The New Rules

We conservatives have spent far too long playing by the old rules when liberals have completely changed the game. There was a time when laws meant what they said, when individual rights were important, when the government did not make it its business to oppress the executive’s ideological opponents, and when principles mattered. But that time has passed.

There’s a new set of rules, and while we don’t have control in Washington right now, we do have control most everywhere else – and someday a conservative will be president again. So there is no reason not to get going right now playing by the same rules the liberals do!

Of course, first we need to understand the basis of the new rules – it’s about having the moral courage to obtain and keep power. Until now, we conservatives have been guided by “principles” and “values” that only serve to distract us from what’s really important. Under the new rules, we will no longer let arbitrary ideas about how America should work get in the way of maximizing our ability to exercise our authority over others. After all, our supremacy is a moral imperative.

We will step beyond obsolete notions about process and embrace the primacy of results. We will stop treating “means” and “ends” like they are distinct and different – as 1984 (Read it – lots of great tactics, techniques and procedures!) teaches, “Power is not a means; it is an end.” Means and ends will flow together seamlessly, and we will stop getting hung-up on how we do things and focus on the real goal under the new rules – consolidating our power for the greater good.

Take the law. Under the old rules, judges were constrained by the plain meaning of the text, but that is far too restrictive. Words must mean what we need them to mean, no more and no less. We have to appoint judges who won’t prattle on about “judicial restraint” and “not legislating from the bench,” and who will reliably rule exactly how we need them to rule on each and every case. Let’s appoint judges, who understand that their purpose is to rationalize rulings that support our policy priorities, not seek some “legally correct” decision that might not. The law of the land is whatever we want it to be!

We should celebrate Judge Robert’s recent Obamacare decision – it was liberating! He made it clear that when we want a different result, we don’t have to be deterred by the fact that the law means exactly the opposite. He affirmed that judges should interpret statutes – and the Constitution too – based upon a subjective desire for a particular outcome. Think of the possibilities for conservative progress if we aren’t hamstrung by some inconvenient text in a statute or the literal meaning of the words on some ancient parchment!

Where we have control of law enforcement, we have another great opportunity to play by the new rules. There are all sorts of liberal organizations out there shamelessly advocating policies and ideas we disapprove of. As we have learned, we can turn the power of the government upon them to root out this wrongdoing. We do not need to bother with accusing them of any kind of specific crime – why should we restrict our investigations to clear violations of laws? Instead, we can launch fishing expeditions to see what we can dig up – and even if there’s nothing, well, remember that the process is the punishment. Regardless, it’s important to establish that our political opponents will pay a price for presuming to oppose us.

And, naturally, when our allies are accused of breaking the law, we just ignore it. There needs to be two sets of laws – one for us, and one for everyone else. Otherwise, we might be constrained from doing what we please.

And there are other opportunities a huge government can provide us. Beyond audits and blocking vital certifications, the IRS has plenty of juicy information on every American – we can selectively release it to intimidate those who do not support us. And when we get a hold of everyone’s medical records under Obamacare – wow! What an opportunity!

Of course, there will not be any Obamacare. Oh, technically it might be hard to repeal (though getting rid of the filibuster entirely will make it much easier!), but who needs to repeal it when we can just choose not to enforce it? Our next president simply has to instruct the rest of the executive branch that they will not be taking any action with regard to implementing Obamacare, not collecting any of its taxes (they are taxes this week, right?) and not enforcing any of its mandates. Understand that we won’ be refusing to carry out the law – we’ll just be focusing on different executive priorities!

Perhaps the mainstream media will speak up, at least at first. But, you know, the New York Times, NBC and the rest really seem to have way too much power over our national conversation. It just isn’t fair how these big companies drown out the voices of regular people. Heck, these corporate entities are not even people and certainly should not have rights like people do to speak freely and so forth. They are more of a public utility, and frankly, they have not been serving the public good. That’s why we will use the FCC to take charge and oversee the shamefully deregulated mainstream media. We especially need some sort of doctrine to ensure fairness that forces the Washington Post and CNN to give a fair hearing to conservative ideas, religious views, and traditional values.

You know, there’s been a lot of bigotry against conservatives, religious people, and traditional Americans, and it is time the government took action by concentrating its anti-discrimination efforts on those spewing hate against them. We will have to root out policies and practices that result in such prejudice. Step one is focusing on colleges, where hate against normal Americans runs amok. Colleges that refuse to conform will lose their funding and tax exempt status – oh, and we will be taxing excessive endowments too. Schools like liberal Harvard have billions socked away, money that could be better used serving working Americans’ priorities than those of wealthy college administrators.

And speaking of billions, Hollywood and the entertainment industry need our attention. They spew out a tremendous amount of hate against conservatives, religious people, and traditional Americans, and that kind of intolerance simply cannot be tolerated. We’ll need to take action under the discrimination laws to punish the kind of offensive words and portrayals that make normal Americans feel unsafe and marginalized in theaters and their own homes.

