December 27, 2012

Mitch McConnell Summarizes Democrats' Terrorizing The American People With Fiscal Cliff Inaction

0 comments
by CarterFliptMe

It was only a few years ago that bills were negotiated, submitted, amended, resubmitted, amended, and eventually were either passed or rejected. When it came to spending, the federal government was constitutionally bound by a budget, which was negotiated in Congress, and steered by the President with the threat of veto. The current band of radicals (Progressives) who've taken over the Democrat party have seen to it that Washington DC no longer operates according to the Constitution.  The people have elected Republicans to the House of Representatives to bring some balance and accountability, but these Republicans refuse to even attempt to hold Congress or the Executive branch to their supposed constitutional limits.

The Democrat party uses orchestrated and manufactured crisis as a gun held to the heads of the American people. They make unreasonable and unconstitutional demands, propagandize via Progressive mass media accusing the GOP of the intolerable crime of refusing to meet their demands.  All the while Democrats are threatening the American people with calamity unless the Republicans in Congress surrender.

These actions are not going unnoticed by those of us who care to pay attention, including Democrats, Progressives, Republicans, Tea Party supporters, and the so-called journalists in traditional news media. Those who still support Progressives fully knowing that what they are witnessing or participating in is not constitutional, honest, or beneficial to the basic freedoms of the citizenry, are equally guilty for the damage being inflicted on this great nation. I hold them all accountable, and further placation, negotiation, or otherwise respectful treatment of these persons is intolerable.  Progressives and their supporters have, through their actions, declared war on the Republic of the United States, the Constitution, rule of law, and my (our) individual liberty granted by God. Whether we like it or not, we are at war, because they are at war with us. It's high time our 'leaders' recognize this fact, and act accordingly.

Anyway, here's another 'keep it real' moment from Senator Mitch McConnell, where he has summarized the inaction on the part of Senate Democrats and President Obama over the 'fiscal cliff' non-negotiations.

Rick Santelli Rants Against Democrats on the Fiscal Cliff, Cheers From Wall Street

0 comments
by CarterFliptMe

via Mediaite
CNBC’s Rick Santelli, no stranger to cable news shout-fests, went on a tirade this morning over the impending “fiscal cliff.”
During a heated discussion about the impact going over the “cliff” could have on the stock market, Santelli became irate when his CNBC colleague and trader Jim Iuorio suggested the damage wouldn’t be as severe as others predict.
Santelli shouted about how the damage will be severe and could have a negative impact on future generations. “The Fed doesn’t have a clue, neither does the president, neither does Congress,” he shouted. “Neither does Tim Geithner, who gives a speech about the debt ceiling. I’d like to see if he could count to a million, much less 16.4 trillion!”
Eventually, Iuorio gives up trying to interrupt, saying, “I’m through fighting,” but an amused host Joe Kernen clarified that Santelli was just “shouting at Washington” like he always does.
Watch below, via CNBC:


December 5, 2012

Sheep

0 comments
by CarterFliptMe

Obama voters, the citizens of the United States, are sheep being led to slaughter.

Sheep by Pink Floyd
Harmlessly passing your time in the grassland away;
Only dimly aware of a certain unease in the air.
You better watch out,
There may be dogs about
I've looked over Jordan, and I have seen
Things are not what they seem.
What do you get for pretending the danger's not real.
Meek and obedient you follow the leader
Down well trodden corridors into the valley of steel.
What a surprise!
A look of terminal shock in your eyes.
Now things are really what they seem.
No, this is no bad dream.
The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want
He makes me down to lie
Through pastures green He leadeth me the silent waters by.
With bright knives He releaseth my soul.
He maketh me to hang on hooks in high places.
He converteth me to lamb cutlets,
For lo, He hath great power, and great hunger.
When cometh the day we lowly ones,
Through quiet reflection, and great dedication
Master the art of karate,
Lo, we shall rise up,
And then we'll make the bugger's eyes water.
Bleating and babbling I fell on his neck with a scream.
Wave upon wave of demented avengers
March cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream.
Have you heard the news?
The dogs are dead!
You better stay home
And do as you're told.
Get out of the road if you want to grow old

December 2, 2012

The Fiscal Cliff Showdown And The Electric Light Orchestra

0 comments
by CarterFliptMe

The President, once again, is holding the American people and Congress hostage! Again, he's threatening us all (mainly Republicans) with fiscal crisis if all of his outlandish demands aren't met.  Of course, Obama is framing the debate as though the Republicans are the ones holding us all hostage, but it's Obama making the threats, and he's done this kind of thing before.  Unfortunately, the network news media won't bring it up, and Americans have short memories.  It's hard to blame anyone for not keeping up considering the daily barrage of Obama's and the Democrats' rapid-fire Alinsky tactics we have to deal with.

Anyway, I thought I'd put some of the recent media coverage, Obama's speech, and Electric Light Orchestra's song, Showdown, together in a video.  Enjoy.. or not.


