Senator Coburn recently remarked that the recent order by Obama, ordering all employers to offer health insurance that covers birth control, sterilizations and abortion pills, regardless of any religious objections….is not that big a deal:

“This is blown out of proportion,” he said. “It is an important point in terms of religious liberty, but it’s a consequence of having too big of a government.”

I don’t agree that it’s blown out of proportion but I do agree on the reasons why no one should be surprised.

This was what ObamaCare was about in the first place. To place every American under the power of the federal government. To rule every aspect of your life. It’s just another power grab by the federal government, and this Administration, at the expense of the States and the individual.

Daniel Henninger:

The Catholic Church has stumbled into the central battle of the 2012 presidential campaign: What are the limits to Barack Obama’s transformative presidency? The Catholic left has just learned one answer: When Mr. Obama says, “Everyone plays by the same set of rules,” it means they conform to his rules. What else could it mean?

This battle is to repeal ObamaCare, plain and simple.

Oh wait, Romney is going to be our nominee…

Nevermind.

Exit quote:

“We are all familiar with an individual mandate that was authorized by the U.S. Congress and notoriously upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court: the affirmative duty of persons of Japanese descent to report to a Civil Control Station. Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1943). The distinction between mere prohibition and command played a large role in the internment cases. . . . Korematsu is a perfectly fine precedent: it has never been overruled. Moreover, it is the feds’ best and only precedent. So why don’t they cite it?”

A Previous Subtle Effort By The Same Obama Propagandists

How symbolic, the red and blue spheres merge and the resultant color is a deeper shade of blue. Propaganda is considered effective if it is subtle and delivers a covert or subliminal message without the subject being aware of the intent. In this image, the profile of Obama was superimposed over the merging of Conservatism and Socialism with the profile of Obama and the result is a deeper shade of blue; picturesque and convenient, Obama brings the country together and we are united under a deeper shade of Marxism. It was created by the same team that made the Chrysler commercial; it hasn’t achieved fruition, but not for a lack of effort by Obama and his lackeys.

Our public school systems have been infiltrated with the Leftist Part Line for decades. At first the message was so vague, we thought it was merely coincidences, teachers and text writers surely couldn’t be so blatant and obvious with their political agenda; oh, but think back, while we refused to call liars and Socialists as such, they increased their efforts and relied on terrorists like Bill Ayers, confidant to our president, for the Leftist message now in our children’s text books.

Now, either Eastwood has allowed himself to be duped like a moron or he is a part of the deception; regardless of his intent, he has been used as a key element in the Leftist propaganda movement. Unfortunately, we have all been played for dupes by the creative schemers of the Left for while Eastwood tells America we are at the halftime of the recovery, during the halftime of the largest event in television history, the insidious message is implied that America needs to give Obama four more years to complete his anemic recovery, that seems to elude everyone but billionaires, bankers, and others on the dole.

The fact that Chrysler is staging a fart, stumble, fall type recovery based mainly on enriching Obama cronies and unions with our taxpayer money is pushed from our consciousness; since, we receive the subliminal message to equate the auto maker’s efforts with our fight against terrorism, the struggle of Obama to win reelection, and the struggle of the two athletic teams. In the excitement of the neo-gladitorial struggle portrayed on the boob tube, we are supposed to lose ourselves in the excitement and intellectual numbness of the game, much like the games in Rome that staged to entertain the masses or the mob in Rome to keep them content and less likely to riot. Thus in a similar way, we are played for fools by the people who stage our games; no they aren’t staged to prevent us from rioting, but what an excellent time to exploit our self-imposed stupor to insinuate a covert message to reelect our failed president by one of his corporate acquisitions, with a percentage of Obama’s funny stash money, more commonly known as tax payer money.

Oh, but you say the message is vague and imprecise, how can you make the connection: sorry people, the message is supposed to be vague and imprecise, it is supposed to leave a subliminal impression that will encourage the mobs of unthinking drones to vote for Obama once again; after all, hasn’t he struggled valiantly to repay his contributors and unions with taxpayer money, at least when he can find time between golf games and vacations. The fact that the connection is obvious to those who are alert and cognizant means the message is there. If you want to deny it, like Eastwood who so gallantly gave his check to charity, but also willingly gave his image and voice to the Marxism of Obama, means you either endorse the Socialist cause or you are to dense to notice the ever deepening pool of Obama Socialism.

