy-handed authoritarians aren’t finished harassing your kids yet. Police officers in Midway, Ga., closed down three girls’ front-yard lemonade stand. Why? “We were not aware of how the lemonade was made, who made the lemonade, of what the lemonade was made with, so we acted accordingly by city ordinance.” Well, at least the enterprise-crushing control freaks can’t be accused of age discrimination.

Fortunately, the feds are concentrating on the most ominous threats against Americans: fresh dairy milk and the ruthless Amish farmers who push their addictive contraband. “I can’t believe in 2012 the federal government is raiding Amish farmers at gunpoint, all over a basic human right to eat natural food,” said one milk addict. Believe it.

Back to the Golden State. Los Angeles County control freaks made a quick about-face after declaring that throwing a football or a Frisbee on the beach would result in a $1,000 fine. So would digging a hole in the sand. Quick - confiscate those plastic pails! Control freaks in the California Legislature, you may recall, recently attempted to mandate the use of government-controlled thermostats in homes and businesses. Why not? 

President Obama, the control freak in chief, once decreed: “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times.” Well, not with Democrats in charge, anyway.

Power-grabbing Democrats always promise if we give them the power to control our lives, they will use it only in times of emergency. Of course, emergencies are in the eye of the beholder, and dictatorial power for control-freak Democrats is like whiskey was for 20th-century comedian W.C. Fields: “Always carry a flagon of whiskey in case of snakebite and furthermore, always carry a small snake.” Democrats will make sure there’s a snakebite soon enough.

Our land of the free is under assault by control freaks, most of whom call themselves “pro-choice” but simply don’t trust you to choose your own light bulbs, salt intake or home thermostat settings. They even want to regulate how much methane gas your cow can expel. One wishes politicians were as concerned with debt reduction as bovine flatus.

Reagan warned of freedom lost: “We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States, where men were free.”

But there have been some victories for our side in this culture war, a step backward in the statists' attrition of our basic rights.

GREEN: Right to refuse

Conscience-case victory contradicts contraceptive mandate

By Anneke E. Green - The Washington Times, Monday, February 27, 2012

Religious organizations fighting the Department of Health and Human Services‘ (HHS) contraceptive mandate should take heart from Wednesday’s federal district court ruling in Stormans v. Selecky. Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire and her Planned Parenthood cronies were defeated in their campaign to compel pharmacies and their employees to choose between their religious beliefs and their livelihoods.

Judge Ronald Leighton found unconstitutional a State Board of Pharmacy rule targeting pharmacists with conscience objections to dispensing Plan B and ella, the so-called “morning after” and “week after” pills. These drugs are in the same heap of free contraceptives/abortifacients that HHS is forcing all insurance plans to cover along with sterilizations to female policyholders. Like pharmacists in the Evergreen State, faith-based employers are being told to abort their religious convictions or face serious penalties. In his legal opinion accompanying the ruling, Judge Leighton asked the million-dollar question: “Can the state compel licensed pharmacies and pharmacists to dispense lawfully prescribed emergency contraceptives over their sincere religious belief that doing so terminates a human life?” The Obama administration says yes.

In announcing his purported compromise on the mandate, President Obama painted the issue as a choice between “individual liberty and basic fairness for all Americans” that he refused to make. By requiring insurance companies to pay for services religious organizations find abhorrent, he thinks he found a way around the pesky conscience objections. But “this putative accommodation is … no accommodation at all,” Rabbi Meir Soloveichik of Yeshiva University told Rep. Darrell Issa’s House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on Feb. 16. “The religious organizations would still be obligated to provide employees with an insurance policy that facilitates acts violating the organization’s religious tenets.”

Though Rabbi Soloveichik’s religion doesn’t prohibit contraceptive use, he has joined other religious leaders in opposing the mandate because of its threat to every American. “The policy is an unconscionable intrusion by the state into the consciences of American citizens,” C. Ben Mitchell, a professor of moral theology at Union University, explained to the committee. “Contrary to portrayals in some of the popular media, this is not just a Catholic issue. All people of faith - and even those who claim no faith - have a stake in whether or not the government can violate the consciences of its citizenry.”

...

Stormans v. Selecky found that the state cannot require conscience-violating obedience from the religious minority. The Obama administration is forcing a constitutional showdown between its radically coercive ideology and the right to individual liberty upon which this nation was founded. Our freedom hangs in the balance.

The facetious argument from Obama is that insurance will provide these service. But just who pays for that insurance? The churches and other religious organizations that oppose these edicts that violate their Church teachings. Instead of forcing the religious organization to provide contraceptive and abortion services, Obama will just force them to pay for those services instead. What difference does that so-called compromise provide?
 

None.
 

The time for complacency in these culture clashes are over. It's now time to response, seize the offensive and take our country back.

Culture Clashes

In his sermon yesterday, my Pastor mentioned something that triggered a stream of thoughts.  In passing, he mentioned Tradition and adherence to Old Testament Law.  He said more than once that repeated actions will eventually become a tradition and with other traditions can create cultures.

