February 6, 2013

NEWSMAX
Kibbe: Rove's Plan to Protect GOP Incumbents is 'Political Suicide'
by Jim Meyers and Kathleen Walter
by February 5, 2013

FreedomWorks President Matt Kibbe tells Newsmax that a new Karl Rove-backed group is seeking to protect incumbents who “are afraid of a tea party challenge” — and he calls the effort “political suicide.”

Kibbe also discloses that his group intends to target in GOP primaries incumbents who don’t consistently support conservative principles.

Tea party-affiliated FreedomWorks was founded in 2004 and claims to have millions of members nationwide.

Former George W. Bush adviser Rove’s group, American Crossroads, has formed a new organization called the Conservative Victory Project that will target Republican candidates it deems unelectable. The organization was formed because of concerns that candidates like Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock were costing the GOP congressional seats.

Commenting on the group’s efforts, Kibbe says in an exclusive interview with Newsmax TV: “It’s all about stifling competition. It’s all about protecting incumbent senators who are afraid of a tea party challenge, afraid of actually standing on their record.

“If you think about what Karl Rove is trying to do, he’s going to eliminate this whole new breed of Republican that’s repopulated the party, bringing all this energy. There would be no Marco Rubio, no Pat Toomey, no Mike Lee, no Rand Paul if this type of apparatus was successful.

“So it’s a really bad idea and if you look at our record on balance, we have in fact brought new energy to the Republican Party and it’s vital that we continue to do so.”

Read more: http://goo.gl/xqAJR

TOWNHALL
Prophets and Losses: Part II
by Thomas Sowell
February 6, 2013

People on both sides of tax issues often speak of such things as a "$300 billion tax increase" or a "$500 billion tax decrease." That is fine if they are looking back at something that has already happened. But it can be sheer nonsense if they are talking about a proposed increase or decrease in the tax rate.
The government can only raise or lower the tax rate. Whether the actual tax revenues that the government will collect as a result will go up or down is a matter of prophecy. And these prophecies have been far too wrong far too often to base national policies on them.

When Congress was considering raising the capital gains tax rate from 20 percent to 28 percent in 1986, the Congressional Budget Office advised Congress that this would increase the revenue received from that tax. But the Congressional Budget Office was wrong, not simply about the amount of the tax revenue increase, but about the fact that the capital gains tax revenue actually fell.

There was nothing unique about this example of tax rates and tax revenues moving in opposite directions from each other -- and also in opposite directions from the predictions of the Congressional Budget Office. Reductions of the capital gains tax rates in 1978, 1997 and 2003 all led to increased revenues from that tax.

The Congressional Budget Office is by no means the only government agency whose prophecies have been grossly unreliable. Anyone who looks at the history of the Federal Reserve System will find many painful examples of wrong prophecies that led to policies with bad consequences for the whole economy.

In a worldwide context, during the 20th century economic central planning by governments -- prophecy at the grandest level -- led to so many bad consequences, in countries around the world, that even most socialist and communist governments abandoned central planning by the end of that century.

The failures of governmental prophecies in so many different contexts cannot be blamed on stupidity. Most of the people who made these prophecies were far more educated than the average person, had far more information at their fingertips and probably had higher IQs as well.

Their intellectual superiority to others may well have given them the confidence to venture into areas where no human being has what it takes to make prophecies that lead to policies overriding the plans and actions of millions of other human beings.


As John Stuart Mill said, back in the 19th century, "even if a government were superior in intelligence and knowledge to any single individual in the nation, it must be inferior to all the individuals of the nation taken together."

People competing with each other, and being forced to make mutual accommodations with each other in the marketplace, are operating in a trial and error process.

Human beings are going to make errors in any kind of economic or political system. The question is: Which kind of system punishes errors more quickly, and more effectively, in terms of forcing errors to be corrected?

A market economy with many competitors has incentives and constraints that are the opposite of those in a government monopoly.

Anyone familiar with the economic history of businesses knows that their mistakes have been common and large. But red ink on the bottom line lets them know that they are going to have to shape up or shut down.

Government agencies face no such constraint. The Federal Reserve can keep making the same mistakes in the next hundred years that it made in its first hundred years. Or it can make new and bigger mistakes.

Nor is the Federal Reserve unique. The same thing applies to the Congressional Budget Office and to government agencies on down to the local DMV.

Elected politicians not only can keep making the same mistakes. They have every incentive to deny that they made a mistake in the first place, since such an admission can end their careers.

That is why these prophets can lead to our losses.


Read more: http://goo.gl/JXIoK

THE DAILY CALLER
Stunning new numbers forecast debt explosion by 2023
by Betsi Fores
February 6, 2013

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released an estimate Tuesday saying that by 2023, the federal debt will be $7 trillion larger.

“If current laws remain in place, debt will equal 77 percent of GDP and be on an upward path,” CBO projects.

Based on their modeling, the deficit will total $845 billion in 2013, making it the first year in five years to have a deficit below $1 trillion.

“With such deficits, federal debt would remain above 73 percent of GDP — far higher than the 39 percent average seen over the past four decades,” says the CBO.

Economists commonly recommend that the debt-to-GDP ratio should not exceed 60 percent. It currently exceeds 70 percent.

“The CBO’s report is yet another warning that we need to get spending under control,” House budget committee chair Paul Ryan said last week. “The deficit is still unsustainable. By 2023, our national debt will hit $26 trillion. We can’t let that happen. We need to budget responsibly, so we can keep our commitments and expand opportunity.”

Included in the CBO’s budget outlook is the future of medical insurance programs. The CBO projects that 7 million people will no longer have employer-provided health insurance by 2022, because of changes required by the Affordable Care Act.

The cost of Social Security is expected to nearly double over the next ten years, from $773 billion in 2012 to $1.43 trillion in 2023.

G. William Hoagland, senior vice president of the Bipartisan Policy Center, testified before Congress that by 2022, the debt will be $27 trillion. Hoagland agreed that the debt-to-GDP ratio will reach 77 percent.

In all, the CBO expects economic growth to be slow for the remainder of the year as the expected budgetary cuts take place. Following 2013, the CBO estimates economic growth will speed up, “causing the unemployment rate to decline and inflation and interest rates to eventually rise from their current low levels,” the CBO writes.

“Nevertheless, the unemployment rate is expected to remain above 7½ percent through next year,” making 2014 the sixth consecutive year with unemployment exceeding 7.5 percent — the longest period of extended unemployment in the last 70 years.

Read more: http://goo.gl/nKXHx

January 30, 2013

TOWNHALL

Cruz to Banks Being Bullied by Emanuel Over Guns: Come to Texas

by Katie Pavlich 

January 29, 2013

Late last week, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel sent letters to the CEOs of Bank of America and TD Bank Group urging them to cut off business with gun manufacturers. Both banks operate out of Chicago. Now, freshman Senator Ted Cruz has sent a letter of his own to the same CEOs urging them to do more business in Texas, away from the bully tactics of Chicago.