JOSHUA ROBERTS/REUTERS - Members of Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America and more than 20 other organizations hold a "Stand Up for Women's Health" rally in support of preventive health care and family planning services, including abortion.

Quite often when I log onto Facebook, I notice in my news feed that certain memes become popular, passed around amongst my liberal friends. The latest is in regards to Susan G. Komen for the Cure and Planned Parenthood:

Donors reacting to the Susan G. Komen Foundation’s decision to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood contributed $650,000 in 24 hours, nearly enough to replace last year’s Komen funding, Planned Parenthood executives said Wednesday.

The organization had raised more than $400,000 from more than 6,000 online donors as of Wednesday afternoon, compared with the 100 to 200 donations it receives on an average day, said Tait Sye, a spokesman for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. He said donations were still coming in.

But if the Foundation‘s defunding of Planned Parenthood has sparked a spike in donations and has in just 24 hrs already raised enough funding to replace Komen’s contributions, what’s with all the brouhaha? Think about how much they’ll raise in another 24 hrs more of FB outrage. Planned Parenthood’s alive and kicking, still raking it in. If liberals want to support Planned Parenthood, they don’t need the Susan G. Komen for the Cure; they can and should fund it themselves. Should Komen have even been funding Planned Parenthood (ever!) in the first place? Doesn’t the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation have the right to choose to abort Planned Parenthood if they so desire?

What’s passed around on Facebook right now is a link to the highly non-partisan, apolitical MoveOn.org (who would never put politics ahead of lives):

Without Komen’s funding, many of these women will be unable to get the screenings and early detection of breast cancer that saves lives.

It’s incredibly disappointing for an organization founded on protecting women’s health to play politics with real women’s lives. Tell Susan G. Komen for the Cure to put lives ahead of politics.

And how is MoveOn.org and Planned Parenthood not putting politics ahead of lives, themselves? How is Planned Parenthood a pro-choice organization when all I ever see them promote is pro-abortion literature? When about 90% of pregnant women who visit Planned Parenthood get abortions, how is Planned Parenthood not “pro-abortion”?!

Curt blogged last year:

From 2002-2008, Planned Parenthood received more than $342 million in federal taxpayer money through Title X funding alone. In its 2008-2009 annual report, Planned Parenthood revealed that it received $363.2 million in various federal, state, and local government grants and contracts for that fiscal year, a significant increase from the prior year. During that same time period, they performed an unprecedented 324,008 abortions, which equates to 888 abortions each and every day.

If the number of abortions performed alone doesn’t convince you of Planned Parenthood’s agenda, just compare that number with other services the organization provides to pregnant women. In 2008, their number of adoption referrals dropped a staggering 51 percent from the prior year to a meager 2,405. Additionally, the number of prenatal clients they served was less than 0.09 percent of the total services provided by Planned Parenthood in 2008. Pregnant women seeking help from Planned Parenthood were 27 times more likely to receive an abortion than to receive prenatal care or be referred for adoption. That is an appalling and heartbreaking statistic.

Abortion is legal. Federal financing of those abortions shouldn’t be.

Here’s the Susan G. Komen for the Cure’s side of the issue:

DALLAS, TX — February 1, 2012 — We are dismayed and extremely disappointed that actions we have taken to strengthen our granting process have been widely mischaracterized. It is necessary to set the record straight.

Starting in 2010, Komen began an initiative to help us do a better job of measuring the impact of community grants. This is important because we invest significant dollars in our local community programs–$93 million in 2011, which provided for 700,000 breast health screenings and diagnostic procedures.

Following this review, we made the decision to implement stronger performance criteria for our grantees to minimize duplication and free up dollars for direct services to help vulnerable women. To support this new granting strategy, Komen has also implemented more stringent eligibility standards to safeguard donor dollars. Consequently, some organizations are no longer eligible to receive Komen grants.

Some might argue that our standards are too exacting, but over the past three decades people have given us more than just their money. They have given us their trust and we take that responsibility very seriously.

