business (18)

Lately exploration of my talents have allowed me to push myself beyond my comfort zone or normal box.  I owe a lot to a friend for giving me this confidence.
Here is the drawing me coaxed me into finishing.  Thanks friend.


"Make me a coffee table!"  I said okay.
I started my search over a few weeks....keying in on finish.  I have had surgery and thud taking longer to make. Yet, I think this should provide the time I need to fit the job to my friend like a glove.
Here is the base painted a different color, Foss. 


It has a handle that opens with two shelves for storage.  I may put some other specific storage.    Next, I painted this and will glue it ontop of this base.


Take off the frame and ornate art stuff and you have a shelf shadowbox from the 70's.  I painted it Foss.  Embossed pictures of my friend from her family and a few from mine over years and during college will be put onto of the mirror part in hopefully a eye catching arrangement.  I plan to throw in some pharmacy memento's and SWOSU stuff....just enough.   
I asked opinions.  .....what should the top be solid wood, glass or give me a suggestion.  I believe I have my answer and pray I find the size and just right fit to make it pop.  That would make finishing this upcycling nice for me.
I am now looking for two pieces of wood/glass.  Wood all around with glass in the middle like cabinets and a knob on to where it opens in the middle of the coffee table.  I have been surfing the web for a couple of hours and found nothing but I have a few weeks to finish this.
Please provide feedback.  Websites with ideas and training and other hints.  Tell me things you like about my ideas and those you don't.  Any good business person knows sucess depends on satisfing your customers.  Money may not be any issue yet but making something for a person that likes it is a starting goal.  I am considering this is a side business...but long way off.

Read more…

If you were the new President, would the following be an avenue you would explore?

Please respond first with YES or NO

and then offer an explanation if you so desire.

A Republican president, who is interested in demonstrating that the Republican Party is interested in the economic health of former USA businesses, should rescue those businesses from the other countries, by offering incentives that are too attractive for businesses to resist.  The cost of moving back to the USA should be tax deductable with all receipts and invoices presented.  The cost of purchasing property on a percentage of property required to place the buildings will tax deducted on a three year schedule.  Those businesses that do not relocate in inner city districts or who are not concerned with manufacturing will receive free property tax for ten years in addition to an income tax fee of only 50% of the going rate.  No matter what the company's function is, and no matter where it is located, the company will have those regulations that make it difficult to exist removed.  Desired results: Returning former USA businesses to the USA; skilled and non-skilled people who have been accessing government assistance would no longer require government assistance; skilled and non-skilled people who have been working inn positions whose compensations are less than what once the worker's standard may return to a higher plateau of salary.  There would be a creation of small stores surrounding the businesses with food and other needed items which would also help in the tax base and with unemployment reduction; and company-school relationships could be established to create scholarships to workshops, to work-related camps, and/or to college, and to sponsor field trips; and to cause a lowering of the inner city unemployment rate.

Read more…


4063893387?profile=originalAt the annual City University Journalism School dinner, on Monday, Dean Baquet, the managing editor of the New York Times, was seated with Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., the paper’s publisher. At the time, I did not give a moment’s thought to why Jill Abramson, the paper’s executive editor, was not at their table. Then, at 2:36 P.M. on Wednesday, an announcement from the Times hit my e-mail, saying that Baquet would replace Abramson, less than three years after she was appointed the first woman in the top job. Baquet will be the first African-American to lead the Times.

Fellow-journalists and others scrambled to find out what had happened. Sulzberger had fired Abramson, and he did not try to hide that. In a speech to the newsroom on Wednesday afternoon, he said, “I chose to appoint a new leader of our newsroom because I believe that new leadership will improve some aspects …” Abramson chose not to attend the announcement, and not to pretend that she had volunteered to step down.

As with any such upheaval, there’s a history behind it. Several weeks ago, I’m told, Abramson discovered that her pay and her pension benefits as both executive editor and, before that, as managing editor were considerably less than the pay and pension benefits of Bill Keller, the male editor whom she replaced in both jobs. “She confronted the top brass,” one close associate said, and this may have fed into the management’s narrative that she was “pushy,” a characterization that, for many, has an inescapably gendered aspect. Sulzberger is known to believe that the Times, as a financially beleaguered newspaper, needed to retreat on some of its generous pay and pension benefits; Abramson, who spent much of her career at the Wall Street Journal, had been at the Times for far fewer years than Keller, which accounted for some of the pension disparity. Eileen Murphy, a spokeswoman for the Times, said that Jill Abramson’s total compensation as executive editor “was directly comparable to Bill Keller’s”—though it was not actually the same. I was also told by another friend of Abramson’s that the pay gap with Keller was only closed after she complained. But, to women at an institution that was once sued by its female employees for discriminatory practices, the question brings up ugly memories. Whether Abramson was right or wrong, both sides were left unhappy. A third associate told me, “She found out that a former deputy managing editor”—a man—“made more money than she did” while she was managing editor. “She had a lawyer make polite inquiries about the pay and pension disparities, which set them off.”

Sulzberger’s frustration with Abramson was growing. She had already clashed with the company’s C.E.O., Mark Thompson, over native advertising and the perceived intrusion of the business side into the newsroom. Publicly, Thompson and Abramson denied that there was any tension between them, as Sulzberger today declared that there was no church-state—that is, business-editorial—conflict at the Times. A politician who made such implausible claims might merit a front-page story in the Times. The two men and Abramson clearly did not get along.

A third issue surfaced, too: Abramson was pushing to hire a deputy managing editor to oversee the digital side of the Times. She believed that she had the support of Sulzberger and Thompson to recruit this deputy, and her supporters say that the plan was for the person in this position to report to Baquet. Baquet is a popular and respected figure in the newsroom, and he had appeared, for the most part, to get along with Abramson. (I was told, however, that, at a recent dinner with Sulzberger, Baquet said he found her hard to work with.) He is also someone whom Sulzberger passed over when he chose Abramson. But Baquet apparently felt that he hadn’t been consulted, and, according to two sources, expressed his concerns to Sulzberger. He had also reportedly been approached by Bloomberg about a job there. (Baquet has not yet responded to a request for comment; neither has Abramson.)

In a reflection of the fractious relationship that Baquet and others had with Abramson, the Times reported that Baquet, speaking to the newsroom after his appointment, “praised Ms. Abramson for teaching him ‘the value of great ambition’ and then added that John Carroll, whom he worked for at The Los Angeles Times, ‘told me that great editors can also be humane editors.’”

These issues seemed to congeal for Sulzberger and Thompson. The reason Sulzberger originally hesitated to appoint Abramson as executive editor was a worry about her sometimes brusque manner. As I wrote in my Profile of Abramson, others in the newsroom, including some women, had the same concern. But, although there are always complaints about the Times’ supposed “liberal” bias, or its preoccupation with certain stories, Abramson got high marks for the investigative stories that she championed. At a time when Bloomberg News pulled the plug on an investigation of corruption and the princelings in China, Abramson pushed the Times to do more, even after her reporters came under pressure in China. Even though she thought she was politely asking about the pay discrepancy and about the role of the business side, and that she had a green light from management to hire a deputy to Baquet, the decision to terminate her was made. Sulzberger met with her last Friday, and reportedly told her that it was time to make “a change.”

Read at:

Read more…

Big Business and Immigration Reform/Amnesty


I am writing to as many tea party leaders, activists and conservative leaders as I can find.  We need to find out why big business is fighting for amnesty and immigration reform.

As conservatives, we are working toward deregulation and free enterprise, and the businesses that will benefit the most from our efforts are opposing us.  It is illogical.  We need to engage big business directly to find out what is going on and to let them know what we are doing and can do to help them and to let them know what we need from them.

  1. What makes foreigners, and illegal aliens more attractive than Americans as employees? 
    1. It is government control of our education that has reduced the competence of American citizens and college grads.
    2. Once “illegals” are legalized, they will be subject to the same requirements that make Americans expensive, minimum wage, able to sue for discrimination, etc.
    3. The illegal alien community is only about 12 million people.
    4. Agriculture workers comprise less than 10% of the workforce and that is the hew and cry:


  1. Why does big business support big government when it cripples free enterprise, which the US Chamber of Commerce says it supports?
    1. How much and what types of corporate welfare do they receive?
    2. Is the elimination of competition by government overregulation more valuable to big business that free enterprise?


  1. Why aren’t deregulation and elimination of the EPA their highest priorities.  They should be full on-board with the tea parties.
  2. Is big government, the Republican Party, promising big business something in exchange for their assistance in defeating the Tea Parties and conservatism?


We need to engage the US Chamber of Commerce, our local Chambers of Commerce and Big Business.  Message me if you would like an Excel spreadsheet of the CEO’s of the Fortune 500 as of June of 2013.  While some of these people may have changed position most of them will still be accurate.

