Looking for Reason

The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so. – Ronald Reagan

Category: Government

Obama’s Record on Jobs and Spending. Claims vs. facts.


Obama claim: We’ve added back more than 4.5 million private sector jobs and seen 29 straight months of job growth.  Sounds good huh? But let’s look beyond the hype, shall we?  When Obama was took office the unemployment rate was 7.8%, not his fault, but for all his promises to put the country on track the unemployment rate climbed to a high of 10% by October 2009.

Starting in May 2009 the jobless rate stayed at or above 9% for 22 consecutive months with a one month dip to 8.9% then back above 9% for an additional six months. So 28 out of 29 consecutive months of over 9% unemployment on his watch is hardly something to crow about. The “official” number which is what the BLS calls the U3 chart, finally dipped into the 8% range just last October and has remained there for the past 11 months.  What many don’t know, is that there is also a U6 chart, which lists also those unemployed who have just plain given up looking for work for at least the previous 4 weeks. This chart shows that the real unemployment rate is 15% or nearly double the officially reported U3 rate.

The fact is, that the official jobless rate had not been below 9% from the month after Obama took office until March 2011, that’s 37 months. So his hype about 29 months of job growth, while not untrue, doesn’t really tell the whole story. Between March 2010 and July 2012 (his 29 months) the official unemployment rate only dropped from 9.8% to 8.3%, a whopping 1.5% or about one half of one percent per month. In the 40 months of data since he took office, only 12 months have seen less than 9% unemployment.

While I’ll give him all of 2009 as an inherited problem from the Bush-era, the fact is that things continued to get worse in 2010. According to a PEW Charitable Trust study, in August of 2010 4.4 million people—roughly the population of Louisiana—had been out of work for a year or more; an increase of nearly 30 percent since December 2009. That’s a 30% increase in long-term unemployment in the first 9 months of his second year in office. By comparison Reagan inherited a bad job market too, worse than Obama’s since Reagan’s was at 7.5% when he took office, but peaked at 10.8% and stayed over 10% for 10 straight months, yet Reagan policies resulted in a drop of 3.6%, from 10.8% to 7.2% by his 40th month in office. So while Obama’s jobless rate peaked at 10% and had only dropped 1.8% over the same first 40 months in office. The Reagan drop of 3.6% took 20 months to accomplish, while Obama’s drop of just 1.5% took 28 months. He has presided over less than half the decline over a 30% longer period time between high and low points.

Read more: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 and http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Economic_Mobility/LTU%20Addendum%20Final%2010_07_10.pdf

Obama claim: “Since I’ve been president, federal spending has risen at the lowest pace in nearly 60 years.”  Wow, really? Well, no. Let’s go back to the Clinton Presidency, when Bill took office federal spending was at 23.5% of GDP, when he left in 2001 it was down to only 19.5%, a decline of 4%. Although I was never a fan of President Clinton, the truth is that he and a strong Republican congress cut federal spending more than any administration in modern history.

Now even if you take the second half of TARP, which Obama requested; most of the Auto Bailout which Obama pushed; The Mortgage/Loan Medication Program; The Omnibus Spending Bill signed by Obama March 2009; The Stimulus Bill, and the S-CHIP expansion – take all of this 2009 spending and blame it all on Bush, even then spending is up by almost 24% in Obama’s first term vs. Bush’s last. Spending under Bush, especially in the second term, was huge, a democratically controlled congress, gave Bush Carte Blanche with the purse strings and he went wild like a kid in a candy store. Yet considering the fact that the federal deficit has climbed has much in Obama’s first term as it had from George Washington to Clinton’s first term, to claim he’s not a big spender is simply a lie.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/05/even_with_nuttings_math_obama_1st_term_spending_up_24_vs_bushs_last_term.html#ixzz258iLBxbJ

Advertisements

Why You Should Support Mitt Romney For President


I have not until recently supported Mitt Romney for President; I felt there were others who might have had a better chance of defeating Barack Obama, or make a better President, which are my primary desires in this election. In all honesty, I hadn’t done as much research on Romney, as I had for the others that I supported along the way. One by one those others have dropped out, for a myriad of reasons, some valid, some just dirty politics, until now the Republican nominee has been picked. Although I may disagree with some of the Republican parties underhanded dealings in regard to these candidates along the way, the bottom line is Romney is the candidate. If we want to overthrow the failed Obama regime, we must come together behind our best hope to do that.

