Tax-cheat Tim And The Pension Scandal

Bookmark and Share  With the release of damaging internal emails, suddenly there’s a new scandal developing in Washington. At the heart of the matter is the Delphi employee pension plans affected by the General Motors bailout. Delphi is an auto parts manufacturing company.

It’s a breaking scandal and the information is somewhat patchwork at this point but apparently, as part of the GM bailout deal, the government allowed union workers’ pensions to remain whole while it chopped the pensions of non-union workers — some 20,000 non-union Delphi workers had their pensions slashed by almost half.

Further, there are hints that the decision was not only made for political purposes (Democrats doing the bump and grind with unions) but that the U.S. Treasury Department, led by confirmed tax cheat Timothy Geithner, was the driving force behind it all.

If true, this presents several problems for the administration. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) is the federal agency charged with independent administration of private-sector benefit issues, not the Treasury. According to 29 U.S.C. §1342, the PBGC is the only government agency legally empowered to initiate pension termination.

Thus, by federal law it should have been the PBGC that made the pension decisions, not Tax-cheat Tim and the Treasury. The White House and Treasury have consistently denied they were involved claiming it was strictly a PBGC decision. Which bring us to the next obstacle for the administration.

Obama bureaucrats have given sworn testimony before Congress and in federal court claiming the administration had nothing to do with the pension decisions. The recently obtained emails contradict this testimony hinting that Tax-cheat Tim was the driving force and that White House bumblecrats were in the loop. If true, then the Obama administration willfully mislead Congress and the court.

And sacrificed the pensions of 20,000 America citizens to demonstrate their allegiance to unions.

Follow I.M. Citizen at IMCitizen.net

Bookmark and Share

Three Presidential Debates and One Vice Presidential Debate Are Set for 2012

 Bookmark and Share  The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), has today announced the schedule, formats, and locations of the public debates that will pit the presidential and vice presidential candidates against one another in the 2012 election.

According to CPD co-chairmen Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr. and Michael D. McCurry, there will be three presidential debates and one vice presidential debate and each will last 90 minutes and begin at 9:00 p.m. Eastern Time.   They will be moderated by a single individual and while each debate will not allow opening statements by the candidates, they will feature two-minute closing statements.

The schedule is as follows:

The first presidential debate will focus on domestic policy and be divided into six time segments of approximately 15 minutes each on topics to be selected by the moderator and announced several weeks before the debate.

The moderator will open each segment with a question, after which each candidate will have two minutes to respond. The moderator will use the balance of the time in the segment for a discussion of the topic.

The first and only Vice Presidential debate which will take place in Danville, Kentucky’s Center University will discuss both foreign and domestic topics and be divided into nine time segments of approximately 10 minutes each. The moderator will ask an opening question, after which each candidate will have two minutes to respond. The moderator will use the balance of the time in the segment for a discussion of the question.

The second presidential debate will differ from the other two by featuring a town hall format that will have questions on both foreign and domestic policy, asked by undecided voters who are selected by the Gallup Organization.  In this forum, the presidential candidates will have two minutes to respond, and an additional minute for the moderator to facilitate a discussion.

The final presidential debate will be dedicated to foreign policy and it’s format will be identical to that of the first debate.

As for additional details, the CPD has recommended that the candidates be seated at a table with the moderator in each of the debate except for the town hall style forum at Hofstra University.  As for the all important question of who the moderators will be, the CPD states that those individuals “will be selected and announced in August.”

While politics has become more of a forum for soundbites than substance, these debates may provide voters with the opportunity to get at least a better understanding of the candidates that attend them.  While each presidential and vice presidential nominee will undoubtedly respond to questions with well tested phrases or points that are chock filled with well rehearsed statistics and jargon, these debates will most likely be more important for the opinions that voters establish based upon the rare, unscripted moments that these debates often offer.

Who can forget when in 1992, President George H.W. Bush looked at as his wrist watch and left the viewing audience with the impression that he was uninterested in the process.  In a campaign where his Democrat opponent was doing his best to paint Bush as out of touch, Bush’s little look at at his watch seemed to simply confirm the point.

Or how about the 1976 debate gaffe of incumbent President Gerald Ford who during a debate with Jimmy Carter, claimed “There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe.” Taken back by the obviously false statement, he moderator, Max Frankel of the New York Times, incredulously responded , “I’m sorry, what? … Did I understand you to say, sir, that the Russians are not using Eastern Europe as their own sphere of influence in occupying most of the countries there and making sure with their troops that it’s a communist zone?”  The answer to that question should have been “No, I meant to suggest that the people of Poland, Romania and Yugoslavia may physically endure the heavy hand of Soviet intrusiveness, the Soviets have not won the hearts and minds of those people, freedom loving people who seek to themselves of Soviet interference. However; Ford refused to back down from his original statement, and insisted  that Poland, Romania and Yugoslavia were free from Soviet interference.

The results in that election were so close, that many have logically concluded that Ford’s debate gaffe about Soviet domination probably cost him the win.

In 2012, these debates could make or break the election for one candidate or the other, especially since the extreme political polarization that exists in most states will allow a handful of voters in approximately 6 states to probably determine who will win.  That means that the wrong move or the slightest slip of the tongue in these debates could easily change the course of history.

Bookmark and Share

Mitt Romney’s Speech Before the NAACP ……. Complete Video

 Bookmark and Share While an overwhelming 94% of all African-American voters have supported President Obama, the soon to be Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, stood before the NAACP’s national convention in Texas and stated;

“I believe that if you  understood who I truly am in my heart, and if it  were possible to fully  communicate what I believe is in the real,  enduring best interest of African  American families, you would vote for  me for President.  I want you to know that  if I did not believe that  my policies and my leadership would help families of  color — and  families of any color — more than the policies and leadership of  President Obama, I would not be running for president.”

Such was the case that Mitt Romney made for himself as he walked in to the proverbial Lion’s Den and addressed the nation’s oldest and largest African-American organization and tried to demonstrate that he will be a better President for not just Africfan-Americans, but all Americans.

The speech broke little new ground, and probably did little to change the minds of those in attendance but what it did do was demonstrate that the plight of African-Americans is no different from the plight of other Americans who are suffering from high unemployment and a government that is spending a trillion dollars more a year than it takes in.  But while Romney’s pitch was good, it was anything but well recieved by the obviously and ironically prejudiced, so-called civil rights audience in attendnace.   The less than tepid reception was to be expected given that that the impetus of Romney’s address to the NAACP  was his opposition to President Obama’s policies on everything from trade, the size of government, energy, the economy, education, and the issue that initited the largest round of boos, his opposition to Obamacare.

Still though, Romney set his address up in such a way  that it left African-Americans with some undeniably tough questions to answer to when trying to defend their support for President.