We regret that these new policies have impacted some longstanding grantees, such as Planned Parenthood, but want to be absolutely clear that our grant-making decisions are not about politics. Throughout our 30 year history, our priority has always been and will continue to be the women we serve. As we move forward, we are working to ensure that there is no interruption or gaps in services for the women who need our support most in the fight against breast cancer.

WaPo:

Komen officials told the Associated Press on Tuesday that they had decided to stop funding Planned Parenthood, saying a new national policy barred support for organizations under government investigation. A House committee began a probe in September into Planned Parenthood’s compliance with federal restrictions on funding abortions.

Why should Planned Parenthood ever be under investigation? Well, here’s Feb 1st of last yr:

Take the pro-life group Live Action. On Feb. 1, they released shocking videos showing what they found when they brought hidden cameras into Planned Parenthood clinics, with a man and woman posing as pimp and prostitute. An office manager was taped telling the “pimp” how to evade the law, such as lying about prostitutes’ ages if they were children 14 or over. Any younger, and the clinic would be obligated to report to the authorities. “We want as little information as possible,” she said conspiratorially.

More:

In an ethics trial that is seeking to determine in part whether Kline acted too aggressively to enforce Kansas child rape laws in his capacity as Attorney General or Johnson Co. District Attorney, Kline just revealed to the court under oath that he found 166 instances during a specific time period when girls 14 years old and younger got abortions at clinics owned either by late-term abortionist George Tiller or Planned Parenthood of Overland Park.

But during that same time period, Kline testified, Planned Parenthood reported only one case of child rape, and Tiller reported only one case of child rape.

Apparently the Komen website was hacked by liberals who tolerate opposing viewpoints and who are staunch defenders of our 1st Amendment rights:

I believe that most people who claim to be “pro-choice” with the added disclaimer, “I’m against abortion, personally…” are merely being cop-outs: They are actually pro-abortion but need to rationalize it to their conscience (the ones who have one).

I’m actually more pro-choice than the supporters of Planned Parenthood are.

U.S. Abortion Stats

More here

Whether you hunt lions, Grizzlies, or men, there is a moment that defines the hunt; a mere split second can mean the difference between success or cataclysmic failure.

I was recently lion hunting in Colorado, it was a beautiful day in the mountains: the sun was bright, there was a few inches of fresh lightly packed snow, and the temperatures were in the twenties; of course, the temperature dropped with increases in elevation.

The snow was perfect for reading sign and there were plenty of Mountain Lions on the mountain, but the fresh tracks were from cats that were too small; still, it was a pleasure to see that the main predator of Colorado was thriving and that there would be excellent hunting in the future. The big cats were hanging out somewhere else, and more specifically the mature males with the brown patch on their rump were probably checking out the real cougars for liaisons of a more delicate nature; for it would soon be the season for lion humpy-rumpy if memory serves correctly. I think back to the time, many years ago, when an amorous cougar thought I looked pretty sexy in the moonlight, with a big boar beaver strapped to my back and walking on thin rotten ice over a wild river in flood; but that’s the kind of hunting story my fellow hunters like to hear at night around the fire after a couple shots of rye.

We were hunting in perfect conditions, and we were seeing many tracks, but none were worthy of a spirited chase by the hounds. Only the large tom lion is considered fair game, and they were either hiding or having a convention somewhere else in the mountains; this is why they call it hunting, and it is the mark of an amateur to become frustrated and not enjoy the beauty of the day and the mountains.

During the same period in Idaho, a similar scene was taking place, but on this trip the hounds man had a hunter who wanted to kill a cat with a bow. The bow is a primitive weapon and a legitimate weapon; it has been used effectively by hunters for several thousand years. I have nothing against bow hunting; I have enjoyed bow hunting and may yet hunt, once again, with a bow in the future, but hunting with a bow requires familiarity and practice to be competent. Primitive man depended on the bow to avoid starvation. We are no longer faced with such a demanding lifestyle, but hunters have a responsibility to provide a clean death and not to endanger himself or others with unwarranted danger because of his unfamiliarity with the bow.

On this particular hunt, as related to me by a rancher friend from Idaho, who has a friend with a pack of hounds, who makes a business of guiding lion hunters. His hunter waited until the hounds had a large lion treed before stringing his bow and notching an arrow to take aim. Normally, a cat will stay in the tree and not challenge a pack of five hounds, but depending on predictable behavior from wild animals is like trying to predict human behavior.