I recommend a two-pronged approach:


  1. Tea Party and Conservative leaders need to reach out to these businesses to engage them and work with them to find solutions to the problems.
  2. Phone calls, letters and emails directly to big businesses opposing amnesty and immigration reform from as many citizens as possible.  We need to flood their phone lines with opposition to this legislation.

If we can find out what businesses met with John Boehner in Tuesday’s close door meeting, we need to contact them asap.


Following are more links on big business and amnesty/immigration reform:


Read more…

Shackling Minds

Shackling Minds
Sylvia Bokor
As of February 3, an IRS proposal to further restrict non-profit organizations -- Reg-134417-13 -- received 21,330 comments.  The IRS will take comments until February 27, 2014.
Our population is a little over three hundred and ten million.  In view of that, twenty-one thousand comments is a pitiful showing.  It most certainly is not enough to demand thorough rejection of this extraordinary ruling.  I can only conclude that most Americans are unaware of the ruling, let alone know what it actually proposes.   So let us be clear.
The IRS Reg-134417-13 ruling proposes to forbid non-profits to hold voter registration drives, advertise, promote and engage in activities regarding any political incumbent or candidate.  It forbids fund-raisers for political incumbents and candidates, prohibits any kind of political activity including rallies, political mailings, teas, Meet & Greets, forums and gatherings of any kind that deal with political issues.  It forbids a non-profit to support or oppose, discuss or question those seeking political office.  It forbids the gathering of signatures on petitions with political content of any kind, including nominating petitions and the advice, suggestion or request that the electorate support or oppose House and Senate bills.
By extension, such drastic restrictions would be applicable at every level of government -- federal, state and local -- and to all political offices, agencies and departments that involves any kind of support or opposition to any kind of legislation whatsoever.  There is little to no difference between a 501c(3) and a 501c(4).  Applied to one, you can bet the ruling will soon be applied to the other.
No issue is as threatening to our freedom and well being as this ruling.  Even gun laws are of less importance.   For instance, if the IRS can dictate to us who we can talk to and about what, we've no legal way to talk to any candidate or incumbent, nor anyone else about supporting or opposing gun laws -- or any other "political" issue.
It is a certainty that once made into law, politicians and bureaucrats will rush to interpret "political" to mean anything they want it to mean.  That means any subject they choose will be included in "political issues."
Make no mistake, this ruling is not about non-profits.  It's about the freedom to communicate ideas and preferences -- i.e., your values -- to anyone about anything. What happens when under the cover of "political issues" we are forbidden to talk to those who propose such laws?   You know the answer.
This ruling constitutes a danger to far more of us than the membership of non-profits. It is not a simple violation of the First Amendment.  It is a proposal to do away with the First Amendment entirely and in effect institutionalize censorship.
Censorship is the most basically sweeping means of tyranny.  Once imposed, your rights are obliterated, your life is no longer yours.
You say, "But it's aimed only at non-profits!"  Is it?
We all know that churches are presently prohibited from discussing politics from the pulpit.  We know that many business and military organizations are presently frightened to speak out on political matters for fear of reprisal, the least of which is losing their non-profit status.  We all know that the IRS deliberately delayed applications for non-profit status to certain organizations that the federal government  -- i.e., politicians and bureaucrats -- looks upon with a jaundiced eye.
Certainly, we all know that Harry Reid has repeatedly condemned "Tea Party Republicans," and that many in Congress and the media have joined the chorus. We all know that Tea Parties are non-profits.  And some of us know individuals who are so fearful of being associated with Tea Parties that they seem mentally paralyzed, unable to grasp facts.  Such paralysis is the result of accepting bureaucrats' edicts as if they were an unavoidable, inevitable part of reality -- like gravity -- not to be argued about, criticized, rejected or opposed.
All of this has escalated into a generalized, widespread feeling so that now the IRS feels no concern in proposing such a ruling as IRS Reg-134417-13.  Does anyone think the IRS will stop there? 
Americans should speak out against this unconscionable attack on our right to discuss, agree or disagree about political matters.  They should access!submitComment;D=IRS-2013-0038-0001 and comment opposing the IRS Reg-134417-13 ruling.  They should contact everyone they know inside and outside their state, asking them to comment as well.
If you doubt the scope and fundamental danger of this IRS ruling, consider the following: A government that has the legal authority to forbid what citizens may or may not talk about, is a government that has the legal authority to shackle your mind, your ideas.  Shackling thought and discussion means the full "transformation" of our Republic into a totalitarian dictatorship.
It can't happen here?  Think again.  I'm asking every American to access!submitComment;D=IRS-2013-0038-0001
and make a comment opposing the IRS Reg-134417-13 ruling.  I'm asking every American to then write their Congressional Representative about this attack on our right to freedom of speech.
Thank you,
Sylvia Bokor
Read more…




Hope is in your hands!    Flood the country with your truth, writings, and wisdom however great or trivial you may think they are.   You’re free to use anything I write or say to do it, just challenge it & make sure it’s right.    There is very little truth in anything federal government does or reports!    One day illegal aliens cost $116 billion & the next it’s $402 billion.  Isn’t 11million aliens replacing citizens at government’s $42,500 wage $468 billion down the toilet... FOR THAT SINGLE ITEM?   Doesn’t 23 million citizens losing their average $43,500 wage sound like $1 trillion of inexcusable misery caused by demonic tyrants hell bent on destroying America?   Don’t let them hide!   It’s treason!   Officials aiding and abetting the enemy need never sleep, not knowing they will be publicly held accountable to the full extent of Constitution and law, especially those sworn to public office!

Here’s another ugly side of alien invaders and slave traders bankrupting legitimate taxpaying US businesses!    They put perhaps 23 million citizens in the street with no job, while simultaneously undermining wages to the point where working citizens are supporting almost 50 million “food stamp” citizens and aliens who can’t afford food & shelter!   All walks of life are in this snake pit, especially democrats!

Criminal slave labor destroys competition, society, and government revenue!

A $20/hr wage costs employers about $26.67/hr. (+1/3 fica/med-wk/comp-uc/comp-ins-hol-vac-etc)
Worker net of tax takes home about $16 cash! (80% inc. tax-fica-etc.)
By paying $16 cash, no tax etc, you can save $10.67 or underbid legitimate contractors up to 40%!
A worker harboring criminal "alien straw boss contractor", can pay $8 & save $18.67 or underbid 70%!


Criminal activity never benefits anyone except criminals who take all but enough to corrupt!    This crime is as mindboggling and complex as each unique activity of 11 to 30 million criminal aliens, every day!   It’s also as simple to prosecute as dropping the numbers into any given case at any given time!


The illustration defines the parameters and scope of 11 to 30 million illegal alien workers where wages, taxes, requirements, are reasonable average estimates!   A 2000hr/yr (52wks=2080) says $10/hr is $20,000 each & $19/hr is $38,000/yr/ea!    Thus the lowest value of 11million workers is $220 billion/yr & the highest of 30 million is $722 billion.  Criminals gain $220 to $722 billion for their criminal activity!


It is a criminal enterprise that destroys independent taxpaying competitive businesses, which will trigger profoundly more wealth destruction, chaos, and moral breakdown of our society!    That process is above and beyond enabling the $1 to $3 trillion yearly mass looting of citizen wealth by alien invaders and stealth within government noted elsewhere!


The scope is trillions, not pennies, thousands, or even millions!   It’s survival of the Constitution and freedom or tyranny!    The legislative choice must be fight for freedom NOW or face treason for literally trillions of reasons.   The executive-legislative-judicial officers can correct this TOMORROW!   Let the first domino fall and the rest will follow!


Our government, unions, and chambers of commerce sponsor SLAVE LABOR and chaos!


Read more…

By Gregg Houlden

We have a huge problem with youth unemployment and as I leave the UK today after a long 2 months. I wanted to share this great idea we should borrow from the Brits. It's not ground shaking innovation its eminently sensible pragmatic politics. Not every young person is cut out for college. Yet we shouldn't at that point write them off for a life of minimum wage mediocrity.

Vocational training is in many ways far better and produces the skilled workers industry scream out for. Some organizations do already provide apprenticeships yet I think we as a party should support national programs the support and promote companies to introduce apprenticeships. In the UK they have a well thought out program that partners community colleges, the government and employers to deliver well rounded programs that take youngsters aged 16 to 19 from high school (youngsters leave school at 16 in the UK btw).

The programs mix classroom further education with on the job training. The government supports the employers by providing partial funding towards the youngsters wages, money they would normally pay anyway via welfare. For business its a win win concept.  A new report from the Center for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) has found the average apprenticeship completer increases business productivity by £214 per week leading to increased profits, lower prices, better products and higher wages.

This figure rockets to £414 for engineering apprentices and £401 a week for construction and planning trainees.

And the number of annual apprenticeship completions is forecast to rise across all sectors of the economy over the coming decade, growing from an annual 260,000 in 2012/13 to 480,000 by 2021/22 - meaning the total amount contributed to the economy by 2022 will be £4.2 billion.