We have examples of three cultures, in conflict, here in the United States.  Eventually, one of those cultures will rise to supremacy.

The first culture is one that, in the past, was recognized by the old slogan, "Mom, Flag, and Apple Pie."  It was the native American culture of Independence, Individualism, Family, Love of the Constitution, and the free worship of God.  That culture is under attack by the other two.

The second culture had its roots in the writings of Marx and Engels.  In the United States, its first appearance was the formation of unions and unionism in the late 19th Century.  Granted there were many justified reasons for the early unions, but the unions quickly merged their agendas to be concentrated attacks on the free market economy and capitalism.  My family was involved in those early days.  My Grandfather, Uncles, and Father were all miners.  My Grandfather and Father were stewards in the United Mine Workers of America. As the power of the central union grew, the aims, needs and purposes of the local unions were subordinated to the anti-business agenda of the central union.

After a lifetime involvement in the union, my Grandfather and Father withdrew.  Unions have been infiltrated and absorbed by that second culture.  Today, we see the strength of that second culture in the dependency class---those 49.5 percent of the people who are dependent on the largess of government in one form or another.

There is a third culture that has appeared in this country in the latter half of the 20th Century.  It is ignored for the most part by the dependency culture. They don't see any real conflict between the two because they don't see any areas of mutual contact.  Instead, when conflicts between the third and first cultures arise, the second culture sides with the third.  They follow that old adage, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." In some areas of the country, that alliance is becoming more visible.

Case in point. The second and third cultures do not believe nor support the Constitution.  The second culture views the Constitution as an impediment to their agenda. The third culture views the constitution as irrelevant and contradictory to their culture. Frequently the second and third cultures join forces attacking the first. The most common point of attack is against the First Amendment.

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

The third culture detests freedom of speech.  They attempt to suppress it at every opportunity.  The second culture detests the free expression of religion---specifically Christian beliefs because those beliefs don't support dependency but promote self effort and individualism.  

Together, these two cultures violate that portion on the First Amendment concerning the establishment of religion.  I say that because they now use the "rule of law," or rather the Rule of Judges to promote a specific religion.

Islam.

Pennsylvania Judge Throws Out Charge For Harassing Atheist While Calling The Victim A Doofus

There is a surprising story out of Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania that seems the perfect storm of religious tensions. You begin with Ernie Perce, an atheist who marched as a zombie Mohammad in the Mechanicsburg Halloween parade. Then you add Talaag Elbayomy, a Muslim who stepped off a curb and reportedly attacked Perce for insulting the Prophet. Then you have a judge (Judge Mark Martin) who threw out the criminal charges against Elbayomy and ridiculed the victim, Perce. The Judge identifies himself as a Muslim and says that Perce conduct is not what the First Amendment is supposed to protect. [UPDATE: The judge says he is not a Muslim despite what is heard by most listeners on the tape. That being the case, the criticism of the comments remains.]
...
The case, however, then went to District Judge Mark Martin who not only threw out the charge of harassment but ridiculed Perce as a “doofus.” He also proceeds to not only give an account of his own feelings (and say that he was offended personally by Perce’s action) but suggests that Elbayomy was just protecting his “culture.” (Emphasis mine: Crucis) The judge not only points to the Koran in the courtroom but his time in Muslim countries as relevant to his deliberations. Putting aside the problem of ruling in a case where you admit you have strong personal feelings, the lecture given on the first amendment is perfectly grotesque from a civil liberties perspective.

This is not the most egregious example. It's just the most recent. Mr. Perce, although an avowed atheist, was expressing a belief using his First Amendment rights.  Judge Martin and Mr. Elbayomy violated the First Amendment twice.  That is a direct attack against the Constitution and against the first culture.  The second and third cultures ignore and refuse to recognize that the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not Sharia law, nor the Koran.

These culture clashes will continue and grow in strength.  We are already at a crux between the first and second cultures. The coming election in November will be crucial in determining if the first culture, the one of traditions of reverence towards the Flag, Family, Freedom and personal beliefs against the second culture of dependency, statism, corruption and tyranny.

We see the second culture, the culture of the liberals and the dependency class, build traditions, expanding their culture that is contradictory to the native traditions of the first culture.  We all have a dog in this fight. We ignore these clashes at our peril.                 

Friday Follies for February 24, 2012

Gas Prices: A refinery fire in Washington state is the trigger, so says news sources, for the recent spike in retail gas prices. A fire last Friday at the BP Cherry Point site at Blaine, WA, is the trigger for the increases.  Gasbuddy.Com, a website that tracks gas prices across the country, says the fire halted production at the site.  The BP Cherry Point refinery produces 90% of the transport fuel for the west coast.

This weekend a major fire that started Friday at the BP Cherry Point Refinery in Blaine, Washington has left the refinery unable to take in its daily intake capacity (230,000 barrels per day), much of which arrives from Alaska. Approximately 90 percent of the crude oil refined there emerges as transport fuels making it the largest marketer of gasoline and jet fuel on the West Coast.