According to Romney;

“If someone had told us in the  1950s or 60s that a black citizen  would serve as the forty-fourth president, we  would have been proud and  many would have been surprised.  Picturing that day,  we might have  assumed that the American presidency would be the very last door  of  opportunity to be opened.  Before that came to pass, every other barrier  on  the path to equal opportunity would surely have to come  down.

“Of  course, it hasn’t happened  quite that way.  Many barriers remain.  Old  inequities persist.  In some ways,  the challenges are even more  complicated than before.  And across America — and  even within your  own ranks — there are serious, honest debates about the way  forward.”

Then Romney opened the door to make a case for why he would be a better President for all Americans , including those of color, than President;

“If equal opportunity in America  were an accomplished fact, then a  chronically bad economy would be equally bad  for everyone.  Instead,  it’s worse for African Americans in almost every way.   The unemployment  rate, the duration of unemployment, average income, and median  family  wealth are all worse for the black community.  In June, while the  overall  unemployment rate remained stuck at 8.2 percent, the  unemployment rate for  African Americans actually went up, from 13.6  percent to 14.4  percent.

“Americans of every background  are asking when this economy will  finally recover – and you, in particular, are  entitled to an answer.”

To additional boos Romney added;

 “If you want a President who will make things better in the African American community, you are looking at him.”


Romney ended his speech to the obviously appreehnsive audience on what was probably the single most conciliatory and positive note possible as closed his remark by notinng;

“You all know something of my  background, and maybe you’ve wondered how any Republican ever becomes governor  of Massachusetts in the first place.  Well, in a state with 11 percent  Republican registration, you don’t get there by just talking to Republicans.  We  have to make our case to every voter.  We don’t count anybody out, and we sure  don’t make a habit of presuming anyone’s support.  Support is asked for and  earned – and that’s why I’m here today…

“Should I be elected president,  I’ll lead as I did when governor.  I  will look for support wherever there is  good will and shared  conviction.  I will work with you to help our children  attend better  schools and help our economy create good jobs with better  wages.”

Some may argue that Romney’s appearance before the NAACP was a waste of time.  They will argue that the NAACP is hypocritically prejudiced organization that is anti-anything that is not liberal and which harbors within their ranks, pockets of a radical black racists.  Be that true or not, Mitt Romney demonstrated that he does not fear differnces of opinion and that he does not shy away from standing up for his beliefs even among those who may not believe in him.  And whether you agree with Romney or not, there was no denying that much of what he said was true.  President Obama’s policies have not worked for anyone,  most especially African-Americans who under President Obama have been negatively impacted by the deficit based culture of dependnecy and rates of unemployment that are higher for them than they are for anyother group of Americans in the nation.   So the question now becomes, is supporting a a person becuase of their color more important than defeating a person whos policies are hurting people of color?

Bookmark and Share

The Hidden Battle For America

Bookmark and Share  By now you’ve probably heard the United Nations issued a proposal last Thursday for a Billionaire’s Tax. If you haven’t heard, bundled within the proposal are taxes that will affect us, the common folk. But the Left can’t run headlines like “UN Calls For Middle-class America To Fund The World” can they? The semi-secret movement would end in a weekend. But make no mistake, this is yet another forced charity proposal to save humankind — at the expense of the American taxpayer.

It may appear to be a righteous pursuit and that is what the Left wants you to believe. Of course, this is merely illusion. Certainly contributing to your local church to help those in need is a noble effort. But shifting truly vast sums of money between countries via mandatory international taxes will only lead to obscene levels of corruption. How many well intentioned acts of charity have gone bad? Everyone has heard of the charity that pockets 80-cents of every dollar or that secretly diverts the money into someone’s pocket. California, offering to send money from custom license plates fees to victims of 9/11, was recently discovered actually funding other pursuits, giving just 1.5% of the cash to the beneficiaries. And we’ve all heard of war-lords leaving food for the oppressed on the docks to spoil. Allow yourself to contemplate a world cash swap based upon international taxes — what would ultimately become routine transactions — and the corruption scenarios become mind-bending.

As a practical matter, funding the world is a poorly conceived idea. It makes no sense. If you take a meal designed for one and split it among three adults, you don’t get three well-fed people. You end up with three under-fed people rather than two. The re-distribution of money works the same way.

And think of the administrative nightmare. In order to implement international taxes a centralized financial bureaucracy would need to be constructed to handle the collections, payouts and bookkeeping. To think the corrupt won’t drop their buckets into that river of money is beyond naive. Further, the only way to avoid one country funding a sworn enemy would be to have all countries under one umbrella, managed by pre-selected politicians that know where their bread is buttered.

But that is the ultimate point, isn’t it? This movement has nothing to do with going green or feeding the hungry. Those are political lies to mask the creation of a major financial bureaucracy, an international control mechanism, to support the transition to a one world government.

Is the thought so outrageous? Simply sell it to the peasants as helping all of humankind. Governments start the money flowing. From your centralized bureaucracy you dangle the dough and propose your terms — cash for allegiance. Here in America, our federal government does the exact same thing to the states — ‘if you want highway money, then enforce this law’. The international community, when united, applies the same principle, we call them economic sanctions. Once the cash for allegiance terms are proposed, countries that comply get to make a deposit and come under the umbrella of control, those that don’t are politically isolated and left to rot. Over time, and plenty of economic hardship, leadership will arise in these rebellious countries that will take the cash or, if necessary, these weakened rebels can be absorbed by force. (continued)

Crusaders, this goes beyond the recent Billionaire Tax and it’s fine print attachments. This movement is a 20, perhaps 30-year quest by the Left. The Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) would force America to give away taxes and technology. And America would have no control over to whom the taxes and technology would be redistributed. The Small Arms Treaty is in direct conflict with the Second Amendment and designed to strip America of her guns. These are pressing issues. Just last month, Fox reported the Rio + 20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Agenda 21), proposed over $2 trillion a year in wealth transfers from rich countries to poorer ones, conveniently sold as funding “green infrastructure,” and “climate adaptation”. This is global Socialism. They also proposed new carbon taxes. If you don’t like the size of your utility bills now – just wait. Global welfare? You bet — social programs including a “social protection floor” and “safety nets” for the world’s most vulnerable were proposed. They also want price increases, flat out price hikes, on the use and consumption of anything derived from agriculture, fisheries, forestry, or other kinds of land and water use. Consider that for a moment.

Do you like the idea of paying $500, $1000 or $1,500 for a fishing or hunting license just so most of the money can be shipped to the UN? That is, if they allow you to fish or hunt. How about a federal fee for camping in the woods? You’re using forestry resources, aren’t you? How about an individual swimming permit, say $25 per person – per season, so you can take a plunge in the local lake or hang at the beach? Silly examples? Think again. How else could you get America to fund the world? If you attack American’s paychecks directly, you would create riots and rebellion. No, the better way is to be subtle. Over time classify virtually all of life as a “privilege” and charge a fee for pursuing the privilege. After all, you don’t have to take a swim.