To the CEOs of Bank of America and TD Bank Group, it has recently been reported that Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel sent each of you letters urging that you threaten to cease transacting business with American firearm manufacturers Smith & Wesson and Sturm, Ruger & Co.

Both of your companies do considerable business in the City of Chicago, and you may be understandably concerned that there are risks to refusing to comply with the demands of a politicians who has earned the nickname, "The Godfather."

In Texas, we have a  more modest view of government.

We do not accept that notion that government officials should behave as bullies, trying to harass or pressure private companies into enlisting in a political lobbying campaign. And we subscribe to the notion, quaint in some quarters, that private companies don't work for elected officials; elected officials work for private citizens.

In light of the reception you have received in the Windy City, please know that Texas would certainly welcome more of your business and the jobs you create. Texans value jobs and value freedom and over 1000 people a day are moving to Texas (often from cities like Chicago), because Texas is where the jobs are.

If I can be of assistance in that regard, please do not hesitate to call.

Cruz cc'ed Emanuel on the letter and thanked Smith & Wesson and Sturm, Ruger & Co. for their commitment to the Second Amendment.

Read more: http://goo.gl/mBEFT

A Conservative Warrior with a true backbone!  Click ^^pic^^ to read Ted's letter

REDSTATE

Rick Snyder mousetraps Michigan Right To Work opponents

by Moe Lane

January 29, 2013

Hey, do you want to see what it looks like to have your planned judicial delaying tactics trip, fall, and face-plant before it even clears the door?

…Yeah, sorry about the metaphor, but sometimes the convoluted ones are really the only ones that fit. Case in point:

Opponents of the state’s new right-to-work law promised a challenge of the controversial bill that passed the lame-duck Legislature in December. 

But those challenges may become a moot point since Gov. Rick Snyder asked the Michigan Supreme Court on Monday to review the bill and determine whether it passes constitutional muster.

What was going to happen was that labor reform opponents were going to judicial shop until they found a tame judge ready and willing to pass a temporary injunction on the law until it… reached the Michigan Supreme Court. Governor Snyder, knowing this perfectly well, is simply going to move the process along – secure in the knowledge that Right-To-Work has passed muster in the courts time and again, and perhaps even more secure in the knowledge that the Michigan Supreme Court has a comfortable Republican majority, thanks to Democratic MI Supreme Court judge Diane Hathaway’s recent resignation in the face of charges of real estate fraud. Hence, the short-circuiting; the sooner this all gets resolved, the better.

Anyway, go read the Detroit Free Press article: it’s got some awesomely cranky Democrats being quoted in it. Apparently they don’t like it when Republicans are too busy to indulge the Left in its usual judicial Kabuki theater… but, honestly: jumping the queue to the Supreme Court is a perfectly-reasonable response to make to what is often a very childish, and always predictable, strategy by Democrats. If the Democrats don’t like that, then maybe they shouldn’t try to quick-draw an injunction every time they lose an important vote…

Read more: http://goo.gl/gnr5x

Right to Work States

DAILY CALLER

How politicians are planning the return of taxation without representation

by Christopher Bedford

January 30, 2013

It’s been nearly 250 years since the king passed his Stamp Act to pay for all that royal spending, and nearly 240 years since gramps found that generally Intolerable and sent the British running. But the issue is not dead. On the contrary, legislators are again actively attempting to pass what is effectively taxation without representation, and far from being a distant king in England, the villains today are both Democratic and Republican lawmakers from Washington to Tennessee.

That’s right: Taxation without representation is the situation we may find ourselves in soon if the states get the feds to pass their Internet tax law. And stop right there! Because before anyone says Internet taxes are boring, reread the first graph of this riot; and also recall that stamps and tea are way more boring than the Internet, but that didn’t stop grandpa from dressing up in war paint and bashing things up over them.

So in the vein of old Paul Revere, we’re here to spread the alarm and lay out exactly what it is they’re scheming.

How they usually steal money

Typically, politicians confiscate Americans’ money through an origin-based system — essentially, one based on physical presence. So, if we drive to Virginia to buy a book, we pay the sales tax in Virginia and no one asks us where we’re going to read that book. And if we live in a home in Maryland, we pay property taxes and the rest in Maryland. And if we own a business in Washington, D.C., we pay a whole slew of other taxes in Washington, D.C.

While there are plenty of overly complicated deviations from this basic rule, by and large, physical presence is the anchor. This is really, really important, because it keeps the tax man in check: Virginia doesn’t want to make it too expensive to buy a book in Virginia; Maryland doesn’t want to make it too expensive to live in Maryland (plus the homeowner can vote there); and D.C. doesn’t want to make it too difficult to operate a business in D.C.

These are the checks and balances that generally stop the greedy tax man from fleecing the people he relies on. Allowing for the precedent of the 50 states to tax beyond their borders is dangerous as hell, not only to our wallets but to the very way people operate in this country.

But so far, we’ve been talking about physically present, brick & mortar things. So what about the Internet?

How the schemers want to steal (more) money

What the schemers want to do is tax transactions that take place on the Internet. Basically, states want to tax Internet imports. So if we want to sell something on eBay to a buyer in Florida, Florida wants to tax us, even though we have no property, physical presence or political representation in Florida. And if we tell Florida to take a hike, we have to leave the comforts of home and fight that in court in Florida.

All of this, of course, is in the interest of “fairness.” See, legislators point out that Internet businesses should not be able to dodge the taxes that brick & mortar businesses pay every day. But since “fairness” is almost always a code word for an incredibly stupid government idea, the major proposal to fix this is a lot more taxes on a lot more people with a lot less accountability.

Now, the real problem with this is when a state can tax people who have no property, physical presence or political representation in them, that state then has zero incentive not to tax those people out of existence. In fact, making it harder for folks in our state to compete with folks in Florida could serve as an actual incentive for Florida to tax our business! That, friends, is a form of protectionism, and it’s something we’ve seen before.

We’ve seen it before because when states were allowed to engage in protectionist policies, they did. Little known fact: The U.S. Constitution is not the first constitution we had — it just worked a lot better than the first, known as the Articles of Confederation. Under the Articles, Congress was powerless to regulate interstate commerce, leaving the states free to engage in trade wars with each other, which they did with great mirth while the Red Coats ran roughshod over the young country’s attempts to get its shit together. This, to say the least, was bad for American prosperity.

Fortunately, today, as the states fight to see who will get the plunder and who won’t, we have the modern Constitution, which gives Congress the power “To regulate commerce … among the several states.”

Read more: http://goo.gl/N1qjE

January 9, 2013

THE DAILY CALLER
New data show 1 in 4 children on food stamps in FY 2011
by Caroline May
January 9, 2013

The USDA’s “Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2011” shows that in 2011, 19.9 million children, or people under 18, received food stamp benefits.

The Census estimates there were 73.9 million children living in the United States in 2011, meaning that 26.9 percent of children, or approximately one in four, were on food stamps in 2011.

