If you want to know what a carbon tax on emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would do to America you need only look at the destruction of industry and business in Australia, along with the soaring costs for energy use it imposes on anyone there.

“The carbon tax is contributing to a record number of firms going to the wall with thousands of employees being laid off and companies forced to close factories that have stood for generations”, Steve Lewis and Phil Jacob reported in a March 18 issue of The Daily Telegraph, a leading Australian newspaper.

“Soaring energy bills caused by the government’s climate change scheme have been called ‘the straw that broke the camel’s back’ by company executives and corporate rescue doctors who are trying to save ailing firms.”

The passage of a carbon tax in America would have the exact same results and it remains a top priority for the White House and Democrats in Congress who see it as a bonanza in new funding for the government.

As Paul Driessen says in a Townhall.com commentary, “More rational analysis reveals that dreams of growth are nothing more than dangerous tax revenue hallucinations. They would bring intense pain for no climate or economic gain.”

Too many Americans still believe that CO2 is causing global warming, but CO2 plays no role in climate change and is barely 0.038 percent of the Earth’s atmosphere. More to the point, there is no warming and hasn’t been for the last seventeen years as the Earth is in a natural cooling cycle that has prolonged the advent of spring with severe snow storms throughout the nation.

There is no scientific justification for such a tax, but those advocating it don’t care about the science. They care about raising revenue for an ever-growing government to spend and waste.

Driessen points out that “Hydrocarbons (coal, oil, and natural gas) provide over 83% of all the energy that powers America. A carbon tax would put a hefty surcharge on everything we make, grow, ship, eat, and do. It would put the federal government in control of, not just one-sixth of the economy, as under Obamacare, but 100% of our economy and lives. It would make the United States increasingly less productive, less competitive globally, less able to provide opportunities for our children.”

The case for a carbon tax simply doesn’t exist, but there are powerful forces in Congress and the support of the White House to impose such a tax. The power of the environmental movement and its long history of lies about the climate, primarily the global warming hoax, cannot be dismissed or ignored.

In Australia, “The Australian Securities & Investments Commission reports there were 10,632 company collapses for the 12 months to March 1—averaging 886 a month—with the number of firms being placed in administration more than 12 percent higher than during the global financial crisis.” It represents “a record high…led by widespread failures in manufacturing and construction, which accounted for almost one-fifth of collapses.”

Greg Evans, the chief economic economist for the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said that “It defies logic to adopt a policy which even the Treasury acknowledges will lower our standards of living and be harmful to national productivity.” Adding to Australia’s struggling companies, the carbon tax and one on mining were showing up as “sovereign issues” in discussions with foreign investors.” Who would want to invest in Australia if these two taxes were destroying the economic strength of the nation?

Politics in Australia is no less a battleground than here in America. Australia’s Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, who introduced the carbon tax, just beat back a bid by her Labor Party’s dissidents to reinstall former leader Kevin Rudd who lost to her in 2010 and 2012. Much of the opposition to her comes from the harm being inflicted by the carbon and mining taxes.

Marlo Lewis is a senior fellow in energy and environmental policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. During the 2012 campaign, he described a carbon tax as “political poison for the Republican Party.” Mitt Romney opposed it, but ‘the big attraction of carbon taxes these days is not as a global warming policy but as a revenue enhancer. In both parties, deficit hawks and big spenders (often the same individuals) are flailing for ways to boost federal revenue.”

That is precisely the problem afflicting a nation whose Congress and President could not find a reason to cut anything from the federal budget. The result was the “sequestration” that imposed cuts neither party could agree upon.

In a Fox News article, “Here comes Team Obama’s carbon tax”. Phil Kerpen, president of American Commitment and author of “Democracy Denied” reported that “The Treasury Department’s Office of Environment and Energy has finally begun to turn over documents about its preparations for a carbon tax in response to transparency warrior Chris Horner’s Freedom of Information Act request. The documents provide solid evidence that the Obama administration and its allies in Congress have every intention of implementing a carbon tax if we fail to stop them.”