November 2, 2012

Progressives Are Enemies of the Republic (Updated)

0 comments
by CarterFliptMe
Radical Tactics Of Progressives
1.) Free speech of opposing political or social viewpoints canot be allowed. Opposition must be silenced, whether they be private citizens or mainstream media outlets. (Media Matters#StopRushKoch Brothers Targeted By Progressive Group's 'Greed Agenda' Bus TourSen. (NJ) Frank Lautenberg Takes On The Koch BrothersObama's Nixonian "White House Enemies List")

2.) Political, social, and philosophical opposition is dangerous, obstructionist, and harmful. New Hampshire Democrat Legislator: We Need To 'Restrict Freedoms' Of Conservatives - DC rhetoric - Fairness Doctrine The First Amendment right of free speech is not guaranteed under Progressive rule. Anti-Muslim Filmmaker Arrested

3.) Win by any means necessary. (We Can't Wait) (Dems Flee, Boycott the ProcessCampaign Lies) Even if the tactics harm the economy and US citizens. Mitch McConnell Summarizes Democrats' Terrorizing The American People With Fiscal Cliff Inaction -- Obama, Clinton and Rice Knew Benghazi Attack was Al Qaeda on 9/11/12

4.) Rule of law and Constitutional limits have no meaning. Progressives routinely violate law and Constitution in order to force their agenda without a vote, without the input of The People. (Gutting of Welfare Reform LawBypass CongressFast & FuriousIllegal New CFPB, and NLRB 'Recess' Appointments)

One of their most successful methods to circumvent the will of the people is to challenge laws in the courts. Recently in Wisconsin, they've used liberal judges in Madison's Dane County who overturn state law without any legal or state constitutional basis. (Judge Eviscerates Reforms, Sanctions Liberal IdeologyDane County Judge Who Struck Down Voter ID Law Signed Walker Recall, Wife A Circulator)



    5.) Elections are not the end-game of representative process. Lost elections trigger mob-rule and exploitation of weakness in the system in order to seize power back. Wisconsin Progressives in Recall  - Violence at the Michigan union protests: The fallout for Big Labor

    Shortly before November 6th Election, Obama mentions 'revenge', presumably against American citizens? During another of his infamous ad-lib moments, he says, "Voting is the best revenge."  This is not rhetoric you'd expect to hear from somebody who is trying to do what's best for all the people of the United States.


    • Progressives are not Democrats in the traditional sense of the word.
    • Progressives are not interested in adherence to the Constitution, or our representative form of government.
    • Progressives are not part of the American process as we have known it, but are a radical attack on it from outside the process.

    Progressives have overwhelmed the economic system, Congress, the media, and the people, with illegal and unconstitutional acts. This tactic is key in the Cloward-Piven Strategy: Forcing Political Change Through Orchestrated Crisis. The chaos Progressives have brought is the purpose of Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals, made infamous during the riots and violence of the 1960s, and still an important reference for today's Progressives. Michelle Obama said that when she first met Barack, he quoted Saul Alinsky and it captured her heart.


    Thanks The Union News for highlighting this video

    October 23, 2012

    Obama Denigrated the United States Foreign Policy of Liberating Oppressed Nations

    0 comments
    by CarterFliptMe

    Video from 2009, highlighted by Rush Limbaugh in his "Proof of Obama Apology Tour" article. Obama states that America has no right to impose our values (freedom, individual liberty, pursuit of happiness) on another country (run by dictators, despots, and tyrants) that has a different history and a different culture (culture and history of corruption, oppression, and poverty). Mitt Romney rightfully pointed out in the third debate in Boca Raton, Florida, that America does not 'impose' anything on other countries. We liberate other countries.



    October 19, 2012

    The Moment Obama Became A One Term President

    0 comments
    by CarterFliptMe

    This moment in the second Presidential debate at Hofstra University, when Barack Obama, with the assistance of CNN's Candy Crowley, brought into sharp focus that deception is just a matter of course for Progressive Democrats and the liberal media.  They exposed themselves in the debate, and showed the world that they know that in politics, perception is reality.  To them, however, perception is more important that reality, as long as it helps them obtain or retain power.  It became crystal clear that truth, honor, and integrity have no place in the Progressive Democrat Party, and their perception-spinning process.

    As usual, Progressives think the American people are so uninformed and gullible, that they would not realize they were witnessing Obama and Crowley lying.  They were trying to deceive The People about the administration's handling of the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Stevens, in Benghazi, Libya.  The Obama administration attempted to push a narrative that Benghazi was a spontaneous protest gone haywire, and that the reason for the protest was a B grade anti-Muslim film that virtually no one had ever heard of.

    It was bad enough that the administration was lying to the American people about what really happened to our people in Benghazi, but to lie in order to try to avoid political damage to Obama's campaign for President showed America that Progressives have no concern for anything but power, and advancing their radical ideology.

    This moment in the debate was the moment that cemented Barack Obama's fate as a one term President.


    September 24, 2012

    Middle East 'Clash of Civilizations' Is Not About 'Mickey Mouse' Film

    0 comments
    by CarterFliptMe

    The protests in the Middle East targeting US Embassies, as well as the murder of the US Ambassador, two Navy SEALS, and a fourth American in Libya, as described by Lawrence Freeman, Executive Intelligence Review Magazine.

    Freeman discusses the 'Clash of Civilization', the '100 Years War', and says these protests have more to do with this, and Obama administration actions in the Middle East.  These actions include "Obama's illegal war", the assistance in Egypt in removing Mubarek from power, and the NATO military action in Libya to remove Gadaffi.  Freeman says the Obama administration "...finds itself more and more in alliance with al Qaeda..."

    September 22, 2012

    Obama Won't Tell Anyone, And The Media Won't Ask. But What Is Obama's Plan For a 2nd Term?

    0 comments
    Jaw-dropping, breathtakingly shockingly Marxist, authoritarian, and statist:  What Progressives plan to do, if allowed, show absolute contempt for The People.