The USDA notes that children constituted 45 percent of SNAP participants in 2011. Some philanthropists and policy experts believe efforts to reform SNAP because of high youth enrollment are misguided, arguing that the program ultimately helps the economy and improve kids’ health.

But Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions — one of the most vocal critics of the recent skyrocketing SNAP enrollment numbers and USDA’s promotion of the benefit — contends that something must be done about government policies and a USDA that he says is more interested in enrolling Americans in the program than finding real solutions.

“It has become sadly clear that Agriculture Secretary Vilsack wishes to make welfare part of the normal American experience, with no regard for social or economic consequences. How else can you explain why he gave an award to a recruitment worker for overcoming the ‘mountain pride’ of rural Americans?” Sessions told The Daily Caller, recalling one of the many outreach efforts the USDA has engaged in over the years to get more people on SNAP. (RELATED: USDA suggests people host food stamp parties to boost SNAP enrollment)

Indeed, the trajectory of the food stamp program has in recent years been up — with spending on the program doubling in the last four years and quadrupling since 2001. Approximately 15.5 million additional recipients have been added to the SNAP rolls since the beginning of 2009.

Read more: http://goo.gl/tF6wi

BREITBART
Obama Voters Furious About Tax Hikes
by William Bigelow
January 8, 2013

Now, now. Calm down. Yes, I know you voted for Obama, but didn’t you ever stop to think that he’d tax you, too? You didn’t?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Disillusioned Obama voters are waking up to face the reality that Obama didn’t exempt them in his quest to steal money from all Americans to pay for his expanding government. It turns out that those making $30,000 a year will pay more taxes than those making $500,000 because of the deal Obama pushed for after the fiscal cliff debacle.

Obama voters, the joke’s on you.

Oh, one other little tidbit. The Democrats want to find $1 trillion more in taxes in 2013.

The message is sinking in. Here are some tweets from Obama voters:

• @CZebari22 Damn the taxes killed me. I should have voted Romney
• @crushonchrissy I'm starting to regret voting for Obama.
• @gekka_88 I have a friend who voted for Obama publicly complaining about the new #SS tax   raise. I would just like to say: You did this to yourself.
•  @VAisforlovas But really how am I ever supposed to pay off my student loans if my already small paycheck keeps getting smaller? Help a sister out, Obama

One comment on the liberal site DemocraticUnderground.com. whined:

What happened that my Social Security withholding’s in my paycheck just went up? My paycheck just went down by an amount that I don’t feel comfortable with. I guarantee this decrease is gonna’ hurt me more than the increase in income taxes will hurt those making over 400 grand. What happened?”

Another comment, by “DemocratToTheEnd” was, “My boyfriend has had a lot of expenses and is feeling squeezed right now, and having his paycheck shrink really didn’t help.”

“Nancy Thongkham” gave a measured response to the new taxes she would have to pay: “F***ing Obama! F*** you! This taking out more taxes s*** better f***ing help me out!! Very upset to see my paycheck less today!”

“_Alex™” was more resigned: “Obama I did not vote for you so you can take away a lot of money from my checks.”

“Dave” had the most honest reaction: “Obama is the biggest f***ing liar in the world. Why the f*** did I vote for him”?

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington estimated 77.1 percent of all taxpayers will see higher taxes.

Obama voters, that means you.

Hahahahahahahaha.

Read more: http://goo.gl/5NOyX

THE AMERICAN SPECTATOR
Muzzling Military Chaplains - Obama forces them to bow to his agenda.
by George Neumayr
January 9, 2013

One of the items on Obama’s second term agenda is to root out traditionally Christian chaplains from the military. He sees them as bigots unworthy of conscience protections. Like Chick-fil-A, they don’t uphold Obama’s “values.”

Obama’s mouthpieces in the military have already blurted this out. In 2010, Admiral Michael Mullen told a Christian chaplain who opposed the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that “If you cannot get in line, resign your commission.” That same year Lieutenant General Thomas P. Bostick, the Army’s deputy chief of staff in charge of personnel, said military members who dissent from Obama’s gay rights agenda should “get out.”

“Unfortunately, we have a minority of service members who are still racists and bigoted and you will never be able to get rid of all of them,” he said, as reported by the Washington Times. “But these people opposing this new policy will need to get with the program, and if they can’t, they need to get out.”

Pentagon officials go through the motions of saying that military chaplains still enjoy religious freedom. But this claim grows ever more lawyerly and narrow. When Defense Department Counsel Jeh C. Johnson testified before Congress about the implications of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy’s collapse for religious freedom, he said that it would not affect what a chaplain said in “the religious context.” In other words, chaplains would be punished for objecting to Obama’s gay rights agenda anywhere outside of a pulpit.

But even that feeble promise isn’t worth taking seriously, since Obama’s military officials have already regulated sermons from the pulpit. Last year they forbade Catholics chaplains from orally criticizing the HHS mandate, permitting only a printed objection to it. How long before the Army’s Office of the Chief of Chaplains requires vetting of all sermons on homosexuality?

At Maoist-style reeducation sessions, soldiers and chaplains have already been told that “You remain obligated to follow orders that involve interaction with others who are homosexual even if an unwillingness to do so is based on strong, sincerely held moral or religious beliefs.”

Also, it is not even clear if military chaplains control who speaks from their pulpits. It is likely that they will have to turn them over to other ministers preaching at gay nuptials whenever the Pentagon so decrees . A September 2011 memo from DOD general counsel Johnson indicates that any chapel space on a military base can be appropriated for gay weddings, which is a blatant violation of the Defense of Marriage Act. “Determinations” of chapel space, he wrote, “should be made on a sexual-orientation neutral basis.” By 2011, in open defiance of DOMA, the military authorized ministerial training for gay marriage ceremonies on military bases.

Considering himself very generous and tolerant, Obama has said that he would never force a priest or minister to preside at a gay wedding. This is an absurdly low guarantee of religious freedom. But there is no reason to suppose that he will even honor that low standard, given that he sees such a stance as discriminatory. In time, pressure, both direct and indirect, will be brought to bear on non-participating ministers. Even their silence will be seen as a hate crime. Careers will rise or fall depending upon the level of one’s participation in the promotion of gay rights.

The “LGBT” community will no doubt frame the issue as one of “access”: How can a gay soldier have a right to marry on a military base if military chaplains are free to refuse to marry them? At last year’s first gay wedding at West Point, the lesbian couple complained to the press that none of the ministers on campus agreed to marry them, so they had to fly a chaplain in from elsewhere.

Using the “access” argument, Obama scotched Bush-era conscience protections for pro-life Christian doctors working at federal hospitals. They are required to distribute abortifacients whether they like it or not. When the time is right, Obama will use the same “access” argument to require ministerial participation in gay weddings.

Keeping this option open, Obama last week announced that he will disobey a provision protecting chaplains which Republicans included in the national defense authorization bill he signed. The provision states that the religious views of a soldier cannot be “the basis of any adverse personnel action, discrimination or denial of promotion, schooling, training or assignment,” and that chaplains cannot be forced “to perform any rite, ritual or ceremony that is contrary to the conscience, moral principles or religious beliefs of the chaplain.”

