DHS buys 200,000 more hollow-point bullets

The following two articles illustrate perfectly the concerted effort by some of our elected officials to undermine the 2nd Amendment. I suspect that they are looking to capitalize on the recent horrible murders committed by one lone psycho with a stolen gun.

Statistics prove how unlikely anyone is to die in this manner. So why the urgency to disarm law abiding citizens? Their true motive must be for some reason that would be rejected by most Americans. One possibility that comes to mind would be that they anticipate possible resistance to their future unveiled plans. History proves this indeed a possible scenario!

DHS buys 200,000 more hollow-point bullets

As posted in the teaparty.org website on January 4, 2013.

(Info Wars) – While the Obama administration sets out to eviscerate the gun rights of American citizens in the aftermath of Sandy Hook, earlier this week it was announced that the Department of Homeland Security has awarded a company a contract worth over $45,000 dollars to provide the DHS with 200,000 more rounds of bullets.
This new purchase adds to the staggering figure of 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition already secured by the DHS over the last 9 months alone.

A solicitation originally posted on the FedBizOpps.gov website on December 17 on behalf of the DHS Federal Law Enforcement Training Center advertised the need for 200 cases of 13–40 Cal, 180 Grain, Jacketed Hollow Point bullets, with each case containing 1000 rounds, to be delivered almost immediately as soon as the contract is awarded.
The bullets are to be delivered to a training site in North Charleston, South Carolina, which “specializes in Maritime Law Enforcement and Port Security Training. Basic and advanced training programs are conducted in concert with the U.S. Coast Guard Maritime Law Enforcement Academy, the U.S. Courts Probation and Pretrial Services Training Academy, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Training Academy, the Customs and Border Protection Field Operations Academy, and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service.”
The winner of the contract to provide the DHS with the ammunition, announced on January 2, was Evian Group Inc., an organization that was formed just five days before the announcement of the solicitation.
As James Smith documents, Evian Group seems to be little more than a front organization and doesn’t appear to have any real business assets, a genuine physical address, a website, or even a phone number.
Back in August, the Department of Homeland Security censored information relating to the amount of bullets purchased by the DHS on behalf of Immigration & Customs Enforcement, citing an “unusual and compelling urgency” to acquire the bullets, noting that there is a shortage of bullets which is threatening a situation that could cause “substantial safety issues for the government” should law enforcement officials not be adequately armed.
The information was blacked out despite the fact that documents are only supposed to be redacted if authorized by Congress or for national security reasons.
The contradiction of the Obama administration preaching gun control while simultaneously the federal government arms itself to the teeth with an arsenal that would be enough to wage a full scale 7 year ground war is jaw-dropping.
As Mike Adams highlights, “A citizen is considered to be a stockpiling “terrorist” prepper if they own just 1,000 rounds of ammo. The government, however, can purchase billions and the mainstream media doesn’t even question it.”
“Where is all this ammunition going? It’s being stockpiled by the federal government, awaiting some future event during which it will apparently be “activated.” Why else would you stockpile something if you don’t anticipate needing to use it someday?”
“During all this, Obama and his cohorts in Washington are loudly insisting that American citizens have no right to purchase firearms or ammunition, and that new laws will soon be enacted to make sure you cannot do what the government does: stockpile weapons and ammo.”
Indeed, the double standard is staggering and while Americans are being raided for stockpiling “arsenals” of weapons that subsequently turn out to be no more than a few guns, the federal government is simultaneously building a very real and substantial arsenal while the mainstream media turns a blind eye.

Boston Mayor Menino: Biden ‘Guaranteed’ Massive Gun Control By February

As posted in the breitbart.com  website on January 14, 2013 authored by Ben Shapiro
.
(Breitbart) – Democrat Mayor Thomas Menino of Boston says that Vice President Joe Biden “guaranteed” him that by the end of January, President Obama would put a vast gun control scheme on the table. Said Menino, “He said, ‘Tommy, I guarantee you, we’ll get it done by the end of January.’ They’re going to get it done.”
Menino co-chairs the Mayors Against Illegal Guns group along with nanny state Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York. He says that Obama has “no excuse not to pass strong legislation,” and that the National Rifle Association should be ignored. “It’s time to get this moving and moving quickly.”
Menino’s overbearing big government tendencies have reared their ugly head before. Back in August, Menino tried to bar Chick-Fil-A from Boston after the head of the restaurant chain said that he opposed same-sex marriage.
As per the usual Democratic strategy, Menino has been standing athwart the bodies of the dead children of Sandy Hook to promote his anti-Second Amendment agenda. Back during that tragedy, he said, “There are too many stories of those who have lost loved ones to gun violence – and far too many were added from Newtown just days ago. To honor those we’ve lost, we must continue to demand a plan from lawmakers that will keep gun violence from taking more lives.”
The implication: if you don’t agree with Menino, Obama, Biden, and Bloomberg, you don’t honor those we lost. This sort of emotional blackmail has dominated our politics for far too long. But look for the thuggishness of the left to escalate in Obama’s second term.

I always welcome any input on these matters especially from the Leftists. Just keep it civil, factual and truthful and I will not remove it (I know many of you Liberals struggle with a civil, factual and truthful discussion see
Why Liberals Always Resort To Name-Calling?).

The Truth About Socialism

Irving Kristol once remarked that a neo-conservative is a "liberal who was mugged by reality". So based on that I define a Neo-Marxist as a Socialist who was mugged by reality. What I mean by that is they have been forced to take off their rose colored glasses due to the complete failure of every Marxist based redistributive system since the French Revolution. They are now willing to use some aspects of Capitalism in a futile attempt to fund the Large Government required to administer their unattainable Utopian dream state. This is Crony-Capitalism at its worst and it comes from the Neo-Marxist movement to tax and regulate businesses that they deem inappropriate while at the same time attempting to pick and promote the ones they deem best (like Solyndra GM GE etc. etc). The only thing green about all their pet companies is the tax dollars funneled into them. 

The Neo-Marxists know that there will be trouble in a few years as the tax rates are now being maxed out, the predictable inflation from printing money and when we can not borrow any more money. The only choice left will be to cut entitlements and this will cause rioting. Therefore the populous will have to be disarmed beforehand! Here is a nouvelle idea how about we drastically cut government spending now and avoid the inevitable future result of our current path that we are now on!

I welcome any input on these matters especially from the left. Just keep it civil, factual and truthful and I will post it (I know many of you Liberals struggle a civil, factual and truthful discussion).

Obama versus Romney what are the differences?

Obama versus Romney what are the differences?

Let us start with their slogans Forward versus Believe in America.

Vorwarts is Forward in German

Forward has a long history of use by Leftists.

Forward was the slogan of the National Socialists Hitler Youth.



Obama's Forward is not a destination. If you'd asked Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot or their supporters if they were taking their nations forward, they'd have undoubtedly said "yes." Mussolini? Forward. Napoleon? Forward. Genghis Khan? Churchill, Thatcher, and Reagan would have said "forward" as well if asked their direction.
The slogan "Forward!" reflected the conviction of European Marxists and radicals that their movements reflected the march of history, which would move forward past capitalism and into socialism and communism.

