A funny thing happened as Congressman Tim Bishop tries to manufacture a campaign issue. The very thing he is fighting about, we learn that the government has been underwriting with taxpayer dollars.

The US Agency for International Development (USAID) had a program to train people in Sri Lanka high-tech IT skills so that they could better compete in the world economy. Needless to say, such competition would come at the expense of American workers. As a free marketer, I don’t have a problem with private enterprises investing their own money any where they want to. I have a big problem with using taxpayer dollars to train foreigners to take away American jobs.

My first problem is with the morality of taking taxpayer dollars to help take away taxpayer jobs. My second problem is that I don’t find a right to do that anywhere in the Constitution. To his credit Tim Bishop in 2010 fought to stop the program.

In 2010, Bishop compelled USAID to abandon a high-tech training program for outsourcing industry workers in Sri Lanka, with the agency committing to “conduct a review to ensure the project will not take any jobs away from Americans.”

Note the year. Tim Bishop has been in Congress since 2002. This program came to light as a result of investigative reporting by Information Week magazine, in August of 2010. What else was happening in the fall of 2010? Tim Bishop was running for reelection against Randy Altschuler who started a business and later sold it that provided business services to companies with employees in the US and overseas. Bishop won by a whisker, but the outsourcing angle is his last, best hope for his rematch with Altschuler.

The problem is that Congress holds the purse strings and this program could not have been funded without Congress’ approval. What did Tim Bishop know and when did he know it? If he argues he was unaware of the program the question becomes, is the federal government that Tim Bishop loathes shrinking, too big for Congress to properly oversee? If Tim Bishop did know about it, why didn’t he stop it earlier or prevent it from being funded in the first place?

I am reminded of that famous scene in the movie Casablanca, where Claude Rains professes to be “shocked, SHOCKED,” that gambling is going on in the back room as member of the club’s staff comes out to hand him his gambling winnings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM_A4Skusro

Now it turns out a new program has been launched by the Obama administration (again USAID) to train people in the Philippines to speak better English to prepare them for better jobs, such as in outsourced call centers. This is what President Obama said at an insourcing summit:

 ”My message to business leaders today is simple. Ask yourself what you can do to bring jobs back to the country that made our success possible. And I’m going to do everything in my power to help you do it.”

Really? But is anyone surprised that this president says one thing while doing the exact opposite? President Obama and Tim Bishop bailed out GM, which then immediately turned around and increased offshore production.

Instead of funding the training of people in other countries to compete for American jobs, perhaps the focus should be on revising our tax code so that the US doesn’t have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, which makes it attractive to locate operations overseas in the first place. The tax code also traps profits from those operations overseas so that it makes sense for businesses to expand those operations overseas rather than bring the money back to the US (where it will get taxed more as soon as it arrives) to expand here.

Just more hypocrisy from the big government crowd. They don’t fix problems. They screw the American people coming and going. It’s time for a change.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

It the last few days we have heard President Obama ranting about the Supreme Court. This is not anything new. You may also recall his unprecedented calling out of the Supreme Court as the justices sat in front of him during his State of the Union speech attacking them over the Citizens United v FEC case.

The Great Reconciler has also done this in other venues. After Paul Ryan released his budget last year, President Obama invited him to a speech on the budget and with Ryan sitting there devoted his speech attacking the Ryan plan. Very classy. Is this what we hoped and changed for?

Obama and the Constitution

What is most disturbing to me is what Obama is saying about the Supreme Court’s role with regard to the Constitution. What he is saying is approaching downright ignorance and yet he taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. What did he teach his students? Where are these students today? Are they some sort of Manchurian Candidates to be unleashed with their own new-found ignorance upon us as lawyers and judges? Are we watching a bad science fiction movie?

‘I am confident,” announced the president of the United States, “that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” – President Barack Obama, earlier this week.

Unprecedented? What exactly is unprecedented? What is extraordinary? Striking down a law? That capability of the Supreme Court was established by the Marbury v Madison  case in 1803. One hundred fifty-eight acts of Congress have been overturned by the Supreme Court since Marbury. Sounds like a lot of precedent to me.