Moreover, those in Hollywood and in the high tech world are getting far too rich. They are simply not paying their fair share – remember that their wealth came from the regular Americans who buy movie tickets and iPhones, and it is only right that these rich liberals give something back to working American families.

A 40% surcharge on all Hollywood and Silicon Valley windfall profits would go a long way towards making things fairer – and this has nothing to do with the fact that most Hollywood and Silicon Valley political money goes to our opponents. But don’t worry about our conservative allies in those two fields – if they don’t pay we just won’t prosecute them! But if you’re liberal, watch out!

Of course, it’s entirely possible that we and the Hollywood and high tech moguls can resolve the issues that led to them pouring money into our enemy’s coffers and come to some understanding that keeps us from having to rollback copyright protections on their intellectual property to, say, ten years.

This is only the beginning – the new rules liberate us from the constraints that for so long kept us from truly making conservative progress. All those “principles” and “ideals” about right and wrong and all that only served to take our eyes off of the real prize – our power, which we would only use for the common good.

Sure, we were all sad to see the old rules go, but gone they are. Our liberal friends made sure of that. So let’s make the best of it! (Kurt Schlichter)

Political Cartoons by Steve Breen

The Agenda is The Agenda

It’s not a major news story…yet. But trust me, the Democrats and the Federal Communications Commission that they control are ready to guarantee a defeat for Republicans in close U.S. Senate races in 2016 and in the battle for the White House. This is not columnist hype. It’s the real thing, and it’s moving like a freight train.

We all know that people hate getting those automated phone calls from politicians, creditors and vacation time-share hucksters. And rightly so. The FCC, headed by Tom Wheeler, has known that for years. But it seems they waited until now to act.

After rushing into law so-called “net neutrality” rules just recently, Wheeler and his gang are again in a hurry to regulate some more. But this time even the most politically adept Republicans may be failing to see the storm coming.

In less than a month, Wheeler’s FCC will likely vote in favor of regulations that will appear to have rung a death knell to phone calls from debt collectors and pollsters. There are to be various ways for “consumers” to automatically block dialed phone calls — including a call-blocking system that phone companies will be obliged to offer their customers.

As a man who used this technology for years as the head of a polling firm, I could easily get all worked up over the likely ruling’s impact on my industry. I won’t, though, because I don’t head up the company anymore and because we had already moved to very accurate online surveys, anyway.

But for those supposedly superlative polls conducted by live call rooms — so beloved by the establishment media — they will be banned under the new rules, unless Wheeler and his Democrat-appointed majority on the FCC carve a special “niche” to keep them fat and happy.

Most opinion and news articles about this approaching decision have focused on either the end of the nuisance of automatically dialed calls, or the end of political and marketing research. But those stories miss the real and deadly aim of Wheeler and his gang.

Tom Wheeler is the FCC Commission Chair who had publicly stated his concerns about having government regulate the Internet. That is until he received not-so-vague marching orders from President Obama to reverse his direction and support the big Web-based companies who gave most of their money and manpower to Obama in 2016. (I’m not suggesting a quid pro quo; I’m just laying out the facts.)

Of course, the obvious victim is our nation’s longstanding adherence to the First Amendment, which has always exempted political speech from restrictions and regulations. The pollsters will find a way to survive this overreach by the FCC. But the Republican Party, as it stands today, will not. And that is what the FCC’s power grab is really about.

Democratic strategists have maintained that they own the world of social media, and they do. They beat Mitt Romney over the head with it in 2012. While this Democratic audience is less inclined to get involved in midterm elections, the impact social media has over the younger constituency who tend to vote Democratic is huge, particularly in presidential election years when these voters become more focused.

And every analysis we have read tells us that the largest GOP base is older Americans. Who still has landlines or will even talk on a phone? Older Americans. And who is least likely to have their faces shoved into a handheld device or to be surfing the net 24/7? You guessed it. Without those “pesky” automated phone calls to turn out their base, the GOP will be flattened come November ’16.

The “experts” argue that the new rules will take years to have an effect and that autodialing systems will have plenty of ways of skirting the law. But they are missing the point. Automated phone calls will have become “illegal” in the minds of the public. GOP candidates and campaigns won’t touch them with a 10-foot pole.

And what will appear to be a “pro-consumer” set of rules will instead make it virtually impossible for Republican candidates to turn out their base in the most important election of our lifetime. (townhall)

Well, we already know the Democrats have to morals or ethics and winning is the only thing that matters regardless of the consequences or circumstances…

Last Bastion of Freedom

The government may implement new regulations over the Internet that could cost the economy billions of dollars and thousands of jobs. Despite the potentially large impact of these regulations, the broadcast news networks have barely covered the issue in the almost three months since President Barack Obama announced his support for rules to achieve “net neutrality” and a “free and open Internet.” (i.e. free and open Orwellian Liberalism)

Ajit Pai, the sole Republican Commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), inferred in a Tweet that President Barack Obama’s secret, 332-page “Net Neutrality” document is a scheme for federal micro-managing of the Internet to extract billions in new taxes from consumers and again enforce progressives’ idea of honest, equitable, and balanced content fairness.


FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler recently acknowledged that the two Democrats on the commission had decided to avoid Congressional input regarding the Internet by adopting President Franklin Roosevelt’s 1934 Communications Act to regulate the Internet with the same federal control as the old AT&T customer monopoly. To make sure that libertarian advocates would remain in the dark, Wheeler “embargoed” release of any of the specifics in the new administrative “policy” that will act as law.

The FCC legislation that was passed eighty-one years ago by the most leftist Congress in American history to ban companies from participating in “unjust or unreasonable discrimination” when providing phone services to customers.


Pai responded that the “Courts have twice thrown out the FCC’s attempts at Internet regulation” during the Obama Administration. On January 14, 2014, the D.C. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals struck down most of the FCC’s November 2011 net neutrality rules. The Appellate Court vacated the FCC’s “anti-discrimination” and “anti-blocking” as essentially discriminatory and blocking in an attempt to again give the FCC political appointees the power to dictate what they believe is honest, equitable, and balanced.

And we all know what a Liberal means by “honest, equitable and balanced”- totalitarian control of everything in service to The Agenda and bend over they want your wallet and your blood too. 🙂

Means Government  political and social control and we’ve seen what The Ministry of Truth is like, imagine as the regulatory body of the Internet. Kiss it goodbye.

Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Tom Wheeler said on February 4 that he backed Obama’s plan to reclassify the Internet as a public utility under the government agency’s Title II authority. FCC commissioner Ajit Pai said in a press release on February 6 that the plan “marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet.” Even a liberal think tank predicted that these regulations could cost American households $156 in new fees.

Telescreens are fictional devices which operate as both televisions and security cameras. They feature in George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four as well as all film adaptations of the novel. In the novel and its adaptations, telescreens are used by the ruling Party in Oceania to keep its subjects under constant surveillance, thus eliminating the chance of secret conspiracies against Oceania.

All members of the Inner Party (upper-class) and Outer Party (middle-class) have telescreens in their homes, but the proles (lower-class) are not typically monitored as they are unimportant to the Party. As later explained in Emmanuel Goldstein’s book of which Smith reads some excerpts, the Party does not feel threatened by the Proles, assuming that they would never rebel on their own, and therefore does not find a need to monitor their daily lives.

They know everything you type, everything you watch, everything you do…Now that’s “free and open” 🙂

Despite its importance, the broadcast news networks’ morning and evening shows dedicated only 3 minutes, 38 seconds of coverage to these potential regulations over the Internet since Obama’s announcement November 10, 2014 through February 9, 2015. They almost entirely ignored opposition to the plan. By way of contrast, the networks spent 67 minutes, 49 seconds covering the “Deflategate” scandal during less than one week in January, nearly 19 times more than net neutrality over a period of almost three months.

Well, you don’t want them to figure out what’s really going on, until it’s too late.

Phil Kerpen, President of American Commitment, told MRC Business, “There has been almost no coverage of the president strong-arming what is supposed to be an independent agency, or the highly questionable policy he has proposed that would reverse the past two decades of Internet policy and install a heavy-handed regulate-and-tax alternative.”

When they did cover the issue, the networks were almost entirely uncritical in their reporting. On November 11, CBS’s “This Morning” co-host Gayle King echoed the White House’s talking points, saying that Obama wanted the FCC “to adopt tough rules to protect a free and open internet.”

Free and Open Liberalism, you mean!

Gayle said that “broadband service providers want to charge higher fees” for Internet access, which could “result in the blocking or slowing down of content for some.” Yet, she failed to explain how the president’s proposal would improve this situation or describe the plan’s potential costs.

ABC News only mentioned the proposed regulations once during a segment on “World News” January 20. While previewing the State of the Union address, chief White House correspondent Jonathan Karl vaguely referenced that Obama wanted to expand “faster, cheaper Internet access” for the “middle class.”

Segments on the other networks also brought up the proposal only in passing. On “Nightly News” December 19, 2014, NBC’s senior White House correspondent Chris Jansing highlighted “immigration, climate change and internet regulations” as policies on which Obama was “pushing the limits of his executive authority” and “defying newly empowered Republicans.” Jansing did not say how or why Republicans disagreed with the president on any of these policies.

The only instance when the networks actually explained opposition to Obama’s plan occurred during a news brief on “Nightly News” November 10, 2014. Anchor Brian Williams said, “Many Republicans said publically today if the president has his way, it would hurt innovation and job growth.” Williams did not expand on this statement.

Although the networks avoided airing dissenting opinions, critics have long said that giving the FCC greater control over the Internet could have severe impacts on freedom of speech and the economy. Former FCC commissioner Robert M. McDowell said that “FCC ‘oversight of the political process’ through more Internet regulations sounds eerily like political speech controls,” in an op-ed for The Washington Post on July 14, 2014.

The liberal Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) predicted that households could pay an additional $156 in fees to federal, state, and local governments if regulators reclassified the internet as a public utility in a report released December, 2014. Revenue from these fees would total $15 billion per year, according to PPI.