Romney's Believe In America is in reference to his faith in shrinking government and creating an environment that encourages companies to grow and create jobs. To those who understand how the economy works, that makes perfect sense. Instead of taking more money from Americans through taxation, Republicans would let people keep more of their own money so they can build companies and buy goods that lead to more jobs. Mitt Romney has been laying out a vision that would make that growth possible. Romney would stop President Obama’s practice of bashing businesses and Wall Street, cut regulatory burdens that make it difficult for companies to operate, reduce government employment by 10 percent through attrition, approve the Keystone pipeline project, get rid of the crushing burden of Obamacare, and keep tax cuts in place.

Below is from an article by John Hawkins originally  published in TheTownHall.com website

1) Mitt Romney would try to reduce tax rates for the wealthy and corporations to spur economic growth. On the other hand, Barack Obama is likely to try to raise taxes not just on the rich and corporations, but on the middle class. He really wouldn't have much choice. Despite the class warfare rhetoric you're hearing, there is far more money that can be confiscated from the vast middle class than there is to be plundered from the relatively thin ranks of the wealthy. If you believe tax increases are the answer, then you go after the middle class for the same reason Willie Sutton said he robbed banks: "because that's where the money is."

2) Barack Obama has run trillion dollar plus deficits every year he's been in office and given that everything he wants to do comes with a large price tag attached, there's no reason to think the next four years would be any different than the last four years. At a minimum, that would mean further downgrades of our nation's credit rating, but it's possible it could precipitate a full-on Greek style financial crisis if investors conclude their money isn't safe here. On the other hand, Mitt Romney would be under tremendous pressure from his right to reduce the deficit and a further credit downgrade on his watch would be a devastating political blow that he'd be highly motivated to avoid. Romney wouldn't have it easy since Obama would be leaving him a full-on budgetary disaster to deal with, but he'd have little choice other than to make cuts if he wants to be reelected in 2016.

3) Barack Obama has made encouraging dependence part of his electoral strategy. The more Americans that are dependent on the government for unemployment insurance, food stamps, and welfare, the more votes he believes the Democrats will get. In order to swell the welfare rolls, he’s no longer demanding that welfare recipients work for their handout. Mitt Romney opposes that change and would put the work requirements back into welfare.

4) If Barack Obama is reelected, we should expect no serious attempts at entitlement reform in the next four years. That's very problematic because nobody wants to cut a deal that impacts current retirees which means any change will impact people 55 and younger. So every year we wait, we end up with more Americans in an unsustainable system. The longer we go without making a change, the more likely it becomes that we'll be forced, under financial duress of the sort Greece is facing, to dramatically cut benefits for people who already rely on the program. Of course, there are no guarantees Mitt Romney could reach a deal with Democrats in Congress, but he will at least try to make it happen. Barack Obama won’t.

5) The Supreme Court currently has four doctrinaire liberal justices (Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer), three conservative originalist justices (Alito, Thomas, Scalia) and two right leaning moderates (Roberts, Kennedy). Four of the justices, Ginsburg (79), Scalia (76), Kennedy (75), and Breyer (73) are over 70. Given the ideological split of the SCOTUS and the ages of the judges, the next President may have an opportunity to create a historic shift on the Court. Replacing a single justice with an ideological opposite could be a decisive factor on cases from Roe v. Wade to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

6) We currently have a de facto amnesty for illegal aliens who haven't committed a felony in the United States. All they have to do is claim that they went to school here and they're automatically released without verification. If that continues for another four years, millions more illegals will pour into the United States and Obama will encourage them to settle in for the long haul. On the other hand, Mitt Romney would be likely to continue to improve border security and deport illegal aliens who are captured. In fact, his supporters during the primary, like Ann Coulter, were touting him as the toughest GOP candidate on illegal immigration.

7) Obama has taken over the student loan program, frittered away billions in bad loans to companies like Solyndra, and proudly proclaims his partial takeover of GM and Chevrolet to be a success despite the fact the taxpayers lost 25 billion on the deal. If Barack Obama is reelected, expect more government takeovers and bailouts. In fact, Dodd-Frank, which Obama supports and Romney opposes, has bank bailouts built into the law. If Romney can, he will repeal Dodd-Frank, he won't be interested in any more government takeovers of industry, and the Tea Partiers in his base would so adamantly oppose any more bailouts that going down that path would probably make him unelectable.

8) The housing market was terrible when Barack Obama came into office and not only has he done little to improve the situation for people who currently own homes, the root causes of the crash are still in place. The government is still demanding that loans be given to people who can't afford them. Fannie and Freddie are still handling 90% of all new mortgages. Mitt Romney will make it easier for people with good credit to get homes, will stop applying pressure to give loans to poor risks, and will force Freddie and Fannie to slowly and responsibly reduce the number of home mortgages they're covering so that if, God forbid, there's another crash one day, taxpayers don't get stuck with the bill.

9) If Barack Obama is reelected, Obamacare will go into effect in 2014 and many companies will stop offering insurance, it will be harder to find a doctor, the quality of medical care will drop, costs will explode, and death panels, along with the IRS, will become permanently involved in your health care. If Mitt Romney is elected, this won't happen. Romney would also try to push through a replacement plan for Obamacare, but chances are Democrats would block it.

10) At some point, you have to expect that the natural vitality of the economy will reassert itself no matter who's in the White House. However, it is also entirely possible that the hostile, unpredictable business environment created by the Obama Administration could keep the economy just as stagnant for the next four years as it has been for the last four. Romney's pro-business administration along with his attempts to cut taxes and regulations will encourage growth and put Americans back to work. What would we rather have? Four years of hate, demonization, and class warfare aimed at small business owners because they'll never be able to do their "fair share" in Barack Obama's eyes or would we rather have a growing, thriving economy again?

OMG! Clint Eastwood breaks the leftist Hollywood lock step.

I am enjoying the predictable and completely transparent reaction of the mainstream media along with many  of the leftists in the entertainment industry. Their bias is so obvious it can not be denied by any impartial observer. After two years of complete control of this country starting in 2008 they rammed their Marxist redistributive agenda down our throats. Then in 2010 they lost the house along with their super-majority in the senate. Now they have been slowed moving us all Forward over the cliff.

The issue Leftists have with Clint Eastwood is that he is a successful, critically acclaimed and popular actor/director that is an open and unabashed Conservative. The Hollywood elitist limousine Liberals can not accept one of their own speaking against their Marxist redistributive agenda. When this happens it must in the Lefts eyes be squashed by any means necessary. When Leftist can not support their message with simple facts and truth they resort to redefining the debate. After that fails they then attempt to discredit the messenger and name calling. They are now actively in the discrediting and name calling phase.