I self-identify as a Conservative-Libertarian, now the Libertarian Candidate for President is a gentleman named, Gary Johnson, the former Governor of New Mexico, and his VP running mate is Jim Gray, a former Superior Court Judge in Orange County, California. These men share most of my political beliefs and would carry those values to the highest office in the land, so why am I not going to vote for them, and why will I try to convince my friends, of all political stripes to follow my lead? Well I’ll tell you and hopefully convince you to follow my advise.

My answer to that question is two-fold, first I’ve learned a valuable lesson during a couple of past elections. In 1992 I was unhappy with the administration of Gorge H.W. Bush over the previous four years, and I disliked the proposition of the lecherous Bill Clinton even less, so I threw my support to Ross Perot. Fast forward to 2008, convinced of the extreme leftist, no socialist, leanings of Barack Obama and not being thrilled with the choice of John McCain, I followed my Libertarian conscience, and voted for Bob Barr, the former Georgia Congressman and Libertarian Presidential candidate.

The problem in both cases was that liberals are rarely swayed from the Democratic party line, I used to say that Democrats would vote for Bozo the Clown if he ran on the Democratic ticket. Most conservatives, and independents on the other hand are not so mindlessly loyal to a party line. The result is that the liberal vote will rarely be split, but the conservative/independent vote will. While I don’t believe that my vote for Barr in ’08 was part of an overall national trend, my vote for Perot in ’92 certainly was. The proof is that Clinton won that election by the smallest percentage of the vote in 80 years, and the fourth lowest in history.

The moral of this story is that this election is far too important to do anything but vote for the only man who has a shot at dethroning Emperor Obama. I’ll touch more on that title in a minute, but those of us who despise the policies, abuses of power, and corrupt cabinet members these past four years, must unite in a strong front to drive the tyrant from the White House.

The second reason I want to encourage my friends and colleagues to support Mitt Romney is because of what I have learned about the man since I began to really look at the presumptive nominee when virtually all other contenders had fallen by the wayside. Ron Paul’s fall from contention was not so much a choice, but rather he was pushed off a cliff by his party, in a disgraceful act of back stabbing. While I do not condone the dirty tricks employed by the Republican leadership, and believe it could signal the end of the “Grand Old Party” just as the GOP replaced the Whig party in the 1860’s, due to the corruption and pro-slavery faction in the party. The Tea Party may gain even more supporters now, from more Republicans who are equally disgusted by the antics of a party that is rapidly losing sight of the values it was founded upon, and leadership self-interest.

However, despite my unhappiness with the party leadership, the fact remains that Obama must go! Mitt Romney is our last best hope to accomplish that goal. I understand why many are unhappy with Obama, but don’t like Romney or the Republican party either, so they are thinking of throwing their vote elsewhere. Before you do, consider this. Unlike BHO who came to power with absolutely no experience in the private sector, he never ran a business, or never held an administrative position in any city, county or state government. He was a lawyer, university lecturer (NOT a professor), and a community organizer. Finally he was a two term Senator who spent most of that time running for President. Does all that tremendous experience show in the terrific leadership and accomplishments of the last four years? (Sarcasm intended)

By contrast, Mitt Romney is a successful businessman, who created jobs, was recruited to help save the Salt Lake Winter Olympics when the organization was suffering from corruption and losing corporate sponsors, and running in the red. He stepped in, made management changes, reduced budgets, stepped up fundraising, and ultimately closed the Olympics with a $100 million profit. From there Mitt went on to run for and win election in 2002 as governor of the extremely liberal state of Massachusetts. In a state with a large Democratic majority in both houses, he was successful in turning around a bad economy, and enjoying a budget surplus the last two years of his term. To his credit, he even declined a salary as governor. He’s shown a proven track record in business and political leadership roles. Something sorely lacking in the White House these past several years.

Now, I didn’t vote for Ronald Reagan in 1980, I had heard my dad complain about him as governor of California, and knew that Carter was a miserable failure as President, so I wrote in for another former governor who wasn’t even on the ballot. A wasted vote, because I didn’t want to vote for people I wouldn’t want in office. I corrected my mistake with Reagan four years later and I still greatly admire the man. I wish we had politicians of his caliber today. One of my favorite Reagan quotes was…

Whatever else history may say about me when I’m gone, I hope it will record that I appealed to your best hopes, not your worst fears; to your confidence rather than your doubts. My dream is that you will travel the road ahead with liberty’s lamp guiding your steps and opportunity’s arm steadying your way.

