by Richard W. Rahn, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth.

…..This article appeared in The Washington Times on May 8, 2012….

Denial is leading to collective economic suicide in Europe and theUnited States. The French on Sunday elected a socialist president who wants to raise taxes on those elusive rich and keep spending as if there is no tomorrow.

Many on the left, including European socialists, the New York Times and its economist Paul Krugman, are falsely claiming that Europe and even the United States are being saddled with austerity. Their claim is that governments are not spending enough to reduce unemployment. They want higher taxes on the most productive plus bigger government. They suffer from a collective memory loss. Don’t they remember that socialism did not work? Every time the big-government “solution” has been tried for the past two centuries, it has failed, but those on the left seem to be incapable of learning.

When the current economic crisis began — largely caused by a government-created housing bubble — we were told that if the government spent an extra trillion dollars or so and ran up the deficit, all would be well. Did it work as advertised in theUnited States? No. In theUnited Kingdom? No. InFrance? No. InItaly? No. InSpain? No. And not even the left wants to talk about Greece. The accompanying chart shows that rather than the austerity the left is whining about, government spending has risen as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) in all of the major economies. Again, the left said unemployment rates should have come down by now, but the opposite is happening. The U.S.unemployment rate has come down slightly, but the percentage of the labor force at work continues to decline, so the real unemployment rate is approximately 15 percent.

The irony is that the refusal by those on the left, in both Europe and the United States, to deal with the “entitlement” problem is going to cause an involuntary austerity in which real incomes are going to fall for most people. Incomes have not been rising as fast as inflation in the United Statesand most places in Europe, but what has happened is only a very mild introduction to what is going to happen.

GDP-to-debt ratios keep rising in all the major economies, and realistically, this will continue until a reversal in policy or a surge in inflation begins to erode the value of the debt. Chancellor Angela Merkel in Germanyhas demanded that her fellow Europeans reverse the growth in spending to deal with fiscal reality and save the euro. The elections in France and Greece show that Mrs. Merkel’s advice will be ignored and the European Central Bank will be pressured to keep printing money — by sovereign bond purchases and/or rate cuts on loans to banks — which ultimately will mean a lot more inflation, resulting in a real drop in incomes.

Of the major economies, only Germanyhas managed to reduce unemployment, and that was largely by major labor reforms, which now make it possible to fire German workers so employers no longer are so reluctant to hire new workers. Even so, the German economy is slowing down and may be dragged into the new recession that the other European economics are in or about to enter.

The next year is not going to be pleasant. The new European recession will only deepen and spread as, once again, the socialist “solutions” add to the problems. TheUnited Statesis facing a massive 3.6 percent of GDP tax increase on Jan. 1, which will occur unless Congress extends the George W. Bush tax cuts and the other major personal and business tax provisions that are set to expire at the end of the year. The extensions will require both houses of Congress to pass them and President Obama to sign them into law. Even if the Republicans win both Houses of Congress and Mitt Romney is elected president, the Republicans will not take office until January — after the tax provisions’ expiration date.

There is no guarantee that Mr. Obama and the Democratic Senate will pass the necessary tax extensions during the lame-duck session, whether they win or lose. Even if the Republicans win, they will not have the necessary 60 votes they might need in the Senate if the Democrats refuse to go along with the extensions. The uncertainty about what is going to happen will build through the remainder of the year, which will inhibit business expansion and job growth. This, coupled with the ongoing avalanche of new bank regulations, and foreign interest and dividend reporting requirements, is going to drive productive capital out of theUnited States. The rich in Europe and the U.S.are not just going to sit around to be fleeced by corrupt and incompetent governments. Being rich means you and your capital are mobile. There are many nice places on the globe where rich people and their money are well-treated.

Europe is in recession, and the odds are that by January the United States will be back in recession. The central banks will inflate the currency to deal with the government debt problems, the people will be poorer, and the rich will have left. It is all so unnecessary.

Hookers Downgrade US Credit Rating Short changing by Secret Service Draws Strong Rebuke

 NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report) – Days after Secret Service agents shortchanged a group of prostitutes in Colombia, the international trade group representing hookers downgraded the United States’ credit rating from AAA to B.  The strong rebuke from the International Alliance of Professional Escorts came after a Secret Service agent reportedly paid one of its members $30 for an $800 service, or only 4% of the stated price.The statement from the International Alliance of Professional Escorts said that in downgrading the United States’ credit rating it was sending a clear message that its “members should be aware that doing business with the government of the United States carries with it a significant risk.” “We are urging our members to avoid conducting transactions with the United States and to focus on more reliable customers, like the International Monetary Fund,” the statement added.  Just hours after the announcement from the escorts’ group, the U.S. Congress passed the following resolution blasting the Secret Service for its actions: “We strongly denounce the Secret Service for consorting with prostitutes, which has traditionally been Congress’s role.”  But it was not all bad news this week for the Secret Service, which today reported a 5000% jump in enlistment.  The agency said that enlistment offices across the country have been packed with prospective agents, including House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who abruptly dropped out of the Presidential race to join.