Reclassifying the internet as a public utility to achieve net neutrality might also negatively impact broadband Internet service providers (ISPs). This move “could put as many as 174,000 broadband related jobs at risk by the end of this decade,” according to the conservative think tank American Action Forum.

Gee, they would be biased  in favor of Liberals now would they… 🙂

The regulation could reduce investments in ISPs by $45.4 billion by 2019, according to a report by the economic consulting firm Sonecon. The report was co-authored by Sonecon chairman Dr. Robert J. Shapiro, who said he was an economic advisor to every Democratic candidate since President Bill Clinton, including Obama.


In addition to negative impacts of the plan on the economy and society, FCC commissioner Ajit Pai criticized the agency’s lack of transparency. Wheeler circulated the administration’s 332-page plan to members of the commission, but Pai said in his press release that he was “disappointed that the plan will not be released publicly.” He argued that the “FCC should be as open and transparent as the Internet itself and post the entire document on its website.”

Pai tweeted a picture of the plan on January 6, writing that “I wish the public could see what’s inside.”

Last year, Pai called out the FCC for undertaking the controversial Critical Information Needs (CIN) study. He warned in a Wall Street Journal op-ed on February 10, 2014, that through this study, the FCC had “proposed an initiative to thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country.” Although the FCC ultimately killed CIN, Pai drew a parallel with “the FCC’s now-defunct Fairness Doctrine, which began in 1949 and required equal time for contrasting viewpoints on controversial issues.”

As they did with the current proposed Internet regulations, the networks ignored the FCC’s threat to investigate television and radio newsrooms across the country.

“He thought of the telescreen with its never-sleeping ear. They could spy upon you night and day, but if you kept your head you could still outwit them. With all their cleverness they had never mastered the secret of finding out what another human being was thinking. . . . Facts, at any rate, could not be kept hidden. They could be tracked down by inquiry, they could be squeezed out of you by torture. But if the object was not to stay alive but to stay human, what difference did it ultimately make? They could not alter your feelings; for that matter you could not alter them yourself, even if you wanted to. They could lay bare in the utmost detail everything that you had done or said or thought; but the inner heart, whose workings were mysterious even to yourself, remained impregnable.”― George Orwell, 1984

Imagine if Obama and Holder could know absolutely everything about you and know everything you say and do 24/7 and could monitor it all and subvert it all in the name of “free and open” “fairness”, and not just from the NSA.

Now that’s “free and open”. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel



Nailed it!


The FCC announced on Friday that it would back off its planned study of U.S. newsrooms in which monitors would be dispatched to gather information on how they operate. Even so, Greta Van Susteren on Friday decided to answer the questionnaire that would have been included in the study as honestly as she could.

The first question: “What is the news philosophy of the station?”

Van Susteren’s answer: “None of your business, read the Constitution.”

Question No. 2: “How much news does your station air every day?”

“Watch and figure it out yourself, I’m not doing your work for you,” she responded.

The third question from the proposed FCC study: “Who decides which stories are covered?”

Van Susteren’s familiar answer: “None of your business, read the Constitution.”

“Read the Constitution is what they should’ve done before they even did this study,” she added

But when the Government agency that can ruin you overnight comes “inquiring” about how you do your job there are no “innocent” questions and it’s not the least bit “funny”.

Of the 5 Commissioners who approve new organizations license every 8 years 3 are Democrats. But don’t worry, there’s no agenda here when they talk about “protecting the rights of minorities”. 🙂

The purpose of the CIN, according to the FCC, is to ferret out information from television and radio broadcasters about “the process by which stories are selected” and how often stations cover “critical information needs,” along with “perceived station bias” and “perceived responsiveness to underserved populations.”

Aka, the Liberal Progressive Social AGENDA.

As Thomas Jefferson so eloquently said, “our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.”

Wanna know what MSDNC has as their top story today, “Stand Your Ground Laws” and “Bridgegate” in New Jersey! (who the F*ck cares about that stupid ass story to begin with?–Liberals it fuels their hatred of the “Not We”). Do you think they feel threatened by the FCC?

Nope. They are already the Ministry of Truth.

Put in “FCC” and it comes up with some lame ass story about a Baseball player saying the F-Word in a stadium speech!

They mock Fox’s Megyn Kelly for calling the story “crazy” and 1 commenter says the party line: “I can see where a so-called news network that makes up stories out of whole cloth would be worried about this.”

Megyn Kelly is afraid that a bunch of Non- White feds dressed as Santa’s will start showing up in Fox News rooms.uninvited.”

You can’t even find the story on NBC News Website. But they will tell you about The Democrats wanting to bring back the defeated “Net Neutrality”. 🙂

ABC will talk about the FCC and Cellphones on Airplanes, just not about monitors in the newsroom.

CNN’s top story, The Olympics!

That tells you all you need to know.

Are you now of have you ever been…?

Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid!


The Commisars

Well, we won’t have the actual Ministry of Truth in full view just yet. But the fact that they were bold enough to even propose it and many “journalists” and other government and Congressional figures had no problem with it should a shiver down your spine.