Obama has done nothing but appeal to people’s worst fears, and raised doubts about our collective future, not to mention trampling on our liberty. I was wrong about Reagan in the first election, and I pray that I will be proven right about Mitt Romney for the faith I am placing in him to live up to those words from the Gipper, whether he claims to or not. Obama is running a negative campaign against Romney, not because Romney is an evil man, but rather because he has no record to run on. Romney has a record of success in business, and politics. Experience Obama didn’t have before taking office, and still doesn’t four years later. Nothing, I repeat NOTHING, Obama has done has earned him a second term.

Finally back to my earlier comment about “dethroning Emperor Obama”. I call him this for numerous reasons, first as I have written about before in this blog, was his “extrajudicial killing” of two men, both U.S. citizens, as well as the 16-year-old son of one of the men, by a drone attack in Yemen. The explanation given by the White House was the men were Al Qaeda operatives who promoted terrorist attacks against Americans. While I find the evidence compelling, as citizens of this country they had certain constitutionally protected rights, not the least of which were a trial before being executed. What possible ego could make anyone in government can place himself above the constitution and kill another citizen without trial? For anyone but this emperor, that’s called murder. While I feel this is the gravest example, there are some others.

After failing to get his way with congress on many occasions, last fall Obama said “We can’t wait.” and vowed to bypass congress and rule by executive order. Between November 1, 2011 and August 10, 2012, Obama has signed 35 executive orders and has at least two others in the planning stages now. Many of them contradict the will of congress. The founders set up a system of checks & balances for a reason, but the emperor doth protest. Thomas Jefferson said “In matters of power let no more be heard of the confidence in man but bind them down from mischief by the chains of the constitution.” Obama will have nothing of it, he has an agenda and the congress and constitution be damned!

I’m sure I do not need to go on any further as these examples alone more than show why Obama is a tyrant, who is not to be trusted with the limited power of the presidency, because he refuses to be bound by the constitutional limits of the office. George W. Bush while in his lame duck second term, made many of us who supported him for reelection disappointed with his wild spending and power plays. However, if you think GW was bad, just imagine a second term of Barack Obama unbridled. The republic will be gone and we will indeed live under an Emperor rather than a Constitutional Republic.

Please, no matter how the Obama campaign and their palace guards in the media try to scare you about Romney and Ryan, stop and think back to Obama circa 2009, when he stated that his presidency would be a “one-term proposition” if the economy did not turn around on his watch in “three years.” Well folks, are you better off today than you were three years ago? The bogus, but “Official” unemployment rate has hovered at over 8% these past three years, for blacks it’s over 11%. In 2000 the U.S. was ranked #1 in individual wealth in the world, in 2009 we were down to #7, a 5 point drop from 2008. Median household income in the U.S. declined from $51,726 in 2008 to $50,221 in 2009. 

When Obama first took office, the number of “long-term unemployed workers” in the United States was approximately 2.6 million.  Today, that number is sitting at 5.6 million. According to Reuters, nearly 24 million American workers are either unemployed or underemployed right now. Since Barack Obama entered the White House, the number of Americans on food stamps has increased from 32 million to 46 million. No wonder Newt Gingrich called Obama the “Food Stamp President”. When Obama took office, an ounce of gold was selling for about $850.  Today that ounce of gold costs more than $1700. The number of Americans that are not paying federal incomes taxes is at an all-time high. And finally, but not all-inclusive, during the Obama administration, the U.S. government has accumulated more debt than it did from the time that George Washington took office to the time that Bill Clinton took office.

Who do you want to lead us through this crisis, a man whose a proven failure, or a man whose a proven success?

I rest my case.

SURPRISE! Democrats are now backpedaling over Keystone XL


I have lost count of the number of emails I have received from both family and acquaintances asking me to sign a petition to oppose the Keystone XL Pipeline. I responded to all of them asking why they were opposed to this. I then explained that pipelines are the safest way to transport oil, that Canada was going to sell their oil somewhere, and if we didn’t buy it, the Chinese surely would. I hate to have to say it but, I TOLD YOU SO!

