Posts by FrankSalvato:

The Realities of a Community Organizer’s Foreign Policy

August 17th, 2014

 

By Frank Salvato.

 

The foreign policy of the United States under President Barack Obama, who came to the White House with the resume of an untested community organizer, no experience in political leadership, nor an iota of insight into international relations, has moved the whole of the world to the brink of total war. Those who pay attention to only what affects their lives – those who are taken in by the false promises marketed by the Progressive political class – are partially to blame. I say this not with a viciously partisan eye, but with sadness and concern in my heart for all humanity. But the onus of responsibility for our current situation – the world’s situation – must lay at the feet of Mr. Obama and his closest advisors.

In the beginning, in his speeches to prospective voters, Mr. Obama preached the Progressive gospel of the peace movement and the demilitarization of American foreign policy. He pledged to end the Iraqi conflict expeditiously and end the Afghan conflict in a timely manner. Sadly, and to their own shame, a majority of American voters bought into the pre-packaged marketing of the idea of Obama, the “first Black president,” without realizing him as wholly unqualified for the job, and he was elected. It took him short order to keep his promises to the faithful voters who counted themselves amongst the anti-war movement; the “Bush-Lied-People-Died” chanters of so many protests around the country. In December of 2011, Mr. Obama, going so far as to supply the enemy with timelines and withdrawal dates, announced the end of the Iraq War for America’s military men and women. Of course, he failed to secure reasonable status of forces agreements and insisted that the Iraqis had “turned the corner,” and were now capable of defending their own country. This, of course, was the biggest miscalculation, with regard to foreign policy, that he has made as President of the United States.

In January of 2014, when the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (or Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant), a small but fiercely pious group of jihadists were making initial advances on many locations in the rural outposts in Iraq and Syria, USA Today’s James Robbins pointed out to President Obama that the flag of al Qaeda was now flying in Fallujah and many other locations in Iraq, and among an increasing number of rebel factions in Syria. He also highlighted the fact that al Qaeda aligned groups has asserted a presence in parts of Africa, as well. Amazingly, arrogantly, but almost absolutely ignorantly, Mr. Obama responded:

“The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant…”

Ignore Mr. Obama’s substandard 7th Grade grammar for a moment, because, after all, it is “cool” to speak like one is uneducated.

Jim Geraghty of The National Review writes that today, as Mr. Obama and his family vacation – yet again – in Martha’s Vineyard, ISIS (now simply calling themselves the Islamic State) “controls a volume of resources and territoryunmatched in the history of extremist organizations, makes $3 million per dayselling oil on the black market,” have taken “control of Iraq’s largest dam and the power supply for the city of Mosul, are spreading into Lebanon, are threatening to starve or slaughter ‘at least 40,000 members of the Yazidi sect,’ is organizing protests in the Netherlands and is stepping up its recruitment of Westerners.”

In addition to these truths, the Islamic State, which is winning on every battlefront on which they are engaged (remember, victors in war control land, not the skies), has declared the existence of an Islamic Caliphate. They have instituted strict Sharia Law in every area they control and have made the ultimatum to all non-Muslims in the “occupied territories” that they must convert to Islam, pay a jizya and live subserviently as Dhimmis, expatriate or die. In Mosul, at least for the Christians, this ultimatum is nothing more than a formality.

In an interview with CNN’s Jonathan Mann, Chaldean-American leader Mark Arabo reported that in Mosul “a Christian holocaust is in our midst…children are being beheaded, mothers are being raped and killed, and fathers are being hung.”

 

Mr. Arabo continued:

“They are systematically beheading children…and mothers and fathers. The world hasn’t seen an evil like this for generations.

“There’s actually a park in Mosul where they actually beheaded children and put their heads on a stick…this is crimes against humanity. They are doing the most horrendous, the most heart-breaking crimes that you can think of.”

For the Islamic children in the ISIS “occupied territories” there only exists a future of jihad or martyrdom as ISIS jihadists execute an all-out recruiting effort throughout said “occupied territories,” recruiting children, young boys, as young as 7 years old.

This is ISIS, or the Islamic State. This is the barbarity that is being pursued in the name of the “religion of peace.” This is the savagery that has been facilitated by US foreign policy under the Obama Administration. This is the future under an Islamic Caliphate of any size, in any land, for everyone, all of the time.

Kirsten Powers, a columnist with The Daily Beast, a FOX News contributor, and usually an ardent defender of President Obama’s, lashed out at Mr. Obama over his response to ISIS’s attempt to “cleanse” the region of the “infidel”:

“He has not uttered the word ‘Christian,’ and now suddenly he throws it in with the Yazidis…We’re not doing any airdrops to the Christians, who are refugees in the Kurdish region. [Virginia Congressman Frank] Wolf has taken to the floor, I think, seven days in a row now, pleading with the administration: Please help these people. They need humanitarian aid; they need drinking water. They have nothing. They’ve lost their homes; they’ve lost everything.

“The White House has done nothing; they’ve said nothing. And then the president goes on and goes into quite a lot of detail about the Yazidis, and never really gets into the specifics about Christians. I mean, it’s really unbelievable, and he has no right to invoke humanitarianism, because he is not a humanitarian president. A humanitarian president does not sit quietly by, while hundreds of thousands of Christians in Iraq [are uprooted or killed] – forget about the rest of the Middle East – and doesn’t say a word.”

And how does Mr. Obama explain his administration’s underestimation of the savagery and barbarity of ISIS? How does he spin the issue to avoid responsibility for applying a “jayvee” foreign policy in a battle for control of first the Middle East and then the World? He blames it on “bad intelligence.” This excuse – and that’s what it is, an excuse – is inept, pathetic and infuriating. It is especially egregious in light of his unyielding criticism of the Bush Administration where skewed intelligence was concerned. And it projects to the cretinous barbarians of ISIS that they can rein down their savagery with little worry of any substantial response from the United States, sans a few drone and airstrikes.

There are many of us who fully understood the threat posed by barbarians the likes of ISIS years ago. We begged our fellow Americans and freedom loving people around the world to awaken from their self-important slumber, to question the blather of the Progressive mantra of Islam being the “religion of peace,” to realize that Muslims who follow the Quran and Hadith with fanatical devotion not only believe in their superiority to all other human beings, but believe it is their right to lord over them in the establishment of a global Islamic Caliphate. We were called haters and Islamophobes by the anointed chattering classes on both sides of the aisle. And we were delivered to today’s realities.

Perhaps we should revisit, with un-manipulated eyes, Mr. Obama’s words, courtesy of Nicholas D. Kristof of The New York Times:

“Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated…, Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as ‘one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.’”

I wonder. Are we who were sounding the alarm bell then about jihad, Islam, caliphates and Islamic conquest seen in such a despicable light now? Are we seen as haters and Islamophobes; uneducated and enlightened in the gentle spirit of the “religion of peace”? It’s actually hard to call us fanatical when you are staring at the severed head of a child impaled on a pike at a playground in Iraq. Isn’t it?

Comments Off on The Realities of a Community Organizer’s Foreign Policy

Huff & Puff Propagandizes a FOX Reality

July 4th, 2014

 

By Frank Salvato.

I go through the headlines and news stories in over one-hundred publications daily. I do this so that I can view multiple sources on some of the same stories. Doing this allows me to formulate what is fact and what is disingenuous spin; propaganda meant to trick the public into thinking one way instead of another. Make no mistake, both ideological prospective do it. It’s the art of modern political war. But the Progressive Left has myriad vehicles to attack the ideological Right, where the Right has many fewer (thank you uber-stingy money people on the Right).

A perfect example of the Left’s disingenuous attack on the Right’s information sources comes in an article in the Huffington Post by Jack Mirkinson titled, FOX News Really Doesn’t Want to Talk About the Good Jobs News, where he writes:

“Quick! Can you find Fox News’s coverage of the latest job figures?”

He includes some main page screen shots.

“Still can’t find them? OK, we’ll help you out. What if we zoom in?…OK, OK, we’ll show you! The link is that little one right in the corner there…For some reason, FOX News appears to want to downplay the very good job numbers. For good measure, the network also downplayed the figures on its airwaves as well.”

He then goes on to show how the far-Left mainstream media outlets dutifully took the Obama Administration’s spun numbers touting them as miraculous by supplying one – one – example: a screen shot of CNN’s breaking news on the numbers.

The good numbers that Mr. Mirkinson points to are the BLS statistic that 288,000 jobs were created last month. Is that good news? Yes. Is it the miraculous news Mr. Mirkinson suggests? No.

Throughout the Obama Administration the majority of the jobs “created” have been either service industry jobs or part-time jobs. College graduates remain woefully under-employed and those experienced in the workforce who have been downsized or otherwise screwed out of a job find it almost impossible to find work. And if you are over 50 and have been out of work for a period of time, you might as well come to grips with the fact that you have become unemployable under Mr. Obama’s economy.

Where the Obama Administration and its sycophants want everyone to believe that the creation of 288,000 jobs is the greatest news since sliced bread, the facts remain…and they are not good.

 

▪ The U3 unemployment rate hovers at 6.1%. The U3 rate measures the unemployment of people who are without jobs and who have actively been looking for work within the past four weeks.

▪ The U6 unemployment rate hovers at 12.1%. The U6 rate reflects “discouraged workers,” or those who have stopped looking for work because current economic conditions make them believe that no work is available for them; “marginally attached workers,” or “loosely attached workers,” or those who “would like” and are able to work, but have not looked for work recently; and part-time workers who want to work full-time, but cannot due to economic reasons.