The Federal Communications Commission will amend a proposed study of newsrooms in South Carolina after outcry over what some called “invasive questions,” the commission’s chairman said Friday.

The survey was meant to study how and if the media is meeting the public’s “critical information needs” on subjects like public health, politics, transportation and the environment. Now, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said questions about news philosophy and editorial judgment will be removed from the survey and media owners and reporters will no longer be questioned.

“Any suggestion the Commission intends to regulate the speech of news media is false,” FCC spokeswoman Shannon Gilson said Friday in a statement, adding that a revised study will be released within the next few weeks.

FOR NOW. We just have to work out a better way to approach it. The frog was thrown in the boiling water and he jumped out so we need a different approach to insure he won’t jump out before he’s boiled to death.

The Justice Department announced Friday it is revising its rules for obtaining records from the news media in leak investigations, promising that in most instances the government will notify news organizations beforehand of its intention to do so.

Because we’ve gotten so much for spying on the and persecuting them. We need a less invasive and less public way of spying on them and then persecuting the offenders.

And the fact that this was all started by “journalism” schools who were not happy with opposition news reporting should terrify you.

Journalism as it was practiced for 200+ years is dead. Now it’s just propaganda.

And, especially on the Left, the Freedom of Speech only extends to their Speech, not yours.

The move to police the newsrooms is an effort to bring back the now-defunct “Fairness Doctrine,” which forces station managers to air unpopular views outside the wishes of both owners and viewers.

Aka, get the opposition off the air. After all, would the FCC demand that MSNBC give equal treatment to conservatives? or would it just demand that FOX give equal time to The Far Left Administration cronies??


Under the banner of minority representation (OF COURSE!), FCC’s plan to police America’s newsrooms was to dispatch politically connected contractors from a company called Social Solutions International to conduct a “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs.”

They would interrogate America’s editors and reporters in TV, radio and even newspapers about how they decide which stories to report, all to find bias in need of a government remedy.

After all, you’re all racists & sexists anyhow.

The FCC insists the study is just a quest for information to be given on a “voluntary” basis, but with its power to issue licenses swaying over the heads of editors and reporters, it’s anything but voluntary.

I will voluntarily hold a loaded gun to your head. Now you can say what you want or you can say what I want you to say, your choice. 🙂

The plan was so bad the FCC was forced to issue a statement Friday backtracking on the idea, claiming in its press release that it was “Setting the Record Straight On The Draft Study” (as if the problem was bad reporting rather than an atrocious idea).

It’s not out fault you got mad at us or misunderstood what we were trying to do. Oh, sorry, I’ll put that gun down for now…Until I come up with a better way to extort you, Like I did with ObamaCare.

“My staff has engaged in a careful and thorough review of the Research Design with the contractor to ensure that the inquiries closely hew to the mandate of Section 257. While the Research Design is a tool intended to help the Commission consider effective, pro-competitive policies that would encourage new entrants, its direction need not go beyond our responsibilities. We continue to work with the contractor to adapt the study in response to these concerns and expect to complete this work in the next few weeks.”

Well, that was a lot of smoke and mirrors BS that sounds a lot like the excuses for the ObamaCare Website failure, especially since this study first came to light over 6 months ago and no one on this “research design” team had no issues with the “design” until the opposition media firestormed them!

We didn’t know, we’re sorry. We’ll try again later.

We need to change our methodology and get better optics to successfully pitch the idea that New Rooms, and bloggers need to be monitored for their content.

Be Afraid, Be very Afraid.

Orwell: “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a
human face – forever.”


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Not the liberal Left’s version:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Any religion (and will mock the free exercise thereof); or abridging the freedom of LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE speech, or of the LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble to worship the LIBERAL PROGRESSIVES, any assembly in opposition must therefore be “terrorism” or “racism” and must be considered sedition, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances against Corporations and to seek “social justice” at all costs. 🙂

So be careful of pots of waters that may boil, The FCC is in the Kitchen with a recipe for Frog stew.


Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Making a Choice

Where did President Obama go after killing off thousands of Keystone XL pipeline construction and manufacturing jobs? Why, Disney World, of course. Sabotaging work is hard work for Goofy and his pals.

And where’d he head after that? Why, up to Manhattan for more high-priced campaign fundraisers charging up to $38,500 per partier. The business of wining and dining politically connected donors ain’t child’s play, you know. (Michelle Malkin)

On Tuesday, President Obama met with his so-called Council on Jobs and Competitiveness to discuss its recommendations for the U.S. economy. Despite the panel being stacked with cronies and rent-seekers, its recommendations were mostly sensible. The council recommended aggressively pushing to develop U.S. energy resources, streamlining federal regulations and reforming the corporate tax code to reduce the rate and spur international competitiveness.

In his opening comments Obama said, “I’ve personally emphasized to the White House team and to the cabinet the importance of aggressively implementing the recommendations of this job council.” The facts suggest otherwise.

On Wednesday, the president spiked the Keystone XL pipeline, preventing tens of thousands of jobs from being created and weakening precisely the type of energy infrastructure that the jobs council recommended. To quote the council’s report, “Policies that facilitate the safe, thoughtful and timely development of pipeline, transmission and distribution projects are necessary.” But what if such a development comes into conflict with ideologically motivated, powerful environmental special interests? We now know where Obama comes down.