President Obama’s nominee to be the next Secretary of Energy, Ernest Moniz, is on record wanting to double or triple the cost of energy, much as his predecessor wanted.

A carbon tax, if enacted, would totally undermine a nation that has a debt climbing toward $17 trillion and millions unemployed in an economy that is struggling to inch its way out of the depths of the financial crisis.

If you wanted to destroy America, you could do it with a carbon tax. Australia is reeling from the cost to its economy and the higher energy costs its people are paying. We don’t want that here.

The one thing the “sequester” did was to get people asking why government spending could not be reduced. Adding to the drama of the automatic cuts was the sky-is-falling, government-services-will-stop, and comparable lies the President and his cabinet secretaries told until it became obvious that the public was not buying it.

What the President did not talk about was the incredible, obscene waste of taxpayer’s money that goes on every day in every department and agency of the U.S. government. Americans are so accustomed to hearing everything described in the billions and trillions, they have lost sight of what these numbers really mean and this is particularly true in light of the nation’s huge, growing debt and deficit.

It’s not like independent organizations like Citizens Against Government Waste don’t keep watch and report the waste. It has gained some fame for its annual “Pig Book”, a list of absurd spending. To its credit, the Government Accountability Office occasionally issues a report on waste when some member of Congress requests it.

Even a casual bit of research turns up item after item that, were Americans not so apathetic and indifferent to government waste, it would result in huge rallies in Washington, D.C. calling for change. There is none.

Here are some examples, a mere handful from the many anyone can discover by simply Googling “government waste.”

# The government spends $1.7 billion for maintenance on empty buildings it owns, although some sources put the figure at closer to $25 billion. The Office of Management and Budget estimates that 55,000 properties are underutilized or entirely vacant.

# The federal government owns approximately one-third of all U.S. land. It does not need more land and it could be argued that it should not own 80% of Nevada and Alaska, and more than half of Idaho. That said, it wants to spend $2.3 billion to purchase more land and the National park Service currently has a backlog of maintenance tasks totaling $5 billion. These include parks that the Obama administration was saying would all have to be closed down because of a sequester reduction of a mere 1.2% of all federal spending.

# Homeland Security’s Janet Napolitano was issuing statements about the sequestration cuts to her department, but according to Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste, the department has $9 billion in unspent preparedness funds. How much of that will be spent on purchasing more DHS ammunition? They have already purchased enough to shoot every American five times.

# Republican lawmakers in Congress took the sequester fear-mongering as an opportunity to note, as Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) said, “There are pots of money sitting in different departments across the federal government, that have been authorized over either a number of months or years.”

# Rep. Tom Coburn (R-OK) is a leading budget hawk who identified programs to fund a space ship to another solar system, funds for advancements in beef jerky from France, and $6 billion for research to find out what lessons about democracy and decision-making can be learned—from fish!

# While you’re trying to figure out how to pay your 2012 taxes, give a thought to the National Science Foundation $350,000 grant to Perdue University researchers on how to improve your golf game.

# Not to be outspent, the National Institutes of Health gave a $940,000 grant to researchers who found that the production of pheromones in—wait for it—fruit flies, declines over time. Turns out that male fruit flies were more attracted to younger female fruit flies. The NIH also paid researchers to find out why gay men in Argentina engage in risky sexual behavior when they’re drunk and spent $800,000 in “stimulus funds” to study the impact of a “genital-washing” program on men in South Africa. You can’t make up this stuff.

# For reasons that defy sanity, various elements of the government have spent $3 million for research on video games; $2.6 million to train Chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly; a whopping $500 million on a program that would, among other things, try to figure out why five-year-olds “can’t sit still” in a kindergarten classroom; and grants such as $1.8 million on a “museum of neon signs” in Las Vegas, Nevada.

# Sanity does not apply to the $2 billion given annually to U.S. farmers to not farm their land. Don’t even ask about the Defense Department. It has long been famous for waste.