The organized move to convert America to Socialism is happening. The UN isn’t the only attacker. Politicians like Obama, the Clintons, Pelosi, John Kerry and other liberal-socialists, looking for a seat at the international table, are working from the inside to help this occur. These people are legislating away the sovereignty of the United States. Crazy? Why does Obama consistently stomp on the Constitution? Why, when Europe’s economy is failing for all to see, is Obama and the Left forcing European-socialism upon America? Why is Obama supporting the Rio initiatives previously mentioned? Why did Hillary Clinton, on May 23rd, testify in favor of the Law of the Sea Treaty? As you read this, the Small Arms Treaty is being negotiated in talks scheduled between July 2 and July 27th. Obama, not even knowing how negotiations will end, has already said he’s going to sign it. Why? Because it doesn’t matter what the final agreement is. Any step toward banning guns is a positive step, no matter how small. It’s like sculpting — chip, chip, chip, chip. Enough chips and you transform a stone into a statue of Karl Marx.

Ask yourself, are Obama, Clinton and the others really amateurs? Are they really buffoons that are in over their head? Or is it more likely that a small number of hard-left fanatics, having gained power, are using ‘save the world’ tax initiatives, treaties, laws and Executive Orders to achieve their agenda?

You and I, my fellow citizen crusaders, and our children and grandchildren are dangerously close to being committed to funding the world. The UN billionaire’s tax and the myriad other initiatives put forth by the UN and lefty politicians here in the states, are designed to strip us of our money — it’s share the wealth on a global scale. They have already successfully grabbed huge junks of your home equity and retirement plans. Why hasn’t a single person gone to jail? Not one. And now the Small Arms Treaty is designed to take your guns. Obviously, when you’re broke and unarmed fighting a government you’re against is a difficult proposition.

Admittedly, America under attack from within is a tough concept for most people to wrap their head around. The Left uses this to their advantage. They label anyone that puts the pieces of the puzzle together a conspiracy nut. But consider rather than bombs, they are using treaties. In place of grenades, they’re using legislation. Rather than firing bullets, they fire off Executive Orders. The battle to overthrow American capitalism and replace it with American-euro socialism may be hidden from most people’s lives but that doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.

This election year isn’t just about the economy. It’s about America. Will the country be your vision or theirs.

Follow I.M. Citizen at IMCitizen.net

Bookmark and Share

Obama Plays Class Warfare With Bush Era Tax Cuts and Proposes a Litany of Loose Ends, Contradictions and Lies

 Bookmark and Share  In an announcement from the East Room of the White House, President Obama masterfully meshed his campaign strategy with economic policy by reapplying his class warfare tactics to the now annual debate on whether or not to extend the so-called Bush era tax cuts.  The President’s carefully crafted approach to the debate tries to paint the picture of a leader who is being logical, reasoned, and bi-partisan but beneath the superficial rhetoric of the President’s wording lies a litany of loose ends, contradictions, and lies.

According to the President;

“The Republicans say they don’t want to raise taxes on the middle class, and I don’t want to raise taxes on the middle class, so we should all agree to extend the tax cut for the middle class. Let’s agree to do what we agree on,”

On the surface, the statement sounds quite rational.  In a nation of voters who usually protest  against the lack of compromise in Washington, and the seeming lack of willingness by Republicans and Democrats to work together, President Obama’s appeal  sounds like a step in the right direction.  His wording sets the stage for the President to portray himself as willing to work with both sides, while casting an image of Republicans as rigidly inflexible, uncooperative, extremists who are out of touch with mainstream Americans as they protect the interests of wealthy Americans.

The President’s approach also dovetails quite well with his campaign’s overriding goal of trying to paint Republican standard bearer Mitt Romney as an out of touch, rich businessman.

If left unchallenged, the framework which the President has created for this debate will work well for him and his Party, but if challenged properly, Americans should easily be able to understand that the President’s framework is little more than a tangled web of contradictions and incongruent thoughts.

To begin, it is glaringly obvious that the President and his Party initiate this whole debate by conceding to Republicans that higher taxes are not good, especially during times of national economic hardship.  But at the same time that the President admits that taxes depress our economy, he also tries to argue that they only hurt when the middle class pay them.  It is a contradiction he makes when he argues that those making less than $250,000 a year will be hurt by a failure to extend the Bush tax cuts but that the same will not apply to those who make more than $250,000 a year.  He then further adds that extending the same tax cuts extensions for the rich are “least likely to promote growth”.

Now if logic plays a part here, even the most lobotomized liberal should be able to see how illogical the President’s claim is.

Why would taxing those who spend the most, invest the most and create the most jobs not have an adverse effect on the economy?  Is the President trying to contend that by increasing taxes on those who make $250,000 a year or more, we will be creating incentives for those same people to spend more, hire more, and invest more?  Where is the logic in that?

The point is that there is no logic in the President’s argument.  Unless of course you are a liberal living in a world that denies the laws of nature and defies everything from gravity, to the free market principles that were a part of the founding of this nation.

For decades now, liberals have mocked the Reagan-Kemp-Laffer economic theory of trickle down economics.  Despite evidence to the contrary, the left contends that wealth does not trickle down.  Instead they exist in a parallel universe where according to them,  the laws of gravity are reversed and that what goes down must come up.  In the alternative reality of a utopian liberal universe, the poor do not accumulate wealth from the rich, the rich become wealthier off of the poor.   But I have yet to see how that actually works.  In the reality I am forced to live in, the Warren Buffetts of the world do not go to poor and ask them for a loans or investments.   In my world, it is just the opposite.

But  for the President and his fellow leftists, admitting that wealth trickles down would be lethal to their political viability.  Such an admission would undercut the potency of the liberal mission to apply the socialist belief that it is the job of the government  is to spread the wealth.

Yet in a day and age when rhetoric trumps reality and facts are merely a set of words which individuals choose to believe or not, President Obama has set himself up on a political stage that he hopes will portray himself as a bipartisan leader who is looking out for the average working American.  But he does so by contradicting himself every step of the way.

In 2008 he promised to be a unifying force in politics.  But ever since taking office in 2009 he has been trying to conquer Republicans by dividing Americans along lines of class.  Despite the fact that The top 2 percent of taxpayers provide approximately 46 percent of all federal income and the that the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers—representing nearly 70 million tax returns—provided 3 percent of all federal income taxes, President Obama and his liberal minions continue to run with the phrase that the rich must pay their share.    Yet with the wealthiest 2% of Americans paying nearly half of the taxes in America, the facts indicate that the rich are paying much more than their share.  But again, those numbers undermine the liberal thought process and it takes the legs out from under the President’s class warfare strategy.