▪ The Labor Force Participation Rate is stuck at 62.8%.

 

These statistics mean that in a country of 318 million legal citizens, 92.2 million eligible for employment are without work. Almost one-third of the population is unemployed.

Further, the rate of those not in the labor force has exploded since 2000. Over the past 14 years – and predominantly during the Obama years – we have removed 14,022,376 from the labor force who are eligible to work. That’s over 1 million eligible workers removed from the workforce each year, on average.

So, understanding the reality behind the unemployment data – disingenuously termed the “jobs numbers” by the talking heads, when more accurately they should be referred to as the “jobless numbers” – how can anyone celebrate the creation of 288,000 menial and part-time jobs when we add one million people a year on average to the under- and unemployed demographic?

The American free-market Capitalist system is the only economic system to have ever – ever – created a Middle Class in the history of man. In its purest form it made the United States of America not only the world’s preeminent superpower, it made the United States the “land of opportunity.” Today, that is hardly the case. The Middle Class is disappearing are a rapidly increasing rate and opportunity is disappearing from our economic lexicon. Why, you ask? The answer is simple: the government manipulation of the American free-market Capitalist system.

Special interests in government have saddled the small business sector with an overwhelming number of regulations, while newer and more intrusive mandates continue to smother the job creators, literally stealing food from the mouths of the hungry in the form of disappearing opportunity.

Obamacare, environmental zealotry, socialism in the form of labor union oppression, manipulation of free commerce, all of these economy-stunting and job-killing maladies are introduced into the American free-market Capitalist system by government and the big-money, well-organized special interest groups that see success and American exceptionalism as a cancer, not a cure. Sadly, today, these creatures of negativity and societal destruction are in power…and on both sides of the governmental political aisle. Unless we shift the political paradigm radically back towards true limited government, it is only a matter of time before our Republic is lost.

So, Mr. Mirkinson, the jobs news is good? Please. The jobs news sucks.

As we celebrate the 238 anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, we should all be willing to look at the chains upon our wrists and ankles. We have allowed ourselves to become slaves to an oligarchic elite and their special interest benefactors. They feign concern about unemployment as they try to tell you they are just like us. That couldn’t be further from the truth. Case in point: Mrs. Clinton’s comment about being “flat-broke” when she and the former President left the White House. How does someone who is flat-broke acquire a multi-million dollar mansion in Chappaqua, New York and maintain two “summer cottages” in Ireland being flat-broke? It’s a lie, and one meant to deceive.

The good news it this. We can remove those chains and get back to good. We can free ourselves of the disingenuous and elitist oligarchs with which we are currently saddled. We have the power and it is a power that begins with the ballot box and navigates the seas of prosperity through limited government.

 

The time is now. Let us not be faint of heart.

Comments Off on Huff & Puff Propagandizes a FOX Reality

A Perfect Example of the Progressive Hate Machine

July 1st, 2014

 

By Frank Salvato.

 

I have long said, if you want to understand exactly who and what the Progressive Movement is, simply listen to what they espouse to hate. That is who and what they are. Frighteningly, it really is that easy. The movement that proclaims “tolerance,” “inclusion,” “acceptance,” and “equality for all,” is actually a movement that embraces intolerance, exclusion, opposition and oligarchic elitism. And no matter how much they espouse the former, their actions confirm the latter.

The Progressive Movement, which now controls not only the federal government and the government apparatuses in most of the failing, debt-ridden, deficit spending urban centers in the United States (and in many “enlightened” locales across the globe), but the education system and the mainstream media, is tolerant to only those who agree with their world view, include only those who will advance their cause, accept only those who tow the Progressive line ideologically and call for equality to apply for only those with which beg their favor. If you have an opposing viewpoint on culture, government or society, you are smeared, demonized, castigated and otherwise openly and veraciously hated.

So much for all that “hate crime” talk oozing out of the Progressive’s collective “pie hole.”

The Examiner reports

“While speaking at the Texas Democratic Party convention in Dallas on Friday, state Rep.Trey Martinez Fischer told fellow Democrats that GOP doesn’t stand for ‘Grand Old Party,’ it stands for ‘gringos y otros pendejos.’ In addition to the racist slur, Martinez Fischer’s office handed out a set of six Lotería cards to delegates, one of which depicts a red-faced Abbott as ‘El Diablito.’

“A Google search found that other than the Houston Chronicle and a few other sites, the racist profanity…”

“Gringos y Otros Pendejos” is translated to mean “Gringos and Other A**holes”. One needs only look back to the abundance of media coverage over the feigned outrage over a private and direct-to-target off-the-mic comment made by then Vice President Dick Cheney to Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), in 2004 to palpate the hypocrisy of the Progressive Movement.

Mr. Fischer went on to defend his “hate speech”:

“Martinez Fischer did not offer an apology and doubled down on his overheated rhetoric.

“‘I stand by my words,’ he said. ‘I did not know Greg Abbott was at the convention to hear me, and if I had known that I would told him directly to his face.’”

It should be noted that if Mr. Fischer really wanted to repeat his “hate speech” to Mr. Abbott’s face he would have had to sit down. Mr. Abbott is confined to a wheelchair. Abbott became a paraplegic when an oak tree fell on him while he was running following a storm in 1984.

Here we have a perfect example of true “hate speech.” The statement has all the necessary components. It is meant to attack, to disparage, and to demean. It is racist and it is profane. Yet, aside from one mainstream media outlet that covered it “in passing,” nary a word has been spoken or printed about it. Why is that you ask? Because the main stream media is held captive – held hostage – by the Progressive Movement. To wit, when a Progressive employs the Alinskyisms espoused inRules for Radicals points five and thirteen, the ethics of the issue is moot.

Points five and thirteen state:

▪ No. 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.

▪ No. 13: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

Alinsky provides an astounding level of moral relativism to absolve the “hate speaker” for this intolerant, non-inclusive, unaccepting and inequitable ethical dilemma by offering this bit of intellectual disingenuousness:

“The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment… 

“The morality of means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.”

And there you have just a taste of the convoluted justification behind the Progressive Movement’s hypocrisy on the issue of hate and “hate speech.” It would appear that advancing hate, smear and demagoguery is quite alright if you are in the Progressive Movement, and particularly if you are a Progressive politician. But if you are outside of the “protected” Progressive class, watch out! If you speak exactly as Progressives do and you are not protected you are a hater and should be silenced and punished.

 

It brings an entirely new prospective to old adage “do as I say, not as I do,” wouldn’t you say?

Comments Off on A Perfect Example of the Progressive Hate Machine

The Least Disruptive Education Environment

June 9th, 2014

 

 

By Frank and Nancy Salvato.

Teachers negotiating today’s public education environment face a number of challenges; these include negotiating additional responsibilities with insufficient time to complete them appropriately, behavioral management of students who continually disrupt the educational process, and following a test driven pacing guide which doesn’t allow for adequate preparation of students who come to school below grade level and who lack the capacity to achieve a firm foundation in the educational standards in which they are expected to display proficiency.

Since our country’s inception, there have been many educational advocates driving educational reforms for particular educational interests.  However, some reforms –while benefitting particular groups of students– have had a negative impact on the teachers expected to implement these changes, as well as on the majority students which form a student body. One of the areas of education reform that has had unintended consequences is the area of special education.

It was PL 94-142, passed in 1975 and later renamed IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Act) which mandated that special needs children be educated in the least restrictive environment.  Every student of education was required to memorize this law and understand the implications for education. This was a victory for those who advocated on the behalf of those children who would benefit by this law’s passage.

While I cannot speak for every teacher, I have both witnessed and experienced the educational disruption caused by some students with IEPs (Individual Instructional Plans) and understand that this has the unintended consequence of interrupting the education of the rest of the students in the classroom.  In this age of bell to bell instruction and longer school days for those attending turn-around schools, this seems counter-productive. According to James Madison,

A large republic could encompass many different groups and different interests—economic, religious, and social—and thereby provide a safeguard against the tyranny of the majority. (Bill of Rights Institute)

Madison was less concerned with tyranny by the minority, however education seems to have allowed the minority interest to dictate the rhythm and pace of a typical school day.  Students with and without IEPs, some of whom come to school ill prepared and require more attention (sometimes demand that attention) prevent a teacher from providing the best possible education to the students who come with the capacity to thrive at the targeted level of instruction.  The demands of a few prevent the majority from receiving a teacher’s best.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) ensures that all children with disabilities are entitled to a free appropriate public education to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living. Prior to IDEA, over 4 million children with disabilities were denied appropriate access to public education. Many children were denied entry into public school altogether, while others were placed in segregated classrooms, or in regular classrooms without adequate support for their special needs (Katsiyannis, Yell, Bradley, 2001; Martin, Martin, Terman, 1996; U.S. Department of Education, 2010).

While a great deal of attention has been given to equalizing access to the educational environment for an educational minority, through laws such as PL 94 142 and IDEA, other laws, such as NCLB, which I haven’t even considered in the article, have implications on how classrooms are grouped, which content areas are given more importance, and demand that a disproportionate amount of a teacher’s time be spent collecting (through assessment) and analyzing data, which has the unintended consequence of skewing the balance of what was formerly considered the art and science of teaching.

Because of teacher burnout and attrition, students in poorer performing schools often receive instruction from less experienced teachers who are expected to juggle enormous responsibilities, causing them to either leave the field or leave a district which exacts all of their time and energy –whether they’re instructing, doing preparation or paperwork, or at home feeling the pressure of what still needs to be completed in a never ending cycle of expectations, all of which leave a teacher feeling like Atlas, the weight of the world on his/her shoulders with no end in sight.