This cat jumped into the pack of hounds, while our hunter was still preparing his bow for the climax of the hunt, the cat killed four of the five hounds in the length of time an arrow would have needed to reach the cat. The huntsman’s best hound quit the melee and opted for the old parable of discretion being the better part of valor, before having his carotid ripped open. Then the cat quit the scene of carnage, and our hunter was still struggling to string his bow.

When people have asked me about the dangers of Grizzly hunting, I tell them it’s not as dangerous as you might think, but you just need to realize, some days you kill the bear and on other days, the bear kills you.

It would be funny, except it is closer to the truth than you may realize. We Conservatives are now engaged in a presidential primary; a primary that is as interesting and as dangerous as lion or bear hunting. We have the media and our Republican Elites trying to select our candidate without us and if we take too long to string our bows and notch our arrows or opinions, they may select our candidate without our input and we will have essentially been killed, for all practical purposes.

Tim Thomas, the goalie for the Stanley Cup winning Boston Bruins, declined an invitation to the White House and the opportunity to gaze upon the royal Narcissist. Massachusetts is aghast at the nerve of a mere athlete making a political statement; especially when the statement is in direct contradiction of the state’s love of Socialism and their great hope for the future of the world.

Massachusetts Governor Patrick thought the grievous snub was a direct result of the public’s lack of courtesy and grace; although, goalies have never been known to be overly courteous, and their grace consists primarily of moves orchestrated to stop hundred mile an hour pucks and defending their nets with a ferocity that few of us can comprehend; however, Mr Thomas has exhibited qualities that mark him as an independent thinker and not the sort of sap that responds to the ultimate fan, who wants desperately to be among great athletes and cultivate a symbiotic mutual admiration.

Governor Patrick of Massachusetts expressed Liberal outrage at the official snub, but was willing to concede that Thomas has the right to his own opinion, and this is truly a notable concession from the Governor of a Socialist State. We should all be thankful that citizens living in Massachusetts still have the right to personal opinions and the right to refuse an invitation from a Socialist President.

“He’s a phenomenal hockey player and he’s entitled to his views,” Patrick said. “It just feels like we are losing in this country basic courtesy and grace.”

The governor said while he strongly disagreed with many of the policies of former President George W. Bush, a Republican, he was always respectful when they met.

“I always referred to him as Mr. President, I stood when he came into the room. There are rules to live by,” Patrick said.

The opinions of Thomas were well stated and reflected disappointment with the current president. He made an effective statement in a Liberal State that will probably make his tenure with the Bruins more difficult in the future.

I believe the Federal government has grown out of control, threatening the Rights, Liberties, and Property of the People.

This is being done at the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial level. This is in direct opposition to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers vision for the Federal government.

Because I believe this, today I exercised my right as a Free Citizen, and did not visit the White House. This was not about politics or party, as in my opinion both parties are responsible for the situation we are in as a country. This was about a choice I had to make as an INDIVIDUAL.

This is the only public statement I will be making on this topic.

Actually, not everyone is swept away by those who presume royal status, and many refuse to participate in the charade of political lunacy that supposedly honors those of great achievement so that they can stand in awe of those of outstanding mediocrity. Throughout Queen Elizabeth’s Reign, she has been snubbed by over 250 high achievers who refused to participate in receiving honors of dubious merit from a near meaningless monarchy. Many artists and writers: Lucian Freud, Henry Moore, Roald Dahl, CS Lewis, Francis Bacon, and my personal favorite Twentieth Century British author Aldous Huxley, have chosen to forego the honor of a personal audience and awards like the CBE, Commander of the Order of the British Empire.

The late author, JG Ballard, summed up his antipathy with the British Monarchy:

“The whole thing is a preposterous charade, thousands of medals are given out in the name of a non-existent empire. It makes us look like a laughing stock.”

Although Ballard and Thomas expressed different reasons for their aversion to participating in a silly charade; essentially, they both refused to be sucked in by the phony pomp and circumstance so typical among rulers attempting to define their own dubious relevance among individuals of merit. Congratulations Tim Thomas, you stand among many men of merit who have refused to be used by those who want to borrow your fame and accomplishments. Hopefully, you will play on several more Stanley Cup Teams in the future, regardless of their location.