...

The refinery is on a massive sprawl of 3,300 acres and was built in 1971, making it one of the newer refineries in the U.S. Until this weekend, it was producing 3.5 million gallons of gasoline; 2.5 million gallons of jet fuel; and 2.2 million gallons of diesel per day. -- GasBuddy.com

The suddenly cut in production was felt across the country.  West Virginia saw a $0.20-0.30 per gallon jump reports the West Virginia Gazette.

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- Gas prices in Charleston rose between 20 and 30 cents per gallon on Wednesday.

According to Gasbuddy.com, a company that tracks gas prices at more than 140,000 gas stations in the United States and Canada, gas prices at most stores in the area were between $3.49 and $3.58 early in the day and had risen to $3.79 and above by late afternoon.

Jan Vineyard, president of the West Virginia Oil Marketers and Grocers Association, said the cost from one of the area's major suppliers went up 15 cents for gas stations, causing the higher prices. -- WVGazette.

The West Virginia report also blames the crises with Iran and the transition to summer blends contributing to the increased prices.

Locally, here near KC, we could expect another ten to twenty cent increase in our gas prices before the weekend according to GassBuddy.  The price here has already risen twenty to thirty cents just this week.

***

My wife and I hit 65 this year.  Like it or not, we're being forced to sign up for Medicare.  My former employer only provided health insurance until we reach 65. At that point we're dropped and expected to join the Medicare crowd.  Frankly, I couldn't afford to stay with my employer's health plan, it was costing me $1400/mth.  Up to this point, the cost was covered by a savings fund created when I was working.  Contributions to that fund ended years ago with the merger of Sprint and Nextel.  Sprint had a pension plan, Nextel didn't.  After the merger, Sprint didn't have a pension plan either.

The survival and efficiency of Medicare is an interest for us. A vital interest you might say.  There have been several Medicare reform plans submitted recently.  One, the abomination called Obamacare, is now the law of the land if it isn't repealed.  Obamacare will replace Medicare.  Oh, the name Medicare will continue but the fact is with Obamacare Medicare will cease as it currently exists.

Paul Ryan submitted a plan last year.  The left went into a frenzy over it.  It was a good plan but some better ones have emerged since.

Burr-Coburn: The Best Medicare Reform Proposal Yet

Many politicians (and many voters) duck the hard choices when it comes to Medicare reform. But what’s remarkable about the past year is that, in some ways, momentum appears to be building for real improvements to the program’s quality and sustainability. Based on a new proposal from Sens. Richard Burr (R., N.C.) and Tom Coburn (R., Okla.), the impossible seems within reach: the triumph of sound policy over interest-group politics.

...

If Wyden-Ryan and Lieberman-Coburn got together to do what many people did on Valentine’s Day, Burr-Coburn would be the result.

I’d previously called Wyden-Ryan a “game changer” for its utilization of two key reform principles, premium support and competitive bidding. Lieberman-Coburn hits the other key principles of reform, including cost-sharing and fraud prevention. As I wrote last June,

I have a lengthy essay in the Summer 2011 issue of National Affairs on Medicare reform, entitled “Saving Medicare from Itself.” In it, I discuss six core concepts for real Medicare reform: (1) preserving benefits for people aged 55 and older; (2) making sure that retirees share more of the costs of their care, and thereby a stake in prudent consumption; (3) means-testing; (4) indexing the Medicare retirement age to life expectancy; (5) aggressive fraud prevention; (6) allowing seniors to shop for value in insurance plans. The Lieberman-Coburn bill hits on many of these points in a way that well complements Paul Ryan’s premium support proposal.

Wyden-Ryan hits (1) and (6), while Lieberman-Coburn hits (2) through (5). Together, they comprise the most complete Medicare reform proposal, using bipartisan policy principles, that has yet been put together.

The plan includes these elements.

Premium support and competitive bidding

Burr-Coburn incorporates something quite similar to the Wyden-Ryan system of competitive bidding and premium support, in which retirees would be able to choose among private plans and a “public option” of traditional Medicare.

...

One key difference between Burr-Coburn and Wyden-Ryan in this regard is that Burr-Coburn implements competitive bidding and premium support in 2016, not in 2022. On the plus side, this six-year difference has a huge impact on the long-term cost savings of Burr-Coburn.

Increasing the retirement age

As with Lieberman-Coburn, Burr-Coburn gradually increases the Medicare eligibility age from 65 today to 67 in 2027. This will allow Medicare’s eligibility age to match that of Social Security.

Improving the Medicare benefit

One thing that most people don’t realize is that Medicare, designed in 1965, has significant gaps and flaws in the design of its insurance benefit. Medicare doesn’t cover catastrophic costs, forcing many seniors to buy supplemental Medigap plans for their own protection, and giving providers perverse incentives to favor expensive hospitalizations over more efficient outpatient care.