Before I go on, let me clue you in on some facts, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline was built over 35 years ago, and has never suffered a spill that wasn’t the result of sabotage. In each of those cases of sabotage, the spill was rapidly contained and the oil confined to a few acres of dirt. Much easier to clean up than the same amount of oil spilled in a tanker accident in water. Furthermore the technology to build and operate such a pipeline is far more advanced now than when the Trans-Alaska was built. So what’s the problem?

Stopping Keystone XL doesn’t mean a pipeline won’t be built, but rather the pipeline will run west instead of south. Terminating in British Columbia, Canada, and the oil will be loaded onto tankers bound for China. These tankers will ply the pristine waters of the inside gateway and Strait of Juan De Fuca, between Vancouver Island and Washington State. Once more the misguided screams from the environmentalists will likely cause far more harm than they purport to prevent. How much more sensitive could a few acres of dirt in the mid-west be, over the pristine waters of the Pacific Northwest?

Well, it seems that China’s state-run oil company CNOOC, is now poised to cut a $15.1 billion deal with the Canadian oil company Nexen. The pipe will be built west and oil that would have reduced the number of tankers of Middle Eastern oil coming to the US, will not be reduced, and in fact tanker traffic near our coast line will increase. Instead of buying oil from our friend to the north, we will continue to buy oil from the mid-east where the money my well be used against us. These misguided souls who fell for the lie that blocking the XL pipeline would mean that the Canadian oil would stay underground, will have to blame themselves if or heaven forbid, when, a tanker accident happens in northwest waters.

Now with the news that China was about to cut a deal, the same brain-dead Democrats who opposed Keystone XL are backpedaling in high gear. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) is now writing letters to “ensure U.S. companies get reciprocal treatment” and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is expressing worry about “the Chinese government’s continued attempts to use its state-owned enterprises to acquire global energy resources.” Really? Where the hell were these two morons when it counted? I see this as a lame attempt by the same idiots who led the campaign to block Keystone XL in congress to try to do a little CYA, and to appear to be looking out for US interests. They will fool only their brain-dead loyalists who will refuse to see that it was these morons actions that put us here in the first place.

Read the story here.

Let’s clean house in November, vote for no incumbent, show them who’s boss!

Obama “Here’s Your Sign”


A popular comedian, Bill Engvall, uses a catch line of “Here’s your sign” the basic premise of which is that stupid people should be given signs that say “I’m Stupid” in order to warn the rest of us not to put any faith in nor lend any credence to them.

While the left holds Obama up as a messiah and some sort of brilliant thinker, I on the other hand have long felt that he should be given one of Engvall’s signs, but this latest example only convinces me more of that fact. While campaigning at an event in Poland, Ohio last Friday resident Obama said that supply-side economics was a “theory” that it “has never worked.” Oh really? Well Mr. Obama either you’re a bald faced liar or your stupid, I’m honestly not sure which is more true.

I suppose if you believe that the Obama Stimulus package was a wonderful success, then you would believe this drivel too. In reality, it was billions of tax dollars wasted and the promised benefits never seen. Obama is flat-out wrong about the Kennedy & Reagan economic policies, they weren’t just theory that didn’t work, history proves it. In the nineties, the liberals were screaming, as they still do today, that Supply-Side Economics” was a failed experiment, however a policy study by the CATO institute published in 1996 shows the real truth. You can read the entire report [here], but I’ll synopsize it for you.

  1. Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.
  2. Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
  3. Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.
  4. The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s. The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.

The report also shows that tax cut policies instituted by JFK before his assassination, had benefits in the late 1960’s that were even better than those seen in the Reagan years. It also debunked several popular “Reaganomics” lies such as “The rich get richer and the poor get poorer” the truth is that from 1980 to 1989 while the richest 5% saw their piece of the income pie raise from 16.5 to 18.3%, or just under 11%, the number of Americans making less than $10K per year in 1980 dropped from 66 to 62.6 million by 1989, a drop of 5%. Those making between $10K and $50K per year rose from 9.9 to 15.6 million, an increase of 60%. Further, those making less than $75K per year rose from 3 to 5.5 million an increase of 83%. So the truth is that the middle class fared much better than the poor or the rich, but everyone made out better. Isn’t Obama always claiming he’s looking out for the poor and middle-class? Then here’s the better path than his lame cry of “Tax the rich”.