While all this has been going on, in 2010 the Office of Management and Budget determined that $47.9 billion was spent on fraudulent or improper payments in Medicare and the problem still hasn’t been fixed, though the cost is now up to $62 billion. There’s been $2.7 billion in fraud and mismanagement of the food-stamp program. And on, and on, and on.

And the President of the United States can only talk about tax breaks for the “rich and well-connected” while spending most of his time hanging out with the “rich and well-connected.” The rest of the time is spent campaigning to get higher taxes on all the rest of us.

If you just added up the billions cited in this brief look at waste, the federal government might actually be able to get by without having run up the national debt to more than $16 trillion and running trillion-plus annual deficits.

In an op-ed for Yahoo, McConnell wrote that Republicans would focus on reducing spending in the next Congress, and in conjunction with the debate over raising the $16.4 trillion debt ceiling. Congress will likely need to take action on the debt limit within the next two months.

“The president may not want to have a fight about government spending over the next few months, but it’s the fight he is going to have, because it’s a debate the country needs,” McConnell warned.

McConnell called legislation he helped negotiate to avoid the effects of the so-called “fiscal cliff” earlier this week “an imperfect solution” and said the debt fight is the “perfect time” to confront the issue.

Obama has warned that he will not tolerate another extended debate over the debt ceiling. The negotiations over increasing the debt ceiling in summer 2011 resulted in an extended standoff between Obama and Republicans, the threat of a government shutdown and a credit downgrade for the country.

A fight?

Really?

I’m sure Obama is quaking in his boots or his burka, depending.

So what happened? Did someone give Mitch a testosterone transplant in the last 24 hours?

He’s going to fight Obama on spending?

I realize a lot of us were born in the dark but Mitch apparently thinks that was last night.

It would be really great if the Republican Party suddenly discovered a backbone. It would be great is Mitch McConnell and John Boehner suddenly morphed into these great warriors for conservative values and beliefs.

Unfortunately, I’ve lived through the last two years. Every time we needed the GOP to stand up and fight, they folded faster than Kim Kardashian going for a new headline.

Hope springs eternal and it would be great if it would happen, but some how I think my chances of winning the lottery are greater than the chances of the Republican leadership putting up a real fight on a crucial issue.

Raising energy costs will stifle economy, kill jobs

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is ready to unleash its first wave of carbon-dioxide regulations. Some members of Congress want to tax hydrocarbon use and carbon-dioxide emissions. Moreover, United Nations climate alarmists are trying to devise a new treaty to regulate energy use at the international level. Even one of these government actions would send shock waves through the economy. If all three are imposed (or worse, imposed in conjunction with Obamacare and other tax increases on job and wealth creators) the impacts will be devastating.

This climate crisis threatens our energy use, economy, jobs, living standards, health and welfare. The actions are being justified by assertions that they will stabilize the Earth’s climate, prevent global-warming disasters and raise hundreds of billions of dollars to cover “essential” government spending.

Our planet’s climate has never been stable and never will be. Despite rising carbon-dioxide levels, average global temperatures have not risen for 16 years. There is no empirical evidence to support assertions and computer models that claim carbon dioxide drives climate change or to suggest that greenhouse gases have supplanted the complex natural forces that have produced big and little ice ages, floods and droughts, and stormy and quiescent periods throughout Earth’s history.

These inconvenient truths are irrelevant to anti-hydrocarbon campaigners, who are using “dangerous man-made climate change” as the best pretext yet devised to control energy use and economies. They simply hypothesize, model and assert that every observed weather phenomenon is due to human carbon-dioxide emissions. Whether it’s warmer or colder, wetter or drier, more ice or less, more storms or fewer storms, “It’s exactly what we predicted,” climate alarmists say.

This is not science. It is political science, rooted in an ideological loathing of fossil fuels, economic growth and humanity itself.

The consequences for average workers and families will be dire.