Still, the President’s capacity for framing the debate on the Bush tax cuts was a good attempt to continue to frame the 2012 election in a way that is most favorable to him.  It is easy to exploit the less noble aspects of human nature, especially during tough times.  It is easier to convince people that others are to blame for their lot in life than it is to convince those same people that they have to take responsibility for their own lot life.  And that is the type of campaign President Obama is running.  In his campaign and in his Administration the President tries to claim the high ground.  He tries to claim a willingness to work with Republicans.  Yet such things as his signature piece of legislation, Obamacare, was hardly an example of bipartisanship.  Our President tires to claim that he wants to work with Republicans on creating jobs, yet more than 30 House Republicans jobs bills remain dead because of the President’s refusal to force the liberal led senate to act upon them.

Now based upon the ludicrous belief that those making more than $250,000 have  no impact on the economy, the President attempts to frame his proposal to increase taxes on only those who he deems to be rich, as a compromise.

Well if the President really wants to compromise, I suggest that he do so in a meaningful.  A way that actually uses numbers and facts as a basis for compromise.  So how about we do this?

By refusing to extend the Bush era tax cuts to those making more than $250,000 a year, the President will save what amounts to the cost of operating the federal government for 8 days.  So I suggest that we base our compromise on the fact that even Democrats agree that raising taxes are bad and instead of raising them on anyone, we close all non-essential services of the federal government down for 8 days every year.  No foul no harm.  Now that’s a compromise.

Bookmark and Share

Get Your Free Mitt Romney “Believe In America” Bumper Sticker

Bookmark and Share    What better way to show your support for Mitt Romney than with a Believe in America bumper sticker! Just click on the link here or below to fill out the form below and to let the Romney Campaign know where to send it.

Bookmark and Share

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell Named Chairman of The Republican National Convention Platform Committee

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell

Bookmark and Share  Every four years, in addition to nominating a President and Vice President, the quadrennial Republican National Convention is also responsible for hammering out a platform which is meant to explain what the Republican Party truly stands for.  The process is often contentious and at times the most suspenseful, but largely behind the scene, aspect of the convention and in many ways is every bit as important as the process to nominate our presidential ticket and this year conservative Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell has been given the responsibility of constructing this all important platform.

The announcement came late today from RNC Chairman Reince Priebus.  In it Priebus  also declared that Senator John Hoeven of North Dakota and Representative Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee will serve as Co-Chairmen.

The move is one which is likely to please the conservative base of the Party who largely trust the conservative credentials of all three members of the newly established platform leadership committee.

But the announcement also probably signals that Bob McDonnell is out of the running for Vice President.

For many months now, the popular Governor of the important swing state of Virginia has been considered a top contender for the vice presidency.  But with his new position on the critically important Platform Committee, that would seem highly unlikely.  And the same goes for Marsha Balckburn who White House 2012 has also considered a vice presidential contender.

The prominent responsibility of defining all that the G.O.P. stands is always a difficult task that walks a fine between attempting to articulate a platform that accomplishes a nearly impossible goal……….  unite the nations while taking strong stands on some of the most polarizing issues in the nation.  Such a goal can often be just as a difficult among partisan Republicans as it is among partisan Republicans and Democrats.  And this year, Republicans can anticipate at least few attempted floor fights on several planks, especial those dealing with spending.

Ron Paul supporters have already vowed to employ their traditionally obnoxious behavior to try to help assure that the G.O.P. platform adopts some of their messiah’s irresponsible views.  Such fights are not likely to get very far considering that Ron paul has a grand total of 158 delegates compared to Romney’s 1,512, but thew will certainly receive a great deal of attention from a national and international media that will be doing it’s best to to cover any of the rare unscripted moments at the convention.    All this means that as Chairman of the Platform Committee, Bob McDonnell will go into the convention as a figure who could become embroiled in some of the most controversial aspects of the national convention and that is not the type of figure that Romney will want to nominate as his running mate.

On the flip side, while McDonnell supporters may be disappointed in the downgrading of his chances to be nominated Vice President, conservatives can rest assured that 2012 Republican platform will reflect an authoritative, right of center based explanation of what it means to be a Republican.

According to McDonnell;

“I look forward to hearing from voters across the country as we seek to give voice to the concerns, priorities, and values of the American people. This process is about more than writing; it is about listening. Voters deserve a party who listens to them.  The Obama presidency has been a difficult time for Virginians and for Americans. Our Platform will outline the way forward for our economy and a new and better direction for our country.”

 Bookmark and Share

John Roberts Ruled Against Judicial Activism and Handed the 2012 Election to Republicans

 Bookmark and Share  Today’s lengthy landmark Supreme Court decision on the affordable care act in the case of the National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius will take time to fully digest.  It is filled with multiple precedent setting judicial opinions.  Most notable was the court’s near unanimous decision to finally rule that the federal government’s powers under the commerce clause are in fact limited.  The commerce clause has consistently been used as a means for which Congress has been able to abuse its powers.  However, make no mistake, the ruling on this case was a victory for President Obama.  It upheld the heart of his signature legislation, the so-called Affordable Care Act.  But the victory comes at a very high price for him and all Americans.

For Americans the decision’s economic impact will bring about a further contraction of our economy. Businesses which have been holding their breath until there was some finality on Obamacare will now pull the trigger on any short term expansion and new hires. Within less than an hour of the Supreme Court ruling, the stocks experienced a broad and dramatic selloff . All of this means that our fragile and stagnant economy is now certain to continue to remain on the verge of a downward spiral into a double dip recession or depression.

And those are just the immediate, tangible, ramifications of the constitutionality of the Obamacare. Other more ideological ramifications affecting people because of the court’s decision are rooted in the fundamentals of our free society and the power of government.

For President Obama, the price of the court’s declaring his government-centric healthcare law constitutional, is a significant undermining and value of  himself, his word, and his liberal based Party.

Through the healthcare reform debate debacle, the President and his liberal minions declared that their forced individual mandate was not a tax.  But the President’s attorneys argued before the Supreme Court that the mandate was a tax and now the Supreme Court has agreed.  So the stage is set for Americans to go to the polls in November and consider whether or not President Obama deserve to be reelected after his signature accomplishment was proven to be based upon what are ultimately lies.

In addition to that, the decision has now ensured that the 2012 election will ultimately come down to two things.  Taxing and spending.

While many on the right are quite disappointed and angered by the decision and more specifically Chief Justice John Roberts for his being the swing vote in this case, I am not.  The individual mandate is a tax and the Constitution gives Congress full authority when it comes to taxation.  So whether it is convenient for conservatives or not, Roberts is probably right in a very round about way.  His opinion in this case was a conservative victory in the sense that it upheld a key tenet of conservativism……. our opposition to judicial activism.  Chief Justice Roberts is also correct in his written opinion on the case when he suggests that while some policies may be legal, that does not mean that those same policies are smart or helpful.  In his remarks, Roberts suggests that in line with the laws of our land, the solution to such situations is found not in the courts but in the hands of the voting public who can change policies at the ballot box.  And while the court’s decision may initially seem to be a conservative setback, it has successfully helped to define what the 2012 election is now all about.