His highness Obama is so far out of touch with reality, that it now surpasses being just a matter of policy disagreement. Remember this dunce recently said that the “Private sector is doing fine”. I suppose as long as it’s someone else’s money, then he’s all about playing Robin Hood and telling us we’re doing fine, but in reality he’s just buying the poor vote by promising that which is not his to give.  All the while the failed policies of the left continue to hurt and enslave those they claim to be helping.

So Mr. Obama, giving you the benefit of the doubt between being stupid or just being a pathological liar… HERE’S YOUR SIGN.

The Liberal Mind, is it Political Madness?


It is typical with liberals to keep certain things in the forefront so they have a cause to champion. As former Obama advisor Rahm Emanuel once said “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste“. Such crisis’ after all give liberals more opportunity to push their particular agendas. For instance, if some nut goes on a rampage and kills a bunch of people, or if someone of light skin kills someone with dark skin, then the liberals start screaming for more laws to control guns. This is despite all the evidence that murder rates fall when gun control laws are repealed and vise versa (See here). You see liberals have a cause, and statistics be damned, they won’t waste a good crisis opportunity to try to shove their mindless views down everyone else’s throats.

Although I have one of my favorite Ronald Reagan quotes at the top of these blog posts, I don’t believe that Ron was completely correct. While I do believe that a significant number of liberals are at least somewhat ignorant, the problem is that facts, are ignored or ridiculed and scientific data skewed to make political points without regard for the truth, and most liberals just mindlessly believe the crap the media spoon feeds them without question. A prominent psychiatrist by the name of Dr. Lyle Rossiter published a book titled, “The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness” and while I haven’t read it, I suspect that he may be on to something. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe that all people with liberal beliefs are brain-damaged, mentally ill, or stupid. I am curious however, why so many leftists who hold political power are always trying to tear down our great country in the name of “Equality” and “Fairness”, and their followers fail to question it.

There is nothing fair about their methods or goals, and it sure as Hell isn’t about equality. Obama and his ilk want to play Robin Hood, to steal from those who have and give to those who don’t. It’s not that most of those folks aren’t capable of doing better for themselves, but rather they are too lazy to do otherwise when Obama will take care of them. Don’t believe for a moment that there is any anything noble about this either, he has a plan and it’s to buy votes from those lazy bums, and he’s doing it with your money. If you don’t believe that, you aren’t paying attention.

I can only imagine the shock on the left when documentary film maker Alexandra Pelosi, the daughter of ultra-liberal “Queen Nancy”, made a short film about the welfare bums in New York and aired it on Bill Maher’s TV show (see a clip here). While I may disagree with her politics, I admire the fact that she has the intellectual honesty to show the entitlement mentality that the liberals have fostered. “I’m here for the Obama bucks” one man said or when asked why he will vote for Obama another replies “because he’ll give me stuff”. Did you see any of this on the 6:00 O’clock news? I didn’t think so.

The latest figures from the IRS (for tax year 2009, released in Oct. 2011) show that the top 1 percent of tax payers accounted for 36.7 percent of all individual federal income taxes collected, while earning only 16.9 percent of the adjusted gross income (AGI). The rest of the top 5 percent paid an additional 22 percent, for a total of 58.7 percent of individual federal income taxes for by only 5 percent of earners. The top 25 percent of wage earners, (those who make over $66,000 per year) foot 87.3 percent of the tax burden, and the top 50 percent carry 97.7 percent. The bottom 50 percent of all wage earners account for only 2.3 percent of the total individual income tax revenue collected by the IRS. In 2009, about 47% of households, that’s about 71 million, did not pay any federal income tax at all.

Obama displays his Robin Hood mentality and a complete lack of  intellectual honesty when he claims that the rich are not paying their fair share, while nearly half of all households pay no income taxes at all. When the top one percent of earners pays over one-third of the total individual tax revenue collected, that’s unfair. It’s time we revise the moronic tax code in this country and have everyone pay a share.