These actions are intended to increase the cost of the hydrocarbon energy that powers our economy. Yet raising the cost of transportation fuels, electricity, lighting, heating and air conditioning will raise the price of food, materials and equipment. This will severely impact the bottom line for factories, utilities, offices, farms, shops, airlines, shippers, hospitals, schools, churches, charities and government offices. The poorest families may get rebates for their increased energy costs, but institutions will not. They will be forced to reduce wages, hours and benefits, hire fewer full-time employees, lay off people, outsource operations to countries where energy costs are lower or even close their doors.

Taxes paid by companies and employees will dwindle. Instead of paying taxes, newly jobless workers will collect unemployment and welfare benefits from shrinking government coffers. Charities will have much less money, even if deductions for donations remain in the U.S. tax code.

Unemployment will bring reduced nutrition, increased stress and higher rates of heart attack and stroke, spousal and child abuse, alcohol and drug abuse, suicide and premature death. The social, economic and health care costs will further “fundamentally transform” America, as President Obama says he is determined to do.

Even if Congress legislates carbon taxes, nothing suggests that EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson will refrain from imposing EPA’s anti-hydrocarbon rules on top of them or that the White House and Senate will reject any new U.N. treaty. There is no hint that the Interior Department will cease using the Endangered Species Act and other laws to shut down oil and gas drilling while ignoring the growing slaughter of eagles and whooping cranes by wind turbines. The Energy and Defense departments, the EPA and Congress are unlikely to stop spending more in borrowed funds to subsidize corn ethanol and Navy biofuel schemes.

These anti-hydrocarbon policies also mean the U.S. Treasury will be deprived of hundreds of billions of dollars in lease bonuses, royalties, taxes and other revenues that it would realize from the development of our nation’s vast oil, natural gas and coal deposits. Instead, the United States will be forced to pay billions more for imported oil, often from unethical, environmentally reckless countries.

Those countries will receive far less foreign aid from increasingly cash-strapped Western nations. Little good will come of the Green Climate Fund cash the United Nation says industrialized nations should transfer to kleptocratic rulers in poor countries as reparations for supposedly causing climate change.

For every nation, this coerced energy and economic deprivation will make it increasingly difficult to adapt to future climate changes that nature inevitably will bring our way. So much for the modern era. Mankind ought to have the wealth and technology to adapt far more easily than our ancestors were able to do.

Climate alarmists are doing everything in their power to avoid discussing these issues and to vilify anyone who brings them up. However, we need to have this debate, and we need to have it now — especially in Congress and our state legislatures — before destructive decisions are imposed on us and our children.

He is totally unwilling to fight Barack Obama, but he is quite willing to fight conservatives. His white flag of surrender is out and he is ready to agree to massive tax increases that will only grow the big government state but will also destroy the Republican Party.

So what do we need to do?

I was not the first to come up with this idea but I was one of the first to call for getting rid of John Boehner and warning that he was going to be a disaster for the conservative movement.

On March 1, 2011, I wrote that then out of control actor Charlie Sheen was making more sense than John Boehner. I also called for a primary opponent for Boehner.

The fight today is much simpler than trying to primary John Boehner.

If sixteen Republicans defect and refuse to vote for Boehner as Speaker, he will not have the requisite 218 votes to be reelected.

It is safe to say we already have four votes. Those would be from the conservatives removed from Committees. Louie Gohmert, who is one of the heroes in Congress who nominated Newt Gingrich to be Speaker during Party Leadership elections might well be a 5thvote.

That would leave only eleven members of the GOP to defect to end Boehner’s epic failure of a tenure as Speaker.

We conservatives need to reach out to every Republican member of Congress. The message needs to be the same. Boehner must go.

If Boehner does not go, a lot of Republicans are going to leave the Party. If Boehner surrenders as I predict he will, he will destroy what is left of the Republican brand. Conservatives will have no choice but to form a third party because the Republican Party will simply collapse.

If we are successful in kicking Boehner from the Speaker’s chair, who replaces him?

It cannot be anyone in the current leadership. Eric Cantor and Kevin McCarthy were up to their ears in the conservative purge. All we would be doing would be trading one bad leader for another.

Perhaps Louie Gohmert was right.

Perhaps we need Newt Gingrich.