The court’s decision to deem the individual mandate to be a tax, now helps the American people to focus on the liberal policies of taxing and spending, the very issues at the heart of our economic condition which many including the former Secretary of Defense have described as so dire that it is a national security issue.

After nearly four years of a liberal dominated government, Americans have gotten a taste of the ideological extremes of the two dominant political philosophies in our nation and they are quickly losing faith in the liberal policies that have gotten us to the dreary point we are at today.  The electorate is extraordinarily polarized, so much so that the presidential election will essentially be decided by 25 million independent minded voters in anywhere from 6 to 8 states.  The rest of the population is more or less solidly on one side or the other.  They either want a government that does more, spends more, and controls more, or they want a government that does less, spends less, and controls less.  And today’s decision only clarifies this choice.

The Supreme Court’s decision merely  helped to highlight this choice.

If Republicans can continue to frame the 2012 election in this manner, they will have a good shot at increasing the size of their majority in the House, taking control of the U.S. Senate, and winning the White House.

Of course with Mitt Romney’s own fingerprints on a state healthcare mandate in Massachusetts that he was the driving force behind when he was the Bay State’s Governor, he may not be the best person to lead this fight for the G.O.P.   Comparisons of Romneycare and Obamacare will blur the ideological lines that this election can be won or lost on.  Or will it?

Romney’s legitimate defense for his healthcare plan in Massachusetts is that it’s a states rights issues.

As Governor he had the right to prescribe a cure to his state’s unique problems.  But as President, Barack Obama devised a one-size-fits-all plan that mandated states to do what liberals in the federal bureaucracy want.   This brings us back to today’s Supreme Court ruling.  While it declared Obamacare’s individual mandate constitutional, it declared other aspects that specifically forced states to comply with sections of the law, as unconstitutional.  This again brings up the ideological debate on how much power should the federal government have.  In  this case, over the states.  For Romney, even though his Massachusetts healthcare plan is an albatross around his neck, it positions him quite well to campaign on a very potent states rights plank.

In the end, today’s victory for the President will be quite short lived and in the final analysis it will boost the chances of a Republicans to win control of all three branches of the federal government.  By ruling that the individual mandate is constitutional, the very same T.E.A. forces which elected a record number of Republicans  to the House in 2012, have just been reactivated and incorporated into Mitt Romney’s base vote.  And in addition to that, the issues which Democrats are weakest on have just become center stage.  That will especially be the case when the extension of the Bush-era tax cuts come up for debate during the election.

With the individual mandate deemed constitutional, Americans are now facing the creation of the largest American federal entitlement program in history and it comes at a time when entitlements are destroying our national economy as well as the economies of many of our city’s and states.   This is the issue which produced a surprise landslide vote of confidence for Republican Governor Scott Walker in the recent liberal and union initiated recall election.

But perhaps the most powerful argument in the 2012 election will be this.

Since Obamacare is constitutional because the individual mandate is legally considered a tax, do the American people really want to encourage the liberal tax and spend policies of Democrats by rubber stamping their policies at the voting booth?  Do Americans want to expand the entitlement policies that are bringing down our economy?  Do Americans want to continue down the current path that is turning us into a European-style socialist nation, with permanent high unemployment, business-killing regulations and taxes, a shriveling private sector, and a loss of stature in a dangerous world?

All in all, I must say, today might just be the day that Barack Obama lost the presidency and that the liberal base of the Democrat Party turned themselves in to the minority Party for years to come.  Now, Republicans have to step up to the plate.  It is one thing for Democrats to lose the election, but it is another thing for Republicans to win the election.  Today, the G.O.P. has been given a chance to define a more responsible course for our nation that is based not just on constitutional government policies, but smart and effective government policies.  So if Republicans intend to win this election in their own right and not just by default, they must begin to lead.  That requires us to produce bold plans, plans to reform such things as our arcane tax code and how to strengthen the American free market and entrepreneurial spirit that is driving force behind our economic health.  And in the case of Obamacare, we need to know not just how earnest they will be in repealing bad policies but what if anything are they willing to replace those bad policies with.

Bookmark and Share

Conservative Policies Are Making A Difference

Bookmark and Share  One big reason Republican Governor Scott Walker survived the recall vote in Wisconsin is that things are improving there economically. The conservative agenda Walker and the Republicans have put into place, although horrifying to the left, is producing positive results. Wisconsin’s budget, once a $3.6 billion deficit nightmare is in the black. Property taxes were decreased and the state has added some 28,000 jobs.

But Wisconsin isn’t the only state where conservative approaches have made a positive difference.

In New England, a hot bed for liberalism, New Hampshire’s Republican dominated state legislature is pushing conservative policies down the throat of Democratic Governor John Lynch. As you might expect, as a Democrat, Lynch has been somewhat uncooperative. The legislature passed a right-to-work bill that Lynch vetoed. The same result came from two school choice bills.

House Speaker William O’Brien, told Politico, “This Republican legislature is the first legislative majority that has challenged him… so what does he do? He’s not going to run again [for reelection]. He’s been called out on issues. I think what he’d rather do is function as a symbolic head of state than a head of government.”

Focused and motivated, the legislature has an upcoming vote to override Lynch’s school bill vetoes. Medicare malpractice changes and anti-fraud welfare measures sit on his desk awaiting signatures. Overcoming the resistance is a battle but other initiatives have achieved a balanced budget that didn’t raise taxes or service fees. State spending has been reduced 17 percent and there’s a plan in place to ship over $600,000 of healthcare cash back to Obama.

Down in Florida, despite the left’s obsession with ballot lists, the state’s economy is showing signs of life. In April, the state unemployment rate was reported at 8.7 percent, a significant drop from a high of 11.4 percent in 2010. A recent Republican party  press release stated, “Since Governor Scott took office, a total of 99,600 private sector jobs have been added in Florida,” and it continued, “lower taxes, reduced regulation and a balanced budget are giving the private sector the confidence it needs to expand, grow and add jobs.”

In Virginia, a 5.6 percent unemployment rate is a feather in the cap for Republican governor Bob McDonnell. Elected in 2009, McDonnell has emphasized creating a business-friendly environment within the state.

“I would suggest that what we’re trying to do with Virginia is keep regulations low, limit lawsuits, provide great universities and just be positive about entrepreneurs, about people who create jobs and then, provide a little incentive money in tax credits and get companies to come and existing businesses to grow,” McDonnell said.

It is guaranteed that Obama and the Democrats, reeling from a horrific national economy, will step in and falsely claim improving state economies are the result of their policies. But make no mistake, it is Republican governors and Republican legislatures in states like Florida, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Virginia, that have tossed unproductive tax policies, excessive regulations and irresponsible spending into the trash. The Republicans that run these states are producing positive results with a fiscally responsible, conservative approach to state government.

Follow I.M. Citizen on Facebook or visit at IMCitizen.net

Bookmark and Share

Illegals Debacle Shows The President Has No Clothes

Too true to be funny anymore?