This impacts the average student, the one who is fortunate enough to have the support of one or two parents, who comes to school with the requisite supplies, who packs or pays for school lunch, who is prepared to learn because homework is completed in an environment where it is taught that school is important and that teachers and adults should be respected.

It would seem only fair that these students are entitled to a least disruptive environment, one in which learning takes place among like-minded peers who are excited about and want to learn.  The parents of these children are entitled to advocate for their children, too, to demand that their children receive a free (read: taxpayer funded) and appropriate education with minimal disruption from peers who are in the same classroom because their caretakers see school as a daycare that provides free breakfast, free lunch, dental care and babysitting.

In order to understand any political issue and to give appropriate consideration to the challenges surrounding any solution, the founders believed that the populace as a whole needed to have the intellectual capacity to think critically and to have gained a surplus of knowledge from which to draw when formulating policy, to prevent reactionary legislation which could have unintended consequences.  If our populace doesn’t understand the importance of educating in the least disruptive environment, we will not be able to keep this republic, for which we fought so hard.

Comments Off on The Least Disruptive Education Environment

Eh! Who Cares About the Rules?

June 1st, 2014

 

By Frank J. Salvato.

 

Conyers, michigan, johnson, election, constitution, ballot, federal, judge, progressive, tea party, conservative, constitution, republican

Have we as a nation – and more precisely, we are Conservatives, Constitutionalists, Libertarians and Republicans – completely given up on playing by the rules? That would seem to be the case, at least in the instance of election law in the State of Michigan.

The Michigan Secretary of State, Ruth Johnson, a Republican, has abdicated her responsibility to enforce election law for the most basic of issues: how someone qualifies for being included on an election ballot.

The Hill reports:

“Michigan won’t appeal a federal judge’s ruling that placed Rep. John Conyers (P-MI) on the Democrat ballot, ending the threat that he would have to run a write-in campaign.

“The office of Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson, a Republican, announced the decision on Friday to let the judge’s ruling stand.

“Conyers had originally been ruled ineligible to appear on the ballot for the August primary because local officials found he didn’t submit enough valid petition signatures.

“A US district court judge last week, though, overturned that decision, finding it unconstitutional, and issued an order directing the local election commission to place the longtime lawmaker’s name back on the ballot.”

Let’s overlook, for the moment, that fundamental election law is supposed to be – supposed to be – reserved for the States. While the US Constitution prescribes basic qualifications of an individual to participate in a federal election, State legislatures regulatethe eligibility of an individual for voting and to regulate the qualifications for a candidate appearing on a ballot paper. Ergo, the federal judiciary has unconstitutionally overstepped its authority in intervening in this case.

If the Secretary of State – a position directly elected by the voters of any given State – is charged with the responsibility to faithfully execute election law, in the case of Ms. Johnson, the option to abdicate responsibility to follow the letter of the law does not exist. By not executing an appeal of the federal judge’s unconstitutional ruling she both violates her oath of office to faithfully execute her duties as Secretary of State, but she also betrays the constitutional rights of her State’s citizenry by surrendering the State mandated rights of Michiganians.

A citizen versed in the threat of Progressivism would point out that one of the primary goals of the Progressive movement is to centralize government at the federal level, moving the authority of government away from elected representation and toward an ever-expanding federal bureaucracy. Ms. Johnson, by skirting her responsibility to defend her State’s authority to render election law, has aided the Progressive cause in Mr. Conyers’ inclusion on the Michigan ballot when he had not satisfied the requirements to be included.

As the mainstream media continues to manifest a false narrative about a “rift” within the Republican Party, the fact of the matter is this. Those who call themselves Conservatives, Constitutionalists and TEA Partiers (and by the way, TEA is capitalized because it is an acronym for Taxed Enough Already) are standing against those “go along to get along” Republicans who consistently betray the core tenets of the Republican Party, chief among them the common understanding that the United States of America – as so eloquently stated by John Adams – is “a nation of laws, not men.” To wit, there is no “rift.” True Republicans are trying to purge Progressives from their ranks, especially in positions of leadership.

This understood, hasn’t Ms. Johnson proved herself a Progressive in the Republican Ranks? One has to ask, what gives Ms. Johnson the authority to pick and choose what laws she follows and what laws she doesn’t? An action such as this is something the Obama Administration engages in…and that, constitutionally speaking and in a land of laws and not men, is both unAmerican and illegal.

Comments Off on Eh! Who Cares About the Rules?

Aiken: Exactly What We Don’t Need In Politics

May 23rd, 2014

 

 

 

By Frank Salvato.

Perhaps when our time is relegated to the history books it will be remembered as the “Era of Self-Important Divisiveness,” or something to that effect. Truth be told, there have been few times in the history of our nation when politics was so basely divisive. I say basely because although politics in the time of our Founders and Framers was combative, it was so on an intellectual level; a battlefield of higher thinking, as it were. Today, our politics is centered on the self-important stature of those whose only claim to narcissism is the falsely elevated self-esteem foisted upon them by the Progressive operatives who have commandeered the education system.

Today, our society lauds the illiterate rap artist and the talentless faux-beauties of Hollywood; thugs with a cursory grasp of rhythm but not music, and surgically enhanced spotlight seekers completely devoid of talent. Today, our culture’s media places more importance in the political opinions of an American Idol runner-up, than those who served in government during an era when the Iron Curtain fell and the Soviet Union disappeared from the maps of the world.

So, it is no surprise that our narrative-controlling media (or at least that’s what they strive for) would be wasting the precious “attention span time” of the non-engaged and no- and low-information American public with the candidacy of Clay Aiken, nominee in the North Carolina 2nd congressional district election. Not to take anything away from Mr. Aiken’s musical talents (he is a talented singer), but to quote a superior musician, Frank Zappa, “There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life.”

The Washington Times is reporting:

“Democrat congressional candidate Clay Aiken has reportedly deleted a tweet in which he fantasized about punching conservative author Ann Coulter ‘in the face.’

“‘Anyone else watching @piersmorgan want to punch Ann Coulter in the face?’ the former American Idol runner-up tweeted in October 2012…

“Mr. Aiken won the North Carolina Democrat nomination last week with a lead of less than 400 votes, just one day after his main contender, Keith Crisco, was found dead in his home.”

For a moment let’s skip the embarrassing fact that Mr. Aiken only beat a dead guy by 400 votes. One has to wonder if he would have lost if he were on the ballot in Chicago, what with all the dead people who vote there.

I could ask a question here. Is this the type of person that Democrats want to have representing them in Congress; a person who advocates for violence against those with whom he disagrees, even as he preaches acceptance and tolerance for “protected” demographics in our society? But the answer here is one we already understand: purporting inclusion and non-violence while advocating for the beating of those with which you disagree is okay if you are a Progressive. It is a hate crime if you are anything but.

Mr. Aiken didn’t stop there, either. In referencing Ms. Coulter a second time, he tweeted:

“Since Ann Coulter says it’s ok 2 b offensive when describing people, let’s ‘C’ what words we can use 2 describe her huff.to/P8moE7”

An obvious reference to a word that gets guys slapped squarely across the face when heard by females.

Caustic indignation has become the “new normal” for the Progressive Left. They have always used the tactics of “divide and conquer” and “slash and burn” in their politics, but in the days past they did it with much more subtlety, preferring the artful spin of an issue (the issuance of disinformation and manipulative propaganda) to the overt brutality of arrogant and belligerent calls for violence, whether under the banner of the “rainbow flag” or not. Today’s Progressive activists – and, evidently, congressional candidates – seem to have no problem advocating for violence against those with whom they disagree; advocating for the denial of free speech rights for those who do not obediently follow their shallow vision of what a diverse society should be.

Our nation’s motto is E Pluribus Unum: “Out of Many, One.” In this simple statement we can understand what the United States of America was supposed to be…and what it is not today. Our nation was supposed to be a nation that embraced the differences in all the peoples who wanted to shed their labels and become Americans, simply Americans; not hyphenated Americans or protected Americans, just Americans. In the vision of e pluribus unum, our nation would see no differences among its citizenry based on color, economic wherewithal, religion, gender or profession; it would only see a melting pot of people who came to this land to be free.

Our nation was designed to be a safe haven for all people, a safe haven from the oligarchs and the despots, the totalitarians, dictators and fascists; a safe haven where people could worship freely, freely express their beliefs (both societal and political), and have the freedom to pursue happiness, both in spirit and in commerce. Today, we have transformed from a Representative Constitutional Republic to a nation governed by an elitist oligarchy, hell-bent on attaining and then retaining power, influence and riches derived from We the People. And We the People, for our apathy, for our self-importance, for our stupidity, have brought it upon ourselves for our abdication of responsibility to protect the Charters of Freedom; for our abdication of responsibility to hold those elected to office accountable for their malfeasance and treachery.

We have true scandals facing our nation today, scandals that, in the long run, will be found to be criminal and actionable in nature, yet our media decides Clay Aiken’s “sissy-fit” with Anne Coulter is news. Then, what can we expect from a mainstream media where one network president, CNN’s Jeff Zucker, said,

“We’re not going to be shamed into [covering the Benghazi scandal] by others who have political beliefs that want to try to have temper tantrums to shame other news organizations into covering something.”