    Obama's Second Term Transformation Plans - American Thinker
    Amazingly, The Washington Post even did an editorial about how Obama's agenda is 'hazy', but doesn't think to ASK him: Mr. Obama’s hazy agenda for a second term - Washington Post
    If You Think Obama’s First Term Was Bad, Imagine a Second - Bloomberg

    September 3, 2012

    Blistering Ad Shows Obama Using Recycled Speeches From 2008

    1 comments
    by CarterFliptMe

    If Obama and the Democrat party cared at all about the American people, wouldn't you think they'd at least write some new speeches? They could maybe... oh I dunno... try to work in some current events into those new speeches.  But, as anyone who has the ability to think clearly already knows, Obama never speaks about current events unless he can demonize Americans that he disagrees with.

    Anyway here's the video featured on BreitbartTV



    hat tip to Doug Stryker

    August 25, 2012

    A Tribute to Union Leadership, Progressives, and Barack Obama

    0 comments

    Music and lyrics by Pink Floyd - "Pigs (three different ones)" from the album Animals

    Big man, pig man
    Ha, ha, charade you are
    You well heeled big wheel
    Ha, ha, charade you are
    And when your hand is on your heart
    You're nearly a good laugh
    Almost a joker
    With your head down in the pig bin
    Saying 'Keep on digging'
    Pig stain on your fat chin
    What do you hope to find
    Down in the pig mine?
    You're nearly a laugh
    You're nearly a laugh
    But you're really a cry

    Bus stop rat bag
    Ha, ha, charade you are
    You ****ed up old hag
    Ha, ha, charade you are
    You radiate cold shafts of broken glass
    You're nearly a good laugh
    Almost worth a quick grin
    You like the feel of steel
    You're hot stuff with a hatpin
    And good fun with a hand gun
    You're nearly a laugh
    You're nearly a laugh
    But you're really a cry 
    Hey you, White House
    Ha, ha, charade you are
    You house proud town mouse
    Ha, ha, charade you are
    You're trying to keep our feelings off the street
    You're nearly a real treat
    All tight lips and cold feet
    And do you feel abused?
    You got to stem the evil tide
    And keep it all on the inside
    Mary you're nearly a treat
    Mary you're nearly a treat 
    But you're really a cry

    August 8, 2012

    Debunking Obama's Latest Falsehood: Romney Tax Plan

    0 comments

    Once again, the Obama campaign is hanging its hat on a report done by hyper-partisan Progressives.  This time it's the Tax Policy Center, who have a long history of being in opposition to any kind of tax cuts.  The Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute are well-known liberal organizations and have teamed up to produce Obama campaign material.  This is nothing new; Conservatives have their own 'think tanks' that do research and reports on taxes, social policy, education, the economy, etc.  The network media, however, have portrayed the Tax Policy Center as being non-partisan, which is patently false.  The Obama campaign stressed this falsehood when they cited a report on Mitt Romney's tax plan done by the ultra-liberal Tax Policy Center.

    Thankfully, the Wall Street Journal has ripped the report as being completely without merit.

    The following is their opinion piece from August 8th, 2012, entitled, The Romney Hood Fairy TaleThe false, invented analysis behind Obama's tax claims.
    As he escalates his class war re-election campaign, President Obama has taken to calling Mitt Romney's economic plan "Robin Hood in reverse" or "Romney Hood." The charge is that even though Mr. Romney is proposing to cut tax rates for everybody across the board, Mr. Romney will finance this by imposing a tax increase on the middle class. His evidence is a single study by the Tax Policy Center, a liberal think tank that has long opposed cutting income tax rates. 
    The political left always says Daddy Warbucks gets all the tax-cut money. So this is hardly news, except that the media are treating this joint Brookings Institution and Urban Institute analysis as if it's nonpartisan gospel. In fact, it's a highly ideological tract based on false assumptions, incomplete data and dishonest analysis. In other words, it is custom made for the Obama campaign. 
    Video: Editorial board member Steve Moore on President Obama's claim that Mitt Romney's tax plan would raise taxes on middle and lower class earners. 

    By the way, even the Tax Policy Center admits that "we do not score Governor Romney's plan directly as certain components of his plan are not specified in sufficient detail." But no matter, the study plows ahead to analyze features of the Romney plan that aren't even in it.

    The heart of Mr. Romney's actual proposal is a 20% rate cut for anyone who pays income taxes. This means, for example, that the 10% rate would fall to 8%, the 35% rate would fall to 28% and all the brackets in between would fall as well. The corporate tax would fall to 25% from 35%. 
     
    The plan says these cuts would be financed in a revenue-neutral way. First, by "broadening the tax base," which means reducing or eliminating tax deductions and loopholes as in the tax reform of 1986. The Romney campaign doesn't specify which deductions—no campaign ever does—but it has been explicit in saying that the burden would fall most on higher tax brackets. So in return for paying lower rates, the wealthy get fewer deductions.

    Second, the Romney campaign says it expects to increase revenues by increasing the rate of economic growth to 4%, up from less than 2% this year and in 2011. (Separately from tax reform, but clearly relevant to budget deficits, Mr. Romney says he'd gradually reduce spending to 20% of the economy from the Obama heights of 24%-25%.)

    The class warriors at the Tax Policy Center add all of this up and issue the headline-grabbing opinion that it is "mathematically impossible" to reduce tax rates and close loopholes in a way that raises the same amount of revenue. They do so in part by arbitrarily claiming that Mr. Romney would never eliminate certain loopholes (such as for municipal bond interest), though the candidate has said no such thing.

    Based on this invention, they then postulate that Mr. Romney would have to do something he also doesn't propose—which is raise taxes on those earning less than $200,000. In the Obama campaign's political alchemy, this becomes "Romney Hood" and a $2,000 tax increase.
    The Tax Policy Center also ignores the history of tax cutting. Every major marginal rate income tax cut of the last 50 years—1964, 1981, 1986 and 2003—was followed by an unexpectedly large increase in tax revenues, a surge in taxes paid by the rich, and a more progressive tax code—i.e., the share of taxes paid by the richest 1% rose. 
    For example, from 1980 to 2007, three tax rate cuts brought the highest marginal tax rate to 35% from 70%. Congressional Budget Office data show that when the tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid 18% of all federal income taxes. With the rate down to 35% in 2008, the share of taxes paid by the rich doubled to 40%.