A strong majority? ObamaCare was passed by a margin of 219 to 212. What would a weak majority be? Actually, since we often hear our liberal friends cry out for bipartisanship, let me point out that there was bipartisan opposition to ObamaCare. Every Republican and thirty-four Democrats voted against it. Only Democrats voted for it.

Passed by a democratically elected Congress? Is there another kind of Congress than a democratically elected one? Also, in order for a review by the Supreme Court, a law by definition has to be passed by Congress. Otherwise it is just a bill and has no effect on anyone. Doesn’t constitutional law professor Barack Obama know any of this? Isn’t he embarrassed to be saying such things? It is clear that most American citizens, sixty-seven percent by some polls, think the individual mandate is unconstitutional. Do they understand the Constitution better than a man who took an oath to preserve, protect and defend it?

I think an effort should be made to find every student who sat in one of Barack Obama’s constitutional law classes. Give them a test on their comprehension of the Constitution. If they fail, force the University of Chicago to refund their tuition for that course and send them to take Hillsdale College’s Constitution 101. It’s a free ten week course and perhaps the students can help out by donating their refunded tuition money to Hillsdale.

We should all be very concerned that this kind of thinking is being taught in our law schools and will one day come back to destroy the Constitution. Some on the left are trying to call any invalidating of ObamaCare as judicial activism on the right. Adhering to the founding principles and the original intent behind the Constitution is not activism, it is the sworn duty of the justices. If you want to know what activism sounds like, go no further than the words of Associate Justice and former chief counsel of the ACLU Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court should do a “salvage job,” not undertake a “wrecking operation.”

It is judicial activism for the court to try to salvage Congress’ work. It violates the separation of powers. It is the job of the judiciary to interpret the law not make the law. If they interpret the law to be unconstitutional it is not their job to fix it. That’s Congress’ responsibility, but Ginsburg knows full well that the Congress that passed this monstrosity isn’t there any more and will not be there again any time soon. There is a new Congress that was swept in, to a large extent based on the outrage over ObamaCare. Ginsburg is afraid that if the Supreme Court doesn’t salvage it, sending it back to Congress would put the final nail in the coffin. RIP.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

This is what Andrew Breitbart warned us about and fought so courageously against. The lies of the left to advance their agenda. Do we roll over, or do we take up the torch and continue the fight?

The Losing Abortion Attack

Abortion used to be the tried and true social attack point of the left. Being pro-abortion gave them a 10% edge where abortion was important to the voters. Over time as medicine has advanced and people learn more about abortion, it is now a 10% loser. What’s a leftist to do? Simple, shift gears and try to make an issue out of contraception.

It’s a different argument though. The argument with abortion was whether there were two lives involved or one. If it was one life, the woman and a clump of cells, then an abortion is little different from a tonsillectomy. If, however, two lives were involved then an abortion is tantamount to homicide. There is , for the most part, no human life at risk through the use of contraceptives so this tack loses some of it’s potency. While there are those who oppose contraception on moral grounds, there are very few who would seek to outlaw it. It is a case of moral persuasion rather than saving a life.

Fabricating the Contraception Issue

If you watched the Republican presidential debate where George Stephanopoulos asked MItt Romney about states banning contraceptives you probably felt as puzzled as Romney at the question. Huh? Where did that come from? As Romney tried to grasp the question and answer it, he said, George, no state is trying to ban contraceptives that I’m aware of. Stephanopoulos would have no part of it, he came at Romney again, yes, but do you believe states have a right to ban contraceptives? Look at the news coverage on contraceptives from that debate, and you can see the left trying to put the pieces in place to create an issue out of thin air.

The Attack on the Church

To paraphrase Machiavelli, when you sup with the devil, bring a long spoon. The Catholic Bishops were strong supporters of ObamaCare and now they have come to the realization that the devil is in the details. Now there is a pitched battle to oppose the contraception provision of that law. It is a blatant violation of the First Amendment to force the Catholic church to act contrary to its beliefs. Obama and the left know they are on the losing end of that argument, so they had to pivot.