The gay marriage bill in the Washington State Legislature specifically claims to protect religious freedom. HB 2516/SB 6239 bills itself as:

AN ACT Relating to providing equal protection for all families in Washington by creating equality in civil marriage and changing the domestic partnership laws, while protecting religious freedom…[Emphasis mine]

But, as always, the devil is in the details.

Section 4 (2) of the proposed legislation says that:

No regularly licensed or ordained minister or any priest, imam, rabbi, or similar official of any church or religious denomination is required to solemnize any marriage.

Sounds good, right? The Section goes on to say that:

A refusal to solemnize any marriage under this section by a regularly licensed or ordained minister or priest, imam, rabbi, or similar official of any church or religious denomination does not create a civil claim or cause of action. . . .

It doesn’t create a civil claim or cause of action. A civil claim is when one private person (or group of people) sues another private person or group. Notice that the Section is silent on whether a refusal might create any other kind of legal claim.

Now let’s go to Section 7:

(1) Consistent with the law against discrimination, chapter 49.60 RCW, no religious organization is required to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage unless the organization offers admission, occupancy, or use of those accommodations or facilities to the public for a fee, or offers those advantages, privileges, services, or goods to the public for sale. [Emphasis mine]

(2) A refusal by any religious organization to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage does not create a civil claim or cause of action unless the organization offers those accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods to the public in transactions governed by law against discrimination, chapter 49.60 RCW. [Emphasis mine]

Sounds pretty innocuous, but remember: The devil is in the details.

That little word unless in paragraph (1) is a hole big enough to drive a Mack truck through. Most churches have some procedure whereby at least some people who aren’t parishioners can rent their building and hold a wedding in it. Many churches hold occasional fundraisers on church property. All those churches could be sued under that one “unless.”

But that’s small potatoes compared to the opening clause, which brings all churches in the state for the first time under the purview of Chapter 60 (which deals with the State Human Rights Commission) of Title 49 (Labor Regulations) of the Revised Code of Washington. That’s important, because the Human Rights Commission (HRC)  doesn’t function in the civil law arena. It functions in the arena of public and administrative law. According to the HRC website,

If the Commission finds that there is reasonable cause to believe discrimination occurred, we will seek conciliation of the complaint. Appropriate remedies in the conciliation process may include back pay, reinstatement, rent refunds, or training to eliminate the unfair practice. If conciliation fails, the complaint may be turned over to the Attorney General’s office for hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.

So. There’s no ground for a civil claim unless the church offers its facilities, services, etc. to the public in situations over which the HRC has jurisdiction. And the HRC just happens to have jurisdiction over, let’s see, anything having to do with employment (of more than eight people), housing, real estate, places of public assembly, credit and insurance.

Can you think of a church with no connection to any of those things?

Me neither.

The religious freedom the bill claims to give with one hand, it quietly and completely takes away with the other.

Now. Let’s go back to the ministers, priests, imams and rabbis. If one of them refuses to solemnize a marriage, it doesn’t create a civil claim or cause of action.

Fine.

But, just as with the churches, this bill leaves the door wide open for the pastor to be pursued by the Human Rights Commission and the Attorney General. Sure, the next step after the HRC would be the relatively low-level Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)–where, by the way, evidentiary standards are relaxed–but an appeal of an ALJ case goes straight into the mainstream Superior Court system. Bam.

Not only do many pastors refuse as a matter of conscience to marry gay couples. Many also refuse as a matter of conscience to marry couples where one party has been divorced, where one party is of a different faith than the other, and so on.This would leave no conscience clause in any of those cases.

Follow the money. This law would force pastors, rabbis, imams, churches, synagogues and mosques to choose between marrying couples they don’t in good conscience believe their God permits them to marry, or being taken to court and bankrupted.

The couple in question, of course, can always go find another place and another officiant. The pastor and the church, though, have no such easy way out.

So much for protecting religious freedom.

Crossposted from Cry, Beloved Country

We’ve all heard the story “The boy who cried wolf” about the boy who falsely cried out so often that when the wolf finally appeared none of the townsfolk came to his assistance because they assumed he was once again lying. The same thing has been happening in the United States with the charge of racism. The problem is, when the word racism is used so often by so many people in such patently absurd contexts the charge and the word cease to have any value.