Just as Obama refuses to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, so he promises to ignore this provision, as he said in his signing statement, calling it “unnecessary and ill-advised.” He added that he will not let it slow down his gay-rights agenda: “My Administration remains fully committed to continuing the successful implementation of the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and to protecting the rights of gay and lesbian service members; Section 533 will not alter that.”

Obama won’t promise to protect these military chaplains for the simple reason that he views them as the moral equivalent of segregationists. Chai Feldblum, one of Obama’s commissioners on the EEOC, has written that the state, acting in the name of nondiscrimination, enjoys an absolute right to violate the religious freedom of Christians: “Just as we do not tolerate private racial beliefs that adversely affect African-Americans in the commercial arena, even if such beliefs are based on religious views, we should similarly not tolerate private beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity that adversely affect LGBT people.”

That’s the essential view animating all of Obama’s policies related to Christianity. Under this secularist dogmatism, Christianity has no public rights. Freedom, as Feldblum puts it, is a “zero sum game” in which the religious deserve to lose.

Read more: http://goo.gl/W6gXJ

January 8, 2013

NEWSMAX

Obama's $264 Billion Tax for 2013 May Spark New Recession
by David A. Patten
January 7, 2013

With the fiscal cliff deal and many Obamacare taxes taking effect, Americans will be slammed with an estimated $264 billion in new taxes this year alone — making 2013 memorable for delivering one of the largest one-year tax increases in American history.

The math breakdown of the new taxes is simple: Key parts of the Bush tax cuts will expire as a result of the new fiscal cliff legislation, hitting American taxpayers with taxes of about $39.5 billion each year for the next decade.

In addition, the expiration of the so-called “payroll-tax holiday” will fill federal coffers with another $160 billion each year, on average, over the next 10 years.

And finally, several new Obamacare taxes begin this year, costing Americans an estimated $41.8 billion of additional taxes.

In the wake of this tax tsunami, a growing chorus of economists is warning that Congress’s last-minute effort to dodge the fiscal cliff — which added some $2.2 trillion in new revenue over 10 years, could function as a massive "anti-stimulus" – pushing a teetering economy into a full blown recession within the next 12 to 18 months.

While the number crunching continues in earnest, the tax wallop of the 157-page American Taxpayer Relief Tax Act of 2012 that Congress passed last week is gradually emerging.

In 2013 alone, the new tax revenues would include:

• $160 Billion Hike in Payroll Taxes. This is due to the expiration of the payroll tax “holiday,” which increases the payroll tax that helps fund Social Security from 4.2 percent to 6.2 percent. According to the Tax Policy Center, this increase will actually hit lower-and middle-income taxpayers harder, in percentage terms, than the wealthy. Commentators often say “it’s just a 2 percent increase” — it’s actually a 48 percent increase over the tax rate wage-earners paid for each of the past two years.

• $39.5 Billion in Income-Tax Rate Hikes. President Obama and the Democratic Senate insisted on letting the Bush tax cuts lapse on high income earners. Such earners making more than $400,000 ($450,000 for married couples) will see their marginal income-tax rates rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. That shift is projected to garner $395 billion in taxes over the next 10 years. The tax affects less than 1 percent of American households — but also impacts many high spending professionals and successful small business owners who pay taxes on the personal returns.

• $15 Billion from Limiting Deductions. The new law calls for a “personal exemption phase out,” or PEP, affecting the exemptions and deductions that wealthier families can claim. It affects individual filers at $250,000, and $300,000 for joint filers. The tax bill for a couple earning $400,000 averaging about $50,000 in deductions each year rise by about $1,000 according to a Wall Street Journal calculation.

• $5.5 Billion in Capital Gain and Dividend Taxes. The new tax rate for capital gains and dividends will rise from 15 percent to 20 percent (this figure doesn't include an additional 3.8 percent surcharge on investment income for high income earners, which will kick in during 2013 to help defray the cost of Obamacare).

• $2 Billion in Estate Taxes. The law increases the top rate for gift and estate taxes from 35 to 40 percent.

Despite President Obama's promise during both of his campaigns not to raise taxes on middle-income wage earners, The Tax Policy Center reports taxes will go up for over 77 percent of American households.

The bottom line of the new taxation: Economists predict less economic growth as cash is sucked out of the economy to cover the burgeoning federal deficit. And some see a worse scenario: Greater likelihood of a new recession.

Many news outlets are reporting the tax impact of the fiscal cliff deal to be in the neighborhood of $620 billion over 10 years. This overlooks the larger impact, however, of the expiration of the payroll tax holiday, which will rise from 4.2 to 6.2 percent – a one-year increase in that tax of 48 percent.

The payroll tax reduction was originally expected to last for one year, but it was extended for a second year. Some economists have questioned the wisdom of allowing the payroll tax to increase in the middle of a sluggish economy.

Moody’s chief economist Mark Zandi issued a projection that the tax burden will cut GDP growth by three-quarters of 1 percent, causing the creation of 600,000 fewer jobs in 2013. But the general consensus among economists is that the impact will be much worse – about a 1.5 percent loss of GDP growth. Such a serious dip could push an already lackluster economy close to the brink of actual contraction.

But the impact of the fiscal-cliff taxes are only part of the story. That’s because several of the taxes that Congress approved as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, dubbed Obamacare, are also kicking in this year.

Based on the average per-year cost of those taxes, they will net the federal government an additional $41.8 billion in new tax revenue in 2013.
The cost of the new Obamacare tax hikes coming in 2013:

• $21 Billion in Medicare Taxes. The healthcare law calls for a nine-tenths of 1 percent increase in the hospital-insurance (Medicare) payroll tax paid by couples earning more than $250,000 a year, or $200,000 per year for single filers.
• $11 Billion from Surcharge on Capital Gains and Dividends. Married couples earning more than $250,000 per year, or single filers earning $200,000 will be slapped with a 3.8 percent surcharge in the tax rate for capital gains and dividends -- in addition to the “fiscal cliff” compromise that hiked taxes on capital gains and dividends from 15 to 20 percent.
• $4.5 Billion in Limiting Deductions. Obamacare eliminates corporate deductions for retirees’ prescriptions, raising tax costs to employers.
• $2 Billion in Excise Fees. A 2.3 percent excise tax on manufacturers and importers of medical devices, which is expected to be passed along in higher costs to consumers.
• $2 Billion in Limiting Healthcare Itemized Deductions. This reflects a reduction in the amount that middle-class families facing high medical expenses can deduct from their income taxes if they incur high medical expenses.
• $1.3 Billion from Limiting Flexible Savings Accounts. A $2,500 limit will go into effect on tax-free flexible spending accounts, which employees use to help defray medical expenses.

The tax burden associated with healthcare reform will climb even higher next year, when the tax penalty for not complying with the mandate to purchase healthcare insurance begins to kick in.

Some experts predict millions of Americans may opt to pay the tax penalty, rather than comply with the mandate.