 The Biker, as reported in the mainstream media…

A Harley biker is riding by the zoo in Washington , DC when he sees a little girl leaning into the lion’s cage. Suddenly, the lion grabs her by the collar of her jacket and tries to pull her inside to slaughter her, under the eyes of her screaming parents.

The biker jumps off his Harley, runs to the cage and hits the lion square on the nose with a powerful punch.  Whimpering from the pain, the lion jumps back, letting go of the girl, and the biker brings her to her terrified parents, who thank him endlessly. A reporter has watched the whole event.

The reporter, addressing the Harley rider, says, “Sir, this was the most gallant and brave thing I’ve seen a man do in my whole life.”  The Harley rider replies, “Why, it was nothing, really.  The lion was behind bars. I just saw this little kid in danger and acted as I felt right.”

The reporter says, “Well, I’ll make sure this won’t go unnoticed.  I’m a journalist, you know, and tomorrow’s paper will have this story on the front page.  So, what do you do for a living and what political affiliation do you have?”  The biker replies, “I’m a U.S. Marine and a Republican.”  The journalist leaves.

The following morning the biker buys the paper to see if it indeed brings news of his actions, and reads, on the front page:  ” U.S. MARINE ASSAULTS AFRICAN IMMIGRANT AND STEALS HIS LUNCH ! ”

…and THAT pretty much sums up the media’s approach to the news these days.

How Smart Are You?

 See if you can figure out what these seven words all have in common?

 1. Banana

2. Dresser

3. Grammar

4. Potato

5. Revive

6. Uneven

7. Assess

 Are you picking or have you already given up?  Give it another try….Look at each word carefully. You’ll kick yourself when you discover the answer….  No, it is not that they all have at least 2 double letters….   The answer is below!

Answer:

In all of the words listed, if you take the first letter, place it at the end of the word, and then spell the word backwards, it will be the same word. Did you figure it out?

No? Then send this to more people and stump them as well.  Then, you’ll feel better too.

 Senate Bill 1579, Now You Can Make a Gift To the GOOF

… Posted by Dan Re on May 8, 2012…

During the 2012 Oregon Legislative Session, SB 1579 was passed.  The bill dealt with many different laws.  In its original version, introduced February 1, 2012, it had 32 sections and was 24 pages long.  In its final form, SB 1579 contained 108 sections and took up 54 pages.  Nothing happened with the bill until March 5, 2012.  On that day, there was a Senate work session, amendments were offered, the amended bill was then passed by the Senate and sent to the House, which also passed it that same day.  SB 1579 was then signed by the Governor on April 11, 2012 and, because it had an Emergency Clause, it became effective April 11, 2012.  Due to the length of the bill and the fact that it was amended and then passed by both houses on the same day, it was virtually impossible for any legislator to know what SB 1579 contained.

One thing that SB 1579 did contain was Sections 29 and 30.  Those two sections created the Governor’s Office Operating Fund (GOOF) and allowed anyone one to make a gift to the GOOF.  Here is the new GOOF law:

SECTION 29. The Governor’s Office Operating Fund is established in the State Treasury, separate and distinct from the General Fund. Moneys in the Governor’s Office Operating Fund are continuously appropriated to the Office of the Governor for the operating expenses of the Office of the Governor. The fund shall consist of moneys appropriated or transferred to the fund and moneys received under section 30 of this 2012 Act.

SECTION 30. The Office of the Governor may receive gifts, grants or contributions from any source, whether public or private. Moneys received under this section shall be deposited in the Governor’s Office Operating Fund established by section 29 of this 2012 Act.

As you can see from Section 30, the GOOF can accept gifts from any source, whether public or private.  Sections 29 or 30 require that GOOF gifts be used for expenses of the Governor’s office but nothing in those sections say what an operating expense is or who makes that decision.  There is nothing that would prohibit public employee labor unions or anyone else from making large GOOF gifts for the Governor to use as he pleases in the operation of his office.  It would be very easy for the Governor or his staff to use a GOOF gift to take actions that would benefit the GOOF giver.   Not only that, but there are no reporting requirements for GOOF gifts and the GOOF giver may be entitled to a charitable income tax deduction for the GOOF gift.