The following is a transcript of actor Clint Eastwood's speech at the Republican National Convention on Aug. 30, 2012. Pulled from a FOX news post

EASTWOOD: Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. Save a little for Mitt.
(APPLAUSE)
I know what you are thinking. You are thinking, what's a movie tradesman doing out here? You know they are all left wingers out there, left of Lenin. At least that is what people
think. That is not really the case. There are a lot of conservative people, a lot of moderate people, Republicans, Democrats, in Hollywood. It is just that the conservative
people by the nature of the word itself play closer to the vest. They do not go around hot dogging it.
(APPLAUSE)
So -- but they are there, believe me, they are there. I just think, in fact, some of them around town, I saw John Voigt, a lot of people around.
(APPLAUSE)
John's here, an academy award winner. A terrific guy. These people are all like-minded, like all of us.
So I -- so I've got Mr. Obama sitting here. And he's -- I was going to ask him a couple of questions. But -- you know about -- I remember three and a half years ago, when Mr. Obama won the election. And though I was not a big supporter, I was watching that night when he was having that thing and they were talking about hope and change and they were talking about, yes we can, and it was dark outdoors, and it was nice, and people were lighting candles. They were saying, I just thought, this was great. Everybody is trying, Oprah was crying. I was even crying. And then finally -- and I haven't cried that hard since I found out that there is 23 million unemployed people in this country.
(APPLAUSE)
Now that is something to cry for because that is a disgrace, a national disgrace, and we haven't done enough, obviously -- this administration hasn't done enough to cure that. Whenever interest they have is not strong enough, and I think possibly now it may be time for somebody else to come along and solve the problem.
(APPLAUSE)
So, Mr. President, how do you handle promises that you have made when you were running for election, and how do you handle them? I mean, what do you say to people? Do you just -- you know -- I know -- people were wondering -- you don't -- handle that OK. Well, I know even people in your own party were very disappointed when you didn't close Gitmo. And I thought, well closing Gitmo -- why
close that, we spent so much money on it. But, I thought maybe as an excuse -- what do you mean shut up?
(LAUGHTER)
OK, I thought maybe it was just because somebody had the stupid idea of trying terrorists in downtown New York City. 

(APPLAUSE)
I've got to to hand it to you. I have to give credit where
credit is due. You did finally overrule that finally. And
that's --
now we are moving onward. I know you were against the war in
Iraq,
and that's okay. But you thought the war in Afghanistan was OK.
You
know, I mean -- you thought that was something worth doing. We
didn't
check with the Russians to see how did it -- they did there for
10
years.
(APPLAUSE)
But we did it, and it is something to be thought about, and
I
think that, when we get to maybe -- I think you've mentioned
something about having a target date for bringing everybody
home. You
gave that target date, and I think Mr. Romney asked the only
sensible
question, you know, he says, ``Why are you giving the date out
now?
Why don't you just bring them home tomorrow morning?''
(APPLAUSE)
And I thought -- I thought, yeah -- I am not going to shut
up, it
is my turn.
(LAUGHTER)
So anyway, we're going to have -- we're going to have to
have a
little chat about that. And then, I just wondered, all these
promises
-- I wondered about when the -- what do you want me to tell
Romney? I
can't tell him to do that. I can't tell him to do that to
himself.
(APPLAUSE)
You're crazy, you're absolutely crazy. You're getting as
bad as
Biden.
(APPLAUSE)
Of course we all now Biden is the intellect of the
Democratic
party.
(LAUGHTER)
Kind of a grin with a body behind it.
(LAUGHTER)
But I just think that there is so much to be done, and I
think
that Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan are two guys that can come along.
See, I
never thought it was a good idea for attorneys to the president,
anyway.
(APPLAUSE)
I think attorneys are so busy -- you know they're always
taught
to argue everything, and always weight everything -- weigh both
sides...
MORE
(INSERT ZACH)
XXX I think attorneys are so busy -- you know they're
always taught to argue everything, always weigh everything,
weigh both sides.
EASTWOOD: They are always devil's advocating this and
bifurcating this and bifurcating that. You know all that stuff.
But, I think it is maybe time -- what do you think -- for maybe
a businessman. How about that?
(APPLAUSE)
A stellar businessman. Quote, unquote, ``a stellar
businessman.''
And I think it's that time. And I think if you just step
aside and Mr. Romney can kind of take over. You can maybe still
use a plane.
(APPLAUSE)
Though maybe a smaller one. Not that big gas guzzler you
are going around to colleges and talking about student loans and
stuff like that.
(APPLAUSE)
You are an -- an ecological man. Why would you want to
drive that around?
OK, well anyway. All right, I'm sorry. I can't do that to
myself either.
(APPLAUSE)
I would just like to say something, ladies and gentlemen.
Something that I think is very important. It is that, you, we
-- we own this country.
(APPLAUSE)
We -- we own it. It is not you owning it, and not
politicians owning it. Politicians are employees of ours.
(APPLAUSE)
And -- so -- they are just going to come around and beg
for votes every few years. It is the same old deal. But I just
think it is important that you realize , that you're the best in
the world. Whether you are a Democrat or Republican or whether
you're libertarian or whatever, you are the best. And we should
not ever forget that. And when somebody does not do the job, we
got to let them go.
(APPLAUSE)
Okay, just remember that. And I'm speaking out for
everybody out there. It doesn't hurt, we don't have to be
(AUDIENCE MEMBER): (inaudible)
(LAUGHTER)
I do not say that word anymore. Well, maybe one last time.
(LAUGHTER)
We don't have to be -- what I'm saying, we do not have to
be metal (ph) masochists and vote for somebody that we don't
really even want in office just because they seem to be nice
guys or maybe not so nice guys, if you look at some of the
recent ads going out there, I don't know.
(APPLAUSE)
But OK. You want to make my day?
(APPLAUSE)
All right. I started, you finish it. Go ahead.

AUDIENCE: Make my day!
EASTWOOD: Thank you. Thank you very much.

Experts Agree Gun Control Works!

Experts Agree Gun Control Works!

The defense of the right to keep and bear arms is a defense of the core of the American Soul. The San Francisco Bleat, Nancy “stretch” Pelosi is calling for gun registration. In an interview with Good Morning America (Good Grief, America; you actually watch that?) everyone`s favorite Bolshevik grandmother called for the registration of American firearms. According to the Washington Times: “The speaker picked a television show with a viewership of 4.6 million to float the Democrats’ coming gun-control push. Questioned on ABC’s “Good Morning America” about the prospect of new gun-control laws now that “it’s a Democratic president, a Democratic House,” she responded, “We don’t want to take their guns away. We want them registered.”
The above was pulled from a Timothy Birdnow article

They want you to say | It's better to say   
    (and you lose if you say): | (and they lose if you say)  
    =======================================================               
                       pro gun | pro rights
                   gun control |   crime control
             anti-gun movement | anti-self-defense movement
         semiautomatic handgun | sidearm
               concealed carry | carry or right to carry
      assault or lethal weapon | household firearms
                     junk guns | the affordability issue
       high capacity magazines | full capacity magazines
              Second Amendment | Bill of Rights
        the powerful gun lobby | civil rights organizations
      common sense legislation | dangerous utopian ideas
       reasonable gun controls | victim disarmament
              gun control laws | infringement laws
                      anti gun | anti-gun bigot
                      anti gun | anti-gun prejudice
                      anti gun | anti rights

                When they say: | You say:
            ================================
                     Guns kill | Guns save lives
              Guns cause crime | Guns stop crime
                  Guns are bad | Guns are why America is still free
       Assault weapons are bad | Assault is a type of behavior
         Guns are so dangerous | Guns are supposed to be dangerous
 Guns are too dangerous to own | You should take a safety class
    People shouldn't have guns | Maybe you shouldn't have one
Guns should be totally outlawed | Let's try that with drugs first
The purpose of a gun is to kill | The purpose of a gun is to protect
        People don't need guns | Only good people need guns
           Guns should go away | Then you should personally sign up
                                  to never have a gun in your life, 
                                  as you would ask of me
         They should take away | Bad guys first
                  all the guns 
They should take away all the guns| Who exactly is "they" you would
    because they're so dangerous   you wold give all these dangerous
                                   guns to?
Gun owners should be registered | Bad guys first
Gun owners should be registered | So, how would writing my name on a
             to help stop crime   government list help stop crime?                        
          We need more gun laws | Criminal activity is already banned
Why would anyone want to own a gun? | You're kidding, right? You mean you
                                    really don't know? Well, why do you
                                    think we give guns to the police?
I'm not against people having guns | What sort of guns do you think
                                     people should have, and why?
     Do you really have a gun? | Of course, don't you?
                                                                  Alan Korwin
                                     www.gunlaws.com - Click New Stuff button

"The Chinese, the Russians, the Nazis and Saddam Hussein all agree! Gun Control Works!"
 Dean Armstrong

A little Gun History Lesson:
* In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
* In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
* Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
 * China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
* Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. * Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
* Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
* Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million. The tragic history of civilian disarmament cries a warning against any systematic attempts to render innocent citizens ill-equipped to defend themselves from tyrant terrorists, despots or oppressive majorities.
Daniel Schmutter (b. 1964)

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 

United States Constitution, Amendment II Bill of Rights

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that 

all power is inherent in the people; that... 

it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;..." 