The Speaker of the House does not have to be a current member of the House. Article One, Clause Five of the Constitution sets up the Office of the Speaker of the House but does not explicitly require that the Speaker be a current member of Congress.

Gingrich would come into the job with a wealth of experience no one else could offer. Gingrich has dealt with a Democrat President in the past and got a conservative agenda through.

Newt is a field general. That is his greatest strength. He can articulate a conservative vision and more importantly he can strategize to get that vision accomplished.

Of all of the potential leaders out there, Newt is the only one I can think of who I would trust and feel totally comfortable with leading the charge against the Democrats and the Party of Treason.

Newt is the only leader I can think of who we could put in charge of the House and be confident that he would not only fight, but he would win.

We have a choice. Surrender or victory.

John Boehner will not fight. He is too much of a coward to go up against Barack Obama. Newt is not a coward. He is a brilliant leader. He would have done much better than Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee.

The day has come and we need his leadership.

Louie Gohmert is one of the wisest men in Congress. When he nominated Newt to be Speaker in the party leadership elections, he showed that wisdom.

At a time when the biggest issues are the economy, the reform of entitlement programs, the national debt and deficit, many Americans are blissfully unaware of the machine that keeps their taxpayer dollars flowing from every federal government department and agency. Even with a $16 trillion dollar debt, the money gushes forth.

In a Wall Street Journal column by William McGurn about government spending, he says that “Surely the real issue here is whether people have any meaningful choice. Because government funding tends to crowd out private funding, it leaves fewer and more expensive options in its wake. Generally that means you have to be as rich as Warren Buffett or living in the most inaccessible Ozarks backwoods to be in a position to forego federal dollars.”

Point well taken; older Americans, having paid into the involuntary system, understandably expect to receive Social Security checks every month and the same applies to having Medicare cover escalating healthcare costs. Many younger Americans are going to college on government loans. There is a plethora of government programs that redistribute taxpayer dollars on all manner of worthy or dubious recipients.

The most troubling aspect of government largess is the political factor. I was reminded of this upon receiving a news release from the U.S. Forest Service announcing $3.5 million to support community forests. One might reasonably ask why, at a time when the national debt is $16 trillion dollars why the government is spending money on community forests.

On closer examination, it appears that the grants are going to communities in states that Democrats need in terms of their Electoral College votes. Grants went to communities in Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina, notable swing states, as well as dependable ones such as Washington, Vermont, and New Hampshire.

Then, too, it should be noted that every U.S. State maintains offices in Washington, D.C. to ensure it receives the government grants being handed out for all aspects of their needs, much of which is dependent on federal funding. Collectively, the states are over $4 trillion in debt; much of which is tied to public worker’s pensions and other benefits.

The money gusher also explains the exponential growth in the lobbying industry. A 2005 Washington Post article noted that “The number of registered lobbyists in Washington has more than doubled since 2000 to more than 34,750 while the amount that lobbyists charge their new clients has increased by as much as 100 percent. Only a few other businesses have enjoyed greater prosperity in an otherwise fitful economy.”

Wikipedia says that “By 2011, one estimate of overall lobbying spending nationally was $30+ billion in 2010.” Every industry, profession, enterprise and special interest group in America seeks representation and a piece of the pie.

Federal spending understandably reflects the policies of whichever administration is in power and the Obama administration’s obsession with alternative energy has resulted in some of the most wasteful spending—they call it investment—as it lost billions in loan guarantees to companies such as Solyndra and other solar panel manufacturers. The wind power industry could literally not exist without some form of government funding and mandates.

There isn’t a single federal government department and agency that does not engage fulltime in the redistribution of wealth via grants, some of which would be commendable if the nation was not facing economic collapse.

In August, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services announced a $68 million in grants for HIV/AIDS care for women, infants, children, and youth. It also announced awards up to $4.6 million in youth suicide prevention programs to tribes throughout South Dakota.

In August the Department of Education announced more than $2.5 million for seven student support services projects to help students succeed in high education.