I will continue to look into this matter and try to determine: who is responsible for including GOOF in the amendments to the original SB 1579; what expenses of the Governor’s office can be paid for with a GOOF gift; and, who is making GOOF gifts.  When I get additional information I will report it with an update to this post.

At least the GOOF is appropriately named.  The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “goof” as a blunder.  Sections 29 and 30 of SB 1579 are about as goofy as a law can be

Note:  See Dan Re’s Quick Links (PERS Facts) in UPDATE for other posts.

<<< Zoning the ocean >>>

by Audrey Hudson (more by this author)

Human Events  — April 17, 2012 

President Barack Obama has an ambitious plan for Washington bureaucrats to take command of the oceans—and with it control over much of the nation’s energy, fisheries, even recreation in a move described by lawmakers as the ultimate power grab to zone the seas.

The massive undertaking also includes control over key inland waterways and rivers that reach hundreds of miles upstream, and began with little fanfare when Obama signed an executive order in 2010 to protect the aquatic environment.

“This one to me could be the sleeping power grab that Americans will wake up to one day and wonder what the heck hit them,” said Rep. Bill Flores (R –Texas).

“This is pure administrative fiat,” said Sen. David Vitter (R –La.). “It’s very troubling.” 

“This is purely a unilateral administrative action with no real congressional input or oversight,” Vitter said. “I think it clearly threatens to have a big impact on a lot of industry, starting with energy, oil and gas, and fishing.”

But in his zeal to curb sea sprawl, lawmakers say the president’s executive order also gives Washington officialdom unprecedented reach to control land use as well.

“The order says they shall develop a scheme for oversight of oceans and all the sources thereof,” Flores said. “So you could have a snowflake land on Pikes Peak and ultimately it’s going to wind up in the water, so as a result they could regulate on every square inch of U.S. soil.”

Impacts on industry, consumers

The effects of Obama’s far-reaching policy would be felt by numerous industries including wind farms and other renewable energy undertakings, ports, shipping vessels, and other marine commerce, and upstream it would also affect mining, timber, even farming. 

It will impact consumers directly through rules addressing recreational uses such as fishing and boating, and restricting the multiple use development of the ocean’s resources would also increase the cost of fuel and food, lawmakers say.

The idea to create a policy to oversee multiple uses of the ocean originated during the Bush administration, but after push back from within the ranks, including Vitter, the idea was dropped.

Critics of this revised plan say it is more narrowly focused, and that the Obama administration is taking their marching orders from environmental groups who want to move away from a multiple-use ocean policy to a no-use policy.

“If you look at the catalyst for the entire initiative, it comes from the playbook of environmental groups that think the ocean ought to be controlled by the federal government,” Flores said.

Added Vitter: “This (Obama) administration is more aggressive and left-leaning, and they are going whole hog. I think it’s clearly a threat, and in terms of negatively impacting jobs, it’s a very, very big threat.”

Blocking new oil, gas production

The ocean policy has already impacted oil and gas development in the Mid and South Atlantic, where more environmental analysis is now required to determine whether new studies must also be conducted to determine its safety, according to Interior Department Secretary Ken Salazar.

Jack Belcher, managing director of the Ocean Policy Coalition that represents numerous industries affected by Obama’s initiative including oil companies, says Salazar’s action is one example of how the administration is already blocking new production “on a policy that hasn’t even been developed yet.”

Still in its draft form, the plan released in January contains vague goals that call for more than 150 milestones to be accomplished by next year that will determine how the ecosystem is managed.

“Right now, we can only speculate on the impacts,” Belcher said. “But all of a sudden, there’s a new authority creating a new plan that may not allow oil and gas leasing or development in (some) areas.”

“But what we are worried about, and already seeing, is it’s being used as a tool to say we’re not going to do something, or delay it,” Belcher said. “It creates another layer of bureaucracy and another opportunity for litigation. We see this as an opportunity to tie things up in complete uncertainty.”

Belcher said his members are not opposed to having a process in place to manage all of the industries that depend on the ocean, but that they are already operating under numerous and sometimes onerous regulations that guide energy development, the shipping of goods, wind farm construction, and commercial fishing.

“It isn’t just chaos on the high seas, but this ocean policy takes the assumption that it is,” Belcher said. “We’re fearful that (Obama’s policy) will result in a more draconian system.”