Is the assassination of a US ambassador and his security team by an enemy aligned with the group that slaughtered 2,975 people on September 11, 2001 not worth covering; not worth examining until all the questions are answered? Should we be satisfied with the determinations and findings of a “stacked-deck” investigative panel more concerned with political vanity than truth?

We the People are less concerned about how Mr. Aiken is, well, “just all tied up in little pretty knots” about Ann Coulter’s comments, and much more concerned that half of our government doesn’t care that:

▪ an act of war was perpetrated on an American ambassador and his security team in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012, and our President, his administration and his party’s congressional contingent overtly seek to cover-up Executive Branch complicity;

▪ the IRS was illegally targeting political advocacy groups that represented easily half of the electorate’s political views;

▪ the Veteran’s Administration has been cooking the books for the sole purpose of gleaning taxpayer-funded “bonus money” from the Treasury while veterans died – and lay dying – waiting for basic treatment;

▪ the Department of Justice – run by an overt racist – not only spied on journalists in order to intimidate the First Amendment protections of the press, but has routinely refused to enforce laws based on politics and racism;

▪ the singular “achievement” of this administration – the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare (and you thought I was going to say the fundamental transformation of the United States of America) – is robbing our citizens of jobs, even as the administration’s penchant for acquiescing to global governance literally extracts massive amounts of wealth from our shores.

But then, Progressives are in control of the mainstream media and the news narratives; narratives sympatico with those on Pennsylvania Avenue who are more concerned about the “fundamental transformation of America,” than with doing the jobs for which they were elected. That said, is it any wonder Mr. Obama always finds out about what his administration is doing from the “news media reports”?

Going back to Frank Zappa for a moment, a very talented musician in my book,

“I believe that, in a [constitutional republic], government exists because (and only as long as) individual citizens give it a ‘temporary license to exist’ – in exchange for a promise that it will behave itself. In a [constitutional republic] you own the government – it doesn’t own you. Along with this comes a responsibility to ensure that individual actions, in the pursuit of a personal destiny, do not threaten the well-being of others while the ‘pursuit’ is in progress.”

Maybe it’s time for Mr. Aiken to take some private lessons in government, philosophy and civility. Too bad Mr. Zappa isn’t available.

Comments Off on Aiken: Exactly What We Don’t Need In Politics

Are Reid & Pelosi Despicably Partisan or Senile?

May 5th, 2014

 

 

By Frank Salvato.

When one looks at the statements made by both Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a valid question arises. Are they both horrifically partisan to the point that they would attempt to marginalize the murders of four Americans, including a US ambassador? Or did Reid take too many shots to head during his days as a boxer, and Pelosi, well…to paraphrase her “we have to pass the bill to find out what is in it” nonsense, maybe we have to “un-elect” her to find out what she means.

With the announcement that House Speaker John Boehner finally decided to seat a special House committee to investigate the assassination of a US ambassador and his security contingent, Senate Majority Leader (and former boxer) Harry Reid (D-NV), said:

“Republicans are showing yet again that they have nothing to offer the middle class. Republicans care more about defending billionaires like the Koch brothers and trying to rekindle debunked right-wing conspiracy theories than raising the minimum wage or ensuring women receive equal pay for equal work.

“There have already been multiple investigations into this issue and an independent Accountability Review Board is mandated under current law. For Republicans to  waste the American people’s time and money staging a partisan political circus instead of focusing on the middle class is simply a bad decision. While Republicans try to gin up yet another political food fight, Senate Democrats will remain focused on fostering economic growth for all hard-working Americans.”

Several thoughts come to mind after reading Mr. Reid’s official statement.

First, it is almost sickening that Mr. Reid thinks so little of the American people that he would think us incapable of realizing that the “multiple investigations” that have taken place have been almost 100 percent weighted in favor of a positive outcome for the Obama Administration. Anyone with eyes and a brain has already deduced that the Obama Administration investigates and/or prosecutes nothing that could adversely affect it or the Progressive Left. From the non-prosecution of the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation, to the non-investigation of: a) those responsible for using the IRS as a weapon against Conservative Americans; b) those responsible for using the DoJ as a spy apparatus targeting the free media; those responsible at the DoJ for Fast & Furious, the Obama Administration can be counted on to provide justice to no one.

Second, the Koch Brothers? Honestly? We are supposed to believe that the Koch Brothers were somehow to blame for the assassination – the slaughter – of American officials in Libya? Mr. Reid, your vendetta against the Koch Brothers for exercising their free speech rights is laughable if not tyrannical. Two words for you that should find you embarrassed at your attacks on the big money brothers trying to right the imbalance Progressives have affected on free speech: George Soros.

And three. Have you notice how incredibly caustic the touchy-feely, inclusive, tolerant Progressive Left gets whenever you question them? Isn’t it incredible that the same people who bloviate about dialogue about fairness and justice couldn’t give a damn about fairness and justice for the parents and families of those slaughtered and dragged through the streets of Benghazi? Challenge their idea of “mission accomplished” and watch out for the vicious, big-money fueled smear that is set to come your way. Honestly, has a bigger assembly of frauds ever captured power anywhere at any time?

To wit, Nancy Pelosi, responding to the announcement of the special investigative committee, said,

“What I will say is, again, diversion, subterfuge: Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. Why aren’t we talking about something else?”

Is it diversion to want answers to the assassination of a US ambassador when newly revealed evidence points to proof of a cover-up emanating directly from the White House; evidence of a cover-up of an event that led to peoples’ murders? Is it subterfuge to point out that the President and his closest advisers tolerate the assassination of a US ambassador strictly for political purposes? By Ms. Pelosi’s standards, Watergate shouldn’t have been questioned, yet charges of impeachment were prepared…and no one died in Watergate.

The seating of this investigative body is absolutely the right thing to do. Those refusing to cooperate, let alone champion, the effort should be removed from office at the next election and kept from public office – all the way down to dog catcher – for the remainder of their pathetic, partisan, lives.

As for Reid and Pelosi, they stand as proof positive that the Framers and Founders were right when they warned us against political faction in government. The faction of the Progressive Left doesn’t give a damnabout slaughtered Americans. They don’t give a tinker’s cuss about fairness and justice, inclusion and dialogue. They only care about power and money. The Progressive Leftists currently in control of government epitomize greed and narcissism.

And that ain’t “diversion” or “subterfuge.”

Comments Off on Are Reid & Pelosi Despicably Partisan or Senile?

Progressives & The Continued Urban Slaughter

April 25th, 2014

 

 

By Frank Salvato.

 

Over the Easter weekend, the City of Chicago experienced a rash of violence that eclipsed anything taking place on the battlefields of Afghanistan or in the uncivilized Taliban-held territories of Pakistan’s border region. 18 people were shot in several incidents, 13 of them dying from their wounds. This is nothing new to Chicago where for years the annual body-count has rivaled, if not exceeded, the casualties reported from war zones in which our military have been engaged. What is new is the political leadership in that city.

Those familiar with Chicago will take issue with that last statement, but the fact of the matter is this. It is true. While the City of Chicago has been staunchly Democrat for decades, its new mayor, Rahm Emanuel, former Chief of Staff to President Barack Obama, is a Progressive. Where the Daleys (both Richard J. and Richard M.) displayed a sincere love for the city, Mr. Emanuel, by all accounts, sees it as a stepping-stone to either the political throne of “king-maker” or executive branch national office…perhaps both.

I can say with confidence, having spent a majority of my lifetime in the nearby suburbs of Chicago, that the Daleys understood that the mean streets of Chicago were just that: mean streets. To that end, while they saw the value in efforts to address the social issues contributing to the modern urban culture of urban violence, they also knew full well that a strong, effective and empowered law enforcement community, coupled with a citizenry supportive of personal responsibility, was necessary to execute the most important role of any chief executive – local, state of federal: the protection of the innocent.

Progressives have, for decades now, fomented a culture of victimization. Everyone is a victim. Where non-Progressives see the innocents affected by those perpetrating violence-as-a-culture to be the victims, Progressives include the perpetrators of said violence as victims as well. Progressives see the people who load the gun, carry the gun and illegally shoot the gun – killing innocents, along with those complicit – as victims: victims of circumstance; victims of culture; victims of social and economic “injustice”; victims of society.

The Progressives’ answer to the modern day urban culture of violence is to create more community assistance, more community activities, and more community engagement. But while a fraction of those embracing the urban culture of violence would benefit from (or even engage in) the existence of these programs, the overwhelming number of those who embrace this culture not only know no other way, but see the lifestyle as glamorous, and who could blame them?

Black urban youth – and to a lesser extent but no less troubling, Latino, Asian and White urban youth – have come to see the urban culture of violence as a lifestyle “choice” (ironic that Progressives are all universally “pro-choice”). The urban youth culture is rife with violence; violence in its music, in its preferred art and entertainment, and in its counter-culture economic system. You can’t go a quarter-hour listening to an urban radio station without hearing lyrics about killing police officers or rival gang-bangers, or lyrics about women being treated like whores; to be used for sex, with those arguably degraded women being painted as accepting it willingly because, hey, it’s all about the money.

And when it all boils down to it, isn’t that the truth? In a culture where our education system is more worried about instilling a false sense of self-esteem (no one is a loser, everyone is a winner; everyone gets a trophy) than in cultivating critical thinking skills, complete with lessons on how to learn and then capitalize from failures, haven’t Progressives really trained an entire generation – if not two – to take the easy way out; that they are entitled to “the good life”; that it’s okay to transgress the law because it is the “victim” inside of you that moves you to do the unlawful? Using the victim-mentality Progressive mindset, who in their right mind would work a degrading minimum wage job for $7.25 an hour ($290 for a 40 hour week) when selling cocaine for a drug gang can garner that same person 10 times that amount in a night?