Over at the Department of Transportation the Federal Highway Administration announced more than $363 million in funding for various highway projects. When they invited states and cities to apply for federal funding from twelve different grant programs, they received nearly 1,500 requests totaling almost $2.5 billion. Grants have gone to all fifty states, plus Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia.

To push its agenda, the Environmental Protection Agency hands out millions in grants for Community Action for Renewed Environment, Education, Environmental Justice, Student Programs, the National Clean Diesel campaign, and other comparable programs.

Every single federal department, Labor, Justice, Interior, et cetera, is engaged in this largess of programs, including the State Department which oversees foreign aid. It is all funded not only by taxes, but by continuous borrowing—forty cents of every dollar spent, millions every day.

Congress is so shy of cutting any spending program it initiated a doomsday program, the automatic sequestration, the results of which are supposed to spread the pain. It is a failure to exercise the oversight Congress is supposed to exercise. It is the abandonment of one of its most important functions.

The hope is that a Republican Congress and White House will seriously reform the nation’s entitlement programs; literally one half of all the money is committed to be spent before Congress arrives in the Capitol Building to do anything else.

The reality is that our huge federal government will continue to disperse all the money it collects and borrows to justify its existence.

Concern over the personal privacy implications of the nation’s inevitable drone boom continues to grow on Capitol Hill.

This week, Rep. Ted Poe, a Texas Republican and former judge, will introduce the Preserving American Privacy Act, which sets strict limits on when, and for what purpose, law enforcement agencies and other entities can use unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs.

Drones are being used on a limited basis by some police and federal departments, but they will be available for commercial and private use in 2015.

This concerns lawmakers and Fourth Amendment advocates who fear that drone use will be abused and that Americans’ privacy rights will be eroded.

“When we see a drone in the air, it should be no surprise to us. Now is the time to start, not 2015,” Mr. Poe said Friday. “With the increased technology of surveillance, Congress has to be proactive in limiting drone use to law enforcement, and also protecting civilians from the private use of drones.”

The measure, which as of Friday had no co-sponsors and is open to changes, would require judicial warrants before any agency could employ a drone. It also restricts the use of UAVs by any state or local entity “except in connection with the investigation of a felony,” the bill reads in part.

But the proposal goes beyond law enforcement and sets a rigid framework for the private use of drones, which are expected to be popular among news agencies, private investigators and others who could benefit from an unmanned eye in the sky.

Mr. Poe’s bill states that no “private person” can surveil another individual without consent.

It’s the latest in a string of proposals from members of Congress worried that drones pose a real threat to liberty.

Rep. Austin Scott, Georgia Republican, last month introduced the Preserving Freedom From Unwarranted Surveillance Act, which would prohibit the federal government from gathering evidence or information related to investigations without a warrant.

Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican and one of the loudest drone critics, has introduced similar legislation in the Senate, with exceptions made when drones are necessary to prevent imminent danger to life or in the event of a terrorist attack.

Lawmakers last week also blasted the Department of Homeland Security for its perceived lack of interest in drones’ national security impact. The department is referring all drone questions to the Federal Aviation Administration, which will issue permits and monitor UAVs in the sky in much the same way it does planes and helicopters. But that oversight deals with air safety issues, not potential terrorist threats.

“They have not even done a privacy impact assessment,” Amie Stepanovich, an attorney with the Electronic Privacy Information Center, told a House subcommittee Thursday. “They have not even gone in to determine what impact these drones would have on the American public.”

As this is being written it is early Friday morning as the news media saturates us with what I call the “Five Known Facts Syndrome”, repeating the details of the Colorado movie theatre murders reported to have taken the lives of twelve victims with some fifty who have been injured.

We have a selective response to such news, a mixture of grief and anger that such events occur and focused on the fact it has happened here in the United States. That is only natural, but it also ignores the murders occurring throughout the world, whether it is the killing of Israeli tourists in Bulgaria earlier this week or the ongoing slaughter of an estimated 17,000 Syrians by yet another Middle East dictator.