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824

"All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. 

The communist party must command all the guns, that way, 

no guns can ever be used to command the party." 

Mao Tse Tung Problems of War and Strategy, Nov 6 1938

"One man with a gun can control 100 without one."
Lenin (1870-1924)

 "Gun Control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. 

I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. 

Safety Locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. 

We'll see who wins." 

Sammy "the Bull" Gravano (b. 1945) Asked about Gun Control in an interview in Vanity Fair

"A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device
 to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie." 
 Lenin (1870-1924) "The Beginning of the Revolution in Russia"

I always welcome any input on these matters especially from the Leftists. Just keep it civil, factual and truthful and I will not remove it (I know many of you Liberals struggle with a civil, factual and truthful discussion see
Why Liberals Always Resort To Name-Calling?).

Why Socialism Failed

This is a great article written by Mark J. Perry posted on the Freeman Blog on June 1995. It is so timeless that it still rings true today.

Why Socialism Failed

by Mark J. Perry • June 1995 • Vol. 45/Issue 6

Socialism is the Big Lie of the twentieth century. While it promised prosperity, equality, and security, it delivered poverty, misery, and tyranny. Equality was achieved only in the sense that everyone was equal in his or her misery.
In the same way that a Ponzi scheme or chain letter initially succeeds but eventually collapses, socialism may show early signs of success. But any accomplishments quickly fade as the fundamental deficiencies of central planning emerge. It is the initial illusion of success that gives government intervention its pernicious, seductive appeal. In the long run, socialism has always proven to be a formula for tyranny and misery.
A pyramid scheme is ultimately unsustainable because it is based on faulty principles. Likewise, collectivism is unsustainable in the long run because it is a flawed theory. Socialism does not work because it is not consistent with fundamental principles of human behavior. The failure of socialism in countries around the world can be traced to one critical defect: it is a system that ignores incentives.
In a capitalist economy, incentives are of the utmost importance. Market prices, the profit-and-loss system of accounting, and private property rights provide an efficient, interrelated system of incentives to guide and direct economic behavior. Capitalism is based on the theory that incentives matter!
Under socialism, incentives either play a minimal role or are ignored totally. A centrally planned economy without market prices or profits, where property is owned by the state, is a system without an effective incentive mechanism to direct economic activity. By failing to emphasize incentives, socialism is a theory inconsistent with human nature and is therefore doomed to fail. Socialism is based on the theory that incentives don’t matter!
In a radio debate several months ago with a Marxist professor from the University of Minnesota, I pointed out the obvious failures of socialism around the world in Cuba, Eastern Europe, and China. At the time of our debate, Haitian refugees were risking their lives trying to get to Florida in homemade boats. Why was it, I asked him, that people were fleeing Haiti and traveling almost 500 miles by ocean to get to the “evil capitalist empire” when they were only 50 miles from the “workers’ paradise” of Cuba?
The Marxist admitted that many “socialist” countries around the world were failing. However, according to him, the reason for failure is not that socialism is deficient, but that the socialist economies are not practicing “pure” socialism. The perfect version of socialism would work; it is just the imperfect socialism that doesn’t work. Marxists like to compare a theoretically perfect version of socialism with practical, imperfect capitalism which allows them to claim that socialism is superior to capitalism.
If perfection really were an available option, the choice of economic and political systems would be irrelevant. In a world with perfect beings and infinite abundance, any economic or political system–socialism, capitalism, fascism, or communism–would work perfectly.
However, the choice of economic and political institutions is crucial in an imperfect universe with imperfect beings and limited resources. In a world of scarcity it is essential for an economic system to be based on a clear incentive structure to promote economic efficiency. The real choice we face is between imperfect capitalism and imperfect socialism. Given that choice, the evidence of history overwhelmingly favors capitalism as the greatest wealth-producing economic system available.
The strength of capitalism can be attributed to an incentive structure based upon the three Ps: (1) prices determined by market forces, (2) a profit-and-loss system of accounting and (3) private property rights. The failure of socialism can be traced to its neglect of these three incentive-enhancing components.
Prices
The price system in a market economy guides economic activity so flawlessly that most people don’t appreciate its importance. Market prices transmit information about relative scarcity and then efficiently coordinate economic activity. The economic content of prices provides incentives that promote economic efficiency.
For example, when the OPEC cartel restricted the supply of oil in the 1970s, oil prices rose dramatically. The higher prices for oil and gasoline transmitted valuable information to both buyers and sellers. Consumers received a strong, clear message about the scarcity of oil by the higher prices at the pump and were forced to change their behavior dramatically. People reacted to the scarcity by driving less, carpooling more, taking public transportation, and buying smaller cars. Producers reacted to the higher price by increasing their efforts at exploration for more oil. In addition, higher oil prices gave producers an incentive to explore and develop alternative fuel and energy sources.
The information transmitted by higher oil prices provided the appropriate incentive structure to both buyers and sellers. Buyers increased their effort to conserve a now more precious resource and sellers increased their effort to find more of this now scarcer resource.
The only alternative to a market price is a controlled or fixed price which always transmits misleading information about relative scarcity. Inappropriate behavior results from a controlled price because false information has been transmitted by an artificial, non-market price.
Look at what happened during the 1970s when U.S. gas prices were controlled. Long lines developed at service stations all over the country because the price for gasoline was kept artificially low by government fiat. The full impact of scarcity was not accurately conveyed. As Milton Friedman pointed out at the time, we could have eliminated the lines at the pump in one day by allowing the price to rise to clear the market.
From our experience with price controls on gasoline and the long lines at the pump and general inconvenience, we get an insight into what happens under socialism where every price in the economy is controlled. The collapse of socialism is due in part to the chaos and inefficiency that result from artificial prices. The information content of a controlled price is always distorted. This in turn distorts the incentives mechanism of prices under socialism. Administered prices are always either too high or too low, which then creates constant shortages and surpluses. Market prices are the only way to transmit information that will create the incentives to ensure economic efficiency.
Profits and Losses
Socialism also collapsed because of its failure to operate under a competitive, profit-and-loss system of accounting. A profit system is an effective monitoring mechanism which continually evaluates the economic performance of every business enterprise. The firms that are the most efficient and most successful at serving the public interest are rewarded with profits. Firms that operate inefficiently and fail to serve the public interest are penalized with losses.
By rewarding success and penalizing failure, the profit system provides a strong disciplinary mechanism which continually redirects resources away from weak, failing, and inefficient firms toward those firms which are the most efficient and successful at serving the public. A competitive profit system ensures a constant reoptimization of resources and moves the economy toward greater levels of efficiency. Unsuccessful firms cannot escape the strong discipline of the marketplace under a profit/loss system. Competition forces companies to serve the public interest or suffer the consequences.
Under central planning, there is no profit-and-loss system of accounting to accurately measure the success or failure of various programs. Without profits, there is no way to discipline firms that fail to serve the public interest and no way to reward firms that do. There is no efficient way to determine which programs should be expanded and which ones should be contracted or terminated.
Without competition, centrally planned economies do not have an effective incentive structure to coordinate economic activity. Without incentives the results are a spiraling cycle of poverty and misery. Instead of continually reallocating resources towards greater efficiency, socialism falls into a vortex of inefficiency and failure.
Private Property Rights
A third fatal defect of socialism is its blatant disregard for the role of private property rights in creating incentives that foster economic growth and development. The failure of socialism around the world is a “tragedy of commons” on a global scale.
The “tragedy of the commons” refers to the British experience of the sixteenth century when certain grazing lands were communally owned by villages and were made available for public use. The land was quickly overgrazed and eventually became worthless as villagers exploited the communally owned resource.
When assets are publicly owned, there are no incentives in place to encourage wise stewardship. While private property creates incentives for conservation and the responsible use of property, public property encourages irresponsibility and waste. If everyone owns an asset, people act as if no one owns it. And when no one owns it, no one really takes care of it. Public ownership encourages neglect and mismanagement.
Since socialism, by definition, is a system marked by the “common ownership of the means of production,” the failure of socialism is a “tragedy of the commons” on a national scale. Much of the economic stagnation of socialism can be traced to the failure to establish and promote private property rights.
As Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto remarked, you can travel in rural communities around the world and you will hear dogs barking, because even dogs understand property rights. It is only statist governments that have failed to understand property rights. Socialist countries are just now starting to recognize the importance of private property as they privatize assets and property in Eastern Europe.
Incentives Matter
Without the incentives of market prices, profit-and-loss accounting, and well-defined property rights, socialist economies stagnate and wither. The economic atrophy that occurs under socialism is a direct consequence of its neglect of economic incentives.
No bounty of natural resources can ever compensate a country for its lack of an efficient system of incentives. Russia, for example, is one of the world’s wealthiest countries in terms of natural resources; it has some of the world’s largest reserves of oil, natural gas, diamonds, and gold. Its valuable farm land, lakes, rivers, and streams stretch across a land area that encompasses 11 time zones. Yet Russia remains poor. Natural resources are helpful, but the ultimate resources of any country are the unlimited resources of its people–human resources.
By their failure to foster, promote, and nurture the potential of their people through incentive-enhancing institutions, centrally planned economies deprive the human spirit of full development. Socialism fails because it kills and destroys the human spirit–just ask the people leaving Cuba in homemade rafts and boats.
As the former centrally planned economies move toward free markets, capitalism, and democracy, they look to the United States for guidance and support during the transition. With an unparalleled 250-year tradition of open markets and limited government, the United States is uniquely qualified to be the guiding light in the worldwide transition to freedom and liberty.
We have an obligation to continue to provide a framework of free markets and democracy for the global transition to freedom. Our responsibility to the rest of the world is to continue to fight the seductiveness of statism around the world and here at home. The seductive nature of statism continues to tempt and lure us into the Barmecidal illusion that the government can create wealth.
The temptress of socialism is constantly luring us with the offer: “give up a little of your freedom and I will give you a little more security.” As the experience of this century has demonstrated, the bargain is tempting but never pays off. We end up losing both our freedom and our security.
Programs like socialized medicine, welfare, Social Security, and minimum wage laws will continue to entice us because on the surface they appear to be expedient and beneficial. Those programs, like all socialist programs, will fail in the long run regardless of initial appearances. These programs are part of the Big Lie of socialism because they ignore the important role of incentives.
Socialism will remain a constant temptation. We must be vigilant in our fight against socialism not only around the globe but also here in the United States.
The failure of socialism inspired a worldwide renaissance of freedom and liberty. For the first time in the history of the world, the day is coming very soon when a majority of the people in the world will live in free societies or societies rapidly moving toward freedom.
Capitalism will play a major role in the global revival of liberty and prosperity because it nurtures the human spirit, inspires human creativity, and promotes the spirit of enterprise. By providing a powerful system of incentives that promote thrift, hard work, and efficiency, capitalism creates wealth.
The main difference between capitalism and socialism is this: Capitalism works.