The CBO estimates the U.S. Treasury will get $167 billion in such fines over the next 10 years.

Some observers also argue that the rising private insurance premiums due to Obamacare mandate are a hidden tax that will directly hit insured individuals and companies.

Overall, the House Ways and Means Committee has estimated that all 21 tax increases associated with the health care law will bring in over $675 billion over the next decade — an average of over $67 billion each year.

Small Business Targeted

One big unknown is how the nation’s most prosperous taxpayers, notably small business owners, will respond to the spike in taxes.

A 2011 Treasury department report found that 750,000 small businesses would be impacted if taxes were raised on individuals making more than $500,000.

Many small-business owners, who account for most job creation in the United States, often organize their businesses as “Chapter S” corporations, or S-corps.

These entities do not pay corporate taxes, but rather distribute their profits each year to partners who then declare income directly through the partners’ individual tax returns. Those returns are now vulnerable to the high marginal tax rates of 39.6 percent, limitations on deductions, and the Obamacare surcharge on capital gains and dividends. Those earning more than $450,000 would see their tax rates rise to close to 45 percent. That would mean high-income earners could see close to a 20 percent increase in their tax rates starting in 2013.

NFIB President and CEO Dan Danner welcomed some aspects of the fiscal cliff deal. But he added: “It’s hugely disappointing to the small-business community that the legislative bridge to avert the ‘cliff’ did not address our country’s most pressing economic issue: unchecked spending that leads to crushing deficits and debt.”

Heritage Foundation economist Romina Boccia tells Newsmax the higher taxes on capital gains and dividends will make start-up capital harder to find.

“The large tax increase on dividends and capital gains makes it more difficult for startup firms to get financing,” she says. “This means fewer opportunities for innovation and increases in productivity — the engines of economic growth. . . . . it will dampen job creation from new and existing businesses.”

Recession Risk

“In isolation, it poses a major risk of putting us in a recession,” says Robert A. Wiedemer, economist and co-author of the best-selling “Aftershock." Wiedemer predicted the housing and subprime meltdown of 2007 and '08.

With GDP growth only hovering around 2 percent, and with consumers already skittish about the economy, Wiedemer predicts that the post-cliff tax jolt will “have a negative effect on the stock market, on real estate markets, and on consumer spending.”

Wiedemer emphasized that ax jolt may be mitigated by the Federal Reserve which could offset the fiscal contraction from the new taxes by further increasing the the money supply, which he argues will create a new set of problems.

Economist Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the CATO Institute, says the short-term impact of the tax hikes will be negative, but warns the long-term impact will be even more negative.

“The more regulation, and the higher the tax rates we have,” he says, “the less flexible the economy becomes, and the longer it will take to recover from any negative blow.”

“Compared to what the economy would have been had we extended all tax policies,” Heritage Foundation Senior Policy Analyst and tax expert Curtis S. Dubay tells Newsmax, “we’re going to have a slower-growing economy, we’re going to have fewer jobs, less opportunity for Americans of all income levels.”

Read more: http://goo.gl/iatKD

BREITBART

Obama CIA Pick John Brennan in 2010: Jihad a 'Legitimate Tenet of Islam'

by Kerry Picket

January 7, 2013

Monday, President Barack Obama picked top counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan to become the next head of the CIA. Brennan's views on radical Islam may concern hawkish Senators who will scrutinize Obama's choice for CIA chief.

In May of 2010, Fox News reported Brennan defended Jihad as a "legitimate tenet of Islam.":

The president's top counterterrorism adviser on Wednesday called jihad a "legitimate tenet of Islam," arguing that the term "jihadists" should not be used to describe America's enemies.  

During a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, John Brennan described violent extremists as victims of "political, economic and social forces," but said that those plotting attacks on the United States should not be described in "religious terms."  

He repeated the administration argument that the enemy is not "terrorism," because terrorism is a "tactic," and not terror, because terror is a "state of mind" -- though Brennan's title, deputy national security adviser for counterterrorism and homeland security, includes the word "terrorism" in it. But then Brennan said that the word "jihad" should not be applied either.  

"Nor do we describe our enemy as 'jihadists' or 'Islamists' because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one's community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children," Brennan said. 

The Washington Times Opinion Page met with Brennan three months later at an editorial board meeting and asked him about his remarks. Brennan asked for the meeting because he objected to an editorial the opinion page had written previously.

Brennan lost his temper relatively quickly during the question and answer time between him and then-TWT deputy editorial page editor (now with USA Today) David Mastio:

Then TWT Senior Editorial Writer Jim Robbins questioned Brennan about the issue of jihad. Brennan lost his patience at one point and decided to leave the TWT offices without answering any more questions:

TWT: You mentioned jihad, for example, and would you agree with the lesser and greater and lesser jihad framework? I mean, that’s pretty standard.

BRENNAN: Sure, it is...absolutely.

TWT: Can you give me an example of a jihad in history? Like, has there ever been a jihad...an armed jihad anywhere in history? Has it ever existed for real, or is it just a concept?

BRENNAN: Absolutely it has.

TWT: Example?

BRENNAN: I’m not going to go into this sort of history discussion here.

TWT: But it’s important to frame the concept, because we want to say that what al-Qaeda is doing is not jihad. They say it is, and Abdul Azzam has said, in fact, ‘there’s not even a greater jihad.’ That that’s  just a myth—that hadith didn’t  even really happen. That there’s only armed jihad. Ayatollah Khomeini said ‘there is only armed jihad, and it would be useful to be able to characterize or to contrast what they’re doing and what they claim against a legitimate armed jihad in the past.

BRENNAN: I think we’ve finished. I have to get going.

Read more: http://goo.gl/bhNWV

January 7, 2013

TOWNHALL
Obama to nominate Hagel for defense secretary
by Thomas Ferraro
January 6, 2013

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama will nominate former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel to be his defense secretary and an announcement could come on Monday, sources familiar with the nomination process said.

The choice will likely set up a confirmation battle in the Senate over whether the former Nebraska senator and Vietnam veteran is a strong enough supporter of key U.S. ally Israel and over his past calls for military cuts.

The Obama administration backed down from a tough Senate confirmation battle over Susan Rice, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, who was Obama's first pick to replace Hillary Clinton as secretary of state.

Rice withdrew her name from consideration after drawing heavy fire from Republicans for remarks she made in the aftermath of a September 11 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya. Obama then nominated Massachusetts Democratic Senator John Kerry, a former presidential candidate.

"The administration has a lot of work to do on Hagel," a Democratic Senate aide said on Sunday.

"He is in a weaker position now than Rice ever was because Rice would have rallied Democrats behind her. The administration floated Hagel's name, then neglected to defend him effectively when his critics started taking shots," the aide said.

However, the White House is confident it can weather criticism of Hagel's record and garner enough votes from both sides of the political aisle to get his nomination through committee and win confirmation in the Democratic-led Senate.

"The president wants him, because he trusts him and he's an independent voice," a second source close to the situation said.