What about streamlining federal regulations? On Tuesday Obama said, “I tasked federal agencies to cut inefficient or excessively burdensome regulations, and … the preliminary results are exciting.” But nobody other than Obama’s left-wing base has found the progress particularly exciting.

Obama touted estimated 10-year savings in compliance costs of $10 billion, or $1 billion per year; even if the annual federal regulatory burden stayed at the 2008 level of $1.75 trillion per year, that would mean virtually indiscernible savings of 0.057%. But the federal regulatory burden is hardly standing still; it’s actually skyrocketing at an unprecedented pace, led by an EPA regulatory onslaught that includes dozens of rules that impose billions of dollars in new costs.

The Heritage Foundation estimated that just through the first half of last year new Obama regulations added $38 billion in compliance costs. The EPA’s newly finalized Utility MACT rule, its most expensive rule in history, will cost as much as $11 billion according to the EPA’s own estimates. That’s more than all of the savings Obama is touting from regulatory reform. More realistic estimates suggest the cost of Utility MACT and other new EPA rules could be more than $300 billion, putting millions of jobs at risk.

An analysis of just this year’s new regulations — and we’re only 18 days into the year — by Wayne Crews of the Competitive Enterprise Institute confirms that Obama’s regulatory rampage continues unabated, notwithstanding the recommendations of the jobs council. Crews reports that in the first 18 days of the year, there are already 115 new final regulations that occupy 2,609 pages in the Federal Register. Eighteen of those rules have been designated economically significant, generally indicating an economic cost of $100 million or more.

The biggest regulatory laugher was Obama’s comments on the Federal Communications Commission: “The FCC, prompted by our request but also due to some excellent work by Julius Genachowski, they’ve already eliminated 190 rules.”

Because Genachowski has visited the White House about a hundred times and is clearly taking his marching orders from Obama, we can stop pretending like the FCC is an independent agency.

The key point is that this is the same FCC that manufactured for itself from whole cloth the authority to regulate broadband Internet providers, despite the fact Congress and the American people resoundingly rejected the idea. Over time, that regulation could crush the most vibrant sector of the American economy. The FCC broke with all precedent to release a staff report to kill the AT&T/T-Mobile merger, sacrificing tens of thousands of jobs and billions in investment to reward left-wing ideological interests. The FCC has also implemented mandatory data roaming requirements. And the FCC has relentlessly attempted to transfer ill-fitting regulatory frameworks from the old monopoly telephone system into the competitive broadband world.

In short, it simply doesn’t matter how many old regulations are cleared off the books when an agency is implementing an aggressive slate of new rules that dwarf them in cost and complexity.

Obama isn’t doing any better on tax reform. While bipartisan efforts to make the U.S. more competitive by broadening the base and lowering the rate on the corporate income tax have gained momentum on the Hill, the president has been missing in action. And the president’s budget is widely expected to again propose ending the deferral of taxes on foreign-sourced income, making matters worse by driving corporate headquarters abroad instead of taking the more sensible approach of allowing tax-free repatriation of foreign-sourced income the way the rest of the world does.

The bottom line is that Obama continues to pay lip-service to job creation, but his actions betray his contempt even for the job creation policies recommended by his own jobs council.

Vote for me, the other Guy’s an Asshole! 🙂

Different histories, geography, demography and cultures have left  various groups, races, nations and civilizations with radically  different abilities to create wealth.

In centuries past, the  majority population of various cities in Eastern Europe consisted of  people from Western Europe — Germans, Jews and others — while the vast  majority of the population in the surrounding countrysides were Slavs  or other indigenous peoples of the region.

Just as Western Europe  was — and is — more prosperous than Eastern Europe, so Western  Europeans living in Eastern European cities in centuries past were more  prosperous than the Slavs and others living in the countrysides, or even  in the same cities.

One of the historic advantages of Western  Europe was that it was conquered by the Romans in ancient times — a  traumatic experience in itself, but one which left Western European  languages with written versions, using letters created by the Romans.  Eastern European languages developed written versions centuries later.

Literate  people obviously have many advantages over people who are illiterate.  Even after Eastern European languages became literate, it was a long  time before they had such accumulations of valuable written knowledge as  Western European languages had, due to Western European languages’  centuries earlier head start.

Even the educated elites of Eastern  Europe were often educated in Western European languages. None of this  was due to the faults of one or the merits of the other. It is just the  way that history went down.

But such mundane explanations of gross  disparities are seldom emotionally satisfying — least of all to those  on the short end of these disparities. With the rise over time of an  indigenous intelligentsia in Eastern Europe and the growing influence of  mass politics, more emotionally satisfying explanations emerged, such  as oppression, exploitation and the like.