The regulatory uncertainty created by the draft plan for industries and its employees that depend on the ocean has prompted numerous Republican senators to ask for congressional oversight hearings.

“In these tough economic times, it would be unfortunate if Congress chose to ignore responsibility for limiting bureaucratic hurdles to prosperity,” the lawmakers said in a March 20 letter. The letter was signed by Sens. Vitter, Marco Rubio of Florida, Mike Lee of Utah, John Barrasso of Wyoming, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Roger Wicker of Mississippi, Mike Crapo of Idaho and John Cornyn of Texas.

The ocean policy has been a sleeper issue with very little media coverage, but now that it is starting to affect industries such as gas and oil production, lawmakers say congressional hearings are needed to take a broader look at its impact and consider public input from all of the stakeholders, not just environmentalists.

“This has largely been completely under the radar,” Vitter said. “And that is exactly the way the administration and their environmental allies want to do it—announce the administrative fiat is complete and that we have this new way of life that nobody knew was coming.”

House Republicans are fighting back by tightening the purse strings they control and hope that by cutting off funding to implement the policy, and putting a stop to officials they believe are siphoning money away from other programs, they can block it from going forward.

Rep. Hal Rogers (R -Ky.), who heads the powerful House Appropriations Committee, has been asked to put a stop to the administration’s “cloaked funding” by Rep. Doc Hastings (R–Wash.), chairman of the House Resources Committee.

“The Obama administration continues to move forward with zoning the oceans through implementation of the president’s National Ocean Policy without requesting funding specifically for this broad initiative and without answering basic questions about how funds are currently being diverted from other missions to fund this initiative,” Hastings said in an April 2 letter to Rogers.

Although critics of the plan say it will create an unprecedented aquatic zoning commission, the administration has repeatedly denied it.

Administration’s defense

Nancy Sutley, chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and co-chair of the newly created National Ocean Council in charge of the new policy, said the plan “has been mischaracterized as ‘ocean zoning.’”

“The National Ocean Policy does not create any new regulations,” added Jane Lubchenco, undersecretary of Commerce for oceans and atmosphere. “It is a planning process, it’s not zoning.”

Calls to CEQ, which oversees the policy, were not returned.

However, critics point to an Interior Department memo that says the plan “has emerged as a new paradigm and planning strategy for coordinating all marine and coastal activities and facility constructions within the context of a national zoning plan.”

Additionally, former Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Thad Allen, a member of the Ocean Policy Task Force, told OnEarth Magazine in May, 2010, the plan is “basically taking the notion of urban planning and putting it into the water column, as well as the estuary systems that connect it to everything that impacts ocean ecosystems.”

Rep. Don Young (R–Alaska) explained the new bureaucracy to his constituents during an April 3 Alaska field hearing as “a complicated bureaucratic scheme which includes a 27-member national ocean council; an 18-member governance coordinating committee; 10 national policies; nine regional planning bodies—each involving as many as 27 federal agencies as well as states and tribes; nine national priority objectives; nine strategic action plans; seven national goals for coastal marine spatial planning; and 12 guiding principles for coastal marine spatial planning.”

“Are you confused yet?” Young asked the crowd.

“The administration claims that this whole National Ocean Policy is nothing more than an attempt to coordinate federal agencies and make better permitting decisions,” Young said. “Forgive me if I am a little suspicious when the federal government—through an executive order—decides to create a new bureaucracy that will ‘help’ us plan where activities can or cannot take place in our waters and inland.”

Competing values

Environmental groups that support the president’s efforts include the Pew Charitable Trusts, which says that the fragile health of the oceans is being threatened by the increasing industrialization of the seas. 

“If poorly planned or managed, drilling for oil and natural gas in federal waters, developing aquaculture and building wind, wave and tidal energy facilities all have the potential to damage America’s marine environment,” Pew said in a statement supporting the president’s policy.

But some believe bureaucratic interference on such a large scale is the real threat.

“The last thing we need is the federal government running the damn ocean and a bunch of bureaucrats running around trying to determine whether you can fish in one spot or another,” said Dan Kish, senior vice president for policy at the Institute for Energy Research.

As Ronald Reagan famously said, “There you go again.”  Of course, Reagan was blaming Jimmy Carter for launching false attacks during a debate. And that line was so effective, it not only helped Reagan win the debate, but a presidential election that would change American history.

But “there you go again” can apply equally to President Obama. Once again this week, the president was out on the campaign trail bashing and oil and gas companies. And he continued to spread major falsehoods about this industry, which I guess is the polite way to put it.