Burr-Coburn would combine Medicare Part A (hospitalization) and Part B (outpatient physician services) into a single deductible, with a unified deductible of $550, co-insurance of 20 percent of costs until a retiree had spent $5,500, co-insurance of 5 percent until he had spent $7,500, and full coverage above $7,500.

Means-testing

Burr-Coburn requires greater cost-sharing for people with higher incomes: a far superior solution to raising taxes to subsidize these individuals. Those with incomes above $85,000 as individuals or $170,000 as married couples would be subject to a higher cap on out-of-pocket costs: $12,500 instead of $7,500.  For those with incomes above $107,000 individual or $214,000 family, the cap would be higher ($17,500) and even higher ($22,500) with those making $160,000 as individuals or $320,000 as married couples.

In addition, the plan would charge lower Medicare premiums to lower-income seniors, and higher premiums to higher-income retirees.

Cost-sharing reform

One of the worst aspects of Medicare is the way it is almost intentionally designed to waste money. Medigap plans are a big part of this, by providing private-sector supplemental coverage that undermines Medicare’s ability to incentivize seniors to be mindful of wasteful medical spending.

Flattening the “doc fix”

One of the worst and most persistent problems with federal budgeting has been the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate, a global cap on the growth of Medicare payments to doctors and hospitals.

Because the global cap doesn’t keep up with the rise in the cost of health care, and provides no incentive for doctors and hospitals to be more efficient in the way they provide care, Congress has had to routinely step in with “doc fix” legislation that jacks up Medicare spending.

Repeal IPAB, Obamacare’s Medicare rationing board

Obamacare’s vision of government-rationed health care was on full display with the enactment of its Medicare Independent Payment Advisory Board, a new bureaucracy that seeks ultimately to control which treatments seniors can receive, based on the board’s view of their cost-effectiveness.

There are several problems with this approach, despite its enduring appeal to central planners. First is that rationing has done nothing to control the growth of health spending, as Britain has shown. In addition, “cost-effectiveness” is subjective, and imposes a one-size-fits-all formula on a diverse country of 300 million people, who respond differently to different treatments. (For more on this topic, see my report on my appearance before Congress at an hearing on IPAB.)

Burr-Coburn repeals IPAB and replaces it with a system that allows seniors to voluntarily chose the benefits and plans that best suit their needs.

Is Burr-Coburn the best solution? No. It is significantly better than what we have and more so with what we'll get with Obamacare.  What it is, is a good start.  I've heard many conservatives complain about the Bush Prescription Drug plan. What those conservatives fail to see is that it works.  In fact it is the only Medicare segment that uses market forces to control costs. It works.

My wife and I are in a gap at the moment. My retiree heath insurance ended in December. My Medicare won't start until March, May for Mrs. Crucis. At the moment we're paying our own insurance.  I've found that catastrophic insurance isn't too bad, about $150 for the two of us each month. Our prescription drugs aren't too high either due to the price pressure from the Bush Subscription plan. It does make us watch our medical expenses and plan what should be done, what must be done, and what we can skip.

All-in-all, that's a good thing.  It makes me wonder how much medical costs would drop if we repealed Medicare all together?  It's an idea to consider.

Events and Issues

Quote of the Day: "First of all, let's not forget that four years ago, well after Romneycare was put into place, four years ago you not only endorsed me, you went on Laura Ingraham and said, 'this is the guy who is really conservative and we can trust him.' Let's not forget that you said that," Mitt Romney said to Rick Santorum at tonight's debate in Arizona after the former Penn. Senator questioned the former Governor's conservative credentials.  -- GOP Debates, Mesa, AZ, February 22, 2011.

Romney finally admits he isn't a conservative. Else, why would he attack Santorum's conservative credentials by attacking Santorum's endorsement of Mitt Romney in the 2008 campaign?  Only if you think that Santorum was endorsing Romney's non-conservatism.

In either case, I don't see how Romney can win that particular argument.

***

Half of the people in the U.S. didn't pay any income tax last year. Well, make that almost half, 49.5% according to reports. These are the folks dependent on government either through the various welfare programs or through the "Earned Income Tax Credit."  I've heard one description of the Earned Income tax scheme as the Negative Income Tax. The Negative Income Tax is were the government pays you for not working.  Oh! Wait!  That's welfare isn't it?

HALF of Americans don't pay income tax despite crippling government debt

151.7m people - 49.5% of the U.S. population - paid no federal income tax in 2009, figures show

By Daily Mail Reporter Last updated at 11:21 PM on 22nd February 2012

Only half of U.S. citizens pay federal income tax, according to the latest available figures.

In 2009, just 50.5 per cent of Americans paid any income tax to the federal government - the lowest proportion in at least half a century.

And the number of people outside the tax system could have climbed even higher since as the economic downturn has continued to bite and unemployment has remained high.

 

These are the people Obama is depending upon to win his re-election for a second term in the White House.

***

Sellout?  During the debates last night in Mesa, AZ, Ron Paul appeared to be tag-teaming with Romney against Rick Santorum.  There have been rumors for awhile of a possible deal between Romney and one of the other GOP candidates to nail down Romney's nomination for President.