Access to Contraceptives

They way they pivoted was to claim that women were being denied access to contraceptives, which is a lie. Contraceptives are readily available and relatively cheap. Why should the rest of us be paying for someone’s recreational sex? If you can’t pay for your own contraception, try a little abstinence. This entitlement mindset of instant gratification whether they can afford it or not, is about as un-American as it gets.

Enter Sandra Fluke

So who is Sandra Fluke? Does she have an agenda or is she just expressing her own concerns? She says she is a third year law student at Georgetown. Do they not teach the Constitution and the First Amendment at Georgetown Law? She says she is a past president of Georgetown’s Law Students for Reproductive Justice and she’s attending Georgetown on a Public Interest Scholarship. Okay, law student, reproductive justice, public interest; sounds like a trifecta of the liberal left.

Fluke came to Georgetown University interested in contraceptive coverage: She researched the Jesuit college’s health plans for students before enrolling, and found that birth control was not included. “I decided I was absolutely not willing to compromise the quality of my education in exchange for my health care,” says Fluke, who has spent the past three years lobbying the administration to change its policy on the issue. The issue got the university president’s office last spring, where Georgetown declined to change its policy. – Washington Post

So Sandra Fluke is a law student, an advocate for reproductive justice, and is on a scholarship tied to a future career in fighting for liberal causes, and she “researches” the health care plan, not just looks it up and reads about it. Her intent was to take on the health care plan and change it, which she did, but lost.

Democrats wanted Fluke to testify before Congress but Congressman Darrell Issa said she wasn’t a qualified witness. The matter before the committee was on religious liberties, not about women and Fluke was neither a lawyer nor a member of the clergy. As fellow Georgetown student Angela Morabito puts it:

Her one claim to fame in the reproductive health care debate is…drumroll, please…being a student club leader! You go, Sandra! Hang those posters girl. Wear out those Sharpies.

Me?  I love me some extracurricular involvement. The difference between Sandra and me is that I don’t think it qualifies me to speak in front of Congress.  ”The Chair calls to the stand  the captains of the intramural ultimate frisbee team!” – Angela Morabito, Georgetown student

Of all the women in America who did meet Chairman Issa’s qualifications, the Democrats picked Sandra Fluke?

So Nancy Pelosi got the cameras together and a room and set the stage to look like a Congressional hearing and gave the floor to Sandra. She said her fellow classmates have suffered financially, medically, and emotionally because, you know, contraceptives can cost $3,000 during law school. I don’t know what kind of contraceptives Sandra is interested in, or if it is going to take her a lot longer to finish law school than most, but according to Planned Parenthood, birth control pills cost $15-$50/month; the birth control injection Depo-Provera costs $35-$75 and lasts three months; and the birth control patch costs $15-$80/ month. It seems that with a little shopping, Sandra could cut her costs in half, but let’s hear from Angela again:

Let’s talk priorities here. It costs over $23,000 for a year at Georgetown Law. Sandra, are you telling us that you can afford that but cannot afford your own contraception? Really? Math was never my strong suit, but something about Sandra’s accounting just doesn’t seem right. – Angela Morabito, Georgetown student

Extreme Cases

Another of the left’s ploys when abortion was a winning strategy for them was pointing to rape and incest, not birth control, as the absolute need for abortions. True to form, Sandra’s mock testimony was not about wild and free recreational sex, it was about non-contraceptive uses for contraceptives. Huh? There are medical conditions for which birth control is sometimes prescribed, not to prevent pregnancy but to alleviate the particular condition. If you look at the totality of use for contraceptives these cases would be quite small. It’s like a magician. They want to keep your focus on this small exceptions, the left hand if you will, so you don’t see what the right hand is doing.

A Simple Solution

We buy our own auto insurance, we buy our own life insurance, we buy our own homeowner’s insurance. We should buy our own health insurance. Kill Obamacare. If individuals owned their own policies, there would be no mandate of what to cover or not, it would be up to the market to decide. You would not have to worry about pre-existing conditions if you maintained your coverage, you would not be afraid of changing jobs for losing your health insurance. The tax breaks that currently go to companies to provide health insurance should be abolished and those tax breaks given to the individual. The amount of money that companies are currently spending to pay for health care for their employees could be given to the employees in the form of a raise. Insurance companies should be allowed to create any kinds of plans they want, this one including contraceptives, that one not.