    The Tax Reform Act of 1986, which chopped the top income tax rate to 28% from 50%, was probably most similar to the Romney tax proposal because both were designed to lower rates and broaden the tax base. CBO and Martin Feldstein of the National Bureau of Economic Research found that the 1986 tax reform increased the share of taxes paid by the rich (to about 25% from 21% before the reform), in part because their reported taxable income rose as they lost tax shelters. Many businesses also changed their tax status from corporations to Subchapter S companies, thus paying taxes at the individual rate. This also increased the reported share of income declared, and tax paid, by the rich.

    So on four separate occasions what TPC says is "mathematically impossible"—cutting tax rates and making the tax system more progressive—actually happened. Hats off to the scholars at TPC: Their study manages to claim that what happens in real life can't happen in theory.

    The TPC analysis also fails to acknowledge how highly dependent the current tax system is on the very rich. As the Tax Foundation explains in a recent report based on CBO data: "The top 20 percent of households pay 94 percent of federal income taxes. The bottom 40 percent have a negative income tax rate, and the middle quintile pays close to zero."

    This reality is treated as a state secret in Washington because it refutes Mr. Obama's campaign theme that the rich are undertaxed. The same crowd that has been howling that the rich don't pay their fair share of taxes now touts a study concluding that cutting taxes will only benefit the rich. Well, which is it?***

    Another reality is that more than one-third of Americans pay no income tax. Many in this group contribute payroll taxes, but for most their only connection to the income tax is to receive refundable tax credits (in the form of a check) that are effectively government payments. This is the basis for the Tax Policy Center's wild claim that the Romney plan raises taxes on those who earn less than $30,000—a group that now has a negative tax liability.

    The claim is that reducing various refundable tax credits that are cash payments from the government are a "tax increase." By this logic, reducing unemployment benefits or food stamps would also be a tax increase. Even the CBO and Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation acknowledge that refundable tax credits are government outlays not tax cuts.

    The study's claims also rest on the assumption that tax cutting doesn't increase economic growth. The study's authors expose their own bias on this point by asserting that "the effects of tax rate reductions are likely to be small or even negative" over 10 years.

    It's certainly true that not all tax cuts have the same economic impact. But nearly all economists save for the most partisan liberals agree that cutting tax rates at the margin has the most bang for the buck. So how can the Tax Policy Center claim that cutting tax rates to increase incentives to work and invest has a "negative" impact? Not even the Keynesian economists who gave us the failed stimulus plan argue that the effect of tax cuts is negative.

    Harvard economist Dale Jorgenson recently testified before the Senate Finance Committee that "a tax reform similar to the Reagan effort of 1986" would raise economic output over the long term "by $7 trillion in 2011 dollars."


    You can argue that Mr. Romney's expectation of 4% GDP growth is too rosy, but the recent White House mid-session budget review predicts 4% growth in both 2014 and 2015 despite a huge tax increase next year. The Romney plan is far more realistic than that wish in the dark.

    The Tax Policy Center's claim that it's impossible to make the numbers add up is also refuted by President Obama's own Simpson-Bowles deficit commission report. The Romney plan of cutting the top tax rate to 28% and closing loopholes to pay for it is conceptually very close to what Simpson-Bowles recommended.

    And here's the kicker: Simpson-Bowles assumed that the top rate could be cut to 28%, loopholes could be closed, revenues as a share of GDP would rise to 20% and the deficit could be cut by close to $1.5 trillion. The difference is that the Romney plan caps tax revenues at about 18% of GDP so that taxes don't have to rise on the middle class. If Mr. Romney's numbers don't add up, then neither do those in the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles plan that the media treat as the Holy Grail of deficit reduction.***

    What the Obama campaign and its acolytes at the Tax Policy Center are really saying is that tax reform that reduces rates and makes all income groups better off is impossible. This is a far cry from what Democrats used to believe, going back to Jack Kennedy in 1964 and in the 1980s when prominent Democrats Bill Bradley, Dick Gephardt and Don Rostenkowski helped to write the 1986 tax reform. The Obama Democrats, by contrast, favor income redistribution and raising rates on the wealthy for their own partisan political sake, no matter the damage to growth, the cost in lost revenue, or a less progressive tax code as the rich exploit loopholes.

    The great irony is that the candidate most likely to raise taxes on the middle class is Mr. Obama. He could raise every tax on the rich he proposes and still not come up with enough revenue to finance the increases in spending he wants in a second term. Where do you think he'll turn then?

    A version of this article appeared August 8, 2012, on page A14 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Romney Hood Fairy Tale.

    Mark Belling of WISN News Talk covered this story today (August 8th, 2012) on his show, and I felt this opinion that sets the record straight, needed to be highlighted. Hat tip to the great Mark Belling!

    July 30, 2012

    Mayor Bloomberg Gives Us a Glimpse at Life Under Control-Freak Progressive Rule

    0 comments
    by CarterFliptMe

    Out of control nanny state government has a new poster boy: Mayor Bloomberg of New York City.  When will people wake up and reject this intrusion of government into people's decisions regarding their children, health, and daily lives?  Who decided that Mayor Bloomberg, with his Progressive fetish for control over people, should have this kind of power?  The Mayor of New York will be easily defeated the next time he is up for re-election.  I guarantee it.