The source said Hagel had received high-level messages of reassurance in recent days that his nomination was on track despite a campaign by his critics aimed at derailing it.

People close to Hagel have been informed of an imminent announcement, the source added.

Obama is also expected to round out his security team by unveiling his pick for CIA director to replace David Petraeus, the retired general who stepped down in November over an extramarital affair with his biographer.

NOMINATION FIGHT

In recent weeks a number of prominent Republicans have said they would oppose Hagel's nomination. On Sunday, Republican lawmakers made clear he would face a tough nomination process.

"This is an in-your-face nomination by the president to all of us who are supportive of Israel," South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham told CNN's "State of the Union."

"I don't know what his management experience is regarding the Pentagon, little, if any, so I think it's an incredibly controversial choice."

Many Republicans contend that Hagel, who left the Senate in 2008, at times opposed Israel's interests. He voted several times against U.S. sanctions on Iran, and made disparaging remarks about the influence of what he called a "Jewish lobby" in Washington.

Read more: http://goo.gl/bSKxj

Critical of Israel - Opposes Iranian Sanctions - BAD Choice for America

WASHINGTON TIMES

Obama supporters shocked, angry at new tax increases

by Joseph Curl

January 6, 2013

Sometimes, watching a Democrat learn something is wonderful, like seeing the family dog finally sit and stay at your command.

With President Obama back in office and his life-saving “fiscal cliff” bill jammed through Congress, the new year has brought a surprising turn of events for his sycophantic supporters.

“What happened that my Social Security withholding’s in my paycheck just went up?” a poster wrote on the liberal site DemocraticUnderground.com. “My paycheck just went down by an amount that I don’t feel comfortable with. I guarantee this decrease is gonna’ hurt me more than the increase in income taxes will hurt those making over 400 grand. What happened?”

Shocker. Democrats who supported the president’s re-election just had NO idea that his steadfast pledge to raise taxes meant that he was really going to raise taxes. They thought he planned to just hit those filthy “1 percenters,” you know, the ones who earned fortunes through their inventiveness and hard work. They thought the free ride would continue forever.

So this week, as taxes went up for millions of Americans — which Republicans predicted throughout the campaign would happen — it was fun to watch the agoggery of the left.

“I know to expect between $93 and $94 less in my paycheck on the 15th,” wrote the ironically named “RomneyLies.”

“My boyfriend has had a lot of expenses and is feeling squeezed right now, and having his paycheck shrink really didn’t help,” wrote “DemocratToTheEnd.”

“BlueIndyBlue” added: “Many of my friends didn’t realize it, either. Our payroll department didn’t do a good job of explaining the coming changes.”

So let’s explain something to our ill-informed Democratic friends. In 2009, Mr. Obama enacted a “holiday” on the payroll tax deduction from employees’ paychecks, dropping the rate from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent. But like the holidays, the drop ended, and like New Year‘s, the revelers woke up the next morning with a massive hangover and a pounding head.

“Bake,” who may have been trolling the site, jumped into the thread posted Friday. “My paycheck just went down. So did my wife’s. This hurts us. But everybody says it’s a good thing, so I guess we just suck it up and get used to it. I call it a tax increase on the middle class. I wonder what they call it. Somebody on this thread called it a ‘premium.’ Nope. It’s a tax, and it just went up.”

Some in the thread argued that the new tax — or the end of the “holiday,” which makes it a new tax — wouldn’t really amount to much. One calculated it would cost about $86 a month for most people. “Honeycombe8,” though, said that amount is nothing to sneeze at.

“$86 a month is a lot. That would pay for … Groceries for a week, as someone said. More than what I pay for parking every month, after my employer’s contribution to that. A new computer after a year. A new quality pair of shoes … every month. Months of my copay for my hormones. A new thick coat (on sale or at discount place). It would pay for what I spend on my dogs every month … food, vitamins, treats.”

The Twittersphere was even funnier.

“Really, how am I ever supposed to pay off my student loans if my already small paycheck keeps getting smaller? Help a sister out, Obama,” wrote “Meet Virginia.” “Nancy Thongkham” was much more furious. “F***ing Obama! F*** you! This taking out more taxes s*** better f***ing help me out!! Very upset to see my paycheck less today!”

“_Alex™” sounded bummed. “Obama I did not vote for you so you can take away alot of money from my checks.” Christian Dixon seemed crestfallen. “I’m starting to regret voting for Obama.” But “Dave” got his dander up over the tax hike: “Obama is the biggest f***ing liar in the world. Why the f*** did I vote for him”?

Of course, dozens of posters on DemocraticUnderground sought to blame it all (as usual) on President George W. Bush. “Your taxes went up because the leaders need to dig us out of this criminal deficit hole we are in which has been caused because taxes were too low during the Bush years. Everyone has to help by spreading the wealth around a little. Power to the correct people!” posted “Orinoco.”

But in fact, it was Mr. Obama who enacted the “holiday,” and, to be clear, the tax cut that he pushed throughout the campaign — remember? 98 percent of Americans will get a cut under his plan? — was really the extension of the Bush tax suts. Thus, it was Mr. Obama who raised taxes on millions of Americans, not Mr. Bush.

How many Americans? The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington put the total at 77.1 percent of all wage earners. In fact, “More than 80 percent of households with incomes between $50,000 and $200,000 would pay higher taxes. Among the households facing higher taxes, the average increase would be $1,635, the policy center said,” according to a Bloomberg News article. Hilariously, the tax burden will rise more for someone making $30,000 a year (1.7 percent) than it does for someone earning $500,000 annually (1.3 percent).

Read more: http://goo.gl/ZBK0p

REDSTATE

The Trouble for Conservatives

by Erick Erickson

January 7, 2013

Jim Bridenstine may get a primary challenge. You may not know who he is, but Jim Bridenstine is a brand new member of Congress, a Lieutenant Commander in the Navy Reserves, a fighter pilot from the Iraq and Afghan Wars, and a strong fiscal conservative.

He should be a hero to any and all Republicans. He’s a genuine bad ass. And on Day 1, he decided not to vote for John Boehner for Speaker. Bridenstine is happy to play on the team, but unhappy to go along to get alone when we are looking at $16 trillion in debt.

His office is silent, but friends of his in Congress say the House Republican Leaders already have him on a list of incumbents they may just want to do away with. But he is exactly the type of guy we need in Congress.

This presents a problem for House conservatives. There are more and more signs that the GOP Establishment intends 2014 as an election season to seek revenge on conservatives. Conservatives are going to have to hang together or they will absolutely hang separately.

Jonathan Strong at Roll Call has what I’d consider the definitive take on the Boehner coup attempt. It shows just how vulnerable Boehner was. There are a few details Jonathan, Matthew Boyle, and the others who’ve reported on this have missed, but needless to say there was some overnight and on the floor gamesmanship and a key block of votes got scared in the overnight hours before the vote.

Enough of them, however, have now been outed that they, like Bridenstine, could be marked men. The only solution for them is going to have to be to come out of the shadows and make their voices heard from the back bench. If they will not have the support of the leadership, they must support each other.