However, by doing so, the Democrats would lose the campaign issue they are busy trying to fabricate out of thin air. American was conned in 2008. Don’t get conned again.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

I just got a survey request from my Congressman Tim Bishop. I started to fill it out but it was limited in its responses. Limited to what could easily be tabulated and put into a self-serving graph, but the same limited responses also spoke volumes.

He introduced his survey with two wishes:

I’d like to know how you think Congress can best help your family this year.

I hope you will take a moment to tell me what you believe my priority should be in Congress for 2012.

The first question tells all about what is wrong with Tim Bishop’s thinking, Barack Obama’s thinking, and why we are heading off a cliff. So let me answer the question. Tim, get a copy of the Constitution. Go to a quiet room; sit down and read it. If you don’t immediately grasp the meaning of the document you took an oath to support, may I recommend you buy a copy of The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, it will help explain it to you. It is not Congress’ job to help my family. That is my job. Congress’ job is primarily to defend our borders (think Mexico), interact with foreign nations, and to regulate commerce between the states and with foreign nations; to coin money, not print it without end so that it becomes increasingly worthless (see Bernanke); provide a federal court system and that’s about it. Everything else is left to the states and to the people (see Amendment 10).

To answer the Congressman’s second question, I would say, Tim, stop doing everything else. Stop spending money like there is no tomorrow because there is a tomorrow and my children, and yours too, will have to pay all this debt back. There is no one to bail out the United States of America.

If Barack Obama wanted to be a venture capitalist, perhaps he should have applied for a job at Bain Capital. It is not his job, nor yours, to gamble our tax dollars on your favorite pet project. It is not your job to tell Boeing where they can or can’t locate their factories.

Before I could stop myself I clicked on the link to get to the actual survey and here were Congressman Bishop’s choices:

• Lowering taxes for the middle class
• Access to affordable higher education
• Caring for our veterans when they return home
• Investing in transportation and water infrastructure
• Creating incentives for companies to insource jobs
• Other (where he provides a tiny box to type in your own priority

Let me take them one at a time.

• Lowering taxes for the middle class – Who decides where the middle class begins and ends? Where in the history of this country has class warfare led to greatness? We are perilously close to the point where the majority will pay no federal taxes but will have the power to demand from the minority that they provide and pay for whatever they want. Of course, I expect Congressman Bishop to shoot back that everyone pays payroll taxes. Payroll taxes do not fund the operation of the federal government. In the case of Social Security everyone who pays in expects to get every dollar back and then some. It is a lousy savings plan not a tax that funds government. Medicare/Medicaid is similar in that everyone expects to get it back in the form of free health care if they become impoverished or when they reach sixty-five years of age.
• Access to affordable higher education – This is building the next bubble. At some point students who graduate will not be able to afford to pay their skyrocketing college debts and will default and we will be forced to pick up the tab. Every time the federal government offers scholarship money, say, $1000 to students, you can bet colleges will increase tuition by $1000 shortly thereafter. Higher education is ripe for a new paradigm.
• Caring for veterans when they return home — I would bundle this under providing for the national defense and since that is included in the Constitution that is a legitimate function of the federal government.
• Investing in transportation and water infrastructure — the government doesn’t invest in anything, they spend money. The left which is constantly trying to hide what they are really doing stopped calling spending, spending because it was out of control. By calling it investing, they thought it had a degree of sophistication about it. When you invest in something you expect to get all your money back and a decent rate of return on it as well. We pay gasoline taxes that are supposed to pay for the roads and bridges that are falling down. Where is that money? What happened to it? Secondly, this is not a federal function. Every state has (or should) have taxes on gasoline or tolls on roads to maintain them. Someone in Maine shouldn’t be paying taxes to fix roads in Hawaii. If every state should take care of its own roads and water needs. If a bridge or road or river goes between two states, those two states can join forces to manage those joint properties, it doesn’t require Washington’s meddling. Of course, Tim Bishop will plead that the General Welfare clause of the Constitution calls for such meddling. Not true and here’s why (click for an explanation).
• Creating incentives for companies to insource jobs — This one is simply Tim Bishop’s manufactured campaign issue against his likely opponent. It is not the job or the talent of the federal government to pick winners and losers. Does Tim Bishop really want to send the thousands of auto worker jobs from Toyota, Nissan, and Honda back to Japan? BMW back to Germany? Chrysler jobs to Italy (Chrysler is now owned by Fiat of Italy)? Or does he just want to make American firms uncompetitive and force them to lay off workers. It was a study at Dartmouth University that showed that for every job outsourced overseas, two new jobs were created in America. So why does Tim Bishop want to do the exact opposite of what might actually create jobs here and lower unemployment (Hint: he thinks he can fool the people into reelecting him)