Mr. Emanuel took to the airwaves after the weekend’s carnage and expressed anger at the violence. That’s where he and I agree. I, too, am angry at the violence. He acknowledged that community engagement programs are necessary. To a certain extent I agree.

But he also sees the issue as one facilitated by the existence of guns. It is with this mentality that I disagree, and vehemently.

For some bizarre reason, Progressives, including Mr. Emanuel, think – and it really is bizarre – that outlawing weapons will somehow keep the criminals from illegally attaining weapons. The stupidity of that argument is stunning. If someone is going to break the law by murdering someone, why would a gun law restrain them from acquiring a weapon? Additionally, study after study after study, based on law enforcement data; prove beyond any doubt that crime – even urban crime – is reduced in areas where lawful concealed carry gun laws exist.

To express my argument more bluntly let’s do an experiment. Load a weapon and place it on the table. If you want to be daring, point the barrel of the weapon in your direction. Now, step back ten feet and command the weapon, “Shoot me!” I am going to bet the farm that nothing happens; that the weapon itself did not, of its own power, shoot you. This very basic experiment proves this thesis: Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

I will acquiesce to Progressives if they acquiesce to the rest of us (compromise is what the Framers intended for our system of government). I will sign on to community engagement programs for what they are worth in providing safe haven and deterrent to inner-city innocents and vulnerable youth, but only if Progressives cease with the stupidity of :

▪ instilling the falsely elevated self-esteem brainwashing they push in our schools;

▪ the ridiculous notion that inanimate objects kill people;

▪ their tacit support of the urban culture of violence as “cool”;

▪ their neutering of law enforcement’s capability to affect the carnage produced by violent gang crime before it occurs, and their ability to meet criminal force with overwhelming force in the name of serving the law-abiding public.

I would see this as a good trade-off, given the fact that employing this compromise has a better chance to immediately save lives in our urban areas than anything the Progressive victimization culture has ever come up with.

That said, I won’t hold my breath waiting for Mr. Emanuel and his brethren Progressives – including the race merchants among them – to announce their willingness to engage in something so common sense. Progressives, after all, know what’s best for all of us…always.

Comments Off on Progressives & The Continued Urban Slaughter

An Oligarchy and Not a Republic? No Kidding?

April 22nd, 2014

By Frank Salvato.

The Washington Times is reporting that a study by Princeton and Northwestern Universities has determined that the fundamental transformation of the United States of America has already taken place. We have transitioned from a Republic (as our Framers intended) to an oligarchy:

“America is no longer a democracy — never mind the democratic-republic envision by Founding Fathers. Rather, it’s taken a turn down elitist lane and become a country led by a small dominant class comprised of powerful members who exert total control over the general population — an oligarchy, said a new study jointly conducted by Princeton and Northwestern universities.

“One concluding finding in the study: The US government now represents the rich and powerful, not the average citizen, United Press International reported…

“Researchers then concluded that US policies are formed more by special interest groups, than by politicians properly representing the will of the general people, including the lower-income class, UPI said.”

Really? Who would ever have thought?! Oh, that’s right, we “whackoids” and “domestic terrorists” among us; those warning about the encroachment of dominant government into our private lives. We have been (first politely and now with a twinge of anger) voicing this ongoing event for quite a while, first as individuals and now in organized groups.

This is what happens when Progressives capture the message-crafting media. This is what happens when we pass amendments to the US Constitution that destroy the protections built in for the individual States. This is what happens when factions and big money special interest groups reign supreme in Washington, DC. This is what happens when the no- and low-information voters decide elections; our country’s well-being hanging in the balance.

Whether or not it is too late to change anything is a matter of debate. Personally, I am inclined to fight for the country and the capitalist economic system that literally created the first Middle Class ever to exist in the history of man.

To that end, there is an organization that has developed a solution – or at least the vehicle to achieve a solution – for the manipulation of the no- and low-information voters by the special interests and political opportunists currently transforming our Republic; the oligarchs, if you will.

Founders Alliance USA*, a non-partisan group, has developed VoterFYI.

The VoterFYI initiative is for voters (and no- and low-information voters are included here) who are dissatisfied with the current political system and parties. The initiative matches voters to the strongest candidate on any given ballot, whose positions are compatible with the voters’ highest values using machine intelligence. Unlike the position paper model of think tanks, the VoterFYI process is more personalized by leveraging advances in social technology and artificial intelligence to match voters to their candidate, make recommendations on issues based on the data that is input, and save precious time.

Part of the pain of transitioning from the most promising form of government (the American constitutional Republic) to the failed tenets of oligarchical Socialism is the destruction of prosperity; the equalization of society by the denial of opportunity.

There has been very little economic growth for the last five years. The “recovery summer” has come and gone with the worst recovery ever recorded. In 1950, more than 80 percent of all men in the United States had jobs. Today, less than 65 percent of men do. Because they’re feeling acute pain monetarily, the sleeping giant that is “we the people” are waking up to the disparity and recognizing the incompetence of both political parties. It is at this point that Progressives and oligarchic elites intend to swoop in with an expansion of the entitlement state; the nanny state, where government advances to control even more of our lives than it already does.

The brilliance of the VoterFYI project comes in its ability to elevate the issues above the political parties and above the misinformation and deception of the terminal power-seekers. It allows each individual to formulate and refine their understanding of the issues, thus circumventing the Madison Avenue political rhetoric that only well-connected money can buy. Once the populace understands the issues – and how they, themselves, feel about the issues – no intentionally contrived message of spin by either established political camp can deceive the voters any longer…and this includes the no- and low-information voters.

Find out more about VoterFYI by clicking here.

I don’t know about you, but I am unwilling to stand by, doing nothing more than complaining, as Progressives and political opportunists finalize the fundamental transformation of the United States. I am choosing to actually do something about it. How about you?

“The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” ~ Patrick Henry

* In the interest of transparency, the author sits on the board of directors for Founders Alliance USA.

Comments Off on An Oligarchy and Not a Republic? No Kidding?

When Disappointment Comes from The Right

February 21st, 2014

 

 

By Frank Salvato.

 



As Republicans stand on the precipice of taking back the majority in the United States Senate – that is if (and that’s a mighty big “if”) they can achieve the remarkable feat of not snatching defeat from the jaws of victory – it is becoming painfully obvious that our rhetorical standard-bearers of the punditry have not only been absorbed into the beltway mentality, but have ingested so much of the elitist Kool-Aid that they are, themselves, becoming the poison that moves the foundation of the Republican Party – and, therefore, Conservatism – incrementally to the Left.

It was with great chagrin that I listened to Ann Coulter, appearing on FOX News Channel’s Hannity, depict those who are calling out “establishment Republicans” shysters. Ms. Coulter, a usually stalwart scion of the Conservative Movement (but for her affection for New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who hasn’t a clue about the serious threat our country faces from Islamofascism), while seemingly lauding the TEA Party, in the same breath took them to task for identifying Progressives who exist on the Right side of the aisle.

 

In part, Ms. Coulter opined:

“There are two ways of looking at it. The people out in America who call themselves TEA Partiers are fantastic. They’re the heart of America and I think they have made a huge difference; they did in the 2010 elections, which in the House, anyway, Republicans picked-up more seats than they did in the famous 1994 election…[U]nfortunately, as with any grassroots movement, I think there are a lot of con men and scammers coming in a tricking good Americans into sending them money claiming ‘we are fighting for you,’ and they aren’t fighting for you.”

 

Ms. Coulter later opined:

“Basically, anyone who claims to be going after ‘establishment Republicans,’ the key word here is ‘Republican’…if we don’t elect Republicans – I don’t care which Republican – we will not repeal Obamacare…The only way to repeal Obamacare is to elect Republicans. It is not to be fighting against Republicans.”

 

Evidently, and due to the fact that we live in a time when the electorate is about as evenly split as it ever has been; a five to ten percent of the population deciding elections, by Ms. Coulter standards, it is never a time to take a stand against the encroachment of Progressivism in the Republican Party.

Each and every one of those so-called “Conservative” pundits (including Ms. Coulter, I am quite sad to say) who attack the TEA Party – which is just as much a part of the Republican Party as Progressive-Leftists are a part of the Democrat Party – should forever refrain from singing the praises of President Ronald Reagan for their complete abandonment of Reagan’s 11th Commandment, originally declared by Gaylord Parkinson, “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.”

The demonization of those who the TEA Party grassroots elected to office – be it on the local, county, state or federal level – is inexcusable, as is their defense of those who have made being federally-elected a career, instead of a duty. By defending the status quo in the “establishment GOP,” Ms. Coulter and her fellow “top level” pundits, either inadvertently or knowingly, facilitate the incremental political slide to the Left from which our country currently suffers. They do so by their support for those in elected leadership who abdicate the founding principles of the Republican Party for retention of power.

As I stated back in a 2009 article titled, The Path to the Future Requires a Return to the Roots:

“In summary – and to paraphrase – the platform stood for protecting the rights of individuals as outlined in the Charters of Freedom, the right to unfettered government recourse and due process in the event those rights were challenged. Further, it embraced only specific and limited measures that would provide opportunity for individual achievement and advancement. And lastly, it set forth a welcome mat for men of all ideas and affiliations who ‘believe in the spirit of our institution as well as the Constitution of our country.’