---

Article printed from The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty: http://www.thefreemanonline.org
URL to article: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/features/why-socialism-failed/

We are turning a sustainable safety net into a Ponzi scheme hammock!

I am sick and tired of the obvious bias and twisting of the truth by the mainstream media and many professors at our tax funded Universities. What is fair about punishing hard work thru excessive taxation then perpetuating poverty by regulating poor entrepreneurs out of business? We need to allow free mobility of the poor to move up the social-economic ladder instead of locking them into the ghetto with the permanent underclass. I am not advocating the wholesale elimination of our social programs but instead a minimal amount as required to help the unfortunate poorest among us survive while having some programs available providing the needed tools for those willing to work hard thus move up the social economic ladder.

Below is a great article I read published on Canada free Press.

Democrats most often divide Americans along cultural lines then employs class envy

Cultural deconstruction: turning a safety net into a hammock

- David Coughlin  Wednesday, September 7, 2011

---

The Democrat political strategy is to segment the American people into constituency classes that can be served separately.  Al Gore made a Freudian slip when he admitted while campaigning that “We can build a collective civic space large enough for all our separate identities, that we can be E Pluribus Unum—out of one, many.”

Democrats most often divide Americans along cultural lines (region, race, ethnicity, religion, and personal values), rather than along economic lines. The party then employs class envy as an explicit strategy for righting perceived wrongs and offering a goal of future class equity. This strategy tends to be very divisive, pitting one class vs. another in a zero sum game, never completely satisfying any constituent class.

Political power is ensured by retaining this underclass as a permanent voting bloc that can be exploited for ongoing political support. Unfortunately nurturing a permanent underclass for political purposes has had unintended cultural consequences, which may eventually