Charles Davis, head of macroeconomics at the CEBR said ahead of the report: "Raising the skills of the UK's workforce translates into improved UK competitiveness in a challenging post-financial crisis environment. This is a vital part of re-balancing the UK economy and raising the chances of sustained export-led growth."

Despite the evidence, many small employers were struggling to get the message, according to David Way, chief executive of the National Apprenticeship Service.

The Service is working with Barclays (a Major British Bank) and charities Tomorrow's People and The Prince's Trust (A very good idea set up by Prince Charles) , as well as Route 2 training, to introduce the Bridges To Work scheme, designed to help 10,000 young people into work in the coming years. 

Through Bridges Into Work, businesses across England will be able to receive additional free support to take on an apprentice, whilst local Barclays Business Managers will help match up suitable apprentices and businesses in their area.

Way said: "I regularly speak to employers who tell me about the benefits that Apprenticeships bring to their business. Apprentices not only increase productivity but also bring creativity and dynamism into the workplace; the very best examples of which are being showcased in this year’s National Apprenticeship Week.

"We need to get this evidence across, particularly to small employers. The Bridges Into Work Programme will help us to do this, by being able to reach many more small businesses who would benefit from taking on an apprentice."

I also see a similar opportunity to offer welfare recipients still of working age this style of back to work scheme. What do you think?

Read more…

Why is it unethical to comply with the law? That is precisely what anyone who claims a company or the “rich” is immoral if it legally minimizes its tax is saying. This also rings true for the 24% who pay 87% of our Federal Taxes , as universally they are net investors in the economy.

First of all, what place does morality have in this? There are some universally agreed moral principles – do not kill is pretty widely accepted – but does this really fall into the same category? Is it right, for example, to have a friend round to dinner rather than send some money to feed the hungry? Some will say one thing, some another. Universal moral principles are of the greatest importance, but are not a guide to every detail of life.

And in practical terms, companies actually do not bear the burden of a tax. Companies are not individuals. They are organizations designed to produce and supply things. They employ people, machinery, intellectual property, capital, raw materials, and so on, and combine them to produce things for people. Companies are intermediaries.

If a company has to pay as tax some of the money it makes from selling its output, that leaves it with less to distribute. So it pays less to shareholders, employs fewer workers, and buys less in the way of raw materials. And of course it makes and sells fewer goods. In other words, some of the profits may be handed over by the company, but the burden is borne by the company's shareholders, employees, suppliers, and customers.

Note too, that much tax is paid in consequence of the activities of companies; income tax, capital gains tax and, in many countries, sales tax etc. That is one of the reasons governments try to produce tax regimes designed to attract businesses. Those who complain about tax avoidance by companies should see that the more tax a company avoids, the more tax its owners and employees will pay. Criticizing corporations for avoiding tax is actually criticizing them for doing what governments want. Governments all round the world compete to provide favorable tax regimes for business. They accept the phenomenon of legitimate tax avoidance, taking advantage of the tendency in, for example, efforts to incentivize pension saving, or industrial development in particular regions. Obama and his socialist czars are making the US very unattractive. Only this week my Firm and I had serious offers from Singapore and Australia to set up  primary offices and transfer our capital.  This is fair play really they see Obama making life uncomfortable for the investment community and they see an opportunity to boost their own economy by Billions of Dollars.

Governments also engage in tax competition to attract firms. They do that to bring jobs, investment, and innovation to their countries, with all the benefits that can spill over from those to the rest of the economy. Companies follow such tax incentives because if they can conduct their business with decisions unaffected by tax paid by the business, then they can operate as efficiently as they can and let the taxes on the outcome be paid by the individuals who actually benefit from that outcome – the shareholders, employees, and suppliers.

When companies do what is legal to minimize the taxes they pay, they are actually doing what governments want them to – they are responding to incentives. If governments complain about this, it may be because the structure of the business is not what they thought or because they have made taxes so complicated that there are numerous ways to avoid them. Governments may want money in difficult times, but companies can use it too, to create jobs.

Obama "If you want different results, you have to have a different set of rules."

In thinking about these rules, politicians, and others concerned about the taxes companies pay, should remember the advice of two politicians of earlier generations. When he was UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, under the tremendous Lady Thatcher, Nigel Lawson said that taxes should be "low, simple, and compulsory". Tax competition helps keep taxes low. If politicians want taxes to yield what they expect – want them to be compulsory – they should keep them simple, not make them so complex that the result is a surprise. And on morality they might be better to "leave morality to the church and people’s belief in god".

Read more…

The current White House occupant, in a calculated, targeted attack against Republican rival Mitt Romney, attempted to dismiss a key Romney rationale for his presidential candidacy by saying: "When you're 4063554347?profile=originalpresident, as opposed to the head of a private equity firm, then your job is not simply to maximize profits. Your job is to figure out how everybody in the country has a fair shot."

It is quite obvious that occupy Oval Office is shockingly unfamiliar with the concept that jobs are downstream from profits, not the other way around. With the exception of the original staff, which is hired to launch a company via startup capital (notice that here too, private capital comes before hiring), businesses only become financially capable of hiring more workers after they have made profits. Being profitable gives them the capital needed to pay for expansion, which then creates the need to hire additional employees. This is especially true of small businesses, most of which are decidedly not over funded with start-up capital.

According to "progressives", the rich are somehow preventing the middle class from having a fair shot because the rich are depriving the middle class by not paying "their fair share" of taxes. The "progressive" concept of the middle class having a fair shot is stealing money from those who have earned it through initiative, hard work, risk and sacrifice within the free market capitalist system through "progressive" taxation and use that money, acquired through legal extortion, to hire unionized government sector workers. Workers who will not only be paid more than their counterparts who are doing the same job in the private sector, but who will enjoy Cadillac healthcare and pension benefits provided to them by a taxpayer 4063561351?profile=originalfunded job from which, thanks to union demands, being fired will be a virtual impossibility.

Still wonder why "progressives" love government sector unions?

Such an arrangement is perfectly suited to "progressives", who are huge proponents of centrally planned big government. Workers dependent upon government for their livelihood are reliably more likely to re-elect big government candidates. They are also far more likely to pay little concern to how much the rich are taxed, since the taxes of unionized government workers won’t be affected.  That is, if they’re even required to pay taxes. Their big government big brothers take care of them.

Winston Smith, where are you?

Of course, the "they don’t pay their fair share" rhetoric is a complete sham, a straw-man argument. Truth be known, the "they don't pay their fair share" rhetoric is a bold faced lie. The top 10% earners in America pay 70% of the income taxes while 47% of Americans pay no income tax. They pay zero.

How much of a tax on the rich would be enough to satisfy "progressives"? How much of someone else's money does the Oval Office need to take for the middle class to have "a fair shot"? The 100% rate Barrack Obama Sr. sought to impose on Kenya’s rich after he seized power?

Can you say redistributive dreams from my Marxist father?

This clearly demonstrates how clueless Barrack Hussein Obama is about the way America was designed by its Founding Fathers. Having a fair shot in America has never been about big government stealing from the rich to finance hiring unionized government sector workers.

4063569420?profile=originalHaving a fair shot has always been about a constitutionally limited government not interfering with the private sector free market’s ability to afford equal opportunity to everyone, regardless of their starting point in life. In America, government’s job is not to "take care of us". In America, a centrally planned big government can never replace the initiative, creativity, hard work, sacrifice, risk, and reward of free, private Citizens working to provide for their own needs through the pursuit of happiness within the private sector.

If it ever does, America will have ceased to exist.

Instead of digging the United States into an ever-deepening hole by reducing available free market capital through higher tax rates, how about creating some certainty for investors by making permanent changes to America’s needlessly complicated tax code? How about creating a simplified tax code that provides incentives for investment? How about creating a tax code that’s doesn’t punish small businesses by forcing them  each year to divert limited precious capital to pay the cost of hiring accountants and attorneys to decipher an ever "evolving", increasingly complicated tax code? How about creating an economic environment where the rich, middle class and poor alike all feel it’s worth the risk to invest in a start-up business? Thanks to existing, unnecessarily high "progressive" tax rates and expanding, restrictive, needlessly expensive regulatory oppression, starting up a new business today is practically impossible.

Better still, how about "progressives" going back to school to learn what America is really all about? In the meantime, they should leave running America to Americans.

Obama has had four years.  He got his fair shot, and he blew it.

After 100 years of progressively expanding government intrusion into the God given Rights and Liberties of free people, it is now time to forever close the book on the failed "progressive" experiment.

Read more…

Dear Follow American,

Please allow me to introduce myself. I am Chief of Surgery at one of the largest hospitals in Las Vegas and lucky enough to be considered a small business owner. I am by no means independently wealthy, nor have any desire to pad a Swiss bank account on the back of anyone, even "the middle-class".