“In other words, the original platform of the Republican Party was one of protecting the rights of individuals so that they could advance their individual beliefs and causes in society. What it did not establish was a platform of positions on special interest issues and litmus tests for those who would be put into nomination to lead the party, both in government and organization.

“Today’s Republican Party has abandoned these founding platform commitments. Instead, today’s GOP finds itself naively acquiescing to false challenges put forth by our political opponent parties; taking concrete positions on special interest issues that divide the electorate into two camps. The Republican leadership of today has fallen prey to a political tactic that forces declared positions on special interest issues. Because of this the party has become a haven for special interest groups instead of being a pure political organization that protects the fundamental rights of all Americans, including special interest groups.”

Each time our modern day national GOP leadership engages into “compromise” with the Progressive leadership of today’s Democrat Party; each time they break-off into “gangs” of eight, twelve or sixteen; each time they make excuses not to hold to the promises they made to the electorate during campaigns or try to explain why they voted directly against the founding principles of the party they lead, they prove to care more about retaining power than doing the work they were elected to do: representing their constituents and executing their charge with fidelity to the platforms they ran on.

Even a cursory understanding of the tactics used by the Progressive-Left sheds light on the fact – the fact – that they use the word “compromise” in situations where they already have the advantage, so as to “begin” “negotiations” from a position left of true political and ideological center. In using this tactic, they are assured that any perceived “compromise” will always – always – move the issue’s end point further to the ideological Left. A perfect example of this is “hate crime” and “hate speech” legislation.

As addressed in a recent article, who is the arbiter of the definition of “hate”? Hitler, Stalin and Guevara all had their own definitions of “hate” and those definitions resulted in the mass murders of millions of people. But Progressives manipulate the electorate – and their political opponents – by tapping into “feelings,” therefore, a fickle national GOP; a federally-elected Republican Party leadership more concerned with how they are perceived than the principles they were sent to Washington, DC, to defend, will always lose – always, and do so incrementally.

Today we have a federal Republican leadership team – or, an “establishment Republican” leadership team (a moniker at which Ms. Coulter grimaces), that:

▪ …has promised tax reform for decades but has never delivered said reforms, almost always tapping the excuse that it would never fly in an election year, even though Democrats promise the same;

▪ …has promised a decrease in the size and scope of government but has, instead, presided over a grotesque expansion of government, including the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (just for snicks-and-giggles, look-up the literal translation of Gestapo or “Geheime Staats-Polizei,”);

▪ …has consistently, since the enactment of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), openly and overtly pledged to do “everything possible” to de-rail, de-fund and repeal the law, yet refused to use the full power of the purse allocated to the US House of Representatives by the Constitution to do so;

▪ …has abandoned the law – the law – that says the southern US border is to be secured physically; instead entering into another round of immigration reform “compromise” that will – again – see the Progressive-Left achieving a mass amnesty for those who violated our laws to exist in our country.

I could go on and on and on but I will simply address one more:

▪ …has abandoned and abdicated their constitutional mandate to provide for the common defense. They have so egregiously abdicated this responsibility that we exist at the point where we cannot, by all accounts formulated by military leadership, wage and win two major conflicts simultaneously. Would the same level of ineptitude have existed in 1941, we would have lost World War II to either the Nazis or the Imperial Japanese…maybe both.

Yet, Ms. Coulter and her “establishment Republican” pundit brethren, and it gives me no pleasure to say this, continue to support the status quo incremental slide to the Left by facilitating the mentality of the career elitist Republican politician; the Progressive who has infiltrated the GOP; those who seek to legislate by “gang” and oligarchic elitism. It is for this reason that this statement of Ms. Coulter’s is so very misguided and, in fact, dangerous, and it bears repeating:

“…the key word here is ‘Republican’…if we don’t elect Republicans – I don’t care which Republican…”

Ms. Coulter, I certain do care about which Republicans are elected. Consider this: a Senate full of Lindsay Grahams and John McCains…It should send shivers down your spine.

Comments Off on When Disappointment Comes from The Right

Just What Is McAuliffe Up To?

February 5th, 2014

 

By Frank Salvato.



There has been a lot of damage done to the United States Constitution courtesy of the Progressive Movement over the years. The passage of the 17th Amendment alone removed a critical constitutional check-and-balance meant to make sure the rights of the minority were protected, in this case the right of the many States to protect themselves from an over-reaching federal government. So, it is with a wary and suspicious eye that I view the actions of one of the 1990’s most successful Progressive operatives, the now Governor of Virginia, Terry McAuliffe.

To refresh everyone’s memories, Mr. McAuliffe is not only one of the closest confidants of the former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary “I-Forgot-to-Answer-the-Phone-at-3am-when-Benghazi-Called” Clinton, but, according to DiscoverTheNetworks.org, was:

“…chairman of the Democrat National Committee…He began his career as a financier for the Democrat Party when he worked on the unsuccessful re-election campaign of President Jimmy Carter in 1980. More recently, he developed a reputation as an exceptionally effective fundraiser for the Clinton administration. He raised money not only for both of Bill Clinton’s successful presidential bids, but also for Hillary Clinton’s victorious New York State Senate run. During the Clinton presidency, when the Monica Lewinsky scandal threatened to cause a decline in the President’s war chest, McAuliffe initiated and chaired Clinton’s multimillion-dollar legal defense fund.

“McAuliffe is particularly adept at the raising of soft money – funds that, by endorsing an overall cause or party rather than a specific candidate, are legally permitted to exceed the limits normally placed on contributions to a political campaign. Because they are not bound by such restrictions, soft money contributions are often so large – frequently in excess of $100,000 – that donors naturally expect to receive some form of payback in return for their generosity. McAuliffe’s soft money strategy was responsible for President Clinton’s 1996 scandal concerning the Lincoln Bedroom sleepovers and the White House coffees, two tactics employed to solicit huge donations from wealthy friends and patrons of the Clintons…”

And just this past November, Mr. McAuliffe was elected governor of the State of Virginia. A cursory knowledge of Mr. McAuliffe’s ethically challenged political activity would lead anyone paying attention to expect a great deal of positioning, skullduggery and chicanery, all in the name of political advancement.

It is for this reason that this print edition story by Colin Kennedy of Capitol News Service out of Richmond, Virginia, caught my eye:

“A bill that reflects a nearly 70-year-old tension between two East-Asian countries has pushed the Virginia General Assembly into the middle of an international debate just more than three weeks into session.

“House Bill 11 passed the House Education subcommittee this week, bringing the commonwealth one step closer to requiring its textbooks to note that the Sea of Japan also is known as the East Sea.

“The Embassy of Japan is trying to preserve what it believes to be its historical legacy, fervently contending the issue in the Virginia legislature…

“To push its point, the Embassy of Japan has placed significant pressure on the state and Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, who vowed to approve any such proposed legislation during his campaign last year.”

Virginia House Bill 11 accompanies Virginia Senate Bill 2, proposed by McAuliffe compatriot and commiserate, Sen. Dave Marsden (D-Burke).

It is important to note that the United States Constitution reserves the purview of matters of international diplomacy to the federal government via Article I, Section 8, and Article II, Section 2:

Article I, Section 8:

“The Congress shall have Power To…regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;…”

And Article II, Section 2:

“[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors…”

Nowhere in the United States Constitution does it reserve the power for recognizing international statuses in the name of the United States – or any State enjoined in the Union – to the States authorities, be they of the Legislative or Executive factions.

So, it would seem to be, to anyone with a functioning knowledge of the American system of government, that the issue here isn’t the dispute between the Koreans or the Japanese, but the grotesque over-reach of Virginia’s Legislative and Executive branches in interfering with State Department issues; with federal issues.

The State of Virginia does not have purview over how the United States deals with international diplomacy. Governor McAuliffe and Senator Marsden have no standing to present any authoritative opinion or move any “symbolic” legislative action on the matter. That is reserved for the federal government in the US Constitution.

I would ask this question. How well connected are Senator Marsden and Governor McAuliffe? Because it sure sounds like Mr. Marsden “did a solid” for Gov. McAuliffe in that he allowed him the ability to speak about “signing into law” a symbolic gesture that allows Mr. McAuliffe to encroach onto the national and international stages.

I detect Mr. McAuliffe, through the facilitation of position via his compatriots and commiserates, sniffing around a future federal bid.

Can you say from Governor of Virginia to the White House? One would have to wonder what the Lincoln Bedroom would go for per night with President McAuliffe in the White House!

Comments Off on Just What Is McAuliffe Up To?

Roberts Rules Again, Poorly

January 9th, 2014

 

By Frank Salvato.



Now comes news that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has doubled down on his middle finger to the American citizenry by turning away – without comment, which the SCOTUS gets to do – an emergency stay request, filed by the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons and the Alliance for Natural Health USA, to block the implementation of Obamacare.

In an almost ignored story, FOX News reports:

“Chief Justice John Roberts turned away without comment Monday an emergency stay request from the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. and the Alliance for Natural Health USA.

“They asked the chief justice Friday to temporarily block the law, saying Congress had passed it incorrectly by starting it in the Senate instead of the House. Revenue-raising bills are supposed to originate in the lower chamber. They also wanted blocked doctor registration requirements they say will make it harder for independent non-Medicare physicians to treat Medicare-eligible patients.

“Still pending is a decision on a temporary block on the law’s contraceptive coverage requirements, which was challenged by a group of nuns.”