Now it appears a deal has been made.  Ron Paul focuses his attacks on Rick Santorum, diverting attention from Romney's faults and flip-flops, and in return Ron Paul's son, Rand Paul, is Romney's pick for Veep.  I guess it's one way for a Paul to get into the White House. Ron Paul certainly won't.

Rand Paul says ‘it would be an honor to be considered’ as Romney’s veep (this explains a lot)

By Matt K. Lewis February 22, 2012

On Wednesday, Chuck Todd, NBC News’ political director and host of MSNBC’s “Daily Rundown,” rhetorically asked: “Just what has Romney promised Ron Paul.”

Nobody knows if some sort of bargain has been made, but it is interesting that Rep. Ron Paul has never really attacked Mitt Romney, yet he has frequently attacked more conservative candidates at just the moment they were beginning to pose a threat to Romney. (For example, consider his latest ad, attacking Rick Santorum.)

The timing has been noticeable.

Now, a Kentucky media outlet, WFPL News, might be offering us a clue:

Kentucky’s junior senator says it would be an honor to be considered as a possible running mate for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

… After a speech in Louisville today, [Sen. Rand] Paul held that door firmly open, saying he wants to be part of the national debate.

… “I don’t know if I can answer that question, but I can say it would be an honor to be considered,” he said.

Of course, this could be much ado about nothing — just a politician answering a question. On the other hand, it is sure to spark more speculation that some sort of deal may be in the works between the Romney and Paul camps. It’s not as if Ron Paul’s campaign hasn’t stoked speculation. As the Dallas Morning News reported, Paul’s national campaign chairman, Jesse Benton, recently said: “Any Republican should have Rand Paul on his short list.”

On the surface, tapping Paul as veep might not make sense. But conservatives are refusing to go along and eat the dog food with Romney — and adding Rand Paul to the ticket would fire conservatives up – and ensure that Ron Paul drops any plans to launch a 3rd party challenge. And just imagine if Romney arrives at the GOP convention needing some of Paul’s delegates to win the nomination?

It’s not an absurd idea.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/22/rand-paul-says-it-would-be-an-honor-to-be-considered-as-veep-this-explains-a-lot/#ixzz1nDjU7c1v

No, it isn't an absurd idea at all.

Sarah Hoyt Rants

Today's post will be short.  In fact, it's a link to an essay written by Sarah Hoyt and I think it needs wider distribution.  I met Sarah Hoyt a number of years ago at a SF convention.  She's a member of Baen's writer stable, most of whom are very conservative with the exception of a single avowed Marxist (who writes using conservative values!)

With that introduction follow this link and read Sarah Hoyt's rant about the current liberal attack.

Dispatches From Different Wars

February 19, 2012 7:28 pm - Author: Sarah

Tuesday's Topics

GOP 2012:  Ron Paul visited KC this last weekend. It was during the same period as the KC Republican Lincoln Days session but I don't know if Paul appeared at that gathering.  But, from reports, he did gather a large group, a thousand or more depending on which source you read.

A few days ago, on CNN, Paul made this statement about social issues.

Crowley asked Paul. "Are you uncomfortable with this talk about social issues? Do you consider it a winning area for Republicans in November?"

"No," said Paul. "I think it's a losing position.  -- CNSNews.

My immediate thought when I read this statement was---Loser.  Paul is so far from the conservative arena that it isn't visible from whatever planet he's currently orbiting.  His foreign policy is a joke, he's so narrow focused on one topic, smaller government, that he ignores all the other issues that are serious concerns for the survival of the country.  I agree with his views on a smaller and restricted federal government but there is more that we have to battle than just that single subject.

Like I said, "Loser."  Paul is the one GOP candidate that could cause me to skip checking a box for President when I vote next Fall.  He's as dangerous for the country as Obama.  Paul is dangerous in different areas, to be sure, but the end result would still be the same as Obama, make our country vulnerable to attack from outside, emasculating our military, and the increased probability of war. Those issues would tie him in knots and he'd never get to address reducing the size of government.  

It's the Bush Conumdrum.  What would have happened in 2001 if 9/11 hadn't occured.  We'll never know, but I doubt we would have had the massive spending needed to support the War on Terror.

***

The Cold War is returning.  Putin plans on spending $770 Billion to upgrade and refit the Russian military.

Putin to pump $770 billion into Russian military

Read more at: http://times247.com/articles/putin-to-pump-770-billion-into-russia-s-military

AP by: AP

Monday, February 20, 2012

Read more at: http://times247.com/articles/putin-to-pump-770-billion-into-russia-s-military

Russia needs to modernize its military arsenals to deter others from grabbing its resources, Russia's Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said in an article published Monday. ...

"We mustn't tempt anyone with our weakness," Putin wrote in the government daily Rossiyskaya Gazeta.