The purpose of welfare is to assist individuals in need and ultimately to help welfare recipients out of poverty and make them self-sufficient.  Medicare was originally designed in 1965 as a Great Society health insurance program for all Americans age 65 and older and for the permanent physically disabled, funded by payroll taxes.  Medicaid is the means tested health program created in 1965 as part of the War on Poverty for people with low incomes and resources, jointly funded by the state and federal governments, and managed by the states.  These social insurance programs have expanded well beyond their original intents, and the unintended consequences has been to grow dependence on government support, instead of a return to self sufficiency. After the Great Society legislation of the 1960s, for the first time a person who was not elderly or disabled could receive a living from the American government.  President Franklin D. Roosevelt said in 1935, “Continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit.”  Social Security and Medicare are rapidly approaching bankruptcy, spending more money each year than is collected.  The destructiveness of welfare goes beyond financial affordability and political dependency. 
The more welfare that families receive from government, the less fathers are necessary for their support, undermining the basic building block of society, the family unit.  Lacking the role model of a responsible father, children grow up to believe that dependency is a natural condition of life.  The children of welfare moms are nurtured in a mentality that perpetuates dependency from generation to generation.  The impact of food stamps, Section 8 housing subsidies, Medicaid, and other support programs has been to create a permanent welfare class who, in terms of skills and attitudes, are poorly equipped to return to work.  The U.S. has spent $16 trillion since LBJ launched his “War on Poverty” in 1964, but the percentage of people in “poverty” remains essentially the same.  Despite the fact that illegal aliens do not contribute to the program funding, many states cover them despite explicitly being excluded.  Our culture has eroded so much now that dependence on the government has become an acceptable lifestyle for the permanent underclass, which has transformed our temporary economic “safety net” into a comfortable “hammock” for long term living.
By design Democrats have deconstructed our American culture into a loose confederation of disparate class cultures on the verge of open class warfare.  Democrats have nurtured an underclass politically dependent with a well developed sense of entitlement, which has taught generations that society owes them a living; that government is responsible for raising their children; working is not necessary; and everyone is entitled to the fruits of other people’s labor.  This policy shows a reckless disregard for the consequences of dependency, which will be terrible. 
Welfare-state paternalism has bred and nurtured immoral, undesirable people because government entitlements create one of two attitudes towards society: either ingratitude or resentment.  If they receive what they’re entitled to, there is nothing to be grateful for because you’re entitled to it.  If they haven’t received an entitlement, then they’re resentful because you haven’t received what you feel you are entitled to.  Evidence of this resentment can be seen in the black “flash mobs” attacking randomly in a number of U.S. cities and the U.K. hoodlum riots attacking random businesses.  We should expect to see more of this violence at the Day of Rage starting on September 17th, since it was originally planned for non-violent protests in three cities, but has already expanded to a week of civil disobedience in at least ten cities.
Nothing less than a culture re-construction is needed to recover from the degradation of our western society.  We must resurrect the culture of personal responsibility.  We must re-teach the cause and effect relationship between hard work and achievement.  Relearning the art of parental discipline, and re-establishing the primacy of the moral code upon which western civilization was built are monumental but necessary tasks.  I hope we are not too late because it will take generations to undo the harm done to our culture.  Ultimately the concept of entitlement must be dismantled from the welfare state.
The Democrats have embraced class warfare as their primary political tactic.  The unintended (or perhaps intended) consequence has been the creation of a permanent underclass totally dependent on the government for their well-being.  Political power is maintained by retaining this dependence in exchange for political support.  Unless you are an unrepentant Marxist praying for a class uprising, this permanent underclass is condemned to a government subsistence existence and an inability to participate in the American Dream.

Did you notice something missing from President Obama’s State of the Union speech on Tuesday?

I received this great letter from the Americans For Prosperity so I wanted to share it with all of you. If you can afford it please do give them a donation as this is a fine Conservative organization that does good work for the cause.

Did you notice something missing from President Obama’s State of the Union speech on Tuesday?

President Obama forgot to mention his biggest "accomplishments": sticking the American people with liberal policies, like ObamaCare and the $814 billion dollar Stimulus, that destroy jobs, pile up debt, burden our small businesses with runaway regulations, and focus on redistributing wealth rather than make our entire economy stronger.

Z AC Tech, I hope you saw our "Obama Forgets" effort last week—a critical initiative that put the spotlight on President Obama’s record, and drew focus to the failed liberal policy agenda he seems to "forget" whenever he’s giving yet another speech.

President Obama knows the only way to save face and gain support is by making sure Americans also "forget" about the policies during his three failed years as President.

And that’s why I’m asking you for help today. With President Obama determined to hide from his record, can you help AFP remind the American people about the negative impact Obama’s policies have had on our economic freedom and prosperity?

Please click here to make a donation of $25, $50, $100 or more to AFP—and help us make sure the American people remember what Obama wants us to forget and put grassroots pressure on the Left.

Z AC Tech, thanks to the hard work and support of activists like you, even Obama himself is running scared about the massive effect AFP’s efforts will have on his policy agenda.

In fact, just last week, the Obama campaign launched its first TV ad of 2012.

And, instead of addressing the biggest problems facing our country, the ad directly attacked Americans for Prosperity.

That’s right—the first ad of President Obama’s re-election campaign was all about AFP, smearing us as "secretive" and attacking our 1.9 million grassroots activists—hardworking American taxpayers like you.

President Obama’s concerned because AFP has the most well-informed, the best-mobilized, and the most determined group of activists out there—and we’re going to keep fighting until we cut through President Obama’s “forgetfulness” and bring the truth right to the American people.

And already, AFP has put the groundwork in place to build on our success—and guarantee even more policy victories in 2012.

AFP’s new Field Program will take action in 16 critical states, 204 counties, and will rally not just our 1.9 million AFP activists nationwide—but help attract the millions of like-minded Americans who aren’t yet fighting alongside you and me on the side of freedom.

With 80 team members, based right in communities like yours, we will lead the charge with rallies, events, block walking, door knocking, phone banking, and paid and earned media on TV, radio, print, and the internet.

Z AC Tech, you know the kind of results AFP gets—and, in 2012, we’re going to make the biggest impact in our organization’s entire history.

But we can’t make the most of this effort without your help.

Please click here to make your much-needed donation of $25, $50, $100 or more to AFP—and help us keep momentum through 2012.

Thank you very much for everything you’ve done—and I know that, with your help, we will bring freedom and prosperity back to America.

Sincerely,

Tim Phillips, President
Americans for Prosperity

P.S. You know you're making a difference when the President of the United States attacks you in his first TV ad of 2012.  Let's make sure we answer his dishonest attack with the truth about his failed big government record.  Can you help us remind the American people of everything Obama’s "forgotten"? Click here to donate $25, $50, $100 or more to AFP—and help us expose the truth behind Obama’s failed liberal policy agenda.

"To Disarm The People - That Was The Best And Most Effectual Way To Enslave Them"

This article hits the nail on the head so I just had to mention it on my blog. Please do enjoy.

Veritas Libertas by Edward Wimberley

• By Edward Wimberley
• Posted in http://www.naplesnews.com/blogs/veritas-libertas-edward-wimberley/2009/nov/12/arms/on November 12, 2009 at 10:05 p.m.