Of course, what many people often refer to as racism is in reality racial discrimination, and in most cases the activity charged as racism is neither.

Racism is a belief in an inherent difference in the cognitive and physical abilities of members of different groups based on race, which manifest themselves in social and economic achievement. Such differences are usually organized in hierarchical manner putting the proponent of the theory’s race in the superior position.

Racial discrimination is the treatment or making a distinction, gift or punishment for or against, a person or group based on the race to which that person or persons belong rather than on individual / group merit.

The dilution of the charge of racism has been going on in the United States for decades. The housing crisis that brought about the economic meltdown in which we find ourselves today was the direct result of federal regulations intended to counteract false claims of racist / discriminatory practices on the part of mortgage lenders.

More recently the cries of racism have been thrown around like rice at a wedding since Barack Obama became a candidate for President. From individuals to Tea Party activists to radio talk show hosts, every disagreement with the policies of Barack Obama is at some point reduced to the simple charge of racism. It does not even appear as if race itself is a defense against such claims as can be seen by the denunciations of Herman Cain.

Is it possible that by 2012 the overuse of the charge of racism has finally contributed to its own demise? Perhaps two absurd events from last week will be a sign of the false charge’s swan song.

The first comes from Dallas and has to do with Microsoft’s purported “Avoid the Ghetto” app for smartphones – a name suggested by critics rather than the company. The app, which is said to use crime statistic data, is supposed to offer drivers and pedestrians the opportunity to set routes to their destination that avoid high crime areas.

Dallas NAACP President Juanita Wallace seems to be unhappy about the as of yet unavailable product: “It’s almost like gerrymandering,” she said. “It’s stereotyping for sure and without a doubt; I can’t emphasize enough, it’s discriminatory.” However, the app will not label communities based on race. It is not going to tell users to avoid minorities or minority communities. It is is rather simply going to inform users about neighborhoods where a high number of crimes have been reported and offer them alternative routes to getting to their destinations. Certainly James Cooper and James Kouzaris could have used it.

Whatever the demographics of the neighborhoods drivers or pedestrians avoid as a result of Microsoft’s app, claims of racism or racial discrimination are absurd. Crime is crime, regardless of who perpetrates it. Indeed, it is President Wallace who has suggested the connection between crime and minority communities, not Microsoft.

The second story comes from Burlington, Vermont. At a time when consumers are put off by many bank’s limited hours and increasingly automated services, TD Bank sees an opportunity to distinguish itself from its competitors by opening for business every day other than Christmas, Thanksgiving, Easter Sunday and New Years Day. In the highly competitive marketplace the bank is seeking to succeed by providing more services to attract more customers. The result? The branch in Burlington, Vermont was picketed for being open and serving its customers on the MLK holiday. Protesters printed flyers suggesting the bank was racist: “Dear TD Bank, you are defying the King holiday. Shame, Shame, Shame. This is a racist act. Shame, Shame, Shame.”

In what universe is a company seeking to provide its clients – all clients, regardless of race – with better service acting in a racist, or more accurately, a racially discriminatory manner? Only in a leftist, victim mentality universe fueled by the Democratic Party.

As we approach the battle for the White House those of us who disagree with the policies of President Obama should be prepared to be labeled racists for virtually every utterance. Of course it is possible that the false charge of racism has jumped the shark and will finally be disregarded by citizens as just another Democratic tool of intimidation and slander. Possible, but unfortunately… unlikely.

I’m afraid it’s more likely to be another Hollywood creation, Freddy from the Friday the 13th franchise that more accurately characterizes the future of the false charge of racism. Even when it is so widely seen as debased and hollow, when it should be dead after so many false utterances, the charge of racism is likely to once again be an instrument of the left with which it seeks to intimidate conservatives and distract voters from the abject failure of decades of Democratic policies – whose victims are both black and white. That’s unfortunate because real examples of racism and racial discrimination do indeed exist, but because the left has purloined the charge for its insidious ends those real examples are far less likely to be taken seriously. And for that we are less well off.

First is this answer to one more race baiting question from Juan

Click here to view the embedded video.

This one wasn’t bad either.

Click here to view the embedded video.

You think Mitt will hire Newt as his Press Secretary? That man would be awesome at it.