Nothing could be clearer than if we want to get America back on track, this kind of thinking has to go. If I have a problem that government is causing, I want to go first to the mayor of my village, next to the supervisor of my town, then the county executive of my county, then the governor of my state. I don’t need to try to hack through the massive bureaucracy of Washington to get anything done and Tim Bishop is only one of 435 representatives. Why would any sane person want to give away that much control to Washington?

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Andrew Breitbart at CPAC

The shocking news arrived courtesy of Fox News this morning. Conservative lion Andrew Breitbart was dead. In his pursuit of conservative principles and his disdain for the other side, he was fearless.

He grew up as a secular liberal, but had his epiphany during the Clarence Thomas Supreme Court hearings. He saw how the left was lying and trying to destroy a man with a great American story. After that he became a Reagan conservative with libertarian leanings.

He started working with Matt Drudge helping spread Drudge’s articles across the Internet. He later helped Ariana Huffington create the Huffington Post website. He went on to create his own group of sites including Big Government and Big Hollywood.

I first met him at the 26th Annual Martin Luther King National Holiday celebration sponsored by the Congress of Racial Equality dinner in 2011. He was the chosen to be the master of ceremonies because of the firestorm surrounding the alleged use of the “N-word” during Nancy Pelosi’s famous march to the capital to pass ObamaCare. He was being damned as a racist by every main stream media outlet, and CORE would not let that stand.

He didn’t pull punches as he wrapped up his address to the dinner saying “the GOP sucked,” and then this:

The Tea Party needs you, period. Allen West and Tim Scott did not get elected through the leadership of the Republican Party. They got elected because of the Tea Party and I have been to Tea Parties all across this country and the people who move the crowds, they’re not invited to speak, they just show up and they’re the people that possess the crowds, and that is African Americans; and that is Hispanic Americans who understand that this country has been divided along the grounds of race and creed and we have been pitted against each other by this multicultural model that is nothing short of cultural Marxism.

I next met him at CPAC last year where he was trying to get greater focus on a scandal that was bilking the federal government of over $1 billion in bogus payments to fictional farmers claiming they were harmed by the government in the Pigford case. People who did no more farming than having a potted plant in their backyard were being encouraged to apply for a $50,000 settlement.

In April of last year his publicist contacted me to see if I wanted to interview him about his new book, Righteous Indignation. I called him on his cell phone and he asked if I was going to record the call. I said that I would like to, and he asked me to call him back on a better line so the recording would be a better quality, which I did. He was someone who truly understood the details of getting the message out.

He went to Wisconsin to challenge the protesters who were attacking Scott Walker trying to wrest his state from the grip of public sector unions. He went to Occupy Wall Street to see if this was truly a grass-roots movement, or a

carefully orchestrated effort from the left. Hopefully his untimely death will not delay that film’s release in the next month or two. It took an Andrew Breitbart to make an entrance to the meeting introducing the film in a mask.

He was always a fighter but he was also charming. At CPAC he spoke about being invited by a friend to a Super Bowl party at the home of none other than Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn. He said they were very civil to him and that Bill Ayers was a fantastic cook.