I could go on and on here, but history is pretty clear that liberal policies result in a weak economy, higher dependency on government handouts, and an overall expansion of government bureaucracy, with its inherent degradation of freedom. Conservative and/or libertarian policies on the other hand, tend to result in lower taxes and smaller government which promote greater freedom and a bigger, healthier economy. I believe that’s good for everyone no matter their income level. It is also clear to me that our Federal government has become an oligarchical body with right and left arms, that work together to expand their own power at the expense of “We the people”. They also fail to hold one another accountable by refusing to prosecute unconstitutional acts or outright fraud against the rule of law.

November is coming, so let’s end the political madness in Washington D.C. and vote against every sitting incumbent Democrat, Republican, or whatever who hasn’t lived up their oath of office to “… to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic.” and believe me there are precious few who have. Ronald Reagan asked this in 1979 and I’m going to repeat it here until the elections in November…  Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?

Rob

War on women


Back on March 22nd I offered a post titled “The Unwavering Hypocrisy of the Left” where I pointed out how liberals point fingers and accuse those on the right of wrong doing while doing the same and often worse themselves. Here we are a mere three weeks later and another perfect example of this has blown up in the faces of the left. So much so, that even Obama is doing his best to distance himself from the controversy.

Those on the left criticized Sarah Palin for not being a stay at home mom, especially having a special needs child. After accepting the nomination as the Republican vice-presidential nominee in 2008, Kim Gandy the then president of the National Organization for Women said “It would be best for everyone if Sarah Palin would just stay home and raise her kids,” Really, this from the president of NOW? Oh wait, Palin is a Republican woman, she doesn’t count where the ultra-liberal NOW is concerned.

Fast forward 4 years and we have Ann Romney who chose the opposite path, and is now out campaigning with and for her husband. Along comes a Democratic strategist by the name of Hilary Rosen to make an asinine statement like “Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life.” Hey, I’m no fan of Mitt Romney, and I know precious little about his wife, but once more I’m stunned by the hypocrisy here. I dare say that if you were to tell any stay at home mom that she never worked a day in her life you’d be setting yourself up for a bloody nose. Yet I hear no outcries from the left or NOW. Oh wait yes the current president of that illustrious organization has made a statement, Terry O’Neill said that Ann Romney lacks “life experience” and “imagination”.

As I said I don’t know much about Ann Romney, and I can’t speak to her imagination, but I would certainly believe that any woman who has raised five sons to adulthood, and been the First  Lady of Massachusetts for four years would have plenty of life experience. Is this woman really so self-righteous that she believes that she is qualified to make such statements about someone? Has this woman ever met Ann Romney or know anyone who does know her? The liberal mind never ceases to amaze me, I can only wonder if someone stuck a vacuum hose in their ear and sucked out all ability for reason, logic and intellectual honesty.  With the controversy surrounding the remarks by Hilary Rosen, if O’Neill had an ounce of any of those, she should have had sense enough to keep her mouth shut.

Finally we have Barack Obama who charges a “Republican war on women” because they balk at the idea of government subsidized contraception, while he seems to have is own war on women going on. According to the “2011 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff” issued by the White House [See additional article here] it turns out that Mr. Obama pays his female staff a median average of 18% less than his male staff. Demetrius Minor writing on townhall.com quotes Ann Sulivan of Time Magazine as saying the Obama administration is described as a “boy’s club” and suggested that the president has a woman problem. It is reported that senior women staffers are seen and not heard during policy meetings. I believe that the men are likely paid 18% too much, rather that the women being not paid enough. The way liberals are always screaming about the inequality of salaries between men and women, and Obama endlessly pointing fingers at Republicans, perhaps he needs to get is own house in order before he casts aspersions.

Rob

The “Nullification” of law


I wrote as part of a recent post titled “Is Barack Obama a Megalomaniac?” about Obama’s inflammatory remarks directed at the Supreme Court over their review of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, AKA “Obamacare”. I touched briefly on his idiotic contention that to overturn an act of congress would be “unprecedented” and why that’s the case.

It got me thinking about another way that unjust laws may be nullified that I don’t believe most people are aware of. Have you ever heard of the concept of Jury Nullification? This is a basic right of the jury that is older than our republic itself. The basic idea is that even if the jury agrees that the evidence shows a defendant has broken a law, the jury has the right to disagree with that law and therefore find the defendant not-guilty based on the belief that the law itself is unjust or illegal.