    Check out his article from the New York Post that describes how the New York 'Mayor Knows Breast':


    Mayor Bloomberg pushing NYC hospitals to hide baby formula so more new moms will breast-feed


    Related:
    Latch On NYC


    Locking Up Baby Formula? Bloomberg Slammed For Newest Breastfeeding Initiative


    Breastfeeding Activism: Information and Resources

    July 27, 2012

    Desperate Democrats: Polls Reveal Why

    3 comments
    by CarterFliptMe

    These are just some of the signs of desperation from the DNC, whose narrative is being dutifully spoon-fed to Americans by liberal network news media.
    • Progressives pushing the Ann Romney horse narrative. 
    • Demand for additional tax records from Mitt. 
    • Accusations From Obama campaign that Mitt Romney is a tax evading felon. 
    • Fabricated wars on women. 
    • The daily drumbeat from Media Matters' network, MSNBC, and the rest of the network media news, that anyone who disagrees with wild-eyed Progressive radicals is a racist homophobe. 
    Rasmussen polling data of likely voters reveal the reasons for the obvious desperation in the Democrat party, and to be sure, the DNC's own internal polling is telling them much the same.

    These polls, released in the second half of July, show a rejection of not just Obama, but of Progressive Democrats' policies and governing philosophy.

    Romney Takes 5 Point Lead
    Declining Views of the Economy Put Obama's Reelection at Risk
    Long-Term Optimism About U.S. Economy Falls to New Low
    50% trust Romney more to handle the economy, while 42% trust the president
    47% Say It's Too Easy To Get Food Stamps

    July 25, 2012

    Weather Underground - These Are The Progressives Who Run The Country

    0 comments
    by CarterFliptMe

    Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn jump-started Barack Obama's career in Chicago.  They are unrepentant and remorseless sixties radicals.  They were the leaders of Weather Underground, terrorists who used bombs and violence to try to push their 'revolution'.  Their intent was, in their own words, to "overthrow the United States government".

    Watch this video and note the parallels and similarities between the SDS, Weather Underground, and the present day Occupy operation.  While watching this video, you'll begin to understand why Obama and the Progressive Democrat party govern the way they do, push for the kinds of things they do, and why they follow no rules.

    This is only a small bit of evidence that proves that Progressives who've taken over the Democrat Party are enemies of the Republic of the United States of America.




    July 17, 2012

    Former FL Dem Party Leader Barney Bishop Slams Progressives, Endorses Romney

    0 comments
    by CarterFliptMe

    The former executive director of the Democrat party in Florida, Barney Bishop, sees the way Progressives have pitted themselves against the rest of the country.  He wrote in the Sunshine State News that he is supporting Mitt Romney for the presidency in November, for the good of the country and its future.
    By: BARNEY BISHOP Posted: July 13, 2012 12:00 PM

    In 1992, I was the executive director of the Florida Democratic Party. I managed political operations for the Democrats in one of the largest swing states in our nation.

    Our nominee, Bill Clinton, went on to win the presidency, and he fostered eight prosperous years in our nation’s history. He delivered balanced budgets and surpluses that reduced the nation’s debt.  Clinton was the type of Democrat I’ve supported my whole life, fiscally conservative while still focused on the needs of the hard-working middle class. Clinton famously declared, “The era of big government is over.” Barack Obama is a completely different kind of Democrat.

    In every challenge that faces our nation, Obama sees a solution that can only come with another government-spending program. He fails to harness the ingenuity of entrepreneurs; instead he actually places obstacles, like burdensome regulation, in front of their path to progress.
    ...full article

    I couldn't agree more, and thank God for patriots like Barney Bishop!  I pray that God will shine light on the truth, expose the lies, and hold our leaders accountable.  Let The People remain free forever in the United States of America!

    June 6, 2012

    Walker Wins! The Capitol in Madison On Victory Night

    1 comments
    by CarterFliptMe

    Following the concession speech by Tom Barrett, the capitol square was quiet, with only a small crowd of about 200 recall hangers-on gathered at the State Street corner of the square.  Most of the crowd was subdued, and there seemed to be an atmosphere of disbelief and shock.  There were a few angry outbursts, I saw one person being arrested, (for what I don't know) while an onlooker kept shouting, "This is an illegal arrest!".  Another recaller began cursing at the Fox News truck, at which point I yelled back, "Thank God for Fox News!" He repeated his mantra, and I mine a few times, but soon the 'faux news' hater was dispirited and continued down the street, grumbling.

    I saw one young girl weeping uncontrollably as she gazed into her iPhone, apparently in disbelief that Governor Walker had won.  She cried, "They can't do this! How can this be happening?" as I snapped her photo.  I restrained myself from making any comment.

    At one point, a bagpipe procession played 'Amazing Grace' while the stunned group of recallers stood and listened, and I couldn't help but feel I was listening to a funeral march.

    There were a few Walker supporters mixed into the crowd of stunned recallers, and all around the square walked couples and families who were quiet, peaceful, and seemed very content.  They wore no markings of any kind, and I am convinced these people were there, like me, to revel in Wisconsin's, and the nation's, victory.


















    March 19, 2012

    Top Ten Violations of the Constitution by Obama

    0 comments
    by CarterFliptMe

    From the Cato Institute and posted on The Daily Caller Posted by Ilya Shapiro
    1. The individual mandate
    2. Medicaid coercion
    3. The Independent Payment Advisory Board
    4. The Chrysler bailout
    5. Dodd-Frank
    6. The deep-water drilling ban
    7. Political-speech disclosure for federal contractors
    8. Taxing political contributions
    9. Graphic tobacco warnings
    10. Health care waivers
    For descriptions of what makes these things so constitutionally bad, read the whole thing.