What I am is "the American Dream!" I came from a middle-class family. My father was an electrician and part owner of a motorcycle store. He worked nights and I rarely saw him come home before 8:00 pm. My mother worked as a nurse and even worked weekends. I went to public school. And yes President Obama, the government may have helped me get to the mountain, but what you forgot is, I Climbed it! I took out loans, and my grandparents sacrificed a portion of their limited savings to help me get through college. Following college I attended medical school, residency, and fellowship. And now, nine years later, I am Chief of Surgery.

Taking care of humans is what I have dedicated my life to. For me, there is nothing more rewarding than watching a person walk without pain and suffering. My dream did not involve becoming rich at the expense of hurting others financially. The American dream is about "making it!" It doesn't matter if you make it as a plumber, a pipe fitter, a gardener, or a rocket scientist.

I was taught greatness comes from elevating others around you. As a physician I feel it is my responsibility to pass my knowledge to young medical students in hopes that they will become even better than myself. When President Obama looks through my television and states that I, a small business owner, wants to fill a Swiss bank account instead of helping my community I realize how out to touch and misguided he it. Why would I want my community to have such a high unemployment rate? Why would I want people in my community to suffer? These are my neighbors, my friends, and my children's teachers.

I want to help and I have a solid plan but I need your help. I call it the "Nevins Small Business Pledge." I pledge if Mitt Romney gets elected, the day he gets sworn in, I will immediately hire a new employee. I am convinced that "trickle-down" economics works. Although I am a small business with a small office staff that is directly part of my overhead, I will be able to and WILL hire a new employee due to the tax savings I will receive.

With your help we can make this concept go viral. I predict within the next 60 days we can obtain a commitment for 100,000 plus new jobs the day Romney gets elected! This would first prove small business owners are not the evil, self-indulgent, aristocrats that the liberal world portrays us. Secondly, this would create a guaranteed number of new jobs. Third, this would prove, in a tangible way to undecided independents that trickle-down economics and private sector ingenuity is what makes America thrive and prosper.

I am presently building the web site where people can pledge to create a new job the day Romney takes office. The website is up and can be seen but won't be fully running until Monday or Tuesday. The website not only shows the jobs that will be available but also the estimated annual economic effect, as well as over President Romney's four years.

In conclusion, as a real small business owner, not the factious demagogue that Obama has created, want my community to thrive and will use my tax breaks to help when Romney gets elected. I ask that all small business owners join me on this crusade and take the Nevins Small Business Pledge!

I appreciate your time. I am glad that I was at least given the opportunity to express myself. If you can help me in anyway please contact me @702-429-0691 or


Russell Nevins, M.D.
Chief of Surgery
Spring Valley Medical Center
Las Vegas, NV

Read more…

Most congressional observers believe Congress will address the issue of empowering states to collect sales tax on the purchases of goods bought on the Internet.  The issue is not typical of other tax issues as it finds conservatives like Steve King (R-Iowa), Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell and others supporting the states ability to collect their sales taxes for online purchases.  A strong argument can be made that they have embraced the conservative position.


Make no mistake about it; there is deep division about this issue.  Mom-and-pop small businesses hate the disparity that was created when the Supreme Court ruled that businesses needed a "nexus" within a state for sales taxes to be collected.  That ruling allowed companies like Amazon to avoid sales taxes while small business are forced to collect them.  They argue that the decision, especially in a poor economy, creates economic incentives that hurt their bottom line.  Why should consumers shop in more expensive local stores when shopping online creates built-in no sales tax savings?

Others argue that allowing states to collect sales taxes for Internet purchases is tantamount to a tax increase.  As opponents have noted, America's budget problems are not revenue problems but spending problems.  Government's bring in enough revenue but can't get their spending in control. 

There is tacit acknowledgement of this argument as many supporters of the "Marketplace Equity Act" are governors who are struggling to balance their state budgets.  Billions of dollars in sales are made every year online that have escaped the reaches of the state tax collectors. 

But there is a bigger issue at stake -- federalism.

Allowing online merchants to charge, collect and remit sales taxes based on their physical location would level the playing field with Main Street small businesses and, perhaps most importantly, restore federalism to the issue.  The government should treat merchants equally.  It should not be making it harder for small businesses to compete.  In addition, the federal government should not bar states from enforcing their laws as long as they don't interfere with interstate commerce.

In some ways this is a complicated issue.  But in others it's clear that fairness and federalism should play a role in the final deliberations.   

Read more…

America Needs a New Sheriff

4063562988?profile=originalThe American labor market showed few signs of new life in the latest jobs report.   First time filings for unemployment benefits rose again last week to a one-month high.  Claims rose for a second week, by 4,000 for the period ended Aug. 18.  After economists had predicted 365,000 new claims, the number climbed to 372,000.

The administration continues to cite the European debt crisis and economic slowdowns in Asia as deterrents to investment.

It is far easier to blame the global economy than to admit that this administration’s energy policies are killing jobs in America.  That this administration poked their thumbs into the eyes of millions of unemployed Americans when they laughed about “shovel-ready” projects not being as “shovel-ready” as advertised.  It is not the least bit funny to Americans when they discover that this administration does not know what they are doing, especially after they spent trillions of taxpayer dollars on plans that did not work and redistributed hundreds of billions of the taxpayer’s wealth to rich “progressive” bundlers for the administration’s campaign machine.

Across the country, Americans have had enough of this administration’s policies, starting with those that kill jobs; like the healthcare reform law that levies huge tax hikes on all Americans and imposes additional 4063563020?profile=originalburdens on businesses.  Americans are done with the policies that are killing America’s energy industry, like stifling EPA regulations that make it impossible to build new petroleum refineries or use coal powered energy.  Americans can no longer tolerate a lack of policy; a lack that precludes any hope for recovery in the housing market.  Many small businesses will find it difficult if not impossible to exist, much less expand and hire while banking regulations imposed during this administration make it virtually impossible for banks to loan them money.

Why does America continue to spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on foreign energy rather than developing the abundant energy in its own country? Why not keep those hundreds of billions of dollars at home in its own sluggish, cash strapped economy?

4063562950?profile=originalAt a time when tens of millions of Americans are struggling to find work and its economy is starving for liquid capital, why does this administration refuse to take advantage of America’s wealth of natural resources? Why does this administration continue to prevent drilling for oil and natural gas or mining for coal? Why not put Americans back to work building refineries and power plants? Why not have Americans delivering gas, coal and natural gas to American consumers?

How many peripheral jobs will be created by that process?

For every new oil well, power plant, refinery or mine there will be new roads built, followed by restaurants, stores, housing, schools and places of worship. All generated by the only force capable of powering America’s economic recovery: the private sector.

The key to economic recovery in America is a shift in policy.  The only way for that shift to happen is to alter the governing philosophy.  For that alteration to take place, America must elect a new sheriff and new deputies.

Read more…

The Least Productive Congress…Why?

The institutionalized “progressive” left is at it again.  Consider this headline published by Yahoo News on behalf of Susan Davis, USA Today and ABC OTUS News:

“Congress could be least productive since 1947”

Three of the first four paragraphs of this “headline news” story focus on attacking the Republican majority 4063556671?profile=originalin the House of Representatives for the recent lack of legislative success.  This is obviously typical of the “progressive” Party Pravda, which never misses an opportunity to parrot messages being dictated by the George Soros funded Media Matters via Valerie Jarrett and the White House.

Statistics are being manipulated and misrepresented by partisan hacks posing as journalists: “Just 61 bills have become law to date in 2012 out of 3,914 bills that have been introduced by lawmakers, or less than 2 percent of all proposed laws,” or “In 2011, after Republicans took control of the U.S. House, Congress passed just 90 bills into law.

It might be statistically true that “Congress is on pace to make history with the least productive legislative year in the post-World War II era,” but to so strongly insinuate that this is the fault of the House Republican majority, as Davis, USA Today, ABC News and Yahoo News do is a lie.  Utter fabrication…pure unadulterated fiction.

Where the article fails completely (that is if you are seeking factual information rather than “progressive” propaganda) is in the “reporting” of why those numbers are so abysmal.

4063556700?profile=originalThe United States Senate, under the extreme, partisan, rigidly ideological, failed “leadership” of “progressive” Democrat Harry Reid, has blocked, obstructed, ignored or refused to allow a majority of House passed bills to even come to a vote in the U.S. Senate.

How is any bill passed by the House ever to become law if it is completely blocked from discussion or vote in the Senate?

The reason so many people believe the House is to blame for this situation is the lies spread by institutionalized “progressive” shills like Yahoo News, Susan Davis, USA Today, ABC OTUS News and their ilk.