Obama is obsessed with oil and gas. He is a prisoner of the left-wing environmental groups. And really, he’s extending his leftist class-warfare attack from rich people to successful oil and gas producers.

What seems to have Obama especially steamed is the fact that the conventional-energy companies are profitable. Especially the five largest. So he wants to tax them. He then wants to redistribute their income to his favorite green-energy firms. Sound familiar? I don’t know which is more important to the president — the fact that he hates fossil fuel, or the fact that he hates success. Or that he wants an energy-entitlement state.

Oil companies have an effective corporate tax rate well above 40 percent. And they operate within one of the highest-taxed industries in America. According to the Tax Foundation, for more than 25 years, oil and gas companies have sent more tax dollars to Washington and state capitals than they earned in profits. That’s a fact.

Single-handedly, oil and gas companies finance over 10 percent of non-defense discretionary spending within the U.S. budget. According to the Wall Street Journal, ExxonMobil, the world’s largest energy firm, paid out $59 billion in total U.S. taxes over the five years prior to 2010 while earning only $40.5 billion in domestic profits.

And Obama wants to raise taxes on conventional-energy firms by somewhere between $40 billion and $80 billion? Whatever happened to the supply-side principle that if you tax something more, you get less of it?

But with gasoline prices headed towards $5 a gallon, and with oil prices over $100 a barrel, virtually the whole country outside of the White House wants more oil, more retail gas for the pump, and more energy supplies everywhere in order to bring prices down. Raising taxes won’t do it.

Make no mistake about it: Fossil fuel is going to drive the American economy for decades to come. Green energy is not.

Obama’s other line of attack is that oil companies shouldn’t get any subsidies. They made too much money for that. Well, I’m against oil subsidies. There’s about $90 billion worth in the federal budget. Better to end them, slash corporate tax rates across the board, and let the free market decide energy policy and production.

But on the subject of subsidies, so-called renewable-energy subsidies (think Solyndra) are 49-times greater than fossil-fuel subsidies, according to studies by the Congressional Research Service. And the Congressional Budget Office says renewable green energy received 68 percent of energy-related tax preferences in fiscal year 2011, while fossil fuels got only 15 percent. Additionally, oil, natural gas, and coal received 64 cents per megawatt hour in subsidies, while wind power alone received $56.29 per megawatt hour. That’s 100-times what fossil fuels got.

By the way, the so-called subsidies that Obama is talking about are really depreciation write-offs for investment. Oil companies get a 6 percent deduction from income. Most manufacturing industries get 9 percent. And every company in the economy is eligible for faster investment write-offs.

Frankly, the most pro-growth corporate-tax policy would be 100 percent cash-expensing for new investment, a slashed corporate tax rate, and no more subsidies, preferences, and carve-outs. That would be an unbelievable job-creator.

But President Obama is too busy spewing falsehoods to support his ideological agenda than to take account of the facts. And while he’s at it, one of the greatest, pro-growth revolutions ever is taking place right under his nose. It’s the oil and gas shale miracle, which if left unfettered will turn America and Canada into an energy-independent New Middle East inside of ten years.

In fact, the collapse of natural-gas prices brought on by this revolution could become one of the biggest tax cuts for the economy in history, making all our industries vastly more competitive, revolutionizing transportation, and providing more consumer real income at home.

Obama should quit the demagoguery, stop bashing oil and gas, stop taxing success, and let our ingenious, creative, free-enterprise private economy spur America to a new generation of prosperity.

– Larry Kudlow, NRO’s economics editor, is host of CNBC’s The Kudlow Report and author of the daily web log, Kudlow’s Money Politic$.

Michelle Obama is telling Americans that it’s time for them to community organize … on behalf of her husband.  Today, the First Lady sent a missive to the BarackObama.com mailing list:

[Person’s First Name]:

I am writing because Barack needs you out there this summer.

Through the Organizing Fellowship program, you can work in a full-time volunteer position, learn the principles of field organizing, and then carry out important grassroots activities on the ground.

Excellent! Now the Obama campaign is teaching Americans to community organize. But this isn’t just any regular community organizing. Oh, no. It’s Organizing For Barack:

This summer, thousands of these organizing fellows are going to help lead our grassroots organization — recruiting volunteers and running events to help more people make their voices heard.

It’s an amazing experience — one that could change your life while shaping this country for decades to come.

Apply now to be a summer organizing fellow, or pass this note along to someone you know who might be interested.