The famous poem is inviting:

“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Is this the spirit behind the president’s announcement of an immediate end to the deportation of illegal immigrants who came to the US as children? Obama thinks so, saying this is “the right thing to do,” just like everything else he decides.

The true spirit behind this action is the hubris of a President with no clothes. This announcement and the anger it has sparked gives an anatomy of how the president does things, to the point of obscuring the issues involved. Let’s look at the anatomy which is exposed:

 

First, Obama speaks objective truth which he then feels pragmatically he has to contradict.

It was only a year ago at a 2011 Univision Town Hall, President Obama admitted it is beyond his power to suspend deportations for anyone because there are laws he’d be breaking by doing that, and would be a breach of separation of powers. If he believed this then, then today he must believe he is violating the separation of powers. You can see the clip here: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/shock-video-obama-admits-he-cant-do-what-he-did-today/?utm_source=co2hog

Did the law change since? The jurisprudence? Of course, stupid me, last year was not election year. This year, Obama is naturally addressing a key Latino concern….in an election year.

 

Second, he ignores due process in an increasingly monarchical sense of self

As Charles Krauthammer explains: “He proposed the DREAM Act of which the executive order is a variation… He proposed a DREAM Act. The Congress said no. The Congress is the one who makes the laws. What the administration does is it administers law.” Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/15/krauthammer-new-obama-immigration-policy-out-and-out-lawlessness-video/#ixzz1xwzPGJip

The plan goes into effect immediately, affecting some 800,000 people, without discussion. He hath spoken, it is done.

Justification? Speaking at the White House, Obama said the initiative was “the right thing to do,” adding that “it makes no sense to expel talented young people” from the US. Is it me, cynicism, or are we really to believe there are 800,000 talented people out there, surely some of them are duds?

 

Third, a Machiavellian Prince who seeks to control and coerce rather than convince

Maybe the real story is the sense of visible shock when the President was interrupted by a Daily Caller reporter during his announcement. How dare anyone interrupt, that’s, well that’s like someone interrupting a monarch, just not done! The reporter ought to be expelled from the country!

The reporter, Neil Munro, explained Munro says open press events at the White House are “well designed by the president and his staff…He comes out of the Rose Garden, gives a short statement and then turns his back and walks away very quickly without taking questions,” he said. “Sometimes he takes questions. He took a question on Trayvon Martin in March. Sometimes these shouted questions at the end work — not today: He refused to answer an obvious and conventional question about the impact of his policy on American workers at a time of record unemployment.”

Munro said “Timing these things is a little awkward. He speaks very well, very smoothly — very nice delivery. It’s hard to know when he’s about to end. I thought he was going to end today. I asked my question too early. He rebuked me. Fair enough.”  In the future, Munro hopes the White House will “arrange events so the reporters can ask the president or his senior staff about the important policy changes.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/15/video-neil-munro-explains-his-exchange-with-president-obama-in-rose-garden/#ixzz1xx05KPCS

 

Finally, he sets himself up as a savior, but watch out for those “sell by “ dates folks!

In order to be eligible under the new initiative, illegal immigrants must:

  • have arrived in the US when they were under the age of 16
  • have lived continuously in the US for at least five years
  • be in school, or have graduated from high school or be honourably discharged veterans of the US military
  • have no criminal record
  • be under 30 years old.

If successful, applicants would receive a work permit for two years that can (note my italics) be renewed an unlimited number of times. In other words, they’re safe until after the election and the end of Obama’s long-running campaign for office and re-election.

 

In running for this office, Republican opponent Mitt Romney needs to highlight this shameful anatomy and he himself must be: consistent, truthful and make long-term commitments. His reaction to this latest move from the White House was a good one: “I believe the status of young people who come here through no fault of their own is an important matter to be considered and it should be solved on a long-term basis so they know what their future will be in this country….I think the action that the president took today makes it more difficult to reach that long-term solution.”

More of this please, Governor!

How Romney’s First Hundred Days Will Reverse the Damage of the Last Three and a Half Years

Bookmark and Share  The Romney campaign has released a new infographic that details how his first hundred days as President would begin to reverse the regressive policies of the Obama Administration.

From repealing and replacing Obamacare to slashing burdensome federal red tape, a Romney Presidency will be anything but more of the same.  The first 100 days of a Romney Presidency will be the first 100 days toward getting America back on track and reversing the damages of the last three and a half years.  Mitt Romney has the plans to turn our country around and the experience to get the job done.

Click here to view a printable version.

Bookmark and Share

The Romney campaign recetnly went a step further and with the help of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, articulated how on day one, President Romney will reverse Obama’s job-killing policies.

As argued by Conressman Ryan, Mitt Romney will start repealing the red tape that’s choking off jobs and hindering our recovery. He will start repealing Obamacare, which is putting so much uncertainty in businesses. He’ll begin the process of lowering tax rates by closing special interest loopholes, which help small businesses with certainty so they can create jobs.

He’ll announce a 5% spending cut on government agency budgets to begin the process of deficit reduction, and he will approve the Keystone pipeline which we know will create lots of jobs and help make us a whole lot less dependent on foreign oil.
Bookmark and Share

Everything is fine, time to put your feet up Mr President!

The private sector is doing fine apparently. This is at least according to President Barack Obama. I guess the 23 million Americans who are either unemployed, underemployed or have given up searching for work are suitably reassured. Not to worry, four more years! Yes folks, four more years out of work if this administration gets another victory in November.

Of course, President Obama later clarified things for reporters, and the rest of us stupid people, “the economy is not doing fine.” Then White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters they should know better than to miss the broader point Obama was making. Oh what stupid people, why did they not realize the president intended that public sector job cuts are hurting the economy.

Carney crowed “You all ought to do your jobs and report on context…We’re for truthful, factual, accurate reporting done in context.” Oh, yeah, right.

Perhaps the president and Mr. Carney can explain why the Federal Reserve felt compelled to report the median net worth of families plummeted by 39 percent in the three years of the Obama Era of Salvation. Well, they didn’t say that exactly. They said the numbers, I added the editorial gloss. The figures speak for themselves though: a fall from $126,400 in 2007 to $77,300 in 2010. That puts Americans back where they were in 1992.

Even the president’s current day Rasputin, Paul Krugman, the mystical Nobel Prize-winning economist, admitted “That was an unfortunate line…The president bungled the line.” In a sentence more articulated than a truck driven by a Commerce Secretary, Krugman’s apologia for a president states “The truth is the private sector is doing better than the public sector, which is not well enough…The real story of this economy is that cutbacks at the public sector are what’s hurting the recovery.”

Mitt Romney’s take on this is “Last Friday, the unemployment rate rose to 8.2 percent and 300,000 more people joined the long-term unemployed. One week later, President Obama said the private sector is doing fine. Only a president that presides over forty months of unemployment over 8 percent would think that the last jobs report is “doing fine.” These comments show that President Obama is completely out of touch with the middle class.”