    March 10, 2012

    The Vetting - on Twitter - Thank You Andrew Breitbart

    0 comments
    by CarterFliptMe

    This is the Twitter search feed of hashtags #VetThePrez and #VetTheMedia

    I encourage all to help shine light on the President and his background, his true agenda, and his present activity. We do this because mainstream media will not do it, as they protect the Democrat party and the Progressive Democrat President.
    Above all, we do this to protect the United States of America as a nation bound by the Constitution, and to protect the freedom granted to each of us, by God.  The time is now. This is war.
    Please visit breitbart.com for the truth. Also a special shout out to those at breitbart.com and everyone else who is carrying on the fight.  RIP Andrew Breitbart, a great American hero!


    The Vetting: Part 1 - Soledad and CNN Publicly Wig Out

    0 comments
    by CarterFliptMe

    The CNN wing of the Democratic National Committee hit a speed bump this past Thursday morning.   They allowed Soledad O'Brien to flame out and make a laughing stock of herself when she attempted to discredit Breitbart's Joel Pollack, downplay the video of President Obama embracing Derrick Bell, and lie about what 'critical race theory' actually is.  Soledad and the CNN panel, attempted to act as a knowledgeable people, tried to obfuscate the topic of the discussion, and predictably, they failed miserably.  Here's the video, and you can decide if Breitbart and conservatives are correct in their assertions that mainstream media works overtime in protecting the left's political agenda.


    Vet The Media!! Vet The President!!
    Bravo breitbart.com check out their website for The Truth!

    February 20, 2012

    Media Ignoring Real Employment Data, And It's Frightening (Updated)

    1 comments
    by CarterFliptMe
    Graph Updated November 1, 2012

    The unemployment numbers being put out and dutifully reported on by the network 'news' have shown a very slight improvement recently. I would qualify very slight as being 0.2% from 8.5% to 8.3%, but those numbers are not accurate because they don't include the millions of people who have been out of work for extended periods of time.

    The important statistic to look at, and the one that is being ignored by the Democrat lapdog media, is the Workforce Participation Rate.  This is the percentage of working age people who are currently working.  This number has plummeted during the Obama Administration, and continues a steep decline. It is frightening, and that this economy is being characterized as 'improving' by the so-called providers of information is even more-so.

    Here is the chart generated on the data at the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Notice the decline beginning at the start of the Obama Administration.  We can see the slight uptick during the 'summer of recovery', and then the continuing decline afterward and up to today.

    Updated November 1, 2012
    October 6, 2012
    US Bureau of Labor Statistics - Workforce Participation Rate

    The economy and unemployment is improving? NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, NY Times, Washington Post? Really?

    Here is a piece from Investors Business Daily site, Investors.com:

    Real Employment Data Are Bleak And Don't Look Good For An Obama Re-Election
    Economy: The media machine that desperately wants Barack Obama re-elected has turned its focus on what it says are good unemployment numbers. The truth, though, is the job climate in America is miserable.
    While the media and the administration portray the most recent jobs number — 8.3% unemployment — as good economic news, more sober minds understand what's really going on. The facts show a jobs slump that should not get an incumbent president re-elected.
    Sure, the jobless rate is falling. But according to the Congressional Budget Office, we are going through the longest stretch of high unemployment since the Depression. The rate has been higher than 8% since February 2009, the month after Obama took office.
    And, says the CBO, it is expected to stay above 8% through 2014.

    February 15, 2012

    Forget the Economy, Stupid. Let's Start A Fight Over Birth Control!

    0 comments
    by CarterFliptMe

    The Democrats, aided by the network news and the usual liberal cable news outlets like CNN and MSNBC, know they can't let the upcoming election be focused on Obama's failed economy.  To their credit, they've managed to turn the topic of discussion on to social issues.  Everyone was astonished when Obama declared that religion-based insurers would be forced to cover abortions and birth control under ObamaCare.  Religious leaders were outraged.  They were equally surprised when he did a quick pseudo walk-back, and decreed that birth control would be provided free of charge.

    Besides the Constitutional issues surrounding Obama's dictator impersonation, this was unsatisfactory for religious leaders on the grounds of freedom of religion, and they publicly stated as much.  The very next day, viola'! We have a new bully in town and the Democrats have a new straw man to fight.  Democrats (which includes ABC, CBS, NBC, NY Times, Washington Post, etc.) immediately began pushing the narrative that 'Republicans are against birth control!'.

    I have been saying the Democrats needed a new slogan, something besides 'Republicans want to take your Social Security!', and we now have it.  To a liberal, being opposed to offering something for free is akin to being opposed to that thing's existence.

    To the casual observer, it'll be "something about Republicans fighting against birth control".  Poor Mrs. Smith, the soccer mom, will dutifully vote for Obama even though she knows his economy sucks.  That's their plan, anyway.  I'm confident that it will not be enough to save Obama's failed Carter-era Keynesian nightmare.  Elections are almost always centered on the economy, (the exception is when we're in a major war) and with a poor economy, Obama is doomed.