Andrew Breitbart always seemed to be running at hyperspeed. Perhaps God took him from us because he accomplished in 43 years what many others couldn’t complete in 80. He often said that this election was perhaps the most important one in our history. He is counting on us to carry the flag forward. Let’s not let him down. Thank you, Andrew, for the inspiration you gave us to get up and get into the fight.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

As the Democrats bid a tearful farewell to using abortion as a winning campaign issue, they need to manufacture a replacement. So they have come up with contraceptives and how those mean Republicans want to restrict a women’s access to them. It’s a lie and they know it, but hey, elections are at stake.

Some say it began with George Stephanopoulos’ bizarre questioning of Mitt Romney on a state’s right to ban contraceptives during one of the presidential debates. Some say it goes back further to a Virginia Senate race between Tim Kaine and George Allen. The problem for Democrats is that they used to run on an abortion platform and public opinion gave them a ten point edge on that subject. The polls have shifted and now it is a ten point loser. So what’s a liberal to do? Well, people still favor birth control, so let’s make it look like Republicans are against that! Brilliant!

The trick is how to do it. How about putting a Trojan Horse in the middle of ObamaCare? Have ObamaCare require contraceptives even by the Catholic Church. Conservatives and Republicans will object and voila, we have a campaign issue. But what are we really talking about?

Access to Contraceptives or Free Recreational Sex?

The First Amendment to the Constitution states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…

If it is the Catholic Church’s fundamental teaching that artificial birth control is immoral, Congress is forbidden by the Constitution to pass any law that interferes with that. But the main stream media and the left are trying to twist this into the Catholic Church, conservatives, and Republicans trying to deny a woman’s access to birth control. But let’s examine what they are really demanding.

What is the purpose of birth control? It is to allow the enjoyment of sex without the fear of the natural purpose of sex, procreation. Okay, so it is not about marriage, it is not about family, it is about fun. The left wants no restrictions on a woman’s access to recreational sex. As a believer in individual liberty, my personal views aside, that’s fine. But don’t make me pay for it! If a woman and her partner cannot afford the $10 for a month’s worth of recreational sex, don’t pick my pocket for it. Get a second job if you have to (we’re talking about 90 minutes per month at minimum wage). Is ObamaCare going to pay for my wine or my green’s fees so I can drink a glass of red for my heart and play a round of golf for exercise? Both of those activities provide better health benefits than sex, and if the two sex partners don’t know themselves that well it can be down right dangerous for them between disease and violence.

The Wrong Direction

Instead of declaring free recreational sex as a right, perhaps it’s time to look at the incontrovertible evidence. President Obama is obsessed with income inequality and yet he goes against the formula for addressing it.  The evidence shows that the formula to get out of poverty and stay out is:

1. Graduate high school
2. Get a job, any job, and stay employed
3. Get married before you have children.

Yet what is this president’s program?

1. Favor teachers over students. Fight school vouchers, fight Scott Walker in Wisconsin trying to get public sector unions under control including teachers.
2. Add crushing regulations and massive spending on to an economy where the official end of the recession was almost three years ago. It doesn’t feel like it because of all the baggage this administration has loaded on it. At the same time in Reagan’s first term, the economy was growing at over 8% compared to this president’s 1%-2%.
3. He gave one good speech on a father’s responsibility, but his signature program ObamaCare is promoting free recreational sex and he and the rest of the Democrats are campaigning on it.

Obama has a better formula, tax the most productive among us. Ever feel like we are living the Decline of the Roman Empire. We may have one last change to stop the train wreck this November.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Congress passed yet another extension of the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits. The Republicans did it to take the political issue off the table for the election. Tim Bishop and the Democrats passed it because they think it is good governing.

Payroll taxes are for a very specific purpose, to fund Social Security and Medicare, the two entitlement programs that are growing at a dangerous rate. So, hey, what better idea than to take money away from them. Let’s look at it very simply.