They know now that conservatives will absolutely stick with them if they stick with conservatives. They have a position of incumbency that will help them. But they must not just disappear into the back benches now. Remember, it took two years to really orchestrate the removal of Newt Gingrich. The conservatives must keep pushing.

And yes Main Street Republicans or whatever you liberal Republicans call yourselves these days — back in the 90′s the GOP was largely held hostage by the left of the party on spending issues, social issues, etc. Now you know what that feels like.

Read more: http://goo.gl/QPimD

January 2, 2013

NEWSMAX

Cantor, McCarthy Join 151 Republicans Against Bill

by Stephen Feller

January 2, 2013

Majority House Leader Eric Cantor and GOP Whip Kevin McCarthy were among the 151 Republicans who voted against the fiscal cliff bill in the House Tuesday night.

Speaker John Boehner and Republican Conference chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the number four in the party hierarchy in the House, both voted in favor of the bill that was introduced in the House by the GOP's Ways and Means Committee chairman Dave Camp.

The party was split with around two-thirds of House Republicans voting against the bill aimed at keeping a plethora of tax rates from going up this year.

It even divided one married Republican couple. Florida's Connie Mack voted against while his wife Mary Bono Mack of California voted in favor.

The biggest complaint was that the bill — which had earlier passed by an overwhelming 89-8 vote in the Senate — did not include enough spending cuts while increasing taxes on Americans who make more than $450,000 per year.

Chief Deputy Whip Peter Roskam joined the no votes, along with influential oversight committee chairman Darrell Issa.

Budget committee chairman and former vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan voted for while former presidential candidate Ron Paul was among five GOP members who did not cast a vote.

The bill passed the house 257 to 167 as 85 Republicans and 172 Democrats voted to send the bill to the president to be signed, and 151 Republicans and 16 Democrats voted no.

Cantor "was disappointed with the bill that passed the Senate late last night," the Virginia congressman's deputy chief of staff, told Politico. "That's why you saw him working all day to find an alternative with the leadership. That's why you saw two conference meetings to deal with what all alternatives.”

Republicans also discussed the possibility of amending the bill by adding additional spending cuts to it, however the Senate would have been required to vote to approve the new version of the bill. Senate Democratic leaders already had indicated earlier in the day that they would not vote on the bill again.

Had the bill not passed the House, tax rates on all Americans were set to go up — which gave pause to many Republicans who voted against it.

"I'd like to be speaking for this bill, but I can't," said Californian Issa during the debate. "I would like to vote for this because I do vote for lower taxes. But the other day in conference, one of my colleagues pointed out that in fact you're spending the money, you're taxing our future generation."

Read more: http://goo.gl/NNJR0

BREITBART

Sources: Enough Republicans Willing to Unseat Speaker Boehner

by Matthew Boyle

January 1, 2013

American Majority Action spokesman Ron Meyer told Breitbart News late Tuesday that enough House Republicans have banded together in an effort to unseat House Speaker John Boehner from his position--they just need a leader to take up the mantle.

“At least 20 House Republican members have gotten together, discussed this and want to unseat Speaker Boehner--and are willing to do what it takes to do it,” Meyer said. “That’s more than enough to get the job done, but the one problem these guys face is they need a leader to coalesce behind.”

Meyer said the conservatives have considered House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) to take the helm after Boehner is knocked out. His opposition from the right to the Senate fiscal cliff deal that Vice President Joe Biden cut with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is a sign Cantor may try for the job.

AMA is hardly the only conservative entity aware of the rekindled effort afoot to unseat Boehner. Another conservative with inside knowledge of the effort told Breitbart News that the movement has "new focus and juice," and if enough members go to Boehner telling him they won’t support his re-election, that Americans should “watch for him to resign gracefully.”

The vote for Boehner’s re-election as Speaker happens on Thursday, two days after Boehner’s decision to support the Senate "fiscal cliff" deal Vice President Joe Biden cut with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on New Year’s Eve.

Read more: http://goo.gl/Lq3ZD

CVN EDITORIAL

Beware of Rinos Drinking Tea

by Conservative Sue

January 2, 2012

Well, the votes have been counted, and it appears the Democrats and Republicans have now passed a 'fiscal cliff' deal that represents a big tax increase with no significant long term spending cuts.  Outspoken critics of this deal include Senators Mike Lee, Rand Paul, and other Tea Party favorites,

What Speaker John Boehner has managed to accomplish with his adept political deal-making skill is to get the GOP blamed for the biggest tax increase in the last two decades while simultaneously increasing the deficit and kicking the spending cuts down the road for 'another day' that, most agree, will never come.  And, to add insult to injury, the mainstream media is in full propaganda mode blaming the teaparty for obstructionism and a 'bad deal' even though the teaparty has been pretty much united against this proposal from the start.

What does the GOP stand for?  Limited government?  Low taxes? Controlling spending? Balanced budgets? Fiscal responsibility? State sovereignty? Liberty?  From seeing the legislation written and passed by the GOP over the last 20 years, I see very little coming out of the leadership of this Republican Party that bears any resemblance to the current GOP party platform or the Reagan-style conservatism that built conservative majorities in the 80's.

Interestingly, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor voted no on this deal, which initially puzzled me (considering he's been brokering this deal with Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell all along), but I've had an epiphany this morning and believe I may have discovered the motive behind Cantor's vote....

The balance has tipped in the GOP controlled house, and the vote for this particular bill has made that clear. The majority of Republicans in the House voted against this bill, meaning that the establishment-wing of the GOP (led by Boehner and others) is now in the minority. The 'leash' the establishment had placed on the teaparty coalition has been removed, and 'going along' with GOP leadership is no longer a foregone conclusion.  Cantor is very much an establishment Republican .. so why did he join the teaparty coalition in this vote?  

Simple, Boehner is facing a vote on Thursday by GOP House Republicans on whether or not he will remain as Speaker of the House. The establishment needs to have a viable alternative to put forth if it becomes clear they will not have the votes to keep Boehner in the job .. so along comes the mysterious Cantor 'pro-teaparty' vote just in time to give them that establishment alternative to Boehner. Does anyone really believe Cantor is a teaparty Republican?  I certainly don't.

Beware of Rinos drinking tea. These politicians will sell their souls for power. If the House GOP wants to throw out Boehner for being too liberal on taxes and spending, they had better look elsewhere for an alternative. Replacing Boehner with Cantor is like replacing Charlie Sheen with Lindsay Lohan.  Both Boehner and Cantor are bad news for fiscal conservatives, and neither have any desire to get this out-of-control deficit spending under control.

December 30, 2012

BREITBART

Hobby Lobby Defies Obama Administration with Civil Disobedience for Religious Liberty

by Ken Klukowski

December 28, 2012

“We must obey God rather than men!”—Acts 5:29.

Now that Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has denied Hobby Lobby’s application for an emergency injunction protecting them from Obamacare’s HHS Mandate on abortion and birth control, Hobby Lobby has decided to defy the federal government to remain true to their religious beliefs, at enormous risk and financial cost.