Putin said the government plans spending about $770 billion over the next decade to purchase more than 400 intercontinental ballistic missiles, more than 600 combat aircraft, dozens of submarines and other navy vessels and thousands of armored vehicles.  Read the original article at AP

Read more at: http://times247.com/articles/putin-to-pump-770-billion-into-russia-s-military

Obama and Hilliary want to help Putin pay for this expansion while shrinking our own military. Just how would Obama and Hilliary help Putin?  This is how.

Will U.S. give Russia energy-rich Alaskan islands?

WorldNetDaily by: Joe Miller, Friday, February 17, 2012

Read more at: http://times247.com/articles/obama-must-stop-alaskan-islands-giveaway

Obama’s State Department is giving away seven strategic, resource-laden Alaskan islands to the Russians. Yes, to the Putin regime in the Kremlin. ... The seven endangered islands in the Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea include one the size of Rhode Island and Delaware combined. The Russians are also to get the tens of thousands of square miles of oil-rich seabeds surrounding the islands. The Department of Interior estimates billions of barrels of oil are at stake.

The State Department has undertaken the giveaway in the guise of a maritime boundary agreement between Alaska and Siberia. Astoundingly, our federal government itself drew the line to put these seven Alaskan islands on the Russian side. But as an executive agreement, it could be reversed with the stroke of a pen by President Obama or Secretary Clinton.

The agreement was negotiated in total secrecy. The state of Alaska was not allowed to participate in the negotiations, nor was the public given any opportunity for comment. This is despite the fact the Alaska Legislature has passed resolutions of opposition – but the State Department doesn’t seem to care.  Read the original article at WorldNetDaily.

Read more at: http://times247.com/articles/obama-must-stop-alaskan-islands-giveaway

Read more at: http://times247.com/articles/obama-must-stop-alaskan-islands-giveaway

Obama won't let us drill for oil in our off-shore and inland territories but he will give it away to one of our most dangerous enemies. Just who are Obama and Hilliary working for?  It appears to be everyone who is an enemy of the United States.

Perhaps in return, Hilliary will be made head of the World Bank.

World Bank President Robert Zoellick has announced to step down from at the end of his five-year-term in June, giving rise to speculation that the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, may be headed to replace him, which was immediately denied by her aide. 

I smell payoffs in the air.      

The Monster

She stood in the doorway and observed the room.  She had been here many times and knew it lurked here. She had felt its presence before.

She crossed the room, walking slowly. Watching, looking into the corners and shadows.  Reaching the bed, she hesitated a moment. The end tables were the same. The lamp on the right table was lit.  It all appeared to be as usual but she felt the monster's presence.

The coverlet on the bed had been removed, the blanket and sheet folded down.  All seemed quiet.

With a sigh, she sprawled on the bed, stomach down, head up.  Perhaps this would bring the monster forward, into the open where she could reach it. Maybe this time she could end the monster.

Her eyes narrowed.  There was a movement at the end of the bed. She knew the headboard was solid. What had caused that small quiver?  She shifted slightly. Ready to lunge and seize it if it appeared into the open.  She didn't know where it came from, nor how it could slip silently around the room. Through the wall?  She didn't know. There was so much she didn't know about the monster. Still it was her duty to make the attempt.

She heard footsteps coming down the hallway. A few more steps and he appeared.  He gave her a momentary look and walked towards the bed.  His steps were solid and he strode to the bed and spoke.

"Here you are.  Watching again?"

She didn't respond other than a quick glance. Her attention was focused, eyes and ears alert.

The moment ended and with it her attention. She could sense the monster slipping away. She would return later to her vigil, tonight or tomorrow. She was patient.

He bent and ran a hand down her back, stroking her lightly. Her fur was silky under his hand.

"No pillow monster tonight, Snowflake."

Snowflake

We're Going!

Mrs Crucis and I counted our pennies and decided we had enough to go.  Where, you ask?  To St. Louis for the NRA Annual Meeting, of course.  

The last time we went was when the Annual Meeting was held here in KC.  It's been a long time.  This time we're going to see some of the events we missed before.  Then, I was working full time and our daughter was young.  We couldn't afford much then.  It's different now.

No Post Today

See you next week.

Separation of the Establishment from their core

Once again, the 'Pub establishment in Washington has sold out to the democrats.  It's political posturing of course, but when the results coincides with the democrat agenda, what advantage is gained?

None.

The 'Pub establishment has rolled over again.  They've joined the democrats on extending unemployment and the reduction of Social Security contributions.  That means more and more debt. What difference is there between John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi?  I'm not seeing much. The end results are the same.

I'm not the only one questioning these acts. The editorial below just appeared on the Investor's Business Daily editorial page.

GOP Trades Principle For Politics With Tax Deal

Posted 02/15/2012 06:39 PM ET

Tax Deal: Republicans are being lauded for their political savvy in agreeing to extend the payroll tax cut and jobless benefits for another year without paying for it. Well, it may be good politics, but it's bad on principle.

...

Without action by Congress, the payroll tax cut would have expired at the end of February. Republicans knew they would be tarred by the Democrats and the mainstream media — is there really any difference? — for "raising taxes" on 160 million Americans when it did.