Barack Obama is entirely predisposed to claiming that he inherited a an economic mess, and it in truth, he did. He did assert that he could fix the economy in three years and implied that he perhaps ought to be limited to one term if he did not deliver.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Back then he said he should be held accountable but today wants to be accountable for absolutely nothing save for killing Bin Laden.

As democrats controlled the entire Congress for the first two years of Obama’s term and were able to shove pretty much anything they wanted down the throat of the country it seems appropriate to judge this administration by the effects of the policies put in place by Obama and the democrats from after the time they were enacted.

Democrats labeled last year “the recovery summer” but it did not pan out that way. Obama’s election campaign theme seems to be “It could be worse” but the fact is things are not getting better- especially not for the middle class.

Sentier Research has published data that show the middle class to be losing ground consequent to Obama’s policies.

Between June 2009 and June 2011:

- Real median annual household income for family households with a male or female head and no spouse present (many with children in the household) declined by 7.3 percent (from $39,321 to $36,465) compared to a decline for married-couple households of 4.5 percent (from $76,783 to $73,324).

- Real median annual household income for households with a head under 25 years old declined by 9.5 percent (from $32,123 to $29,060) compared to a decline for households with a head 45 to 54 years old of 5.5 percent (from $65,911 to $62,315).

- Real median annual household income for households with a head looking for work or on layoff (unemployed) declined by 18.4 percent (from $41,037 to $33,487) compared to a decline for households with a head working full-time of 5.1 percent (from $72,104 to $68,454).

- Real median annual household income for households with a Black (not Hispanic) head declined by 9.4 percent (from $35,072 to $31,784) compared to a decline for households with a White (not Hispanic) head of 4.7 percent (from $59,111 to $56,320). The decline for households with a Hispanic head was 4.9 percent (from $41,945 to $39,901).

Michael Barone points out that Obama knows how to do nothing other than rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic:

So why should voters be leery of economic redistribution in times of economic distress?

Perhaps because they realize that they stand to gain much more from a vibrantly growing economy than from redistribution of a stagnant economic pie. A growing economy produces many unanticipated opportunities. Redistribution edges toward a zero-sum game.

They miss growth when it is absent. They don’t appreciate it so much when it is happening.

Roosevelt’s 1934 and 1936 victories were won in periods of growth. After the economy shifted into recession in 1937, New Deal Democrats fared much worse, and Roosevelt won his third and fourth terms as a seasoned wartime leader, not an economic redistributor.

Lesson: If you want redistribution, you’d better first produce growth. Which the Obama Democrats’ policies have failed to do.

Barack Obama is a community organizer. He knows how to grow division and class warfare. He knows nothing of growing economies. Left alone in control, democrats created policies that were not only not helpful to the economy and the middle class, they are harmful. The so-called “obstruction” by the GOP may be the only thing saving the middle class from Obama and the democrats.

I don’t know what it’s like in other states, but here in California, we have over 750 new laws (last year saw 725) with an estimate of 40,000 new laws across the nation going into effect this year.

How many of these new laws are actually “necessary”? Will actually improve the human condition more than harm?

One of the more controversial pieces of legislation signed by Governor Brown is the California Dream Act:

Assemblyman Gil Cedillo (D-Los Angeles) said his legislation recognizes the value of young people who graduate from high school in California regardless of where they were born.

“It’s important for California and the future of our economy to take advantage of the investment we have made in these young men and women,” Cedillo said.

The second part signed back in October, it basically increases allowances already on the books, giving eligibility to apply for financial aid and merit-based scholarships to illegal immigrants attending public colleges and universities.

Supporters of the Dream Act also want illegal immigrants to be eligible for drivers licenses as well.

The illegal immigration debate aside….this also comes at a time when California is broke:

According to a legislative analysis, the bill would cost the state up to $40 million per year. Colleges and universities don’t track the immigration status of students, but higher education officials have said that there are about 3,600 students who are undocumented or who have other residency issues in the California State University system, and as many as 642 in the University of California system and 34,000 enrolled in community colleges.

LA Times:

Brown was also criticized for signing a law requiring public schools to include the contributions of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in history lessons and instructional material, although new textbooks for lower grades are not planned for three years.