Hobby Lobby is wholly owned and controlled by the Green family, who are evangelical Christians. The Greens are committed to running their business in accordance with their Christian faith, believing that God wants them to conduct their professional business in accordance with the family’s understanding of the Bible. Hobby Lobby’s mission statement includes, “Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company … consistent with Biblical principles.”

The HHS Mandate goes into effect for Hobby Lobby on Jan. 1, 2013. The Greens correctly understand that some of the drugs the HHS Mandate requires them to cover at no cost in their healthcare plans cause abortions.

Today Hobby Lobby announced that they will not comply with this mandate to become complicit in abortion, which the Greens believe ends an innocent human life. Given Hobby Lobby’s size (it has 572 stores employing more than 13,000 people), by violating the HHS Mandate, it will be subject to over $1.3 million in fines per day. That means over $40 million in fines in January alone. If their case takes another ten months to get before the Supreme Court—which would be the earliest it could get there under the normal order of business—the company would incur almost a half-billion dollars in fines. And then of course the Supreme Court would have to write an opinion in what would likely be a split decision with dissenters, which could easily take four or six months and include hundreds of millions of dollars in additional penalties.

This is civil disobedience, consistent with America’s highest traditions when moral issues are at stake. The Greens are a law-abiding family. They have no desire to defy their own government. But as the Founders launched the American Revolution because they believed the British government was violating their rights, the Greens believe that President Barack Obama and Secretary Kathleen Sebelius are commanding the Greens to sin against God, and that no government has the lawful authority to do so.

The Christian tradition of defying government commands to do something wrong goes back to the very birth of Christianity. When the apostles were ordered not to share the gospel of Jesus Christ with anyone, the Book of Acts records: “Peter and the other apostles replied: ‘We must obey God rather than men! The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree.’”

Eleven of the twelve apostles—including Peter—would lose their lives for the sake of spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ; only the apostle John died of old age. They were determined to obey God’s will at all costs.

This issue of civil disobedience is never to be undertaken lightly. The Bible teaches Christians to submit to all legitimate governmental authority (e.g., Romans 13:1), and so a person can only disobey the government when there is no other way to obey God.

But here in America, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and in its First Amendment it protects against a government establishment of an official religion and separately protects the free exercise of religion. On top of that, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) to specifically add an additional layer of protection against government actions that violate a person’s religious beliefs.

The HHS Mandate is a gross violation of the religious beliefs of the Green family. The issue before the courts here is whether the Greens religious-liberty rights include running their secular, for-profit business consistent with their religious beliefs. In other words, is religious liberty just what you do in church on a Sunday morning, or does it include what you do during the week at your job?

The Greens are now putting their fortunes on the line to do what they believe is right. The courts should side with them, affirming a broad scope of religious liberty under the Constitution and RFRA. And the Supreme Court should resolve this matter with dispatch in their favor.

Millions of Christians across the country feel exactly the same way as the Greens. The Obama administration has issued a statist command that is a declaration of war on people of faith who object to abortion, and civil disobedience could break out all over the country unless the courts set this matter right—and quickly.

Read more: http://goo.gl/d86N3

THE BLAZE

‘We Have Passed That Point of No Return’: Ron Paul Explains What’s Missing in The ‘Fiscal Cliff’ Talks

by Becket Adams

December 29, 2012

Even if Congress manages to come up with a solution to avert the “fiscal cliff,” a combination of year-end tax increases and spending cuts, it won’t be worth anything because it’ll probably only deal with tax rates and ignore the problem of runaway government spending, or so say Texas Congressman and former presidential candidate Ron Paul.

“I think we have passed that point of no return where we can actually get our house in order,” Rep. Paul said Friday on CNBC. “I believe there is too much bipartisanship on the spending. Nobody is talking about cutting any spending.”

“Republicans and Democrats,” he continued, “they pretend they’re fighting up there, but they really aren’t. They’re arguing over power, spin, and who looks good, and who looks bad, but they’re all trying to preserve this system where they can spend what they want, take care of their friends, and let the Fed print money when they need it.”

However, that’s not to say Rep. Paul doesn’t believe U.S. lawmakers will come up with temporary solutions to things like the “cliff.”

“[It’ll be] sort of like — how many times have they had a ‘solution’ for the Greece crisis? About ten or 15 times?” the congressman asked, referring to the eurozone’s most unstable and financially broken member.

“There’s no admission that they [U.S. lawmakers] have a crisis. They have no admission that the country is bankrupt. There’s no admission that our government is spending way too much and it’s way beyond our means and there’s not a single bit of effort to cut anything,” the congressman continued.

“They are so they so far removed from admitting the seriousness of this crisis and if they don’t admit it, they can’t solve the problem. They’re like a bunch of drug addicts that just want another fix. That’s what they are looking for,” he concluded:

Read more: http://goo.gl/SNSSP

TOWNHALL
Putting the Spending Genie Back in the Bottle
Bob Beauprez 
December 30, 2012

As the following chart from Investor's Business Daily demonstrates, The Bush Tax Cuts didn't starve the federal treasury – revenue flooded in as the economy expanded from the pro-growth policies implemented in 2003 and continued until the sub-prime mortgage market collapse.

Even with the anemic Obama economic recovery, revenues are again nearly equal to the level required to fund the government had spending over the last fifteen years increased at the rate of population plus inflation growth.  But, that has not been the case.

The pox on Bush and the Republican majorities is that while revenues soared following implementation of the 2003 tax cuts, spending did as well.  To be fair, much of that increased spending was related to the war on terror following the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Also, the rate of GOP spending increases pale in comparison to what happened when Democrats took control of Congress beginning in 2007 and further accelerated when Obama moved into the White House in 2009.

  

Federal revenue rose from $1.7 trillion to $2.4 trillion from FY 1998 to 2012 as indicated.  "Revenue growth averaged 2.9% annually, despite two recessions, bear markets, - and tax cuts," as David Hogberg explained in the feature article accompanying the IBD graphic.

However, federal spending rose nearly twice as fast – 5.7% per year – surging from $1.6 trillion to $3.5 trillion over the same period, notes Hogberg.

Further, the chart shows that if spending had increased over the period at the same rate as population and inflation, revenue would have trended upward about the same even allowing for the effects of the recessions.  But, current spending levels are nearly $1 trillion beyond what population-plus-inflation growth increases would have dictated.

Hogberg calculates that had spending from FY1998-2012 increased consistent with population-plus-inflation growth, revenues would have exceeded spending by $177 billion – a net budget surplus!  Instead, because of the dramatic increase in spending, the federal government racked up an additional $6.7 trillion of new debt.

Every objective observer knows that the elephant in the room is the out of control rate of spending increases over the last many years.  True to form, however, Washington – and particularly Barack Obama - is laser focused on who they can raise tax rates on and by how much.  Their efforts would be better directed at putting the Spending Genie back in the bottle.

Read more: http://goo.gl/ALHXq