With an overwhelming number of Americans standing against the implementation of this law, an ever increasing realization of consequences that make the law he most expensive entitlement program ever launched, and the Obama Administration’s unconstitutional manipulation of the law’s provision via executive caveat, Chief Justice Roberts had a golden opportunity to rectify his atrocious ruling that allowed for this law to become binding to the American people. Again, Mr. Roberts has cheated the American people from the benefits of constitutional justice.

Article I, Section 7 of the US Constitution states clearly:

“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills…”

That The Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) originated out of the US House of Representatives as the Service Members Home Ownership Act (HR3590), which has absolutely nothing – nothing – to do with health insurance mandates or so-called reforms. Per the Obama Administration’s own Justice Department rebuttal to a suit brought on the same subject by the Pacific Legal Foundation:

“…attorneys for the Justice Department argue that the bill originated as House Resolution 3590, which was then called the Service Members Home Ownership Act. After passing the House, the bill was stripped in a process known as ‘gut and amend’ and replaced entirely with the contents of what became the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

“Using HR3590 as a ‘shell bill’ may be inelegant, but it’s not unconstitutional, according to the government motion.”

So, the Obama Administration admits that the bill was foisted on the American people disingenuously and nefariously, Justice Roberts ruled it a tax, and yet Roberts refuses to allow the Supreme Court to hear a case that examines and rules on the constitutionality of exactly the unconstitutional aspects everyone says exist.

The big question is this. Why is Chief Justice John Roberts running interference for the Obama Progressives?

Article III, Section 1 of the US Constitution states:

“The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”

One has to ask, with the caveat that Supreme Court Justices “shall hold their offices during good behaviour” we should all be asking – and asking our elected officials: What shall be done about Chief Justice Roberts; “bad behaviour”?

No Comments "

Re-Writing Benghazi for Political Purposes

January 1st, 2014

 

By Frank Salvato.



In typical Progressive fashion, the New York Times set itself to re-writing the events of al Qaeda’s 2012 attack on the US embassy compound in Benghazi, Libya; an attack that took the lives of four Americans, including a US ambassador. At any other point in the history of our country, the assassination of a US ambassador by a foe that launched an attack against American citizens the magnitude of September 11, 2001, would be greeted with a united front; embraced as tantamount to an act of war. But the United States has been co-opted by the Progressive Movement and when one of their own is in the White House – or when one of their own is positioning for the White House – history is subject to revision.

Incredibly, the New York Times – long understood by “the aware” to have ceased being a provider of truth and fact, in deference to position and ideology – has issued a “report” that not only flies in the face of the facts (facts acknowledged not only by State Department officials intimate with the events, but by factious elements of al Qaeda in Libya) but go well beyond any semblance of credibility in its conclusions:

“The investigation by The Times shows that …Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs.

“The violence, though, also had spontaneous elements. Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters. Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack, according to more than a dozen Libyan witnesses…”

This accounting completely disregards many facts that congressional hearings have brought forth from State Department and CIA operatives knowledgeable on the events of September 11, 2012. It also defies testimony by those with infinitely more knowledge on military capabilities than a lone researcher at the New York Times, including elected intelligence committee members from both sides of the political divide:

“‘I dispute that, and the intelligence community, to a large volume, disputes that,’ Michigan GOP Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told FOX News Sunday.  He also repeatedly said the story was ‘not accurate.’

“Rogers was joined on the show by California Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff, who said, ‘intelligence indicates Al Qaeda was involved.’”

That said, the efforts by New York Times researcher David D. Kirkpatrick are not centered in confronting the facts of the events of Benghazi, they are focused on changing the narrative ahead of the 2016 General Election.

It cannot be denied that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – now the Progressive front-runner for the Democrat nomination for president two years out from the 2016 General Election – was considerably marginalized by not only ineffective stewardship of the embassy compound in Benghazi in the days prior to the attack, but by the almost non-existent  response during the attack and the incredibly  inept response to the slaughter when called on the carpet by those elected to represent the people. This “triple whammy,” if left “un-spun,” would cripple the candidacy of even the most connected of Progressives – even with the support of a favorable mainstream media.

Enter the New York Times and David D. Kirkpatrick. Devoted sycophants to the Progressive cause, they have embarked on the rejuvenation of Ms. Clinton’s political reputation by attempting to re-write the facts of the event, already proven, in an effort to move her out of the ring of responsibility; in an effort to remove the stain of culpability and responsibility from the fabric of her candidacy. Sadly, even those in the mainstream media who exist on the Right side of the political divide, are tunnel-visioned in their focus; focused on the report and the report’s conclusions rather than the motives behind the creation of the report – a work of fiction in its conclusions.

If the establishment Right – both inside the beltway and in the mainstream media, along with the Conservatives in the new media, fail to spotlight this blatant attempt to re-write history; fail to spotlight and explain the motives behind this manipulation of the truth, then we, as a nation, will have fallen – once again – for the Progressive tactic of re-definition of words, facts and events, in their quest to advance the Progressive agenda – and agents who would advance that agenda – into the accepted American lexicon.

The fact of the matter – and this cannot be denied when the facts are acknowledged and accepted – is this: Ms. Clinton failed to answer the “emergency 3am phone call” and because of that people died and an act of war against the United States by our global foe – al Qaeda and the radical Islamists who fuel the movement – was executed. In Ms. Clinton’s failure to act as an adequate steward of the US State Department, and in her refusal to resign for President Obama’s completely disingenuous excuse for the catalyst for the attacks – an excuse that Mr. Kirkpatrick and the New York Times have advanced – she has exposed herself as just another Progressive political minion who will do anything and say anything to gain power; who will lie, cheat, steal and deceive to advance the Progressive cause.

But then, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

No Comments "

How Obamacare Screws the Working Class…Hard

December 9th, 2013

 

 

By Frank Salvato

Now that it is becoming clear that the establishment House Republicans are about to capitulate to the Senate Democrats and Obama Progressives, it is clear that, short of Republicans taking the Senate in 2014 and the White House in 2016, Obamacare is set to sink into the flesh of the American entitlement system not unlike a bear’s claws sink into the flesh of its prey. Regardless of whether or not the federal healthcare exchange website functions adequately or not (get used to it, it’s government inferiority at work), the bureaucracy has just expanded and your wallets are about to do the opposite.

One of the things that people are going to have to come to understand is how the Internal Revenue Service – yes, the same Internal Revenue Service currently under investigation for targeting Conservative political groups – will be assessing the penalties (read: enforcing Obamacare) on those who choose not to “participate.” The fact of the matter is that it is both less ominous, yet more disturbing, than people think.

The penalties levied under the Affordable Care Act, under the usually heavy hand of the IRS, is not so much under the ACA. In fact, the pathway for extracting the Obamacare penalty from non-participants is exclusive to the garnishment of any federal tax refunds due. If one chooses not to acquire qualifying health insurance, the IRS will withhold the amount of the penalty that must be paid from any federal tax return refund that is owed an individual in violation of the statute.

According to BusinessInsider.com:

The IRS will not have the power to charge you criminally or seize your assets if you refuse to pay. The IRS will only have the ability to sue you. And the most the IRS can collect from you if it wins the suit is 2 times the amount you owe. So if you want to thumb your nose at the penalty-tax, the IRS won’t be able to do as much to you as they could if you refused to pay, say, income tax.

So, unlike when an individual fails to pay their federal income taxes, there won’t be a cadre of black uniformed federal agents armed with fully-automatic weapons kicking in your door in the middle of the night. You won’t be “frog-marched” out of your house in irons, past your disenchanted neighbors, to face the swift righteousness of redistributive social justice (I am being sarcastic, but less so than I would have been just a few years back).

But one question that eludes the thoughts of most people where this matter is concerned is this. What happens if you don’t “participate” in Obamacare but you aren’t due any federal tax refund? What if you are one of the 47 percent who does not pay federal income tax? What if you are über-wealthy and can afford a wizard tax attorney who can figure out how you can “zero out” on your federal taxes each year?

[The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more…]

Well, the short answer is this. If you don’t pay federal income tax, technically, you don’t have to pay the fines under the Affordable Care Act. If you are one of the hard-working Americans who has federal taxes withheld from your paycheck – oh, you know, like Middle-Class, blue-collar and union workers not covered by the Executive Branch union carve-outs of the law – you will have to pay the penalty out of your tax refunds. If you are one of the 47 percent of the American public who doesn’t pay federal income taxes, you get to “skate” the Obamacare penalty. Ditto for the “One Percenters.”

One has to wonder whether H&R Block is going to be flooded with new clients trying to figure out how to pay their federal income taxes to the penny throughout the year so that they “zero out.”

And let’s be honesty, the IRS is not going to come after every person who “skates” the $95 dollar (or 1 percent of earnings) penalty being assessed in 2014, even if they did seek to hire upwards of 16,000 new IRS agents since the passage of this freedom-crushing law.

So, when one comes to understand this very stark reality, the obvious question is this. If the indestructible demographic (the 21 to 32 year-old demo) doesn’t sign-up for the Obamacare exchanges in droves – and droves upwards of 80% of their demographic, and 47 percent of the country doesn’t pay federal income taxes, who actually pays for the expanded coverage mandated under the Affordable Care Act? Who is on the hook for Obamacare?

The answer – again – is the Middle-Class, blue-collar and union workers not covered by the Executive Branch union carve-outs of the law…and new taxes on everyone.

[The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org are not funded by outside sources. We exist exclusively on donations from our readers and contributors. Please make a donation today.]