Since human beings have  seldom been saints, whether in Eastern Europe or elsewhere, there were  no doubt many individual flaws and shortcomings among the non-indigenous  elites to complain of. But those shortcomings were not the fundamental  reason for the economic disparities between Eastern Europeans and  Western Europeans. More important, seeing those Western European elites  in Eastern Europe as the cause of the economic disparities led many  Eastern Europeans into the blind alley of ethnic identity politics,  including hostility to Germans, Jews and others — and a romanticizing  of their own cultural patterns that were holding them back.

What happened in Eastern Europe, including many tragedies that grew  out of the polarization of groups in the region, has implications that  reach far beyond Europe, and in fact reach all around the world, where  similar events have produced similar polarizations and similar historic  tragedies.

Today, in America, many denounce the black-white gap in  economic and other achievements, which they attribute to the same kinds  of causes as those to which the lags of Eastern Europeans have been  attributed. Moreover, the persistence of these gaps, years after the  civil rights laws were expected to close them, is regarded as something  strange and even sinister.

Yet the economic disparities between  Eastern Europeans and Western Europeans remains to this day greater than  the economic disparities between blacks and whites in America — and  the gap in Europe has lasted for centuries.

Focusing attention and  attacks on people who have greater wealth-generating capacity —  whether races, classes or whatever — has had counterproductive  consequences, including tragedies written in the blood of millions.  Whole totalitarian governments have risen to dictatorial power on the  wings of envy and resentment ideologies.

Intellectuals have all  too often promoted these envy and resentment ideologies. There are both  psychic and material rewards for the intelligentsia in doing so, even  when the supposed beneficiaries of these ideologies end up worse off.  When you want to help people, you tell them the truth. When you want to  help yourself, you tell them what they want to hear.

Both politicians and intellectuals have made their choice. (Thomas Sowell)

And we Lose.

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

 Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

 Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez


Rep. Jan Schakowsky: “You Don’t Deserve To Keep All Your Money”

In a interview with Chicago’s Don Wade & Roma radio show this morning, Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky claimed that Americans aren’t entitled to all of their own money.

Toward the end of a wide-ranging interview, the hosts played a clip from this week’s Republican Presidential Debate where California teenager Tyler Hinsley asked, “Of every dollar that I earn, how much do you think I deserve to keep?” Co-host Don Wade asked Schakowsky to answer the same question.

After some initial back-and-forth, she replied, “I’ll put it this way, you don’t deserve to keep all of it. It’s not a question of deserving, because what government is, is those things that we decide to do together.”

Despite the hosts’ persistence, Schakowsky declined to answer what percentage of a person’s income they deserved to keep. “I pay at a 35% tax rate, happy to do it,” she explained when the hosts persisted with their question. She again declined to say how much more she would personally be willing to pay.

But Rep. Schakowsky is not alone. Her views are sadly typical of a liberal worldview that sees a person’s earnings as belonging first to the state. In fact, the left is now doubling down on this misguided belief, with the President pushing for more stimulus spending despite the failures of earlier “stimulus.”

But while the left continues to promote the same failed policies—more taxes, more regulation, more big government—conservatives need to trumpet the benefits of low taxes, sensible regulations, and small government. As Heritage’s Dubay explains:

    The best way to grow revenues is to promote faster economic growth, which will increase the number of taxpayers and taxable income more rapidly. Tax hikes—whether through higher tax rates or slashing credits, deductions, and exemptions without offsetting reductions elsewhere—will not do the job. Under President Obama’s current policies, spending will continue to grow at a faster rate than can be paid for by tax hikes—even assuming the huge tax increases the President insists upon. To add insult to injury, as history has shown, tax hikes would slow economic growth and make it even harder for unemployed Americans to find a job.

Democrat Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) said that most Americans do not understand that federal entitlements are not “bank account” programs that hold their money, adding that Social Security is not even a legal guarantee.

“Are these vested benefits? Are these contractual benefits?” Cooper asked of Social Security benefits. “Well, it turns out they’re not. Legally, they’re not even promises. They’re scheduled benefits and most Americans are not even aware of that.”

Cooper, asked about potential reforms to Medicare and Medicaid, said that the core problem was that the public does not understand the true nature of entitlements.

“Many Americans don’t really realize that Medicare is a government program,” Cooper said at a press conference with fellow Blue Dogs on Wednesday. “We have to start first with diagnosing the problem, helping all Americans understand the true nature of the programs.”

“Many people think that Social Security and Medicare are bank account programs, and money that they’ve paid in is stored up in their name just for them,” he said. “That is a widespread misconception.”

Cooper said that Congress could do itself a favors by explaining to Americans that the payroll taxes deducted from their paychecks go into the government’s coffers and are used to pay benefits for current retirees and are not saved for their retirement.

“There’s a lot we could do to help people understand that the payroll taxes they pay in this month are paid out next month to somebody they’ve never met, a complete stranger,” he explained.

Cooper also said that Congress should be explaining that it does not account for entitlement spending in the normal way, but puts it off on what he called a “government credit card,” rather than accounting for it through the normal budgeting process.

“There’s another huge set of issues having to do with government accounting,” Cooper said. “We put most of these precious, vital programs on the government credit card, as opposed to treating them in the regular budget process.”