Suppose there was no Social Security and instead everyone had individual retirement plans and were contributing the same amount to those plans that they currently pay into Social Security. In tough times, maybe you scale back those contributions, but you fully realize that there will be an impact down the road. Either you will have less money when you retire, or you will have to contribute more when you are back on your feet to catch up. That is living in a responsible world. But Tim Bishop doesn’t live in a responsible world. He lives in an entitlement world which means he hands out goodies to buy votes and when later comes, he won’t be around to answer for it. He will be too busy admiring some post office that got named after him for his dedicated service.

The payroll tax is basically robbing from Social Security. There is no choice involved. If you had your own plan you would have the liberty to decide if you wanted to cut back on contributions to your retirement or not. Some would, some might not. There is nothing being discussed in Congress to increase the payroll tax once the Obama administration stops killing the recovery. Again, if there were private plans, you could decide to pay more into the plans when you are working again. There is nothing being discussed in Congress to decrease future benefits to make up for the shortfall in contributions. Once more, if you had a private plan those would be options you would be at liberty to choose among. Instead we have this from The New York Times:

Democrats could count far more policy victories in the bill: the payroll tax break will not be paid for, large changes that Republicans sought to the unemployment insurance program were not realized, and the program was extended far beyond what the opposing party sought.

Did you get that folks? It is a victory for Democrats that we don’t pay for this so that the Social Security problem that President Obama so scrupulously avoided in his latest budget fantasy just gets kicked down the road. What we really need to do is kick Tim Bishop and the rest of his Democrat colleagues in the House and the do-nothing Democrats in the Senate under Harry Reid out of Congress. Let’s replace them with grown-ups who will make the tough choices to get us back on the same track for the good of the country rather than their personal self-interest.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

President Barack Obama has a new budget. So it’s time to suspend reality and listen and nod your head and pine for four more years.

President Obama promised in 2009 to halve the deficit by the end of his first term. The last fiscal year budget deficit under Bush was $482 billion. In the four years of Obama’s first term it has yet to be less than $1 trillion. As former New York City Mayor Ed Koch used to asks his constituents, “How’m I doing?”

So while Obama’s new budget promises another trillion plus deficit, but don’t worry he will cut $4 trillion in spending over the next ten years. Never mind that even if he is reelected 60% of that timeline is beyond his control. It should also be pointed out that $4 trillion over ten years is only $400 billion a year, which leaves another $600 billion to be added to the national debt each year.

If that is not smoke and mirrors enough, that $4 trillion includes $1.5 trillion in tax increases. Why does this president and his backers insist that we have to take more money from the production of America’s citizens to cover his spending, rather than cutting his spending to fit within the available revenues?

For his first two years in office he worked with a Democrat controlled Congress. He got everything he asked for and everything is worse. We have staggering debt despite his promises to cut the deficit in half, unemployment worse than when he took office despite his promises to that his stimulus would cap unemployment at 8%, we have ObamaCare striking right at the heart of the First Amendment and he basically says, “get over it.”

Enough is enough. The experiment failed. It is time to cut this man loose and start working to repair the enormous damage he has done.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

To many conservatives Mitch McConnell is a sellout. To me, he is a parliamentary master who held off a filibuster-proof majority by his fingernails until reinforcements arrived in the person of Scott Brown. He kicked off his address to the crowd with a little humor.

McConnell said that conservatives are more fun because we are always right. He then quoted what Democrats believe in by quoting from Saul Alinsky. It is all about division and smearing your opponents. But it is going to be a tough task with the president’s record.

The president believes in rewarding his friends and punishing his enemies. Examples include: the Keystone pipeline, Solyndra, Goldman Sachs. He preaches diversity and then attacks Catholics.

This is about Obama’s policies. He asked for and received from his Democrat Congress, nearly $1 trillion so that unemployment could be kept under 8% and since then it hasn’t been below 8%. The average length of unemployment under Obama is forty weeks. The unemployment rate for African-Americans is over 14%, for Hispanics it’s 10.5%, for recent college graduates it’s over 10%. He promised to cut the deficit in half and the deficit has been above $1 trillion for the fourth straight year. He ignored his own deficit commission.