So instead of opposing it, as they did last year, the GOP went along with Democrats to extend it.

...

The big problem with this is that it adds $100 billion to the deficit and won't be offset by cuts elsewhere. It moves up the bankruptcy of the Social Security system, while adding another $100 billion to our debt — all for a benefit worth less than $20 a week to average workers.

This is political pandering at its worst. And as we noted earlier this month, a new study of industrial nations finds that payroll tax cuts don't boost the economy. Personal income tax cuts and business tax cuts do, but Obama and the Democrats want to raise those.

So we're spending $100 billion for what? Politics.

To their credit, Republicans tried to behave like responsible adults on this. In both last summer's debt ceiling debate and in December's battle over the payroll tax, they insisted that the payroll tax cuts be paid for.

They were pilloried for it, portrayed as mean-spirited advocates for the rich. That's a lie. So not to be outmaneuvered again, the GOP lowered itself to the cynical level of President Obama and the Democrats by keeping the economically useless payroll tax cut in place.

...

GOP voters need to know their party is a party of principle — and not just about getting elected. What today looks like a smart political move may in the long-run come back to bite the Republicans if Democrats use this as a precedent for spending more without making cuts.

For the record, we think this is the most important election since at least World War II. A party that makes a case for less spending, lower taxes, smaller government, fewer regulations and a strong defense can win it.

Only Republicans can make that case. This latest move, however politically astute it was, doesn't do it. More principle, less politics, please.

When the party, the Republican Party, acts like and supports democrat agendas, why should we conservatives continue to support them?  So-called compromises like this are nails in the Republican coffin.  Perhaps it is time for a new party. A party that supports our conservative principals.  Maybe it's time for the Tea Party to become a separate political party instead of a segment of the Republican Party; a party that ignores the goals and support of the Tea Party for...political expediency.

Happy Post-Valentines Day

The title is misleading. Mrs. Crucis and I haven't observed Valentine's Day for a long, long time.  We decided we could better use our money doing something else.  But I needed a post title and that's what came to mind today.

I was listening to Laura Ingraham when she spoke about the Michigan primary race between Romney and Santorum. During that segment she spoke of some of the PAC ads that were being shown in the state.

I had to share this one by Santorum.  It's worth a giggle.

***

Quote of the Day: "There should be no voting without respiration." -- John Fund, Editor, American Spectator, February 15, 2012 speaking on the lack of federal vote fraud investigations on the Laura Ingraham radio show.

***

Obama submitted his proposed budget this week.  Like his last one, it has virtually no chance of be passed.  His last budget failed in the Senate 97-2.

Unveiling a $3.8 trillion election-year federal budget loaded with deficits, tax increases and hundreds of billions of dollars in new stimulus spending, President Obama said Monday that his plan will “restore an economy where everybody gets a fair shot.”

...

His budget — which calls for a total of $350 billion in short-term stimulus spending, a $475 billion highway program and $1.5 trillion in tax increases on wealthier Americans — has virtually no chance of passing as is, but is intended to highlight the differences between the two parties as Mr. Obama seeks re-election. It would impose a 30 percent minimum tax on those earning $1 million or more.

Mr. Obama also proposes to raise taxes on investment income for families earning more than $250,000. He would tax dividends as ordinary income, raising the top tax rate from 15 percent to 39.6 percent. Taxes on capital gains for the top income bracket would rise from 15 percent to 20 percent. -- Washington Times.

One review said Obama's budget was nothing more than "More taxes and more spending." Obama's puppet before Congress refused to answer a question if the budget was a spending increase.  Instead, he responded that the baseline budget had been raised, therefore the additional spending as actually a spending decrease.

Obama and the democrats must think we're fools to believe such lies.  The cartoon below is Michael Ramirez's opinion on Obama's budget.

Truth in Government---Really!

Hidden in the US budget (or at least the last time we had one,) is funding for a number of governmental offices that are "off budget."  These are agencies like Freddie Mac and the US Post Office.  These offices are knows as GSEs or Government Sponsored Enterprises.

There are a number of GSEs (government sponsored enterprises) that are considered off budget.  Politicians use off-budget entities like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Postal Service to obfuscate the true cost of government.  Additionally, the government runs a number of credit programs, in which taxpayers are on the hook for loan guarantees.  These guarantees include loans for college students and for energy programs, such as the one that purveyed failed green energy programs like Solyndra. -- RedState

The "On Budget" cost covers only what these agencies actually do. But not budgeted is the results of those actions nor the money that passes through their hands.

Under current law, Congress only factors in the cost of the loan itself when formulating the annual budget.  Perforce, if the money is paid back with interest, there is no cost to the government.  However, as we have learned so painfully, the loans are, all too often, never paid back.  Taxpayers have been called on to bailout a modicum of failed loan guarantees.  In the private sector, they use “fair value” accounting in calculating the costs of credit programs.  Fair value accounts for the costs of the market risk the lender incurs by issuing a loan, in addition to the actual borrowing costs. -- RedState

The US House has passed H.R. 3581 that will force these costs into the open.