Cooper is referring to a process known as off-budget accounting whereby Congress accounts for the Social Security and Medicare trust funds separately from its regular revenue and spending calculations. This process separates entitlement spending from the regular yearly budget, often making it difficult to gauge how much money the government actually spends in a given year.
senior citizens, Social Security COLA

Many critics have argued that bringing entitlements back into the regular budgeting process is a more honest way to account for them because it would allow the public to see the entirety of federal spending and taxation every year.

Cooper noted one final misconception that Congress should correct–that most people believe that Social Security benefits are legal obligations of the federal government. In fact, he noted, they are nothing of the sort. Instead they are merely “scheduled benefits” that can be altered at any time.

“A further issue has to do with the legal treatment of these programs,” Cooper said. “Are these vested benefits? Are these contractual benefits? Well, it turns out they’re not. Legally, they’re not even promises.Tthey’re scheduled benefits and most Americans are not even aware of that.”

Cooper said Congress has “a lot of work to do” to educate the public about the true nature of entitlement programs.

“So we have a lot of work to do here as a Congress to start getting people’s heads in the game and understand the true nature of the dilemma,” he said.

And this was a Democrat, folks! A Democrat!  Think about that for a moment, and be afraid, be very afraid!

The Next Scandal:

If Justice Department shenanigans aren’t enough, if crony capitalism, favoritism, Taxpayers funding union pensions under the guise of “jobs”  Solyndra, and more aren’t enough. Now we have Light Squared.

While the stink from the Solyndra political corruption scandal continues to grow, a new one involving a 4-star Air Force General and military intelligence erupted yesterday from Capitol Hill.

According to reports published by The Daily Beast, General William Shelton, Commander of the Air Force Space Command Center at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, said the “White House tried to pressure him to change his testimony to make it more favorable to a company tied to a large Democratic donor. “

The company is LightSquared, a Virginia wireless broadband provider seeking approval for a coast-to-coast wireless network.  The majority owner of LightSquared is Harbinger Capital Partners an investment fund whose CEO, Philip Falcone, is a large Democrat Party donor.

The bandwidth spectrum proposed to be used by LightSquared would be very close to the global GPS system used by private industry as well as the U.S. military and intelligence communities.  Although LightSquared maintains their proposal would be “quiet neighborhood” network, the Pentagon and industry experts have voiced serious concerns that the “tens of thousands of ground stations for a wireless network could drown out the GPS signal.”  

Prior to appearing before the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee, the White House reviewed and recommended changes to General Shelton’s testimony that would have been favorable to LightSquared.  “There was an attempt to influence the text of the testimony and to engage LightSquared in the process in order to bias his (Gen. Shelton’s) testimony.” Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH), the Committee Chairman told The Daily Beast.  “The only people who were involved in the process in preparation for the hearing included the Department of Defense, the White House, and the Office of Management and Budget.” 

According to the report, the White House pressed Gen. Shelton to alter his testimony on two critical points: first, that the General supported the White House policy to add more broadband for commercial use (a campaign pledge by Obama), and secondly that the Pentagon would try to resolve the questions around LightSquared with testing in just 90 days.   Instead of caving to the White House pressure, General Shelton “chafed at the intervention” and blew the whistle.

Consistent with what has become standard-operating-procedure, the White House issued a statement denying any wrong doing or pressure on the General.

LightSquared was granted conditional approval for their system in 2004, but the go-ahead for build out of the whole system has been stalled because technical experts have warned that the “proposal to build tens of thousands of ground stations for a wireless network could drown out the GPS signal.” 

Indeed, General Shelton testified that preliminary tests concluded that only a portion of the band that was licensed in 2004 “would cause significant disruptions to GPS.”

Members of Congress have smelled a rat in the LightSquared deal for some time recognizing that the Administration and the FCC have been trying to rush through an approval for the proposal.  “The FCC’s fast-tracking of LightSquared raises questions about whether the government is rushing this project at the expense of all kinds of other things, including national security and everyone who uses GPS, from agriculture to emergency medical technicians,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley who has been suspicious since at least last April.  “Without transparency, and with media coverage of political connections in this case, there’s no way to know whether the agency is trying to help friends in need or really looking out for the public’s interest.”

In April, Grassley asked the Chairman of the FCC Julius Genachowski to hand over all records of communications, including emails between Falcone and the FCC, and LightSquared and the FCC.  Genachowski declined to turn over those records. 

Genachowski is a political appointee of Barack Obama.  He cut his teeth as an aid to New York Senator Chuck Schumer before making millions in the telecommunications industry.  He was a classmate of Obama’s at the Harvard law school, and became a critical member of the 2008 campaign and transition team credited for the development of the sophisticated campaign communications system utilizing social media networks.  

Perhaps trying to get ahead of a developing scandal involving one of the military’s top commanders, on Tuesday the FCC issued a public notice prohibiting LightSquared from further build out until more testing proves GPS would not be damaged.

But Obama’s cronies won’t be happy. And when your cronies aren’t happy, you aren’t happy…

So don’t worry, be happy! 🙂