If you take a position as a fellow, you’ll help more people to step up at the local level, where there are so many opportunities to make so much change. You’ll register voters, recruit and train volunteers, run phone banks, have conversations with people on their front porches, and build the relationships that will bring your community together to fight for progress.

Michelle promises more than that, though. She promises that you, too can learn to be like Barack – you’ll become one of the country’s leaders by helping drive the vote for Obama:

There will be difficult days, and long ones, too. But being an organizer is one of the best experiences you can have working in politics.

The people who take on this challenge will not only help move this country forward — they’ll also become the next generation of leaders.

The strength of this organization comes from the people involved. We never could have come this far without folks like you who have a passion for organizing and a commitment to finishing what we started together.

If you’re ready to play a critical role in our grassroots campaign, apply now — or forward this note to someone you know who may be interested:

http://my.barackobama.com/Summer-Organizing-Fellow

Thank you,

Michelle

It’s not enough for Barack Obama to community organize the country. He’s relying on a network of community organizers to astroturf support for him in the same way he used to do in Chicago. He’s building a machine. And Michelle is his point person.

 I would like to share an experience with you, it has to do with drinking and driving.  As you know some of us have had brushes with the authorities over the years.  The other night I was out for dinner with a few friends.  After consuming too much wine, and knowing full well that I was wasted, I did something I’ve never done before.  Believe it or not, I took a bus home.  Yes, a bus. I arrived home safely and without incident. This was really a surprise to me since I have never driven a bus before.

An Elderly Lady and Obama…

An elderly lady was walking on the golf course on the island of Martha ‘s Vineyard. She slipped and fell.  Obama who was behind her by chance, helped her to get up promptly. She thanked him and he answered: “It was a pleasure to help you. Don’t you recognize me? I am your president. Are you going to vote for me in the next election? “  The elderly woman laughed and replied:  ”You know … I fell on my ass, not on my head!”

An Arab Muslim enters a taxi inNew York City…

 Once he is seated he asks the cab driver to turn off the radio because he must not hear music, as decreed by his religion.  He explains that in the time of the prophet there was no music, especially Western music (which is music of the infidels). And there certainly was no radio. The cab driver politely switches off the radio, stops the cab and opens the back door.  The Muslim asks him:  ”What are you doing man?”  The cabby answers “In the time of the prophet there were no taxis. So get the hell out and wait for a camel.”

Friend:

 Every night in the White House, I see Barack up late poring over briefings, reading your letters, and writing notes to people he’s met.  He’s doing that for you — working hard every day to make sure we can finish what we all started together.  This week, I need you to have his back.  Will you donate $3 or more to support Barack before Saturday’s critical fundraising deadline?   https://donate.barackobama.com/Support-Barack.

 Thank you.

Michelle

_____ 

Dear Michelle,

 I don’t like what “we” started.  Please stop and give me my money back.

 Former Friend,

Joe American

…americanthinker.com – April 9, 2012 by Steve McCann…

Over the past twenty years, the American left has been largely successful in intimidating much of the conservative movement and creating the impression that leftists are much smarter and thus able to stay one step ahead.  Things have evolved to the point where every utterance or action by the current titular leader of the left, Barack Obama, is analyzed and dissected by many conservatives as if they were part and parcel of some grand strategy. 

In fact, those on the left, including Barack Obama, are not as intelligent as they perceive themselves to be (and often are perceived to be by others), and oftentimes their actions and words are not part of a master plan, but rather symptomatic of either their personal failings or being mind-numbed robots promoting the left-wing agenda.

Recently Barack Obama made some intemperate and absurdly false statements about the Supreme Court and the pending decision on the constitutionality of ObamaCare.  Obviously he, as a graduate of Harvard Law School, knows that the Supreme Court has the duty and right to decide the constitutionality of any law passed by Congress.  As a matter of fact, anyone who has studied American history and government to any degree would be aware of that fact.  Were his remarks part of some grand strategy, or those of a spoiled child lashing out at the possibility that his favorite toy could be taken away by an evil stepmother?

This is not the first time Barack Obama has thrown a temper tantrum.  His recent dealings with the Republican House of Representatives on various budget issues and raising the debt ceiling revealed a similar mindset and evoked a torrent of lies, obfuscations, and foot-stomping over not getting his way. 

Obama has lamented in public how hard his job is and how even Mother Nature has plotted against him (the tsunami and earthquake in Japan).  Not a day goes by without his blaming someone or something else, be it George W. Bush, the Republicans, ATMs, technology, or whatever or whoever is in the headlines for his failures and tribulations.  He can, without any qualms, tell deliberate falsehoods about what may be contained in a budget or bill sponsored by the Republicans or about any subject or issue at hand, as his ideologically based objectives are the only thing that matters, along with an inability to accept being questioned or challenged.  Further, he appears to be incapable of admitting a mistake or apologizing for his errors.