Meanwhile Iran moves relentlessly toward the development of nuclear weapons that, if allowed to be built, will murder millions—first targeting Israel and then most certainly America. All the supposed “diplomacy” and “sanctions” in the world will not deter this predictable outcome.

Whether a movie theatre in Colorado or the attack on an entire nation, it speaks to the madness that exists worldwide, emanating in the Middle East, but which we have seen in Madrid, London, Bali, U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and culminating in New York and Washington, D.C. on 9/11.

The President is scheduled to speak to the nation before Noon today and is not likely to make mention of the Fort Hood murders on November 5, 2009, but is very likely to call for more stringent gun control legislation at the same time the United Nations has fashioned an international treaty to disarm the world’s citizens and leave them even more vulnerable to tyranny.

The history of “civilization” is the history of warfare and terror. It is the history of individual assassinations that trigger wars or grandiose dreams of continental and worldwide domination.

The most dangerous creatures on Earth are humans and murder occurs daily whether it is an Islamic “honor killing” or the murder of a store clerk during a robbery for a few dollars. In Chicago these days the rate of murders rivals the deaths in Afghanistan. In hard times, the murder rate increases with the levels of desperation. The drug wars are a contributing factor in our nation’s cities.

We live in a nation that has jettisoned much of the moral guidelines that distinguished our society, our culture, abandoning the simple act of a morning prayer in the nation’s schools, the definition of marriage, and culminating in a federal government that sanctioned the “walking” of guns to provision the Mexican drug cartels as a ruse to blame the sale of guns to Americans whose right is established by the Second Amendment.

Meanwhile, ordinary citizens must submit to humiliating “pat downs” in order to board an airplane while the same government fails to identify an illegal alien running a flight school that trained other illegals to do the same thing that culminated in the 9/11 attack.

The deaths of innocent movie-goers is tragic and dramatic, but the murder of a nation’s economy and the dreams of its citizens to get a college degree without going into debt, hold a job, own a home, run a business, or have a secure retirement, pails in comparison.

The perpetrators of this national murder hold high office, are entrusted to act in our best interest, but instead will exploit this latest tragedy, will slander a political opponent as a “felon”, and will continue their relentless destruction of America.

The international institution, the United Nations, will continue to turn a blind eye to the murder of Western civilization.

Just in case you missed it, America is a nation that was designed by geniuses and is now run by idiots. We can also add that our nation is run by gutless, self-centered cowards too.

What is going on that requires stating the obvious?

The gutless cowards we call the Senate and Congress are now working a plan to punt the so-called sequestration for another year.

First, the sequestration was a horrible idea. John Boehner, instead of standing and fighting, he raised his freshly laundered white flag of surrender and gave us sequestration.

Sequestration is the process of automatic budget cuts if the Congress could not agree on a specified amount of budget cuts.

Barack Obama and the Party of Treason loved sequestration because half the cuts if sequestration were invoked would come from the Department of Defense and one of Obama’s long standing goals has to destroy America as a military superpower.

The budget is out of control. While members of Congress are now seriously looking at ways to avoid the catastrophic defense budget cuts, they are not serious about cutting spending.

We have hundreds of billions of dollars in waste in the Federal Budget. When is the government going to cut the waste? We have hundreds of billions of dollars in spending that exists only to help get politicians reelected. When is that going to be cut?

Oh wait, according to the politicians in Washington think that is more important than minor details such as defending the nation.

Now the pressure is building in congress, including among Republicans for new “revenues” for the government.

So here is the thirty-five cent question. Are the politicians in Washington going to listen before or after we have an economic collapse? My money is on after the collapse because so many of these politicians do not even have a room temperature IQ. Most of them don’t have an IQ that could thaw ice.

One thing is certain. You know when Graham and McCain get together on something, anything, you can oppose it just on general principles and probably be right.

Graham and McCain are believers in the P.T. Barnum School of politics, believing there is a sucker born every minute and they are all voters. The so-called “offsets” or cuts are going to be non-existent. They are going to be numbers made up by the Congressional Budget Office. The CBO is the Indianapolis Colts of politics, except the Colts have a better chance of winning than the CBO has of getting anything right.