The title to this commentary was drawn from a 1788 quote by one of our founders, George Mason. Although his quote is more than two hundred years old, it remains as current now as it was then.
Some things have simply not changed. Those regimes seeking to assert and maintain absolute control over the citizenry will always try to disarm them first by means of confiscation, regulation, taxation, and through controlling markets for firearms and ammunition. Without exception, an unarmed citizenry is one that can be effectively bullied and coerced and are readily controlled by the government.
By comparison, a well armed citizenry is an ominous threat to any police or military force who would seek to exert control over them. It is for this reason that our founding fathers introduced the Second Amendment into the U.S. Constitution.
Undoubtedly many readers will challenge the logic of the Second Amendment and will assert that the rationale for gun ownership that I have presented is no more than empty rhetoric. However, before you completely close your mind on this issue, consider the following:
Turkey established its gun control laws in 1911, utilizing them to arrest and exterminate some 1.5 million Armenians between 1915 and 1917.
The Soviet Union prohibited citizen gun ownership in 1929 which in turn contributed to somewhere between 20 and 62 millions citizen “dissidents” being rounded up, imprisoned and exterminated.
In 1938, the Nazi Party implemented strict gun control enabling them to collect and exterminate approximately 13 million Jews between 1939 and 1945.
After invading Poland in 1939, the Nazi forces utilized pre-war gun registration lists to both confiscate firearms and arrest their owners. Thereafter they were free to round up the Jews for the Warsaw Ghetto and ship them off to concentration camps.
Gun control laws introduced in 1956 allowed Cambodia police and military forces to arrest around 21 million professionals and intellectuals and exterminate them.
Although the U.S. Constitution was created long ago, the intelligence and foresight of our founders regarding our national sovereignty and self-defense remains impressive.
There are many quotes from the founders which could be cited to illustrate their rationale for including the Second Amendment in the Constitution. However some of the following quotations are particularly indicative of their thinking at the time.
For instance, Thomas Jefferson, after observing during the drafting of the Virginia Constitution that "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms” (1776) later asserted in correspondence to John Cartwright (1824) that “"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
James Madison, though best remembered for asserting in 1792 that “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country,” also observed that (1788) “The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms ... Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.”
Likewise, Patriot Richard Henry Lee - renowned for calling for the independence of the colonies during the Second Continental Congress - is also remembered for warning that (1788) " to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
Finally, our first United States President George Washington made the timeless observation (1790) that "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
Our founder's words are clear, distinct and unequivocal. It doesn’t take a Harvard trained attorney to interpret their plain-language as they blatantly asserted that the people not only “should” maintain personal arms, the absolutely “must” maintain arms in the interest of remaining free.
Nevertheless, those on the left continue their seemingly endless campaign to disarm Americans. The most recent, and alarming, piece of legislation intended to achieve this end is H.R. 45 – the Blair-Holt Act - sponsored by Illinois Democrat congressman Bobby Rush.
Fortunately, this bill is in committee and thankfully has not attracted co-sponsors to date. However, H.R. 45 will likely enjoy Obama's endorsement since it is essentially identical to H.R. 2666 introduced in 2007 and co-sponsored by 15 other representatives including Barack Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel. Given Emmanuel's support for such legislation and Obama's strident anti-gun legislative record, we can reasonably expect his endorsement if the bill attracts additional sponsors and moves out of committee.
H.R. 45 mandates that all handguns and semi-automatic weapons either purchased directly or transferred must be entered into a national firearm registry and that all firearm purchases must be made through federally licensed gun dealers. Furthermore, all citizens will be required to report to the federal government all of the firearms within their possession and will not be allowed to sell or dispose of these firearms without going through a licensed gun dealer and recording all transfers to the federal government.
There is also another piece of legislation under committee scrutiny that bears monitoring, and that is The Gun Show Background Check Act of 2009 (S.843) sponsored by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ). This bill would require background checks at gun shows and allow the U.S. Attorney General to conduct unscheduled audits of sales and transfers at gun shows. It is this latter provision that has proven controversial since it gives the attorney general the authority to show up unannounced at gun shows with a cadre of auditors and literally halt all gun sales and transactions while they conduct audits of dealer records.
Undoubtedly the President will sign H.R. 45 bill if it is passed by the Congress. In fact, throughout the weeks and months to come we should look to see if he actively backs this bill or if its content is incorporated into another gun control bill that the administration and Ms. Pelosi endorse. Moreover, he can likewise be expected to also support Senator Lautenberg's bill if it is passed. The net effect of both bills would be to seriously curtail citizen second-amendment rights and incrementally expand federal capacity to identify the firearms owned by private citizens.
In truth, the amazing thing about those within the administration who would restrict gun sales and ownership is how disconnected they are from the constitutional foundations for second amendment rights.
I fear that this disconnection reflects two underlying values.
First, I believe that this President, his administration and his progressive partners in the Congress simply do not recognize the authority of the Constitution of the United States. Rather than relating to it as a binding legal document, they treat it as a departure point for an endless procession of federal court decisions that serve to redefine the nation’s constitution and laws to suit the whims of whoever happens to be occupying the judiciary at any given time. In other words, the progressive commitment to judicial activism easily trumps any sense of respect or deference to our nation’s principal founding document.
Secondly, I am convinced that this President and his administration envision a powerful central government that can generally impose its will on the public – whether they like it or not. We have already seen their indifference to taxpayer protests against deficit spending and a national health care system. Similarly Obama has ignored the desires of many, many other citizens who feel that we are leaving our troops in Afghanistan in harms-way because he will not send additional troops. He also has demonstrated an indifference to truth itself when he guarantees the public he won’t impose new taxes on the middle class while he pushes for a national health care plan that fails to contain health care costs while imposing a significant tax on every single citizen to pay for it. All of these actions indicate to me that Obama is hell-bent to do whatever he wants – the public be damned.
Given this authoritarian attitude, it is not hard for me to believe at all that he and his administration would absolutely love to take away the guns of the citizenry, knowing that in so doing they will become even more vulnerable to coercion.
I realize what I am saying. I am saying that for the first time in the nation’s history I believe we have a President and administration capable of imposing their will upon the citizenry by eliminating the physical capacity of the public to resist them.
Lest you think I have "flown the veritable coop" with this assertion, remember that the same type of criticism could have been made of any citizen living in the era of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot or Pilsudski who made an assertion similar to my own.
Nobody ever wants to consider that their government or its leaders may have the capacity to become dictatorial oppressors. I am certainly unhappy to have come to the conclusion that President Obama and his administration may very well be willing to become even more high-handed, oppressive and autocratic if doing so furthers their agenda.

Rick Santorum is the true Conservative that represents blue collar workers

Rick Santorum is the true Conservative that represents blue collar workers

 I am hoping that the majority of Conservatives get behind Rick Santorum and support him. I feel the he is the best of the Republican front runners. We can either unite now behind Santorum and have a Conservative, or have the GOP establishment choose another moderate Republican.

Santorum, Riding Wave, Sharpens Aim at Romney

Above is a great article about Rick Santorum in the Wall Street Journal written by PATRICK O'CONNOR And JANET HOOK well worth reading.

Conservative Change and Hope for 2012

 Conservative Change and Hope for 2012

It’s hard to think of a president that has been more of a failure than President Obama. I suspect that Carter is glad this guy came along, so at least he knows he is no longer the worst president ever. My Hope is that we will have a Change of President in 2012!

The one good thing about Obama is that he may very well be the cause of a Conservative resurgence the likes of which we have not seen in a long long time.

The two years the Obama Pelosi and Reid controlled all was used to ram thru many unpopular Big Government bills. The way Obamacare was born, it was quite a show of smoke and mirrors. The Progressives put out such a radical health plan that they never compromised on, which is so pro union, anti business, too expensive and full of big government that there is no hope of that any Conservative could possibly endorse. They have the audacity and arrogance to call this a bipartisan solution when it is actually social economic suicide. Government is inherently incompetent and corrupt so therefore should do less. Common sense screams use small government. One size does not fit all so let the individual States each decide what is best for themselves.


Now that the results of this exclusively Democratic piece of legislation that was rammed down the average Americans throat is starting to be felt by all it will be swaying elections for years to come.

Top 10 Failures of ObamaCare After One Year

by Emily Miller

03/23/2011

President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law on March 23, 2010.  In just the year since, the law known as ObamaCare has already severely crippled the nation’s economy and health care system.

Despite Obama’s continued pride in his signature health care legislation, a new CNN poll shows that 58% of Americans disapprove of the way Obama is handling health care.

The Republican House passed a repeal of ObamaCare in January, but the bill was blocked by the Democrat-controlled Senate.  Four House committees are now drafting a replacement bill for ObamaCare.  The House also passed legislation defunding ObamaCare in March, which was likewise blocked by the Senate Democrats.  Republican leaders are committed, however, and say that they will be defunding the health care law through the appropriations process this year.

These are the top 10 failures of ObamaCare, starting with those that have had the most serious effect already on the economy, jobs, and the American people.

1.  Explodes the Budget Deficit

One year ago, Obama said, “This legislation will also lower costs for ...  the federal government, reducing our deficit by over $1 trillion in the next two decades.  It is paid for.  It is fiscally responsible. “

Today:  ObamaCare is projected to cost at least $2.4 trillion when it is fully implemented.  Instead of Obama’s promise to reduce the deficit, the Congressional Budget Office​ (CBO) estimates that ObamaCare will increase the federal deficit by $260 billion through 2019.  The United States has more than $14 trillion in debt already, and will hit the current statutory debt ceiling ($14.3 trillion) in the next couple of months.

2.  Kills Jobs

One year ago: Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) said that the health care bill “will create 4 million jobs — 400,000 jobs almost immediately."

Today: The only jobs that have been created from ObamaCare are the tens of thousands of new government bureaucrats who have been hired to deal with all the new regulations and taxes from ObamaCare.

Contrary to Pelosi’s prediction, the director of the CBO testified that 800,000 jobs will be lost over the next decade as a result of  the law.  Even the liberal Urban Institute released a report this week that said that the health care law will have "no noticeable effect on net levels of employment."  Employers are forced to either cut jobs or move workers into part-time slots that are not mandated to receive health insurance in order to meet the regulations, according to the CBO.

3.  Lose Your Own Doctor and Health Plan

One year ago:  Obama said, “If you like your current insurance, you will keep your current insurance.  No government takeover.  Nobody is changing what you’ve got if you’re happy with it.  If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor.  If you like your plan, you can keep it.”

Today: New regulations could force as many as 87 million Americans to lose their current health care plans and their own doctors.

As soon as the new ObamaCare regulations were announced, companies told their employees that they may not be able to keep their current health care plans because of the increased expense.  So Obama’s secretary of Health and Human Services started issuing one-year waivers that exempt companies and unions from complying with the law if it causes a significant increase in premium costs or decrease in access to coverage.

ObamaCare is so broken that the Obama administration has spent the last six months exempting its union friends and large companies from the law.  In this one year, the Obama administration has already issued 1,040 waivers to unions and employers, which thereby exempt 2.6 million people from ObamaCare regulations.

But small businesses and non-union workers who do not have the resources or access to the administration’s waivers will be forced to drop their employees’ current health care plans.

4.  States’ Budget Deficits Grow to Possible Bankruptcy

One year ago: Obama said, “It will take four years to implement fully many of these reforms, because we need to implement them responsibly.  We need to get this right.”

Today: The states, which already have a collective $175 billion budget shortfall this year, are faced with such huge new mandatory costs from ObamaCare that some are on the verge of bankruptcy.

The main cost of the law’s plan to states is from expanding Medicare to add 20 million more people to the program.  Medicare accounts for an average of 22% of state budgets.  The Medicare expansion will cost the states $118 billion through 2023.  States are cutting other programs such as education and law enforcement in order to make up for the shortfall in the new federal mandates.

Already, 28 of 50 states have challenged the constitutionality of the health care law’s individual mandate in court.  Judges in Virginia and Florida have ruled that ObamaCare is unconstitutional.  These and other cases are expected to be resolved in the U.S. Supreme Court.

5.  Higher Insurance Premiums:

One year ago: Obama said that the law will “lower the cost of health care for our families.”

Today: Some Americans have already had a spike in the cost of their insurance premiums of an astounding 20% to 60%.  Insurance companies have raised premiums in double-digit increases.  For example, Blue Shield of California​ recently increased some of its individual plans by 59%, saying that 4% of the increase is a direct result of the new health care law.

Now, the CBO projects that the average American family will pay $2,100 more on health care premiums when the law is fully implemented (an increase of 10% to 13%).

6.  Crushes Businesses

One year ago: Obama said that the law will “lower the cost of health care” for businesses.

Today: While the economy is barely growing at all, companies are facing a government mandate to provide health care for their employees.  The law will cost at least $50 billion to employers because of these new mandates.

Even the CEO of Starbucks said this week that his company is struggling to meet the ObamaCare regulations.  His company spent $250 million last year on health care benefits, and the costs are expected to rise by double-digit percentages.  He said that if his big company is struggling, then he believes that “under the current guidelines, the pressure on small businesses, because of the mandate, is too great.”

7.  Fewer Americans Have Access to Health Insurance

One year ago: Obama said, “And we have now just enshrined, as soon as I sign this bill, the core principle that everybody should have some basic security when it comes to their health care.”

Today: Employers are facing huge increased costs or fines, and so will be forced to find ways to make fewer employees eligible for health benefits.  Experts estimate that as many as 35 million American workers will lose health care benefits because of the higher cost put on companies from ObamaCare.

Also, an estimated half-million children will lose health care because of the new law.  Big health insurance companies such as Anthem Blue Cross and Aetna have already dropped offering child-only policies in 19 states because they are too costly under the ObamaCare regulations.

8.  Senior Citizens Lose Medicare Coverage:

One year ago: Obama said, “We’re not going to mess with Medicare”.

Today: The health care law cuts nearly $530 billion in Medicare over the next decade, with $200 billion coming from the Medicare Advantage.  As one in four seniors is currently enrolled in the Medicare Advantage program, approximately 7 million of them will lose access to the popular program.  Many seniors have already been cut off their plans.

There are 46 million seniors in the Medicare program, but the ObamaCare provisions could drive the program into bankruptcy and prevent doctors from accepting it.  Physicians will have a nearly 30% cut in reimbursements next year from ObamaCare.

Even the Obama administration’s chief Medicare actuary reported, “Providers for whom Medicare constitutes a substantive portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable and, absent legislative intervention, might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries).”

9.  Overburdens Small Business

One year ago: Obama said, “This year, we’ll start offering tax credits to about 4 million small businessmen and women to help them cover the cost of insurance for their employees.”

Today: Obama has already conceded that a provision in his law is so onerous to small-business owners that he asked Congress to fix it.  The provision mandates that small-business owners file a 1099 tax form for any business transaction over $600.

Congress is working to pass the 1099 fix now, but the effect on small businesses has already hurt the economy.  Small businesses are the primary source of job creation in the U.S., so their burden this year with the 1099 provision and other mandates from health care has helped keep unemployment at almost 10%.

More than 40 million small businesses are subject to this new regulation.  So the Internal Revenue Service requested to hire 1,270 new bureaucrats to help handle the paperwork for the flood of 1099 forms and other provisions in implementing the new taxes from ObamaCare.

10.  Tax Hikes

One year ago: Obama said, “Millions of people will get tax breaks to help them afford coverage, which represents the largest middle-class tax cut for health care in history.”

Today: The ObamaCare law includes more than $813 billion in total tax hikes over the next decade, which include the penalty for not having health insurance, and taxes on health plans ($60 billion), medical devices ($20 billion), and prescription drugs ($27 billion).   

After President Obama signed the health care law last March 23, he said this:  “And now that this legislation is passed, you don’t have to take my word for it.  You’ll be able to see it in your own lives.  I heard one of the Republican leaders say this was going to be Armageddon.  Well, two months from now, six months from now, you can check it out.  We’ll look around and we’ll see.  You don’t have to take my word for it.”

Mr. President, as you instructed, the American people have looked around the country and they have checked out ObamaCare.  And, frankly, they still think it looks a lot like Armageddon.