Should the 112th Congress come to be “defined by partisan divisions and legislative failures”, the blame will rest squarely at the slumping, rounded shoulders of Reid and his “progressive” co-conspirator currently occupying the Oval Office.  The “progressive” Democratic Senate majority has not even passed a budget in three years.  They even voted down the one that came from the Oval Office 97-0.

This is a clear dereliction of duty by the “progressive” Democratic Party.  Thanks to the utter failure of their “progressive” policies, the one and only card left for them to play is using Saul Alinsky style smear tactics against the right attempting to blame the right for problems caused by the left.  This has been the modus operandi of “progressives” since they seized control of the Democratic Party.

The most egregious of lies propagated by the institutionalized “progressive” left is the one put forth by Nancy Pelosi during the TARP debate.  On September 28, 2008 Pelosi placed the blame for the economic4063556736?profile=original collapse entirely on George W. Bush and failed Republican economic policies.

The 2008 financial collapse was a direct result of failed “progressive” social engineering in the U.S. housing market.  For decades the U.S. has had nothing remotely resembling a free market in residential real estate.  Instead, “progressive” big government created monstrosities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac controlled over half of all U.S. mortgages.  For twenty years, Conservatives warned about the systemic risk Fannie and Freddie posed to the financial system but they were constantly thwarted by the left.  To this very day, the institutionalized “progressive” left denies the essential part Fannie and Freddie played in creating the housing bubble and causing the financial crisis.

Even at the height of the housing bubble, as the extent of the damage was being revealed, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were still seeking to increase Fannie and Freddie’s role in a market already fettered by “progressive” big government interference.   On behalf of a well-heeled constituency in her congressional district, the liar Nancy Pelosi continued insisting Fannie and Freddie keep the housing bubble going, pushing for their insurance limits to be increased from $417,000 to $700,000 per loan.

Whether in the area of journalism or politics, once the facts are in members of the institutionalized “progressive” left prove themselves to be nothing more than bold faced, willfully deceitful psychopaths unfit to serve in the public arena.

Read more…

by: Trent Derr - American Exceptionalism


The other day on a Southwest Airlines flight back to Houston, I saw him, Cooter. He was one big dude, and he was making his way down the aisle of the plane carrying his duffel bag and his hardhat. As usual, his hardhat was decorated with stickers from most of the plants where he had worked. Since Cooter does contract work, he had a lot of stickers! The row I was in was full. It just so happened that Cooter’s traveling companion, Bubba, was seated in the window seat of my row. So Cooter put his carry-on in the overhead and sat in the row behind me.


Ok, I didn’t really know if his name was actually Cooter, but I know a lot of Cooters. Cooter is a slang name for a group of working people across the United States. Cooter builds cars in Tennessee, raises cattle in Kansas and installs cat crackers in refineries in Texas. Cooter is good at what he does. He takes pride in his work, his family and his yard. You wouldn’t want to make Cooter mad if you were another man. However, he loves babies and little kids.


Cooter voted for Carter, Reagan, Clinton and George W Bush (the first time). He didn’t vote at all in the 2008 election because he was disgusted with the candidates. Cooter often chooses not to vote unless something has him fired up. He can get fired up about anything that he thinks impacts his family.    Continue...
Read more…



Americans Now Learning Real History,

Might NOT Have to Repeat Ill-Effects

A recent Rasmussen Reports Survey seems to show that Americans are starting to understand that the country was NOT rescued from the Great Depression by government spending and government policies (a.k.a. interference in the free markets), but rather that the government actually cost the nation millions of  jobs, intensified a normal recession with its increased spending, creating and lengthening the depression and eventually turning it into the “Great Depression.” The lesson, however, is not necessarily transferring into a greater understanding of today’s economics . . . .


According to the Rasmussen survey, 43% now say that government policy mistakes created the Great Depression of the ‘30s; while only 26% disagree and 31% say they are unsure. Americans, today however, are still greatly confused about the cause of the financial meltdown which, they think, began about October, 2007. More on that later . . . .

Despite the Rasmussen poll results, thanks to two and a half generations of revisionist history ,today far too many Americans still believe that Herbert Hoover was  a) a conservative rather than a progressive  b) that greedy Wall Street created the Great Depression c) that Hoover’s administration spent almost nothing fighting the economic problems d) that government spending can create jobs in the private sector e) that in 1932 Franklin Delano Roosevelt campaigned for president against Hoover’s “conservativism” f) that FDR did virtually everything entirely different than Hoover and g) that FDR saved the country from the Great Depression. Let’s quickly put those lies to rest before dealing with today’s situation, eh?

Since progressivism (we must ‘progress’ beyond the out-dated and seriously flawed U.S. Constitution if we are ever to make ‘progress’ toward an earthly socialist or even Marxist Utopia) first became a serious undercurrent in American Politics in the 1890’s only once in the following 120 years has a serious economic downturn been handled by pure conservative restraint . . . and no, Ronald Reagan was NOT president when that happened (Reagan actually increased government spending while cutting taxes extra-severely and created some whopping deficits in the process of also creating twenty million jobs). 

Teddy Roosevelt was our first progressive president. You’ll remember that his “Bull Moose Party” was actually a third party officially known as, wait for it:  the “Progressive Party.” Teddy certainly had done a lot of questionable and presumably out-and-out unconstitutional things earlier when he was a Republican president, luckily most of them worked out pretty well for the nation.  Perhaps a Progressive president once every century or so wouldn’t be a bad thing, but certainly no more often?

Our first ultra-progressive president, Woodrow Wilson, however, was another story. Besides giving us the Federal Reserve Banking system and the income tax (still called today: “progressive” income tax), Wilson was a great propagandist who ran for a second term under the slogan “He kept us out of War” but within a month after his March, 1916 inauguration he deliberately and unnecessarily thrust us into World War I. He was the first truly big-spending president the country had ever known . . . way, way beyond the costs of the war. When his term was winding down, we were in a serious recession much worse than the recession sparked by the 1929 collapse. When he left office in March, 1921 the country was in a full-fledged depression.Curiously, those events are generally overlooked by history. People in the know, however, speak of “The Invisible Depression” or of the “Not-so-Great Depression.” Why was the Invisible Depression so invisible we don’t even know about it today?

            Two things: 1) revisionist progressive historians have done everything possible to hide this quite remarkable set of events and keep us from comparing it to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s approach while creating an enormous myth of FDR as a savior and 2) these policies worked out as the launching pad for the World’s most expansive decade in free market history and gets lost in the shuffle while everyone writes books and novels and treatises about the “Roaring ‘20’s” instead. What actually happened was this:

            Warren G. Harding and his vice president, Calvin Coolidge took office in March, 1921 with a full-fledged economic contraction underway. The full story is available from the Cato Institute here:

but let’s sum it up briefly.  Unemployment stood 150% higher than it was a year earlier; and GDP was only 76% of 1920 levels. Harding immediately cut government spending 49%; taxes 48%; and reduced government debt 30%.   Unlike the business-bashing that Wilson, FDR, LBJ (Lyndon Johnson) and Obama are infamous for, the Harding administration did everything it could to get government out of business’ way.   In fifteen months the country was humming again and the Invisible Depression was over. When Harding died, VP, Calvin Coolidge continued the same policies saying “the business of America is business.” 

Where did Herbert Hoover come from? Hoover was a highly respected humanitarian with an engineering background that Harding installed as his Secretary of Commerce to appease certain Eastern Republican interests.  Under both Harding and Coolidge was very ineffective. Hoover promoted government intervention under the rubric "economic modernization" and tried to get Harding to dole out unemployment benefits to ease the pain of the high 1921 joblessness. Through the next eight years both presidents Harding and Coolidge largely ignored Hoover. 

Hoover was, in short a progressive . . .   Some people are aware of that but here’s what most don’t know. At the end of World War II, Hoover’s humanitarianism including involvement in a program akin to the Marshall Program after World War II which benefitted defeated Germany and the Bolsheviks in Russia. Hoover was so influential and well respected that the New York Times named him “One of the ten most important living Americans. Woodrow Wilson considered Hoover “my ideal successor,” Democratic leaders looked upon Hoover as a strong presidential candidate and FDR said, “There could be none finer.”    Hoover, who up to then was a-political, said that because of his childhood memories, he had no interest in being a Democrat (supposedly the only Democrat in his home city was “the town drunk) and ignored Democratic overtures.   Hoover decided he’d become a Republican and announced his candidacy for president but couldn’t get much Republican support although he did finish 2nd in the 1920 California Primary.   Despite the gridlock at the RNC Convention that year, Hoover’s name was never seriously discussed and Harding became a popular compromise candidate and he won the nomination on the 10th ballot.

After the 1920 Republican -- to appease influential Republicans on both coasts -- Harding installed Hoover as his Secretary of Commerce. Hoover’s only real contributions during his stint as Commerce Secretary were some important traffic safety (embracing motor vehicle standards, rules of the road, and urban traffic control) innovations. Nevertheless, he sought to expand the Commerce Secretary domain in every possible way. He became known for trying to take over parts of other cabinets so much so that the joke was that Hoover was "the Secretary of Commerce... and Under-Secretary of Everything Else” and Coolidge called him “Wonder-boy.” 