    Examples of propaganda by the Media Arm of the Democrat Party: (Feb 13th - 6am Feb 15 )
    White House attacks bills to restrict birth control, expand conscience protections Washington Post
    Do Republicans Really Want to Declare War on Birth Control?Slate Magazine (blog)
    Birth Control Amendment 'Dangerous,' Obama Spokesman Says Huffington Post  
    Support Is Found for Birth Control Coverage and Gay Unions New York Times 
    Crazy Train Headed Off the Rails Over Birth Control Huffington Post 
    Birth Control Debate: Why Catholic Bishops Have Lost Their Grip on US Politics ...  Time

    January 24, 2012

    The Reason the Stimulus Failed: A Microcosm

    0 comments
    by CarterFliptMe

    This story from Milwaukee illustrates why government spending is always mismanaged, seldom helps the economy much, and is, for the most part, wasted.  Mark Belling of Talk Radio 1130 WISN in Milwaukee spoke on his show about this on January 19, 2012, and was brilliant in pointing out why this story is a perfect illustration of what goes on in government bureaucracy every single day across the country.  I feel the need to repeat his illustration, and I thank Mark Belling for, once again, nailing it on the head!  Here's the podcast of his discussion of this article, Parts 1 and 2.

    The article is about the Milwaukee County Transit System's failure to move from its old system of accepting cash, cards, and paper transfers, to a new system which will use a magnetic card.  It sounds like a pretty simple task: Get new card readers, install them on the buses, educate the public, and make the transition over a period of time.  But three years after the stimulus funding for this program, the simple task is still not complete. Why, and what does this story have to do with the larger overall federal stimulus funding from 2008?


    Why indeed.  Why do well-meant government programs get more-than-adequate funding,  but remain unfinished for years, sometimes never  to be completed?

    In the public sector, there is no market pressure.  There is no pressure to get a job done in a timely manner, or at the most cost-effective price.  The money for the job is already allocated, with little regard for the details in how the money is to be spent.  There is very little accountability for those who fail in these two basic demands of the free market, since many of the administrators who oversee and implement government programs are appointed by elected officials.  Often these elected officials are never challenged in elections, since it's usually difficult to defeat an incumbent, especially in an area where only one political party is in power.  The opportunity for cronyism within bureaucracy is great, and we see it at all levels of government.

    from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
    Transit system's 'smart card' fare system two years away
    By Steve Schultze of the Journal Sentinel Jan. 18, 2012
    The new "smart card" fare collection system for Milwaukee County Transit System's more than 400 buses won't be ready for two more years, an unexpectedly long time that drew criticism Wednesday from county supervisors and the bus drivers union.
    Added to the three years of planning so far, the new fare system would take about five years overall to implement.
    That's too long, said Supervisor Michael Mayo Sr., who heads the County Board's Transportation, Transit and Public Works Committee. He said he wasn't sure of reasons for the lag time but wants to push for quicker implementation once a vendor is picked this spring to install the new high-tech fare gear.
    A long planning period was needed to investigate smart card and cash farebox technologies and to follow federal guidelines, according to Jackie Janz, spokeswoman for the transit system. Officials hope a $7 million federal stimulus grant awarded to the county for the farebox project in April 2009 will fully cover the costs.
    Nearly two years ago, transit system officials said they expected to award a contract for the new fare systems by July of 2010. But because of the complexity of the job, an outside consultant, IBI Group of Toronto, was hired to help MCTS with a study, to write bid specifications and to evaluate bids at a cost of $119,000, Janz said.
    "We would like this (system) to be installed today," she said. "But this is a monumental change for us and it is going to hit us on every level and we want to make sure it's done correctly."
    At least seven revisions to the initial specifications issued by MCTS for new cash fareboxes and smart cards also contributed to the long lead time in the system procurement, Janz said. All seven bidders were notified of the revisions and given extra time to respond, she said. That extended the bid submission period by at least three to four months, she said.
    The new farebox system will be based on use of cards whose value is machine encoded. Passengers will simply wave smart cards with embedded electronic chips near an electronic reader upon boarding a bus.
    The current bus fareboxes have been in place for 26 years, while the paper transfer system is even older.
    Contrary to earlier plans, the venerable paper bus transfer may not be eliminated when the new smart card systems are in place, though they would be phased out over one or two additional years, transit system officials told supervisors at the committee.
    Janz said while that was the transit system's recommendation, county officials could change that.
    The recommended continuation of paper transfers drew rebukes from the drivers union, who said disputes over validity of transfers create stress and sometimes lead to physical attacks on drivers.
    "How many assaults do we have to have before anything is done?" asked Rick Bassler, vice president of Local 998 of the Amalgamated Transit Union.
    He called the 24-month time frame for installation of the new system ridiculous and warned it could be obsolete by then.
    Union leaders said at least 5,000 of the 30,000 paper transfers issued daily were stolen or used fraudulently, creating huge losses for the transit system.
    At a $2.25 fare per standard adult ride, that would add up to more than $11,000 a day in lost revenue.
    Daniel Boehm, director of administration for the transit system, said there was no way to estimate losses because of transfer fraud.
    Bassler also complained that drivers had not been consulted in the farebox procurement process and he asked for driver participation in an upcoming review of multiple bids for the new system.
    Transit company officials made no commitment to that, but several county supervisors pledged to push for union representation on a bid evaluation panel.
    The two-year projection for completing the project is an unacceptably long time frame to add technology that has already become standard on many large city bus systems elsewhere in the country, said Supervisor Jason Haas.
    Lloyd Grant Jr., managing director for MCTS, said he'd try to prod the firms bidding on the contract for new fareboxes to get it done faster.
    Though MCTS in 2010 said it planned to eliminate paper transfers with the shift to smart cards, a report from the firm to the county said it now no longer planned to have magnetic card-style transfers - at least initially.
    Installing new fareboxes and a new transfer system at the same time would be too much change, too fast, according to MCTS.
    "Paper transfers have been in use at MCTS for over 35 years," the report said. "A hurried approach to the elimination of paper transfers is not recommended."
    Adding equipment that dispenses magnetic card transfers would add $800,000 in costs to equip county buses and up to $875,000 a year in operating costs.
    Supervisor Nikiya Harris said the money would be better spent on a marketing campaign aimed at educating bus riders about the new smart card system.
    Haas said the fare structure should be re-examined in conjunction with the new smart card technology with consideration given to abolishing transfers in favor of a two-tier fare system with a cheaper price for one-way fares and higher price for an all-day pass.