Any parent or grandparent who has encountered a spoiled child determined to get his way has experienced and seen these traits firsthand.

In an adult, these traits are symptomatic of people who not only have a high opinion of themselves, but have been told throughout their lives that they are special.  Having experienced this excessive fawning, such people expect everything in life to go their way and never to be confronted by others with opposing views.  In Obama’s case, because of his demeanor, speaking ability, and skin color, many doors to the upper levels of society and the power structure were magically opened for him with little or no effort on his part.  It can readily be presumed that in his three years of case discussion classes at Harvard Law School, he was never corrected for inaccurate use of basic concepts like “unprecedented” when he spoke up.

As is the case with a spoiled child whose parents consistently explain away and cover for their creation, so too with Barack Obama, as the mainstream media, the entertainment complex, the unions, the Democratic Party hierarchy, and the hardcore left are quick to protect their creation regardless of how much of a fool he makes of himself.

However, Barack Obama is not alone in self-aggrandizement; virtually all those who espouse the tenets of American leftism have an extraordinarily high opinion of themselves.  Yet how much intelligence does it take to publically espouse a philosophy designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator of mankind: a free lunch for the masses and the acquisition of unbridled power for the self-appointed chosen?  None of those who publicly declare themselves “progressives” or “liberals” can explain why socialism has failed wherever it has been tried, except to say that they can do it better and to denigrate those who would dare ask the question.

The leaders of the left sitting in think-tanks, government offices, newsrooms, and faculty lounges, regaling each other demonstrating who may be the smartest in the room, are essentially incapable of initiating an original political thought or having any independence of mind.  In the realm of political theory, the only accepted and promulgated ideology is of an all-powerful central government controlling the day-to-day lives of all Americans — no opposing views, historical facts, or reality are allowed to intrude on these bastions of conformity.

Much of the success the left has enjoyed in recent years has come about through leftists’ domination of the so-called mainstream media, whose primary utility has been to execute the tactic of vilifying and destroying those identified as the opposition, all the while promoting the concept that those on the left are so much brighter and caring than the Neanderthals on the right. 

What has this selling out accomplished for the media?  In a recent poll, 63% of respondents said the media were “politically biased in their reporting”; 66% believe that news stories are often inaccurate; 42% say the press is immoral; and 72% believe that “they [the media] try to cover up their mistakes.”  Recent events such as the coverage of the Trayvon Martin case will further exacerbate these results and cause the mainstream media to become even more irrelevant, as the alternative media is now poised to dominate the dissemination of news in the United States.

Why, then, do many in the conservative movement accept the notion that those on the left are so much more intelligent and are always in the midst of executing some grand strategy?  There is only one grand strategy: seize the reins of power by promising the people anything, and destroy through lies and demagoguery the enemy — who are whomever the left identifies as such.  Which at times can include the judiciary.  All else is merely an adjunct or spin-off of that foundational core.

With the 2012 election, it is time conservatives and Republicans stop cowering in the corner and accepting the notion that the left and Barack Obama are so much brighter and well-organized, with a bottomless pit of successful strategies.  The current occupant of the White House is not a grand strategist or the smartest man on the face of the earth; in fact, he may be the most dishonest and least qualified president in the nation’s history.  And the left has but one theme to play, and they do so over and over again.

This theme can be countered through a constant and steady drumbeat of a few major premises.  1) Government cannot create wealth or jobs; 2) only one’s neighbor down the street willing to risk all to start up a business can create wealth and jobs as well as income for the government; and 3) the more government taxes and spends, the less money is available for wealth and job-creation.

The American left is in no way different from the Wizard of Oz, who was exposed as a fraud and a fake relying solely on image and reputation.  The time has come to draw back the curtain and see them for who they are; they are not invincible. 

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/time_to_stop_being_intimidated_by_the_left.html#ixzz1rYpaAdh4

…Curry County Reporter —  Editorial by Joel Summer, Publisher — March 14, 2012…

There are hundreds of businesses in Curry County that are on the brink of going over the cliff after year after year of economic bad news on the southern Oregon coast. The proposal by the Board of Commissioners to institute a countywide sales tax will surely be just the ‘nudge’ needed to assure that many of these businesses go over the brink and fall to their deaths.