Obama believes in bigger and bigger government. Today, the earnings of federal workers is 60% higher than those in the private sector who pay those salaries. Layoffs of federal employees is running at less than 300 per year, meaning there is a higher probability of a federal worker dying of natural causes than getting laid off. Meanwhile Obama has added 150,000 to the federal payroll. We are supposed to believe that there is no possible way to shrink the federal payroll because of how important government is to life in America.

In just nine months we will have a chance to let Obama know what we think of his vision of big government.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

While wiping his feet on the First Amendment by trying to force Catholic institutions to bend to his will and force them to provide services that go against their core beliefs, President Obama took time to lecture us on the Bible, and twist it to fit his reelection campaign. This outrage doesn’t get a pass.

The Bible Supports Obama’s Tax Plan

Obama tried to use the bible verse about from those who have been given much, much is expected, as a call from God to pay more taxes. To follow the Buffett Rule, if you will. Here is the verse from Luke 12:48:

When much has been given a man, much will be required of him.

But the context is in terms of doing the master’s will, not paying taxes. When it comes to paying taxes, Jesus was asked specifically about it. Here is that passage:

They sent some Pharisees and Herodians after him to catch him in his speech. The two groups came and said to him: “Teacher, we know you are a truthful man, unconcerned about anyone’s opinion. It is evident you do not act out of human respect but teach God’s way of life sincerely. Is it lawful to pay the tax to the emperor or not? Are we to pay or not to pay?” Knowing their hypocrisy he said to them, “Why are you trying to trip me up? Bring me a coin and let me see it.” When they brought one, he said to them, “Whose head is this and whose inscription is it?” “Caesar’s,” they told him. At that Jesus said to them, “Give to Caesar’s what is Caesar’s, but give to God what is God’s.” Their amazement at him knew no bounds – Mark 12:1-17

When asked specifically about taxes Jesus dismissed them, seeing the political trap. Jesus didn’t say let’s go to Rome and lobby for the least of our brothers. He didn’t say, you know, we need a new government program. He didn’t tell of the Good Samaritan, calling his Roman Senator to pass a new law to provide free health care for victims of highway robbery found laying in a ditch. He said we should take care of such things ourselves, not pass the buck to someone else. So instead of asking the rich like Romney to pay more in taxes, ask Joe Biden how much he gives of the public’s money, that he has been living off most of his adult life, to charity. See if Obama wants to brag about so-called Catholic Biden, giving an average of $1 a day to charity while pulling down a tidy six figure income. Since 2010, Romney gave $7 million to charity. What about the Obamas? Barack Obama and his wife Michelle gave $10,772 of the $1.2 million they earned from 2000 through 2004 to charities, or less than 1 percent. As former Louisiana Senator Russell Long famously said, “Don’t tax you, don’t tax me, tax that fellow behind the tree.” It is hypocrisy at its boldest. But then this president has never been shy.

Wasted Gifts

What should be embarrassing to Obama is that the passage he used really refers to him. Who has been given more than Obama?  He grew up in Hawaii, he got an Ivy League education, he has drawn a salary from the public trough as an Illinois state senator, a U.S. Senator, and President of the United States. What has he done with these gifts? We know he has played golf over ninety times, he has taken long vacations, he plays basketball every week, and rather than meeting with members of Congress he stonewalled them and then blames them for the state we are in. Let’s take the passage from Luke that Obama quoted and back it up a few verses:

The Lord said, “Who in your opinion is that faithful, farsighted steward whom the master will set over his servants to dispense their ration of grain in season? That servant is fortunate whom his master finds busy when he returns.”

It is not the rich who according to Obama do not pay enough taxes that the Bible refers to, but him, who was given bountiful gifts from God but squandered them. What would Jesus say to Illinois Senator Obama who opposed legislation that if a woman went to a hospital to have an abortion and if the child was actually born alive, the surviving child should be given all necessary medical care? Is that caring for the least of his brothers? Is that emulating the Good Samaritan? Is there no level to which Obama will not stoop to get himself reelected? America has had enough of this president. America deserves better.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.