    January 17, 2012

    Bain, Romney Attacks - Anticapitalist Claptrap

    0 comments
    by CarterFliptMe

    In a podcast from Friday, January 13, 2012, Mark Belling of News Talk 1130 WISN called BS on Newt Gingrich and others for anti-capitalist attacks on Mitt Romney and his work at Bain Capital.  Belling cites the brilliant article in The Wall Street Journal, How Private Equity Works by Jonathan Macey, in which Macey calls the general assertions that Bain Capital was 'looting' companies and engaging in 'vulture capitalism' as ".. anticapitalist claptrap."


    Newt Gingrich's political action committee is sponsoring a film called "When Mitt Romney Came to Town" that accuses Mr. Romney and his former company, Bain Capital, of taking over companies, looting them, and then tossing their workers out on the street. Jon Huntsman's attacks on his rival include the description of private equity as a business that "breaks down businesses [and] destroys jobs, as opposed to creating jobs and opportunity, leveraging up, spinning off, [and] enriching shareholders."
    This is anticapitalist claptrap. Private-equity firms make significant investments in companies, mainly U.S. companies. Most of their investments are in companies that underperform industry peers. Frequently these firms are on the brink of failure.
    Because private-equity firms are, by definition, equity investors, they make money only if they improve the performance of their companies. Private equity is last in line to be paid in case of insolvency. Private-equity firms don't make a profit unless their companies can meet their obligations to workers and other creditors.
    The companies in which private-equity investors are able to turn a profit generally grow, rather than shrink. This is because the preferred "exit strategy" by which private-equity firms profit is to take the private companies in which they invest and enable them to go public and sell shares that will help the company grow even stronger. As for turnaround success stories, Continental Airlines, Orbitz and Snapple have all benefitted at some time from private-equity investment.
    Here's the podcast.

    January 14, 2012

    The Goat That Bit Jon Hunstman, Then Endorsed Him

    0 comments

    I'm not going to try to link the absurdity of the Jon Huntsman campaign with the absurdity of this admittedly hilarious snippet of the New Hampshire Primary.  I'm just going to recommend you watch this video and enjoy.


    January 12, 2012

    An Illustration of Big Government Assault on Freedom, Decency, and Common Sense

    1 comments
    by CarterFliptMe

    This case, Sackett v EPA, is a story of somebody who bought land in a residential area, and simply wanted to build a home and farm the land.  Suddenly, the leviathan known as the Environmental Protection Agency (along with the Army Corps of Engineers) swooped in and stomped on him, declaring his newly acquired land as "wetlands".  This bomb not only put an indefinite halt on his simple plan, but levied astronomical fines of $75,000 every day.  The landowner can't even dispute whether the EPA is correct in it's finding, or whether the EPA has this authority under the Constitution, without these fines being administered daily.  The landowner is faced with two choices: 1.) Tear down any and all structures currently on his land, incurring thousands of dollars of cost, and loss of income. 2.) Stand his ground and incur fines of over $75,000 per day while he waits indefinitely for the EPA to make a final determination.

    There is no freedom, decency, or common sense to be found in this situation, and it's not the only one like it in this country.  This big government bullying, done by the U.S. Federal Government in the name of environmentalism, happens all the time.  Perhaps now, finally, we and the Sacketts can get some relief from the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Please read the article from the Washington Times

    January 4, 2012

    Emperor Obama Warned Us, "He Can't Wait", And He Meant It

    1 comments
    by CarterFliptMe

    In October, President Obama boldly declared, "We can't wait!", and promised to bypass Congress to enact new legislation and do pretty much anything he damn-well pleases.

    Now, to strengthen waning union power in the United States, he's bypassed the Senate approval process, and declared his appointments to fill three vacancies in the National Labor Relations Board, and put Richard Cordray in charge of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
     
    The Senate had been blocking Obama's nominees to the NLRB because they were too partisan, and represent only union interests.  The approval of Cordray had been delayed because Republicans objected to the structure and spending authorization of the new CFPB, and were trying to get changes made to it in Congress. 

    The most obvious point is that Congress is not in recess!  According to Obama, "We know what would happen if Republicans in Congress were allowed to keep holding Richard's nomination hostage.  More of our loved ones could be tricked into making bad financial decisions."  That's his rationale for violating the Constitution again?  Somebody might be tricked?  It is the now further unrepresented people of the United States who are being bamboozled yet again by the Alinskyite-in-Chief.
     
    Thanks to the Dodd-Frank regulations, we now have a CFPB in charge of telling our loved ones which financial decisions are good, and which ones aren't.  The people that run this new Bureau are not elected, and now the head of it has not even been approved by the Senate.  Don't we have laws in place already (which aren't being enforced) that are supposed to protect people from illegal financial practices?  Lastly, does this mean that our laws in financial and lending matters are now irrelevant?  It seems so, since the CFPB (the head of which, again, is unelected and unapproved by the Senate) now gets to decide what's 'fair' or 'unwise'?


    Does anyone think this Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will 'protect' anyone? The only people this new layer of bureaucracy will protect are elected representatives, by sheltering them from making the tough decisions that affect the economy and our individual lives.


    Legal challenges are expected, and this move may cause the entire appointment approval process to come to a screeching halt.  I hope and pray for both!