H.R. 3581 would modify the budgetary treatment of federal credit programs such that the cost of direct loans or loan guarantees would be calculated on a “fair value” basis, which includes not only the borrowing costs of the federal government, but also the cost of the market risk the government is incurring by issuing a loan or loan guarantee. Under current law, the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (FCRA) requires that the credit subsidy cost of federal direct loans and loan guarantees be measured on a net present value basis which determines the cost of a loan program based on calculations using the interest rates on Treasury securities and estimated losses that would be expected from defaults. However, this calculation ignores additional costs associated with market risks. According the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), “By incorporating a market-based risk premium, fair-value estimates recognize that the financial risk that the government assumes when issuing credit guarantees is more costly to taxpayers than FCRA-based estimates suggest.” By more accurately accounting for the costs of federal credit programs, H.R. 3581 would increase the estimated costs of such programs compared to measures used under current law.

When I read this article, I wondered if Missouri had similar funding issues?  Are there agencies in Missouri that have off-the-books costs that aren't covered by budget?  Missouri has a balanced budget requirement.  But the state also receives Federal funding to support some state operated agencies...schools for instance and Medicaid.

People build a degree of expectation, of a level of performance from these agencies and programs.  The funding passes through our state government and on to the end recipient.  If, for some reason, federal funding is cut or stops for these operations, the state would have to provide the funds, cut back the offices and programs, or cancel them all-together.

The people and organizations (schools for instance) receiving aid, assistance or funding through these federally co-funded agencies and programs would feel their expectations are not being met.  Rightly or wrongly, the lack of federal funds would place a burden on the state.

Does the state budget correctly account for these federal funds?  I don't know, but it's a good question to ask.  I would expect, at a minimum, that agencies and programs who are dependent on some degree of federal funding, and those who use or are dependent on federal funding passing through the state government, be made aware of the situation and under what circumstances funding may be cut or ended.

We should also be informed, if federal funding was gone, how much additional state taxes would be needed to maintain that level of operation.  Much, much more than we can afford without a doubt.

I would strongly suggest to our state legislators that we begin to wean ourselves from such federal funding scams.  The state must live within its means and those means cannot include federal funding that can suddenly disappear.

We don't want to become another Greece.

Friday Follies, Part II

Last Friday, I wrote how the democrats are ignoring law and undermining the Constitution.  Continuing today with that theme I present another example, the failure of the democrats to pass a budget.  It's been over 1,000 days, more than three years since the last budget was passed. The democrats had overwhelming control of both houses of Congress for two of those three years and failed to pass a budget.  Harry Reid continues to block any budget bill that comes out of the House.  Criminal charges should be levied against Pelosi and Reid, but that won't happen as long as Obama is in office and Holder is the AG.

The Investor's Business Daily, along with the Ramirez cartoon above, posted this editorial.

Democrats Failure To Pass Budget Is Illegal

Posted 02/10/2012 06:33 PM ET

Leadership: Two top Democrats in Congress say the legislature doesn't really need to pass a budget. Excuse us, but passing a budget isn't optional; it's required by law. Is this the future of rule under the Democrats?

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer is tired of passing budgets as the law demands. He thinks Congress can just keep spending money without any sort of budget.

"The fact is, you don't need a budget," he said last Tuesday. "We can adopt appropriations bills. We can adopt authorization policies without a budget. We already have an agreed-upon cap on spending."

Actually, "the fact is," Congress is required under the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to pass a spending plan and then have it scored by the Congressional Budget Office and signed by the president. That none of this happens suggests a level of disrespect for the law and the people found only among criminals. (Emphasis mine: Crucis)

As for the "agreed-upon cap on spending" mentioned by Hoyer: How's that model of fiscal restraint working out? Well, a new report out Thursday notes that Congress has already blown right through the spending "cap" put in place just last summer.

According to the Heritage Foundation, "last week's Congressional Budget Office report shows they (Congress) have exceeded their official Budget Control Act limits for the current year by a stunning $156 billion."

Stunning indeed. It's now been 1,020 days, or 2.8 years, since Congress last passed a budget. Rather than an official document, Congress has passed a series of continuing resolutions and spending bills, periodically raising the debt ceiling so it can spend even more.

Hoyer is not only in his dereliction. On Friday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said: "We do not need to bring a budget to the floor this year. It's done, we don't need to do it." In short, laws are for the little people.

As for President Obama, he's set to release his own budget proposal Monday. Is he annoyed that Congress has made his budget a dead-letter before it's even released?

"Well," said Jay Carney, the president's spokesman, "I don't have an opinion to express on how the Senate does its business with regards to this issue."

This is fiscal gangsterism, nothing else. It has nothing to do with the current fiscal crisis, or the slow economy. It has everything to do with Democrats' refusal to admit that their unparalleled spending binge and exploding debt will soon lead to a tidal wave of tax hikes on average Americans.

The editorial calls this situation fiscal gangsterism.  That's not quite correct. It's democrat gangsterism.