The proposed sales tax is so ill conceived and poorly drafted that it might make one’s head spin just trying to understand it. It is so ambiguous, confusing, and inherently contradictory that if it should somehow pass the voters’ muster in May it will most certainly be challenged and thrown out in a court of law.

Let’s see how it works. If your doctor prescribes Allegra for allergies, it is not taxed but if you buy the same box of Allegra over the counter at Corner Drug on your own initiative, well then it is taxed. If you buy a bag of  limited ingredient dog food over at Woof’s Dog, the stuff is taxable but if you buy the same bag at Town & Country will you have to pay taxes? It’s confusing.

If you want to support your small-town independent book store and buy a book from Ted Watkins at Gold Beach Books, you’ll pay tax but if you buy the same book online at Amazon.com, you’ll pay no tax. If you buy a nice piece of furniture at Barron’s or Interior Coverups, you’ll pay tax but if you go to Garrison’s in the Valley, you won’t.

If you buy lumber at Gold Beach Lumber to build your own deck, well then, tax you’ll pay but if you hire a contractor to build your deck, then it sounds like there will be no tax. If you buy a donut at Ray’s, you’ll pay tax but if you buy a box of donuts manufactured by Nabisco, then no taxes for you.

Adding insult to injury, it is the local merchants who become the tax collectors – if they can figure it out.

Commissioners, it is time to get your heads out of the clouds and come down from your ivory tower to where the real people live. Many of your constituents are barely putting food on their tables. As consumers they cannot afford to pay higher prices than the already high prices they pay in Curry County. And our merchants are trying to attract customers into their stores, not trying to chase customers away to Coos and Jackson counties, or keep Del Norte customers in California, or increase their overhead by collecting your taxes.

Save yourself another round of embarrassment Bill, George, and Dave, and bag this idea. It’s a bad idea.

These are from a book called Disorder in the American Courts, and are things people actually said in court, word for word, taken down and now published by court reporters that had the torment of staying calm while these exchanges were actually taking place.

ATTORNEY:  What was the first thing your husband said to you that morning?
WITNESS:     He said , ‘Where am I, Cathy?’
ATTORNEY:  And why did that upset you?
WITNESS:     My name is Susan!
____________________________________________
 
ATTORNEY: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all?
WITNESS:     Yes.
ATTORNEY:  And in what ways does it affect your memory?
WITNESS:     I forget..
ATTORNEY:  You forget?  Can you give us an example of something you forgot?
___________________________________________
 
ATTORNEY:  Now doctor , isn’t it true that when a person dies in his sleep , he doesn’t know about it until the next morning?
WITNESS:  Did you actually pass the bar exam?
____________________________________

ATTORNEY:  The youngest son , the 20-year-old , how old is he?
WITNESS:      He’s 20 , much like your IQ.
___________________________________________
 
ATTORNEY:  Were you present when your picture was taken?
WITNESS:     Are you kidding me?
_________________________________________
 
ATTORNEY:  She had three children , right?
WITNESS:     Yes.
ATTORNEY:  How many were boys?
WITNESS:    None.
ATTORNEY:   Were there any girls?
WITNESS:      Your Honor, I think I need a different attorney. Can I get a new attorney?
____________________________________________

ATTORNEY:  How was your first marriage terminated?
WITNESS:     By death..
ATTORNEY:  And by whose death was it terminated?
WITNESS:     Take a guess.
____________________________________________

ATTORNEY:  Can you describe the individual?
WITNESS:     He was about medium height and had a beard
ATTORNEY:  Was this a male or a female?
WITNESS:     Unless the Circus was in town I’m going with male.
_____________________________________

ATTORNEY:  Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?
WITNESS:  No, this is how I dress when I go to work.
______________________________________

ATTORNEY:  Doctor , how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people?
WITNESS:     All of them.. The live ones put up too much of a fight.
_________________________________________

ATTORNEY:  ALL your responses MUST be oral , OK? What school did you go to?
WITNESS:     Oral…
_________________________________________

ATTORNEY:  Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
WITNESS:     The autopsy started around 8:30 PM
ATTORNEY:  And Mr. Denton was dead at the time?
WITNESS:     If not , he was by the time I finished.
____________________________________________

And last:

ATTORNEY:  Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
WITNESS:     No.
ATTORNEY:  Did you check for blood pressure?
WITNESS:     No.
ATTORNEY:  Did you check for breathing?
WITNESS:     No..
ATTORNEY:  So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
WITNESS:     No.
ATTORNEY:  How can you be so sure, Doctor?
WITNESS:     Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
ATTORNEY:  I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
WITNESS:     Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.