            After the combined Harding-Coolidge administration ended in 1928, Hoover again ran for president. As soon as he was elected in 1928, he set about making the government much bigger. His biggest moves began right after his inauguration and including implementing a wide series of farm programs and a much-criticized huge tariff increase.   A self-described “Progressive” and “Reformer,” Hoover saw the presidency as a vehicle for improving the conditions of all Americans by regulation and by getting government involved encouraging of volunteerism. Long before entering politics, he had denounced laissez-faire thinking.  As Commerce Secretary, he had taken an active pro-regulation stance. As President, he helped push expensive and interventionist tariff and farm subsidy bills through Congress. Hoover also increased taxes and increased the federal budget 50% (for comparison Barack Obama so far has only increased the budget 41%). It’s obvious that the real Hoover was nothing like the do-nothing Hoover that Progressive historians have insisted he was.  

Just as they did back then, the left (the progressives of today’s  Democratic Party) is now seeking to blame the current economic crisis on a conspiracy that is an inversion of the actual facts. By the way, back in 1932 FDR and his first VP-to-be called Hoover a “socialist” and promised to use Harding’s methods to regain prosperity . . . that is FDR promised to pay down debt; slash taxes; and slash government spending. Instead he actually raised the budget 100% above Hoover’s last budget; confiscated the nation’s gold and in other ways undermined the recovery so badly that only the nation’s entry into World War II nine years later got us out of the depression.

Most Americans have no idea about the facts you’ve just read and their opinions about government’s ability to create jobs in the private sector by increased spending are largely based upon the “Savior myth” of FDR as the man who heroically saved us from the Great Depression. 

When it comes to today’s problems and today’s myths the infamous Obama-car-in-the-ditch myth (blaming all our woes on conservatives and the free markets) tops them all.   The truth, however, is:

George W. Bush saw that ACORN, the progressives, big spenders, and Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were deliberately pushing the car (our economy) toward a 500-foot cliff. He jumped into the front seat, grabbed the steering wheel and slammed on the brakes . . . guiding it into the nearest friendly ditch.        
To prove this surprising assertion for yourself: you’ll need a little education:
           That our current president was an ACORN lawyer and community organizer deliberately bankrupting our country as part of Cloward-Piven Strategy using Jimmy Carter’s 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA ’77) who has the gall to repeatedly tell the car-in-the-ditch story is one of the most shocking hypocrisies imaginable.

The fact that Frances Fox Piven is today still openly calling for bloody revolution and urging the poor and unemployed to “use their anger” and begin the Marxist “revolution” while the lame-stream, mainstream media is accusing the TEA Party of hate-mongering and ignoring Piven is the greatest possible journalistic malfeasance.

The fact that George W. Bush’s administration recognized the problem as early as January, 2005 and sought to repeal the horrific CRA ’77 laws but the vote was defeated. And that Bush made at least 19 separate speeches on the matter and continued to strive for elimination of CRA ’77 right up until finally in July, 2007 (30 months later) when a much weaker law was passed has not been allowed as part of the history of the meltdown even though Obama’s Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner in August, 2010 credited Bush with preventing an absolute collapse of our financial system and with preventing total disintegration of the housing market again reflects poorly on the so-called journalistic “profession.” The “watchdogs of the Republic” have turned on us . . . this is the biggest story of the last half of the 20th and of the first decade of the 21st Century and naturally, it’ll never be reported by the present generation of mainstream journalists . . . .


Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,



Read more…

“Do-Over King” Barack Obama Profits

from Media-Induced Mental Fog among Voters


            Of all the endearing movies featuring and flaunting quirky leading man Bill Murray, two are especially memorable. In the one produced first, he eschewed straight comedy for serious dramatics and,  thanks to some excellent script writing, Murray and Catherine Hicks, James Keach and Theresa Russell easily outdid the sensational 1946 quartet of Tyrone Power, Gene Tierney, John Payne and Anne Baxter from the beloved silver screen classic version of The Razor’s Edge. Along the way, the theme from author W. Somerset Maugham’s novel becomes even more phenomenally stark and yet somehow eternally light-hearted and much, much clearer (even though the character “Maugham” himself was written completely out of Murray’s 1984 version). As strong as Murray is in The Razor’s Edge,however, the unforgettable dramatic/comedy vehicle for which Murray will be eternally toasted is 1993’s Groundhog Day . . . .

            This more than bizarre (surreal?) fantasy in which a misanthropic, self-important weatherman Phil Connors relives the same day, February 2nd (the single day of the year he most despises; in the place he most despises Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania; during the event he most despises: Groundhog Day Festivities), over and over and over again without hope for reprieve . . . has been embraced by the Buddhist fate and has even entered American slang lexicon as a shorthand term for any miserable, seemingly inescapable recurring fact of life.


"A thousand people freezing their butts off, waiting to worship a rat," Weatherman Connors gripes.


            The American Buddhist movement finds the movie a strong allegory for life in general and for their religion more specifically. In real life as it’s lived by we, the non-believers in Buddhist Nirvana, however, Groundhog Day has come to the Oval Office courtesy of the ceaseless Obama-adulation by the mainsteam media (MSM).  Let us adopt Sara Palin’s more accurate “lame-stream media” here for they have made the President appear not, as a cat with nine lives, but rather as a jaguar with 9,000. So far as it is within their power they have created a politician who really can’t fall short on anything. If the president bashes business and the financial industry ceaselessly for two consecutive years he has but to name a Chicago crony who happens to carry some business experience as an advisor and he suddenly becomes magnanimous in his “outreach to the business world.” No matter how great or repetitive his mistakes, let the Great Barack make even the slightest symbolic gesture of reasonableness while posturing for the media and . . . suddenly all his long-standing substantial errors and sins are forgiven, for the Anointed One has given the appearance of statesmanship. 

To say this was “all smoke and mirrors” would be demeaning magicians everywhere. This is rather, all freely-given PR puffery designed to glorify Obama. Consider these nine key areas as impartially as possible:




Foreign Policy


Fairness, Openness, Bi-Partisanship

The Gulf Oil Spill

GIBs and GSBs (Obamacare in particular)

Relationship with Business

Keeping Promises


            The unbiased observer must give the President nine F’s for nine substantial failures. In fact, however, the man’s “Messiah” status is ever-reinforced ever more desperately with each pathetic showing he makes. Consider more closely:


JOBS: 17.6% of America’s people are unemployed in real measurement. 9.5% are still looking for jobs and thus still on the labor rolls, the rest have given up; many are substantially UNDERemployed. Obama promised once his $787 BIllion stimulus package was passed in February, 2009, that unemployment would not exceed 8%. In the upcoming State of the Union address he will pretend that the country was on the brink of a Great Depression and only the quick thinking of he and his Democrats was able to save us . . . at no small expense . . . and the MSM will sell that unenlightened viewpoint as Gospel. By the way, if the official “unemployment” statistic is ridiculous, then the Obama “jobs saved” stat is absolute horse pucky.


SPENDING: Obama’s sycophant-girl, Nancy Pelosi, has echoed the party line that deficit reduction and reduction of the National Debt has long been a top concern among Democrats and “Deficit Reduction has been our mantra.” Pelosi and the House Democrats last year refused to pass a budget because it would have been the country’s first $5 TRillion budget and required $1.6 TRillion in deficits.  Then there’s the little matter of the $14.1 TRillion National Debt which has increased $5 TRillion under Democratic house leadership which is 56% in four years.  Besides the bailouts and Obama stimulus, Obamacare will increase deficits by $300 Billion yearly while claiming it reduces deficits. The MSM abets Pelosi, Reid and Obama at every turn for their humane and far-thinking new approach.

FOREIGN POLICY: Despite Obama’s “Apology Tour”; repeatedly breaking promises to allies while embracing those who have no love for the United States and orally wish us ill; kowtowing to Eastern potentates and premiers; and doing everything possible to make the nation appear and be weak, weak, weak . . . the MSM has refused to analyze, investigate or seemingly even care about the utterly negative Obama legacy in foreign policy. Did they report in depth on his shabby treatment of Israel? On the weakness toward Iran and Russia implicit in not building the promised missile defense for our eastern European allies?   No, naturally no. But they couldn’t wait to fall all over themselves in slobbering joy proclaiming the START treaty with Russia was not a shameful sell-out but somehow a wonderful coup.