I have no issue with people’s sexual orientation. But why make a fuss over whether a historical person is gay or straight? Why must sexual identity be significance? What I deplore is that history books will conflate a historical figure’s contributions to society and make more out of him than is warranted, simply because he fulfills the need of special interest groups to feel validated through a misguided sense of equal representation.

Then there’s the ban on open-carry- one of those laws that I think are a waste of ink:

“Law-abiding citizens will start openly carrying unloaded long guns in public because their basic and fundamental civil right to self-defense, as enumerated in the 2nd Amendment, is clearly being infringed upon,” said Yih-Chau Chang, a spokesman for the firearms advocacy group Responsible Citizens of California.

Assemblyman Anthony Portantino (D-La Cañada Flintridge) said he introduced the measure in response to law enforcement officials who felt that public safety was jeopardized by gun owners wearing firearms on their hips at coffee shops and other public venues as they called attention to a right to bear arms.

Meanwhile, obtaining a concealed-carry permit remains difficult in the state of California.

There’s the high-speed rail system being built and touted:

as with many of his other green funding priorities (like Solyndra) this is another money pit. The San Jose Mercury News has more:

Though California’s high-speed train faces an intensifying backlash over its $99 billion price tag, political leaders from Washington to Sacramento justify the cost by touting another huge number: 1 million jobs the rail line is supposed to create.

But like so many of the promises made to voters who approved the bullet train, those job estimates appear too good to be true.

A review by this newspaper found the railroad would create only 20,000 to 60,000 jobs during an average year and employ only a few thousand people permanently if it’s built.

“They have a really hard sales pitch with the real numbers, so they’ve fudged the numbers,” said state Sen. Doug LaMalfa, a Chico-area Republican who is introducing legislation to send the rail line back to voters. “C’mon, a million people working on a 520-mile railroad? I practically laughed out loud when (I heard that).”

One million people — more than the combined workforce of San Jose and San Francisco — would have to cram shoulder-to-shoulder just to fit along the rail line between San Francisco and Anaheim.

The idea of a bullet train sounds great. But if this were anything but a boondoggle you’d have private firms lining up to build one. There’s just no way this is worth $100 billion dollars.

Will it eventually pay for itself? I dunno…maybe, if the car-loving California public actually uses it. But I am not optimistic that this is a wise gamble or smart investment of money California doesn’t have (Did I already mention California is broke?).

Food stamps:

eliminates the requirement that food stamp recipients be fingerprinted to prevent fraud. Another law calls for state agencies to promote more enrollment in the federal food stamp program.

Sexual orientation:

encourages state university systems to collect data on students’ sexual orientation and encourages the legislative analyst to use it to recommend improvements in the quality of life for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students.

There’s the new law that expands no texting and hands-on talking on the phone to include any distractions:

According to the Los Angeles Times, text messaging and handheld cell phone use are not the only distracted driving behaviors that will be on law enforcement officers’ radar this weekend.They will also be keeping an eye out for people who are eating, putting on makeup, or reading magazines while operating a motor vehicle.

“Multi-tasking may be a fine way to get things done when your not driving, but combine driving with another activity that requires your attention and the need for you to take one hand off the steering wheel, and you’ve created a deadly situation that can destroy lives,” said Anaheim Personal Injury Attorney Howard.

Other activities that can prove distracting when driving:
• Watching a movie or downloaded television program on a portable electronic device
• Shaving
• Brushing your teeth
• Feeding a child
• Playing with a pet
• Reading a book
• Changing one’s clothes
• Adjusting an MP3 player, CD player, or the radio
• Inputting information into a navigation system

This just seems very broad. Anything you do while in the car, from conversing with someone riding shotgun to reading a street sign/billboard, watching a pretty skirt gliding down the sidewalk, to blowing your nose could all be interpreted as a driver being distracted. What will a CHP officer base his judgment on? How will this play out in court if contested?

Another new traffic law is use of booster seats for children:

IN THE BACK SEAT OF A VEHICLE until they are at least 8 YEARS OLD or 4′ 9″ in height.

What I’m unclear on is what if a kid turns 9 but is still under 4’9″? Does he stay in the booster seat? So then, shouldn’t any person, regardless of age, if he is under 4’9″, to be consistent with safety standard? Why is age then a criteria?

Any comments regarding new laws in your state?