Again, BusinessInsider.com reports:

Here are some of the new taxes you’re going to have to pay to pay for Obamacare:

▪ A 3.8% surtax on “investment income”( dividends, interest, rent, capital gains, annuities, house sales, partnerships, etc.) when your adjusted gross income is more than $200,000, $250,000 for joint-filers. What is “investment income?” (WSJ)

▪ A 0.9% surtax on Medicare taxes for those making $200,000 or more, $250,000 joint. (WSJ)

▪ Flexible Spending Account contributions will be capped at $2,500. Currently, there is no tax-related limit on how much you can set aside pre-tax to pay for medical expenses. (ATR.org)

▪ The itemized-deduction hurdle for medical expenses is going up to 10% of adjusted gross income. (ATR.org)

▪ The penalty on non-medical withdrawals from Healthcare Savings Accounts is now 20% instead of 10%. (ATR.org)

▪ A tax of 10% on indoor tanning services. This has been in place for two years, since the summer of 2010. (ATR.org)

▪ A 40% tax on “Cadillac Health Care Plans” starting in 2018.Those whose employers pay for all or most of comprehensive healthcare plans (costing $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for families) will have to pay a 40% tax on the amount their employer pays. (ATR.org)

▪ A”Medicine Cabinet Tax” that eliminates the ability to pay for over-the-counter medicines from a pre-tax Flexible Spending Account. (ATR.org)

▪ A “penalty” tax for those who don’t buy health insurance.

▪ A 2.3% excise tax on medical devices costing more than $100. (Breitbart.com)

So those are some of the new taxes you’ll be paying that will help pay for Obamacare…

Note that these taxes are both “progressive” (aimed at rich people) and “regressive” (aimed at the middle class and poor people).

The cost of this program will not be affordable for the individuals – almost every story but for those who get taxpayer-funded subsidies is one of tripled premiums and deductibles, and it won’t be affordable for the country, especially when the bureaucrats and elitist political class put the price tag of the whole Obamacare ball of infected earwax at approximately $2 trillion dollars.

Now, President Obama is quoted as having said, in an interview with the Spanish-Speaking television network Univision, that:

Once [the budget impasse is rectified], you know, the day after – I’m going to be pushing to say, call a vote on immigration reform…And if I have to join with other advocates and continue to speak out on that, and keep pushing, I’m going to do so because I think it’s really important for the country. And now is the time to do it.

And as the “indestructible” demographic (21-32 years of age) fails to sign-up for the Obamacare exchanges, pro-amnesty Progressives will begin insisting that illegal immigrants (I’m sorry, I mean undocumented uninvited guests) be added to those eligible for Obamacare. Understanding that the 47 percent of those who do not pay federal income tax cannot be fined, and that the One Percenters can affords to have their taxes “zero out,” how long will it be until Progressives scream “crisis” and demand massive, Middle-Class killing. economy destroying, Cloward-Piven-styled tax increases?

Who is John Galt?

No Comments "

How Obamacare Screws the Working Class…Hard

October 20th, 2013

 

By Frank Salvato.



Now that it is becoming clear that the establishment House Republicans are about to capitulate to the Senate Democrats and Obama Progressives, it is clear that, short of Republicans taking the Senate in 2014 and the White House in 2016, Obamacare is set to sink into the flesh of the American entitlement system not unlike a bear’s claws sink into the flesh of its prey. Regardless of whether or not the federal healthcare exchange website functions adequately or not (get used to it, it’s government inferiority at work), the bureaucracy has just expanded and your wallets are about to do the opposite.

One of the things that people are going to have to come to understand is how the Internal Revenue Service – yes, the same Internal Revenue Service currently under investigation for targeting Conservative political groups – will be assessing the penalties (read: enforcing Obamacare) on those who choose not to “participate.” The fact of the matter is that it is both less ominous, yet more disturbing, than people think.

The penalties levied under the Affordable Care Act, under the usually heavy hand of the IRS, is not so much under the ACA. In fact, the pathway for extracting the Obamacare penalty from non-participants is exclusive to the garnishment of any federal tax refunds due. If one chooses not to acquire qualifying health insurance, the IRS will withhold the amount of the penalty that must be paid from any federal tax return refund that is owed an individual in violation of the statute.

According to BusinessInsider.com:

The IRS will not have the power to charge you criminally or seize your assets if you refuse to pay. The IRS will only have the ability to sue you. And the most the IRS can collect from you if it wins the suit is 2 times the amount you owe. So if you want to thumb your nose at the penalty-tax, the IRS won’t be able to do as much to you as they could if you refused to pay, say, income tax.

So, unlike when an individual fails to pay their federal income taxes, there won’t be a cadre of black uniformed federal agents armed with fully-automatic weapons kicking in your door in the middle of the night. You won’t be “frog-marched” out of your house in irons, past your disenchanted neighbors, to face the swift righteousness of redistributive social justice (I am being sarcastic, but less so than I would have been just a few years back).

But one question that eludes the thoughts of most people where this matter is concerned is this. What happens if you don’t “participate” in Obamacare but you aren’t due any federal tax refund? What if you are one of the 47 percent who does not pay federal income tax? What if you are über-wealthy and can afford a wizard tax attorney who can figure out how you can “zero out” on your federal taxes each year?

[The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more…]

Well, the short answer is this. If you don’t pay federal income tax, technically, you don’t have to pay the fines under the Affordable Care Act. If you are one of the hard-working Americans who has federal taxes withheld from your paycheck – oh, you know, like Middle-Class, blue-collar and union workers not covered by the Executive Branch union carve-outs of the law – you will have to pay the penalty out of your tax refunds. If you are one of the 47 percent of the American public who doesn’t pay federal income taxes, you get to “skate” the Obamacare penalty. Ditto for the “One Percenters.”

One has to wonder whether H&R Block is going to be flooded with new clients trying to figure out how to pay their federal income taxes to the penny throughout the year so that they “zero out.”

And let’s be honesty, the IRS is not going to come after every person who “skates” the $95 dollar (or 1 percent of earnings) penalty being assessed in 2014, even if they did seek to hire upwards of 16,000 new IRS agents since the passage of this freedom-crushing law.

So, when one comes to understand this very stark reality, the obvious question is this. If the indestructible demographic (the 21 to 32 year-old demo) doesn’t sign-up for the Obamacare exchanges in droves – and droves upwards of 80% of their demographic, and 47 percent of the country doesn’t pay federal income taxes, who actually pays for the expanded coverage mandated under the Affordable Care Act? Who is on the hook for Obamacare?

The answer – again – is the Middle-Class, blue-collar and union workers not covered by the Executive Branch union carve-outs of the law…and new taxes on everyone.

[The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org are not funded by outside sources. We exist exclusively on donations from our readers and contributors. Please make a donation today.]

Again, BusinessInsider.com reports:

Here are some of the new taxes you’re going to have to pay to pay for Obamacare:

▪ A 3.8% surtax on “investment income”( dividends, interest, rent, capital gains, annuities, house sales, partnerships, etc.) when your adjusted gross income is more than $200,000, $250,000 for joint-filers. What is “investment income?” (WSJ)

▪ A 0.9% surtax on Medicare taxes for those making $200,000 or more, $250,000 joint. (WSJ)

▪ Flexible Spending Account contributions will be capped at $2,500. Currently, there is no tax-related limit on how much you can set aside pre-tax to pay for medical expenses. (ATR.org)

▪ The itemized-deduction hurdle for medical expenses is going up to 10% of adjusted gross income. (ATR.org)

▪ The penalty on non-medical withdrawals from Healthcare Savings Accounts is now 20% instead of 10%. (ATR.org)

▪ A tax of 10% on indoor tanning services. This has been in place for two years, since the summer of 2010. (ATR.org)

▪ A 40% tax on “Cadillac Health Care Plans” starting in 2018.Those whose employers pay for all or most of comprehensive healthcare plans (costing $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for families) will have to pay a 40% tax on the amount their employer pays. (ATR.org)

▪ A”Medicine Cabinet Tax” that eliminates the ability to pay for over-the-counter medicines from a pre-tax Flexible Spending Account. (ATR.org)

▪ A “penalty” tax for those who don’t buy health insurance.

▪ A 2.3% excise tax on medical devices costing more than $100. (Breitbart.com)

So those are some of the new taxes you’ll be paying that will help pay for Obamacare…

Note that these taxes are both “progressive” (aimed at rich people) and “regressive” (aimed at the middle class and poor people).

The cost of this program will not be affordable for the individuals – almost every story but for those who get taxpayer-funded subsidies is one of tripled premiums and deductibles, and it won’t be affordable for the country, especially when the bureaucrats and elitist political class put the price tag of the whole Obamacare ball of infected earwax at approximately $2 trillion dollars.

Now, President Obama is quoted as having said, in an interview with the Spanish-Speaking television network Univision, that:

Once [the budget impasse is rectified], you know, the day after – I’m going to be pushing to say, call a vote on immigration reform…And if I have to join with other advocates and continue to speak out on that, and keep pushing, I’m going to do so because I think it’s really important for the country. And now is the time to do it.

And as the “indestructible” demographic (21-32 years of age) fails to sign-up for the Obamacare exchanges, pro-amnesty Progressives will begin insisting that illegal immigrants (I’m sorry, I mean undocumented uninvited guests) be added to those eligible for Obamacare. Understanding that the 47 percent of those who do not pay federal income tax cannot be fined, and that the One Percenters can affords to have their taxes “zero out,” how long will it be until Progressives scream “crisis” and demand massive, Middle-Class killing. economy destroying, Cloward-Piven-styled tax increases?

Who is John Galt?

No Comments "