The numbers will exist on paper. It will be the equivalent of me taking my bank statement and adding a couple of zeros to my account balance. It might make me think I am rich, but the reality will be I am just as broke as I was before I took my pen to the bank statement.

The real danger is the pressure in Republican circles to raise taxes.

The Taxpayer Protection Pledge of Americans for Tax Reform is the standard by which Republican anti-tax beliefs are measured. Most Republicans have signed the pledge.

Yet within Congress, a number of Republicans have turned their backs on the pledge not to raise taxes. Even more Republicans are threatening to go squishy and raise taxes.

The problem is not revenue. It is spending.

In a hearing in 2011, the GAO could not even identify the number of welfare programs the government had, how much money was being spent or even whether the programs were effective.

Instead of gutting defense spending, which is something the Constitution mandates, why don’t we cut wasteful government spending?

With hundreds of billions of dollars of identified government waste, why aren’t McCain and Graham out making those cuts? The answer is, they are clueless Washington politicians.

Killing, not punting sequestration is a good idea. Even Leon Panetta, the Secretary of Defense says the cuts in defense spending would be devastating.

We need real budget cuts. We need to eliminate the programs that are wasteful or that have just completely failed.

Unfortunately with McCain and Graham leading the charge what we are going to end up with are phantom budget cuts along with real tax and fee increases.

In short, America is sinking faster than an Italian cruise ship and Graham and McCain simply want to order more lasagna.

President Obama, amid charges of class warfare, pushed Monday for a tax hike on families earning more than $250,000 — and an extension of the Bush-era tax rates for families making less than that.

The president, speaking in the East Room of the White House, said he wants to break through the “stalemate” over taxes in Congress. He argued that sustaining the current tax rates for top earners puts too big a hole in the federal budget, saying “we can’t afford to keep that up.” Obama called on Congress to extend those rates, for one year, for families earning less than $250,000 — failure to do so, he said, would be a “blow” to families and a “drag” on the economy.

The president urged Congress to pass a bill that deals with the middle-class tax rates only, and then move on to a separate debate over extending the rates for top earners. Obama, though, made clear he is adamantly opposed to doing so.

“I will fight to end them,” Obama said, adding that he doesn’t want that debate to “threaten” those making less than $250,000.

A big hole in the federal budget? How the hell can he even say that with a straight face? The only reason is that he is practiced liar who can say anything.

The big hole we have the in federal budget is from the spending we have seen from the Obama/Pelosi/Reid axis of fiscal evil.

These people have been spending like there is no tomorrow. This issue is not totally black and white has Republicans in many cases have been just as guilty.

There is a lot of pressure building up on Capitol Hill for a tax increase. Even some solid Tea Party Congressmen and Senators have even started talking about the need to increase taxes.

This is a bright line, litmus test.

There can be zero tax increases. There can be none. And we as the Tea Party must be prepared to make war on any Congressman or Senator that supports raising taxes.

Why?

Is this more intransigence and gridlock? Is this more of what the Party of Treason whines about?

It might be gridlock, but it is good gridlock.

Washington has proved repeatedly it is incapable of managing our money. It cannot balance a budget. The Senate has not even produced a budget in 1200 days!

Our so-called leaders in Washington are unable to rein in their insatiable desire to spend other people’s money.

That is why there can be no compromise on taxes.

There can be no tax increase. We cannot have “fee increases.” We cannot have any growth in government revenues other than those that may occur because the economy grows.

What we must have is a serious reduction in government spending. Obama and his cronies have blown far too much money in corrupt ventures such as Solyndra. They have wasted too much money by sending billions to the new Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt.

We can no longer afford this.

If we increase taxes, all we will do is give them more money to spend and we will never see the end of their spending.

The message to Congress from the Tea Party must be simple. If you vote for any tax increase, we will do everything we can to end your political career.

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 5,731 other followers

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.
I believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.