LEADERSHIP: More than anything else, the election of the nation’s first Black president was supposed to usher in a new era of enlightenment in racial matters and tolerance at all levels. Polls on the subject say that relations between the races have gotten worse under our first “post-racial” president. And, up till his recent posturing as a “centrist president” now that the Republicans dominate the House, President Obama led the way by constant race-baiting; and stupid stances like getting involved in the Cambridge arrest in early 2009 that led to his infamous “Beer Summit.” Mr. Obama has also threatened freedom of speech and freedom of the press by his constant attacks upon FoxNews and the TEA Party. Instead of leadership, Obama has constantly whined and called all those who dislike his policies as racists, haters, extremists and stupid. People fifty times as patriotic as the President then were subject to one hundred times the abuse by the MSM and by the most progressive elements of the Democratic Leadership.


FAIRNESS, OPENNESS and BI-PARTISANSHIP: Mr. Obama promised to change the culture of Washington and to give us “hope and change we could believe in. He talked about having TV cameras involved so that people could see every aspect of the health care deliberations and like his favorite YES MAN, Harry Reid in the Senate and YES GIRL, Nancy Pelosi in the House, Obama promised to run the most open, honest and accountable administration in history. Instead he’s overseen the most corrupt, closed, dishonest and unaccountable administration since Woodrow Wilson. Just the matter of those 42 non-vetted Obama Czars speaks volumes . . . of course, it would have been impossible to get all those admitted communists and radicals into the White House any other way. The MSM did nothing to hold Obama’s feet to the fire . . . he was given a free pass on all of this. The Van Jones affair was classic MSM. While FoxNews and others were revealing video clips of Jones talking openly about revolution and his communism and his 9/11 Truther activities for two and a half months, the MSM ran a 30 second clip the day after Van Jones “resigned.”


THE GULF OIL SPILL: It took the Obama administration six weeks to really get involved and their involvement in the first two weeks thereafter was making speeches about how they’d been on the ground dealing with the issue since the first few hours it was known about. Then, like all leftists, Obama made a horrible situation worse . . . first his EPA would not allow the building of sand berms and other defenses against the spill (because they might harm the environment); and then he cost the nation loads of oil and the Gulf loads of jobs with his six month moratorium on drilling which is now nearing nine months and which is projected to last 2.5 years. The MSM hardly covered these important matters but found a patsy in the BP President and made Mr. Obama into a hero, as usual.  Will they love him as much when gasoline is $4.50 per gallon?


GIBs and GSBs (OBAMACARE in particular): Like the oil spill made worse by government involvement, GIBs and GSBs (Government interference and government spending boondoggles) are the utter limits of arrogance with the federal government showing they know best and in the process taking over more of American life and making it worse. In the case of Obamacare the lies involved are incredible, and of course the MSM will not deal with them or expose them to the public. Mr. Obama personally pledged that zero federal dollars would be used to fund abortions under Obamacare but we found out in the first week that the program went into operation that abortions were routinely covered by Obamacare. They added money to other programs in two other bills (Medicare and Medicaid) so they could show the Congressional Budget Office false numbers that would make Obamacare look like it would lower the deficit when in truth the big picture is that 30 million people are added to the program at a far greater expense than the private sector would have caused and the program is another entitlement GSB, GIB that will dramatically ramp up the National Debt and the yearly deficits. In addition we have stimulus funds that only stimulated the pocketbooks for Obama supporters and created no new jobs; the laughable “Cars for Clunkers” which claimed that destroying perfectly good cars would jumpstart the economy (all it did was create a massive shortage of used cars and drive the price of the typical used car upward by $1,800); the AIG and auto bailouts; the takeover not only of health care but of the financial industry, the student loan industry, and now the beginning of the coal industry. And the MSM has been applauding every step of the way.


BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS: Mr. Obama spent the first two years of his administration feathering the cap of the unions and taking every possible opportunity to bash business, business people, finance, financial people, capitalists and conservatives all the while imposing all manner of extra bureaucracy and expense upon the free markets . . . MSM cheering every step of the way. Now as he makes cozy to enhance his 2012 presidential bid, little is made of his hypocrisy.


KEEPING PROMISES: From Guantanamo Bay to Afghanistan and all the promises mentioned above . . . President Obama has made a splendid career of promising out of one side of his mouth and alibi-ing out of the other. It’s likely that Barack Obama will at the end of the day (as a one-term president) actually only keep two promises, both made in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle on the 2008 campaign trail:

a.      To bankrupt the coal industry

b.     To make the price of electricity skyrocket

Actually, that’s only one promise since 52% of our electricity comes from coal . . .

     Of course, the MSM gives Mr. Obama free rein to do as he pleases and enthusiastically supported him in 2008 and will support him in 2012. Call them “mulligans,” “do-overs” or Groundhog Day . . . the tremendous leeway that Obama has received from the MSM amounts to about 25 times the tolerance given to his predecessor and about 30 times what they’ve allotted to the TEA Party . . . .


Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,


Read more…

“Some men are genuine in their effort to communicate and to be communicated with, some are always pointing the conversation toward ulterior motives and superficial results (being unwilling to actually change) and though he tried to appear humbled and changed, Barack Obama is set on his course and America be damned.” Rajjpuut
His Obstinacy’ Barack Obama
Refuses to Budge
All men are the same in victory; it is defeat that etches character on a person’s face. “We took a shellacking,” Obama told the Whitehouse press corps at the first conference after an overwhelming defeat for Democrats saw 50 House seats; six Senate seats; and nine governorships slip from his party’s hands to the Republicans in the 2010 midterm elections. But this reporter saw only a “false humility and a lot of “personal expressions of feelings” revealed by the conference and not a single clear commitment to positive and needed change. It was quite clear that Obama is not interested in learning anything from the voters whose eloquence was far more powerful yesterday than any feigned contrition by their chief executive this afternoon . . . in a phrase: the president STILL DOESN’T GET IT.
Rajjpuut would like to congratulate the White House press corps which for the first time in the Obama presidency refused to serve up batting practice but instead sent a string of “hard ball” questions at the Commander-in-Chief. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama constantly insisted upon putting his own ball on a special tee and allowing himself several practice swings before dealing with the peripherary of the strong and honest questions he faced. Finally, the mainstream media showed some willingness to put Obama the man and Obama the president and Obamanomics (his policies) under a microscope. The headline writers have not been nearly so incisive as the reporters were in their questioning. Already 90% of them report that Obama has shown a “willingness to compromise.” Wanna bet?
Item: Obama still insisted upon lecturing America, his party and Republicans on the fine points of Das Kapital instead of taking to heart these far more terse, powerful and accurate lessons from the free market:
Item: Obama still danced around issues even when they were put squarely to him. Asked about business and jobs and spending and possible new directions, he unleashed a storm of platitudes and invoked the magic word “emergency” at least ten times during the talk. He had his excuse (emergency) and he never let Americans forget it.
Item: When reminded that he had told Republicans “Elections have consequences” after taking office and had NOT worked openly or transparently with the “other side of the aisle” so far during his presidency, Obama refused to admit that his policies or his direction so far could be anything close to misguided or GASP “wrong.”

Item: He talked in platitudes about business and the economy while consistently talking about green-energy and clean environment. He spoke of “natural gas” and “alternatives repeatedly but never once mentioned the words “coal” or “oil” or talked about electrical prices which is key . . . because Mr. Obama has said before his energy policies will “bankrupt the coal industry” and “electricity rates would necessarily sky-rocket." Yet here he was talking about energy in one form or another for perhaps 25% of the speech without once mentioning coal, oil or energy prices? If you, the reader, take nothing else from this blog: remember that simple straightforward honesty means simple straightforward talk not "beautiful words" and phrases spoken in appropriately reverent tones. Mr. Obama cannot be blunt because Mr. Obama cannot be honest about his goals for this country which are dramatically different from mainstream America's goals and the truth about this discrepancy would make mainstream America despise him . . . .