I remember the last time I sat on a Jury, after the trial was complete and the judge was giving us his instructions, in addition to explaining the law and how it applied to the case he also told us that we had to follow the law whether we agreed with it or not. Having been previously aware of the jury’s right to nullification, I was both perplexed and upset by this instruction. Although it wasn’t an issue in that case, I was instantly struck by that instruction, and wondered when the jury lost its right of nullification.

Well later research showed that it hasn’t. You see once again this is an example of the government overstepping it’s preceived authority over “We the people” and trying to prevent us from exercising our rights, when those rights go against the will of the government. You see the modern court system doesn’t approve of this right and thus attempts to prevent juries from using nullification to ignore unpopular laws.

In order to get their way, they make up rules to slant things in their favor. Most courts today prohibit the defense from even telling the jury it has the right to nullification. Therefore when the judge instructs the jury that it must apply the law as it is explained, if they are unaware that the very instruction is a lie, then they can only act in this limited manner.

I am convinced Obama, as a former “senior lecturer of constitutional law” (not a “professor”, as he often claims), would be aware of this precept of law every bit as much as he would have known that his statement on April 2nd was as empty as his suit. So, the next time you are called to sit on a jury, remember that you as a citizen of these United States have the same power as the Supreme Court to nullify an unjust law.

If you’re interested you can read more about it here.

Rob

“It’s your money or your life,”


How many times have you heard those, or similar, words in some Hollywood movie or TV show, while watching the bad guy point a gun or knife at an innocent victim? Well, Libertarian’s believe that for the Federal Government to tax us for anything that is not provided for in the Constitution is armed robbery. “What?” you may ask, how can you call paying taxes armed robbery?

Let me explain, the Constitution describes the basics of our republic, as well as the functions and limited powers thereof. While one of the delineated powers of congress is to “lay and collect taxes”, those are only authorized to pay for the duties and functions described therein. So now we have this bloated Federal Bureaucracy that far exceeds its limited powers, and collects more in taxes than King George demanded which resulted in the war for independence.

You’re probably still wondering though, how I can claim that any of this is armed robbery, right? Okay, stop paying your taxes, and see what happens? Men with guns will come looking for you, to take that which you didn’t voluntarily hand over. So we now have men with guns, coming to take more than they are constitutionally authorized to take from you. Sure sounds like armed robbery to me.

So why am I bringing all of this up? Well, I’ve long known that the Democrats are guilty of a couple of thing that never seem to change, first is an insatiable thirst for our hard-earned money, and second an unshakeable belief in global warming. Recently Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill) combined both into a single statement when he said in a press conference It’s your money or your life, We are either going to dedicate ourselves to a cleaner, more livable planet and accept the initial investment necessary or we’re going to pay a heavier price in terms of loss of human life, damage and costs associated with it.” [emphasis added] (see the video here)

His comments were in regard to the fact that since 2006, 97 Illinois counties have experienced weather related emergencies, and hybrid cars and your money are the obvious answer. This man is an idiot; could he really believe that driving a hybrid is going to stop tornadoes and summer heat waves? Despite what the Democrats and environmentalists would have you believe, there is no scientific proof, let me repeat that… no, nada, none, zero, zilch – scientific evidence that man is having any noticeable effect on the climate.  

Every scientific study put forth by the climate change alarmists has been falsified. Every single one, yet they continue to spew forth the same old worn out arguments and disproved theories as evidence of their silly hypothesis. Next time you hear Al Gore, or one of his ilk tell you that the science is proven, laugh, because any real scientist knows that’s a joke. Almost nothing in science can be proven, the only exceptions are what are known as “Physical Laws of Nature” i.e. the law of gravity, the laws of motion, or the laws of thermodynamics. These are considered by science as “Laws” because they are pretty much set in concrete.

Everything else is a theory or hypothesis, and if even a single experiment disproves it, then it’s thrown out in search of another one to explain the observed phenomena. As I said above, there has not been a single theory set forth to try to “prove” manmade global warming that has stood this test. There is one unalterable truth about it however, and that is that it has nothing to do with the climate, but rather more government control over our lives.

I’m going to leave you with two quotes from Albert Einstein that I admire. First in reference to what I explained above about trying to prove anything scientifically, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; however a single experiment can prove me wrong.” And my personal favorite, “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former”.

Rob