The Heritage Foundation notes “While the President’s comment is astoundingly out of touch with the public—and economic reality—perhaps even more distressing is that this wasn’t a passing verbal gaffe. This is actually a consistent talking point of the President and Democratic leadership that goes largely unchallenged by the media.” http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/11/morning-bell-the-private-sector-is-not-doing-fine/

A famous Philosophy discussion on observation and knowledge of reality centers on the question, “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” I believe the same can be asked of the relationship between Obama’s errors and the liberal media…the noise is definitely made but they don’t seem to be around to hear it.

The only thing that will be fine is a change in the White House. Of course, Barack Obama will not be made unemployed, he has a new career trajectory to follow of more books, speaking tours and all the perks of being ex-president.

This election is about the economy, and we’re not the stupid ones.

3 things Romney needs to get Right, and so far he only has 1 of them.

Romney Looks the Part, but does he have the ideas in place yet?

 

To win in November, Mitt Romney has to get three things right. First, he has to be a positive physical presence, showing Americans what an optimistic American face looks like. Second, he needs to show how the American Mind works to solve problems. Third, he must win over the undecideds and the Blue Dog Democrats.

He achieves the first with some ease. He does look like a president, and although a little stiff and awkward at times, he has a smile and positive outlook that is very American. Unlike his dour and aloof opponent, Governor Romney shows hope in his physical presence which America badly needs in its leader.

Why? Because the one thing that all nations need right now, not just America, is a positive and can-do Capitalist attitude to lift us out of this recession. Back in 2007, at this time, candidate Obama was painting the economy in apocalyptic terms, because he was going to arrive on wings, lifted by adulation, to solve the nation’s, and the world’s, woes. Don’t just take my word for it, even Hilary Clinton was saying as much.

Also back in 2007, the economy was in a punishing mood. We were living in a bubble that was only amazing in the sense that it took so long to burst. Living off too much debt and leverage, which are not bad things in themselves when used wisely, the spirit was a “can’t do” attitude. The basics of economic life were consigned to the trash, and individuals, companies and government contrived to live as if the economy can’t fail and we can’t be bothered to work to produce real wealth.

Hence, the misery that followed. Hence, the big disappointment that became President Barack Obama. Hence, the constant concern on the president’s face, disguising a man out of his depth. So, we need a can-do president, who believes there is enough of the American dream to fuel a new era of economic growth; which brings me to the second thing.

Rooted in the American dream, Romney needs ideas that get the people energized. At a time when Capitalism is under stress, the battle of ideas has to be won. Folks need to see what the future can look like under Capitalism, not holed up in OWS enclaves or rallying against the rich. No-one complained about the rich when the economy was going up; why pin all the blame on them when it goes down?

Unlike Europe, Capitalism has been the engine of America from the beginning. It is inseparable from the enlightenment and religious ideas which formed the nation. Capitalism is not just a theory. It is a realistic, though like humanity itself imperfect, instrument for managing the needs and wants of a people. Romney needs to go beyond trotting out the same ideas of small government and tax cuts, and all those things, because they are ideas that are not just familiar, they are falling on barren soil.

Romney needs to shape these old ideas – and bring in some new ones – to show a recession weary nation why there is reason to hope. This is not the hope that was on the way for John Edwards, nor the hollowed hope of the Obama presidency. It is not even a hope in a Romney administration. It has to be a hope in Capitalism and a hope in the nation itself, in other words a hope in America.

So, the third thing falls into place if the first two are achieved. If Romney can capture the imagination, rooted in a realistic vision about the nation’s economic needs and other policy options, then he will reach out to those he needs to win over to become Romney 45. He needs to show a picture of the future that is not about government filling gas tanks or paying mortgages, but hard working Americans taking care of their own business.

The Obama bubble burst a long time ago, even for many of his supporters, and especially for those independents, youth and Blue Dog Democrats who believed he offered a new hope. Romney has only a little time to raise up new thinking in his campaign, and show why the economic bubble burst under the Republicans and George W. Bush, and why the economic solution bubble burst under the Democrats and Barack Obama.

Romney has one of the things he needs, the physical presence, but he needs the second thing of right thinking if he is to get the third thing which will sweep him into the White House. It’s over to you Governor….

5 Reasons to Vote for President Obama

Image

Now, I didn’t say they are good reasons, did I? In case you’re wondering, I have been told I can be sarcastic from time to time.

Just think how refreshing a second term will be. President Obama can stop campaigning for re-election, so maybe he will focus on change without the pesky issue of being a one-term president. Maybe he will be able to pay the mortgage and fill the gas tank of the people who voted for change, and found they didn’t even get loose change.

You know those cash tills where they say “take a penny, leave a penny”? The Obama administration is more a “take everything, leave a debt” kind of cash till. But not to worry, there are five reasons why you might want to consider voting for President Obama to stay in the White House for a second term, and here they are:

1. You think America needs to change from a narrow-minded belief in exceptionalism to breaking open a six pack with your good ol’ buddies from Europe and the Middle East to toast a new era of Enlightenment.

2. You think Capitalism is inherently bad and needs government to grow in the public interest, while wealth needs to be redistributed and folks need to be told what they can buy and cannot buy; for instance, do not buy large volumes of soda.

3. You believe progressive causes should determine the future direction of America, because the Constitution does not suit the postmodern paradigm and ideally ought to be scrapped altogether.

4. You want the safety net to be for anyone who feels hard done by, so poverty is defined not by need but by entitlement to other people’s money.

5. You have ignored the evidence of the past three years and you want to see how badly everything can go in the two years Obama will get to do more of what he wants, because he won’t need to be campaigning from day one.

If Obama wins four more years in November, he will spend two years advancing as many of his ideas as possible in the hope of building his legacy, and then for two years will become the lamest of lame duck presidents.

So, go ahead, make your vote count in November!

(I did say I can be sarcastic….)

Obama Fundraising Email Tries To Make Up For Romney Raising More Money Than Him In May

 Bookmark and Share  May marked the the first month in the 2012 election cycle where Mitt Romney hauled in more campaign dollars than did President Barack Obama. Up to now, the President’s prodigious fundraising machine raised monthly totals that surpassed the amounts brought in by any other individual who is or was running for the presidency in 2012, and  Team Obama did not like its streak being broken. So, the Obama campaign fired off the following fundraising email that tries to motivate his forces and have them reach deeper in to their pockets for the President.

The solicitation attempts to rile up the Obama base by suggesting that Romney’s money is coming mainly from special interest and big business while Obama is receiving the financial support of the little guy, the average Joe. But in the email attributed to Obama campaign manager Jim Messina, neglects to mention that most of Obama’s money is coming from 30 different billionaires and many of the corporate interests that he has bailed out with taxpayers dollars and has given high power government positions to on assorted commissions and panels of federal influence.  It also does not account for the dozens of contests that Team Obama has run by soliciting small donations in amounts of $2 or $3 in order to have a shot at winning something like a dinner with stars such as Eva Longoria.  Romney has run similar contests too, but not nearly on the same scale that the president has and without using Hollywood and pop culture figures like lottery prizes.