Obama never once seriously talked about businesses’ need for predictability or GASP profits. As a result he never connected needed jobs to needed profits and needed actions by government to cut taxes, cut spending and get out of the free market's way so those business profits could emerge naturally. He mentioned directly and obliquely the disproven idea of global warming as justification never once letting out that Europe as a whole has refuted the idea since the revelations of Climategate came to light. For example, much of the American press and intelligent American people are aware that even the ultra-liberal London Times admits that global warming is a hoax:

Mr. Obama, in Europe the climate-change “deniers” (like Rajjpuut) used to call global warming alarmists “mean-greenies,” but now much of the establishment in business and government in Europe calls them “watermelons” meaning “green on the outside and pink to Deep RED on the inside” because now only socialists and communists still push this 100% disproven effort at science while seeking the necessary 100% government control of business and industry that Cap and Trade requires . . . and yet you mentioned Cap and Trade positively twice in your “contrition speech” before opening up to questions.
Item: Just as he insisted six months ago that the main emphasis of NASA going forward was to “outreach to the Muslim world community” he still apparently believes that the main goal of business is to oppress people and dirty the environment and exploit the rest of the planet . . . absolutely nothing he said today would make any careful listener believe differently.
Item: When a direct question was put to him about his “car in the ditch analogy” where putting the car in R (for Republican or Reverse) was the wrong move and it needed to be put in D (for Democrat or Drive) . . . “Do you admit that your policies might have been taking the country in the wrong direction?” Obama grimaced and said “We’ve at least been pushing in the opposite directions,” a good-sounding answer but one which refuses to face up to the excellent question** he was asked.
Mr. Obama refuses to ever consider that anything he’s done could be fundamentally wrong, therefore HE CANNOT LEARN FROM HIS MISTAKES AND CANNOT GROW FROM HIS EXPERIENCE. Hopefully he is doomed to be a one-term president, because the answers to our problems and the decisions for our future cannot come from such a man. Some men are genuine in their effort to communicate and to be communicated with, while some are always pointing the conversation toward ulterior motives and superficial results (being unwilling to actually change) and though he tried to appear humbled and changed, Barack Obama is set on his course (because he knows best) and America be damned!
Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,
**The BIG TRUTH of the ditch analogy (what in propaganda science is called a “BIG LIE” is this:
George Bush saw Obama, ACORN and Clinton pushing the car (the economy) toward a 500 foot cliff (utter disaster), jumped in and grabbed the steering wheel and hit the brakes to coast it into the nearest friendly-looking ditch.
This shocking counter-analogy would be best proven with a full expose of the problems that caused the financial debacle running from the creation of the Cloward-Piven Strategy in 1966; through the deliberate bankrupting of New York City in 1975 by Cloward, Piven and NWRO leader George Wiley; the creation of the CRA ’77 by Washington and of ACORN in Arkansas both in 1977 with CRA laws forcing lenders to make knowingly bad loans; Bill Clinton’s executive expansion and his three legislative expansions <twice in ’95 and the steroid version in ‘98> of CRA laws . . . an explanation which six or seven pages could barely do justice to. Let it suffice to say . . . .
In January, 2005, (14 months after Rajjpuut had become aware of the serious nature of our housing industry bubble -- subprime lending crisis --- and derivatives bubble and been writing about it) George Bush noticed and acted immediately. His attempts to undo the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977’s most poisonous features were rebuffed by the Democrats. Mr. Bush personally or through other administration representatives talked to Congress at least another 18 times about the seriousness of this matter. Finally, in July, 2007 (30 months later) a bi-partisan very weak bill was passed. It, of course proved to be way too little, way too late and within three months the financial storm clouds were on us. However, Bush’s efforts had gotten us through the worst of the storm. In August, 2010, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner credited Bush’s actions from preventing a truly disastrous financial meltdown and ugly run on housing prices.
Read more…
Persistent Presidential Policies Provoke Potential Business Paroxysm

Repeatedly saying, “I am the job’s president,” “I’m a true friend of small business,” “I have the best interests of America’s Business at heart,” “My administration is fully-committed to fostering a climate supporting the business community,” etc., etc., ad nauseum . . . repeatedly spewing words, Mr. President, that are belied by vicious and repeated haranguing from the other side of your mouth . . . and belied more importantly, by a host of anti-business actions since Inauguration Day -- it just doesn’t wash . . . .
Item: If President Obama’s “six-month” moratorium on offshore drilling goes into effect, the eventual economic effect of his moratorium, will in all probability utterly dwarf the economic effect of the spill itself. All the Gulf state governor’s have called the moratorium hasty, ill-conceived and likely to seriously undercut their states’ recovery.
ITEM: Mr. Obama frankly told the San Francisco Chronicle his “energies policies will bankrupt the coal industry.” He has also repeatedly declared his cap and trade plan will “necessarily make the price of electricity skyrocket.” Threatening to bankrupt essential industries? Threatening to make the price of the most fundamental aspect of any business “skyrocket”? This is no way to create business confidence or a supportive business atmosphere.
ITEM: Obama has promised to reinstitute on January 1, 2011, all the tax cuts and tax amnesties instituted by the Bush administration. Spending by this administration has dwarfed that of all previous administrations. Rising taxes and snowballing government spending has always been a recipe for economic shutdown.
ITEM: consider the financial overhaul “Reform” bill just signed into law, Obama said, “Would stop all bailout’s forever.” Actually, the concept of “too big to fail” is written ingloriously right into that law and guarantees that such bailouts will become a way of life. Thus all big (too big to fail) businesses are free to take the most unwise risks imaginable and thus maximize their chances of huge profits while always having that government safety net below them that he just signed into law. Small business can fail while big business canNOT; Big business can gun for huge profits at no risk which would bankrupt small businesses.
ITEM: consider again the financial overhaul “Reform” bill just signed into law, the original problem besetting the country was actually a sub-prime lending crisis brought about largely by ACORN abuse (Barack Obama was an ACORN lawyer shaking down lending companies) and its effect upon agencies like Freddy Mac and Frannie Mae and HUD (housing urban development agency). HUD in 1995 under weaker versions of the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act granted 44% of all their housing loans to people who objectively could NOT afford to repay the mortgage. (Carter’s CRA ’77 was expanded to include Freddie and Fanny in ’92; twice expanded in 1995 and finally expanded on steroids in 1998 -- these last three moves all under Bill Clinton). By 2005 52% of all HUD loans were made to people who objectively were not fiscally eligible for the loans given to them including illegal aliens, people without jobs, and some people without even a rental history. So how were these fundamental problems addressed by the “reform” bill? These problems were NOT addressed at all. Not one single change to HUD, Fanny Mae nor Freddy Mac is found in the 2,300 page bill. In fact, the laws that did us in, all five of them, are still on the books.
ITEM: consider again the financial overhaul “Reform” bill just signed into law, hundreds of “directives” are required by the new law . . . directives not yet written; directives not yet written by regulators not yet hired. Once again a monstrous bill (2,300 pages) has been passed and no one actually knows what’s in it, or what it does, or how it does it. This is gross uncertainty, Mr. Obama. Legitimate business never thrives under uncertain conditions.
ITEM: consider again the financial overhaul “Reform” bill just signed into law, the bill itself is self-contradictory in numerous places implying that execution and control could be under this federal agency or that one or this other one or perhaps under a couple of them or even all three of them. More uncertainty for businesses.
ITEM: consider again the financial overhaul “Reform” bill just signed into law, one thing is certain, the bill is going to be a nightmare for business offices to deal with . . . tons of paperwork, tons of bureaucracy . . . all at huge costs to businesses in time, salaries, repeated efforts, etc. A nasty certainty for business.
ITEM: consider Obamacare’s so-called health care “reform,” more directives not written by more bureaucrats not all hired yet. 3,300 pages worth of newness, including almost 390 brand new government agencies created (FDR’s entire presidency spawned only 40 new government agencies). Uncertainty for the next eight years (when the final shoe drops as Obamacare is phased in) is horrible for business.
ITEM: again consider Obamacare’s so-called health care “reform,” 390 new government agencies means a horrific and an incredible ultra-bureaucratic bombing of businesses . . . the likely paperwork snowstorm is sure to be very expensive of time and money and trouble.
ITEM: again consider Obamacare’s so-called health care “reform,” ooops, it’s going to increase the deficits, the national debt and the problems for the country, not a good atmosphere for business to operate under.
ITEM: again consider Obamacare’s so-called health care“reform,”
health care insurance, as we now know it, is effectively wiped out by 2018 . . . in other words, government interference has consumed and by overbearing bureaucracy, utterly and negatively transformed an entire American business industry. That is certain to invoke the notion, "Are we next? More threat and more uncertainty for business.
Item: again consider Obamacare’s so-called health care “reform,” it is now 100% certain that “elective” abortion is covered by Obamacare as shown by the first two Obamacare offices opened up in New Mexico and in Pennsylvania. Based upon President Obama’s signed paper for Michigan Representative Bart Stupak swearing that the longtime federal policy of NOT funding abortions would continue with Obamacare, then since it clearly appears abortions are among the very first conditions covered by Obamacare, somebody lied and businesses don’t operate well under despotic, lying governments . . . ever.
ITEM: again consider Obamacare’s so-called health care “reform,” it does nothing for improving health. It does nothing to lower health care costs. It merely sticks 390 new government agencies between doctor and patient. It is, in short, a nightmare supposedly designed to help American citizens and American business . . . but actually just a way to grab control of the pulse of America . . . business doesn’t operate well under devious government control . . . ever.
ITEM: returning to the matter of the Obama six-month offshore drilling moratorium, Mr. Obama has had two of his six-month moratoriums set aside by federal judges and is now involved in a third such moratorium he’s issued . . . what Rajjpuut would call ‘sleazy lawyer slow-down shenanigans,’ (even putting the horrible effect on the Gulf economy as each of the now operating well goes out of business and drillers eventually return in five or ten years) get a clue Mr. Obama, businesses don’t operate well under that kind of Washington arrogance and sleaze.
Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,
Read more…