In their solicitation, the President’s campaign also fails to mention such fundraising events as “Barack on Broadway”, where the average Joe was able to drop $2,500 a ticket, or a recent star studded NYC  diner at $40,000 a person.

Those facts aside, Romney and the G.O.P. did raise more than $76 million last month, $16 million more than Barack Obama’s campaign.  But that could have more to do with the fact dismal employment numbers and continued troubling economic indicator have dulled the “average Joe’s” enthusiasm for the job that President Obama is doing.

As for Republicans and Mitt Romney, the latest figure represents a significant increase in fundraising and more importantly, that increased flow of financial support is a dramatic  indication of just how well Romney is consolidating support from within a long divided field of Republicans who were competing against Mitt for the nomination not so long ago.    He and the GOP brought in $40 million in April, just short of the $43.6 million President Obama and his party raised that month.

But liberals fear not.  Billion Buck Barry will do his best to keep his promise of raising $1 billion dollars for his reelection effort.  And he will do so without a single soul on the left accusing him “buying the election” like Mitt Romney will undoubtedly be accused of.

Bookmark and Share

The Hidden Truth Behind Wisconsin’s Vote

Yesterday Wisconsin voters confirmed the validity of Gov. Scott Walker’s agenda and slapped unions hard enough to leave a welt. Ultimately, the recall election, spurred by union interests and hyped as “too close to call” for months, wasn’t that close at all. Walker jumped out to an early lead and prevailed easily over the generic and boring Democrat Tom Barrett. But there is more to this story.

Since taking power, Walker has knocked down unemployment a full point and has created some 28,000 jobs. Juan Williams on Fox, promoted the asinine idea that Walker should be recalled because he didn’t deliver 250,000 jobs. But if Walker could have spent the last 18 months doing his job rather than defending it, those employment numbers would be higher. This sad complaint also shows where the left really stands regarding jobs. After all, if Williams and the left are down on 28,000 jobs created then they must be really down on the pathetic results of Obama, who has netted zero. That’s zero, as in the number lower than one. But they aren’t because they don’t care about jobs. They care only about the expansion of government. They dream of an American society where public unions take money from government workers and funnel it to Democratic leaders. These leaders, in turn, pass laws to help perpetuate this cycle. Meanwhile, to pacify folks not involved with unions, they provide endless entitlement programs. But entitlement programs mean nothing if only a tiny portion of the population is collecting them. Therefore, Democrats do nothing about the economy. In fact, wrapped in lies about protecting people and the environment, they in fact, attack industries and businesses with straggling legislation to ensure the economy sputters. It’s simple really — more unemployed people means more entitlements and more entitlements means more people reliant on government. Those reliant on government handouts will vote for those writing the checks.

But the citizenry of Wisconsin rejected this. They see the illusion. They want to be working and independent not unemployed and reliant.

Scott Walker also wiped away $3.6 billion in deficits, ultimately creating a surplus, without raising taxes. Pay special attention to the word ‘without’ in the previous sentence. As progressives and Democrats continue to call for tax hikes rather than common sense cuts they’re only going to dig their grave deeper.

Over the next few weeks, the airwaves will be saturated with reasoning as to what the Wisconsin results mean. Unfortunately, with a presidential election still to come, virtually everyone that hits the airwaves will put a spin on this in hopes of concealing the real meaning. The right, still composed of too many political cowards, will resort to generic talking points like ‘a good solid win’ and ‘Walker’s accomplishments shows raising taxes isn’t necessary’ and ‘Wisconsin voters have had enough of big government’. Although these points are accurate, they are still a surface-based perspective concealing the reality.

And the left, utterly horrified, can’t afford to mention the true meaning of this vote. They will promote ideas all over the board like it was ‘merely a state election and therefore won’t have national implications’, or that Wisconsin shows why the ‘hardcore, radical right needs to be tamed’ or even ‘this is the beginning of the end of democracy’. Well, this is the beginning of the end of something, that’s for sure. Of what?

Oh, just the progressive-liberal movement.

Outrageous conclusion? Not really.

The fact is that all the supposed reasons and justifications for this recall are utter rubbish. The only issue Democrats and unions were really fighting is payroll deducted union dues. Nothing more. Unions, contrary to the hype, retained the ability to negotiate pay. Further, knowing the gig was up, they folded on benefit contributions early on. But when Walker took away mandatory dues, unions and Democratic politician’s hair stood up. By making union dues a choice for members rather than a payroll deducted requirement, Walker has changed the money river that funds the Democratic party into a stream. And this is the real reason behind Walker’s recall.

On the last day of May, Fox reported, “Wisconsin membership in the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees-the state’s second-largest public-sector union after the National Education Association, which represents teachers-fell to 28,745 in February from 62,818 in March 2011, according to a person who has viewed Afscme’s figures. A spokesman for Afscme declined to comment.”

Cearly, given a choice, union members prefer not to pay dues. Whether members quit or were tossed out after they stopped paying dues is irrelevant. That discussion is a distraction. The point is for the first time in forty years, the money laundering scheme put in place by the Democratic party has been destroyed. Citizens paying government workers, who in turn pay unions, who in turn pay Democratic politicians is a scam that the Wisconsin citizens will no longer tolerate. Democrats and unions fought it hard but lost. But they lost more than just the Wisconsin fight. Forcing a recall vote after a legitimate election that put Walker in power, was, like Obama-care, another example of the Democratic party going against the will of the people. Democrats and unions looked selfish and low doing so. As the election year pushes forward, this shameful behavior will be remembered.

Wisconsin is a major step in dis-mantling of the progressive liberal movement. Obviously, Republican governors across the land will feel emboldened and initiate similar agendas. And stopping unions ability to steal from the citizens will be the goal. ”For many years, [unions] were the unquestioned biggest boy on the block, you didn’t dare cross them,” said Bill Wilson, president of the conservative group Americans for Limited Government. But “if they are unable to topple a governor in a state like Wisconsin, then their power is greatly reduced and greatly overstated. … If they can’t maintain it there, then I would have to contend that only in the most liberal of states — California, Illinois — are they going to be able to maintain it.”

Progressive liberals have always been in the minority and without money, their ability to promote and perpetuate their anti-American philosophy is damaged considerably. Look for infighting as pragmatic Democrats, for survival of the party, begin distancing themselves from liberals by bad-mouthing liberal philosophy and rejecting liberal spin. There are meaningful political struggles ahead, but if the cards fall correctly and the hands are played smartly we could see liberalism within the Democratic party marginalized for several administrations.

Follow I.M. Citizen at IMCitizen.net
%d bloggers like this: