Because of Obama and Reid, We Need Two New Constitutional Amendments

If there is anything we have learned by having Barack Obama in office for the last 7-1/2 years, it is that any rogue President can sidestep the balance of power -- as now theoretically outlined in our Constitution -- through the use of executive orders and memoranda.   At the same time, Harry Reid's blocking of any legislation sent over from the House, while he was the Majority Leader, also exposes another problem.

For these reasons, I believe we need to fix these holes in the Constitution with two new amendments.

The first should clearly restrict the power of the President to legislate from his office.  Any executive orders and memoranda that modifies any past legislation should be time limited to several months and not renewable. This way, Congress can either choose to pass legislation to sustain the President's executive action or, simply, let the President's actions expire.   Additionally, prosecutorial discretion needs to stop or, at the very least, also be time limited to, say, six months, and not renewable.

Similarly, another amendment is needed to insure that legislation passed in either the Senate or the House be brought to a vote in the other congressional body within some specified time frame.  If not, that legislation would automatically be sent to the President for signature.  This would stop majority leaders like Harry Reid from sitting on legislation that he thinks may be politically embarrassing for either his party members or his President.

I believe that both the House and the Senate, now controlled by the Republicans, could act on this almost immediately after being seated in January; assuming a Republican President is elected and congress still remains under the control of Republicans.  At that time, the offenders -- Reid and Obama -- will no longer be on the scene.

References:

Definition: Prosecutorial Discretion: https://www.google.com/search?q=procecrutalbe+disgression&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#safe=off&q=prosecutorial+discretion

The Constitutional Amendment Process: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

Yes Hillary. Elections Will Have Consequences For Alito's Replacement

Following the death of Supreme Court Justice Scalia, when Hillary Clinton heard that the Republicans may block any Obama nominee with a filibuster, said that "elections have consequences" and President Obama won his election and won the right to nominate a justice and the Senate should vote on that nomination.

Of course that's only one side of the story.  Hillary and then-Senator Barack Obama both filibustered George Bush's Justice Sam Alito nomination in 2006, attempting to deny a  vote.   She even tried to do the same with the John Roberts nomination for Chief Justice. Now that the same may happen to an Obama nominee, she is demanding that just the opposite be the case.

What Hillary can't seem to acknowledge is her own statement. Yes, "elections" do "have consequences".  Obama may have won the right to nominate a Supreme Court Justice when he won his reelection in 2012, but in 2014, the voters gave the Republicans control of the Senate, and the right to approve or deny any nominee. Also, Hillary seems to forget that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, blocked the approval of Bush nominee Priscilla Owen to the Appellate Court for 4 years.  She was in the Senate at that same time and never once condemned Reid for not bringing that nomination to the floor for four years; not the 8 or 9months that might take place in the Senate after Obama nominates someone.

In essence, that's the type of false argument causing many Democrats to think twice about her, and now side with Bernie Sanders.

References:

Hillary Clinton on death of Antonin Scalia: ‘Elections have consequences’: http://www.coloradoindependent.com/157745/in-denver-speech-hillary-clinton-reacts-to-scalias-death-elections-have-consequences

Hillary has no regrets about trying to filibuster Alito, Roberts: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/18/hillary-clinton-has-no-regrets-about-trying-filibu/

The Senate yesterday approved the nomination of Priscilla R. Owen as a federal appellate judge, ending a four-year battle over the Texas jurist and marking the first tangible results of a bipartisan Senate agreement on judicial appointees: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/25/AR2005052500411.html

White House: Obama 'regrets' decision to filibuster Supreme Court Justice Alito: https://www.google.com/search?q=+fillibuster+alito&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

The Politics of Gun Control

More than once in the hours following the Umpqua Community College Shooting, I have heard a Democrat claim that the majority of Americans want stricter gun control.  In fact, Harry Reid said this: “Americans want us to act. We cannot dodge this conversation forever.”

Wrong! A majority of Democrats might want more gun control, but most Americans don't; as noted by this latest polling on the topic:

Click on Image to Enlarge

The fact is, that when Independents and Republicans are added up against the Democrats that favor stronger gun control laws, the opposition to it is slightly higher than those for it; 48% to 45%.  And, please note the opposition has grown from 40% in 2008.

In that same polling, the vast majority -- near or above the 90th percentile -- said that there should be background checks for all gun buyers, and that the mentally ill should not own guns.

Maybe some movement in these two areas might -- and that's a big might -- squelch the political left's cries.  But, this I am sure of.  The incidents of mass shooting will still happen because, in most of these cases, the guns used were legally obtained.   Also, with a growing number of Americans in opposition to stricter controls, the chances of getting a two-thirds vote to amend the constitution to negate the right of gun ownership is totally out of the question.

References:

Democratic Lawmakers Urge Gun Control After Oregon Shooting: http://time.com/4059431/oregon-shooting-gun-control-senate-democrats/

White House: Earnest said that the "vast majority of Americans" want to beef up the nation's gun laws: http://www.vox.com/2015/10/1/9435089/obama-oregon-shooting 

Polling Report: Gun Polls: http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

Survey: Majority of Americans Not Interested in Gun Control: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/30/survey-majority-of-americans-not-interested-in-gun-control-for-2016/

Harry Reid's Disingenuous Comments On The DC Court's Ruling On ObamaCare Subsidies

After two separate, but equal, federal courts ruled at odds with each other over the expansion of the ObamaCare subsidies to include those states that refused to establish their own exchanges, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid felt obliged to go to the microphones and admonish the DC court which had just ruled against the expansion.   Reid, arguing that the DC ruling was a partisan effort by two "activist" Republican judges, seemed to be blind to the fact that one could argue that the very same activism took place in the Virginia court where 3 Democrat Judges (Davis, Gregory, and Thacker) unanimously sided with the Obama Administration over the expansion of subsidies.

Reid also continued his admonishment by declaring that ObamaCare was lawfully passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court.  However, what he is completely ignoring is the fact that the the constitutionality or the legality of the ObamaCare law was never at issue in those two court rulings.  What is at issue is whether or not the IRS had the right to re-write the law and, thereby, expand subsidies to those 36 states who elected not to provide their own exchanges.  Section 36b of ObamaCare clearly mandates that, in order to receive a subsidy, you must enroll “through an Exchange established by the State under 1311.”  The words "established by the State" obviously doesn't imply any exchange established by the Federal government like "healthcare.gov".  Otherwise, why even be so specific by using such wording?  And the reason for the IRS re-write is simple.  Too many states had refused to set up their own exchanges; leaving millions of the enrolled ineligible for subsidies.  In fact, only 14 actually did create their own exchanges. So, the Obama Administration knew the law would die on its own if millions avoided signing up for healthcare without those subsidies. Once again, it is the lawlessness of the Obama Administration that is really at issue here. 

Sadly, these opposing decisions by our courts does expose political activism in our judicial system.  If there wasn't, at least one of the 4 Democrat judges involved in these two decisions crossed party lines and would have ruled differently in what is an obvious wording intent of the law.  And, that activism is the very reason that Reid went "nuclear" in the Senate; thus, allowing federal judges and other political candidates to be appointed with a simple majority and not the previously required two-thirds vote.  This way Harry, with a majority control of the Senate, could load up our legal system with as many far-left, activist justices as he and the President could see fit. So, if Reid wants to make claims of political activism in our courts, he need only look in a mirror.

References:

Video: Harry Reid Admonishes DC Court Decision: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMsOvOgxzoA

The statutory text of Obamacare and the Halbig and King cases: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/law_econ/2014/07/the-statutory-text-of-obamacare-and-the-halbig-and-king-cases.html

U.S. Appeals Courts Issue Conflicting Decisions On Obamacare Subsidies: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/07/22/334034284/u-s-appeals-court-deals-blow-to-obamas-health-law

Judge Andre M. Davis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_M._Davis

Judge Roger L. Gregory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Gregory

Judge Stephanie Thacker: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephanie_Thacker

Upholding ObamaCare—as Written An appeals court's remedial civics lesson: Laws mean what they say: http://online.wsj.com/articles/upholding-obamacareas-written-1406070280

Why the Halbig Decision Should Be Taken Seriously: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/07/23/why_the_halbig_decision_should_be_taken_seriously_123421.html

Senate Nuclear Option: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

What Border Does Harry Reid Think Is Secure?

In a recent impromptu press briefing, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said this: "without any equivocation the border is secure."

Of course, this begs the question as to why the immigration reform bill that has passed his Democrat-controlled Senate includes $30 billion to double the number of border agents and to add 700 miles of fencing to -- guess what -- secure the border.  Further, while still not approved by the House, the Senate's immigration bill was passed in June 2013. That was long before an estimated 50,000 unaccompanied children started pouring over the border last Fall; prompting Obama to ask for an additional $3.7 billion in order to tackle the current crisis. A crisis, by the way, that has literally turned our border agents into child care orderlies; leaving them no time to perform their real duties such as keeping us secure from illegally crossing drug smugglers and gang members. 

Either Harry is off his meds or he must be talking about some other border that we're not aware of.

References:

Harry Reid declares border ‘secure’: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/15/harry-reid-declares-border-secure/?page=2

June 20, 2013: Senators reach deal on border security proposals: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/06/20/senators-reach-deal-on-border-security-proposals/

The Nevada Ranch Standoff: Feds Back Off -- For Now

For more than a week, a Waco/Ruby Ridge like, rancher-vs-feds standoff raged in the Nevada desert.  The news coverage was intense; and, quite frankly, a negative for the Obama Administration. Once again, the federal government was seen as an overbearing bully tormenting its own people.

Then, all of a sudden, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) just backed off; claiming public safety concerns. A fact that took them days to comprehend even as more and more armed civilians and protestors kept descending on the scene. They even released all the cattle that they had seized.  They could have easily kept those cattle and shipped them off to another ranch, but the release was almost like a peace offering and seemed too say: See, we're not really the bad guys here.

I believe the motivation for the stand-down was all about the media coverage and all about the bad press that the Obama Administration was getting.  The worst thing that could happen in this election year was to have dozens of Americans hurt or killed in a guns-blazing shootout with the feds.   Surely, this President and his advisers are aware that most American's already fear big government intrusion.  A fear that 64% expressed in a recent poll and, probably, a direct result of the Democrats forced takeover of their healthcare. A disaster in the Nevada desert would only serve to further that fear and definitely hurt them at election time since they are truly the party of big government.


If my above assumptions are correct, the feds will certainly be back, but not until after the election.  This is probably just another delay for similar reasons that so much of ObamaCare was delayed.

One last thing.  Cliven Bundy and his refusal to pay fees for grazing on public lands is, without doubt, a violation of law.  Whether or not his grazing animals are endangering the desert turtle is a completely  different issue.  Apparently, the endangered turtle was not a problem when, not far from the Cliven ranch, the construction of a massive solar power plant was approved.  The Obama Administration has "fast tracked" 26 such solar power facilities within the Mojave Desert; all of which put the turtle at risk because of the complete upheaval of its burrows.  Just another example of the President expecting Americans to do as he says and not as he does.

References:

BLM backs down in dispute over Nevada rancher’s cattle: http://kdvr.com/2014/04/13/blm-backs-down-in-dispute-over-nevada-ranchers-cattle/

In U.S., Fear of Big Government at Near-Record Level: Democrats lead increase in concerns about big government: http://www.gallup.com/poll/151490/fear-big-government-near-record-level.aspx

 Where Tortoises and Solar Power Don't Mix: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-10-04/where-tortoises-and-solar-power-dont-mix

Senator Reid Breaks Ground On Solar Facility Near Cliven Ranch: http://www.infowars.com/flashback-sen-reid-breaks-ground-for-nevada-solar-farm-near-bundy-ranch/

Harry Reid: All ObamaCare Horror Stories Are Lies

According to Senate majority leader Harry Reid, all horror stories related to ObamaCare are lies.

So, if you're a woman with late-stage cancer and you lost your insurance, your doctor, your hospital, and your oncologist, and the cost for your coverage has doubled or tripled, you are a liar.  So, I guess, too, Lawrence Basich, a man from Harry's home state of Nevada, who lost his insurance and couldn't sign up for ObamaCare through the failing Silver State Health Insurance Exchange and, then, had a heart attack and racked up $400,000 in hospital bills that he is now personally responsible for, is just another liar. Obviously, Mr. Basich must of perjured himself when he testified before the Silver State Health Insurance Exchange Board of Directors about his very personal ObamaCare story. 

All Harry is trying to do is use the time-honored Democrat tactic of shooting the messenger.  Let's discredit all those medical nightmares as lies and, in theory, Americans will stop listening to them. But, this tactic simply amplifies the fact there are far more negative stories being told than positive ones.  This is a problem for Democrats going into the November elections.  The fact that the President has delayed so much of his namesake law until we've passed this year's elections proves that ObamaCare is one big horror story.  If not, why delay any part of it?

References:

 Harry Reid: All Obamacare horror stories are ‘untrue’: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/02/26/harry-reid-all-obamacare-horror-stories-are-untrue/

(Las Vegas) Valley man explains passionate plea to health exchange board: http://www.jrn.com/ktnv/news/you-ask-we-investigate/Valley-man-explains-passionate-plea-to-health-exchange-board-245628621.html

Give Obama And The Democrats Their Wish On Raising Taxes On The Rich

Last Friday, I caught the first 40 minutes or so of the Rush Limbaugh radio talk show.  Early in the show he seemed to agree with a conservative writer who had written the following:  "...just get out of the way, Boehner and McConnell. Give Barry & Co everything they want; and let a corrupt media chronicle it. Harry 'Dingy' Reid wants to change the filibuster rule so tell them "No Need!" we are just going to vote 'present'.  Rush followed up by saying "He has a point...'

Well, I'm not sure that we should give a blank check to Democrats to do anything they want; but, I do think we've lost a lot of ground on the issue of tax cuts for the rich.  It appears that the general electorate believes Barack Obama when he tells them that the rich should pay their "fair share" by paying higher taxes, and, that "they won't miss it [meaning the money]", and further, that the economy flourished under Clinton when taxes were higher for the wealthy.  This Obama win was clearly borne out by the fact that, in the exit polling, 60 percent said they favored higher taxes on the rich.  In California, 54% of the voters approved Prop 30 which primarily target the higher taxes on the rich.

Of course, anyone with a modest understanding of how our economy works knows that raising taxes on small businesses and the job creators in our country will only result in an even weaker economy than we have now.   Maybe another recession.

As far as the higher taxes under Clinton is concerned, their impact was dwarfed by the fact that we were in a complete tech revolution in this country and in the industrialized world.  Many falsely believe it was just because of the dot-com explosion but, in fact, it was in everything tech; including PC's, home software apps, video gaming, cellphones, medical equipment, and so on.  More importantly, a lot of people who had never bought a stock before were making big money buying almost anything tech.  Of course, all this created an economy that wasn't "apparently" being hurt by Clinton's higher taxes.  I say "apparently" because as soon as anything dot-com came to a screeching halt -- this following the burst of the dot-com bubble in the stock market -- the economy headed south; with Clinton eventually handing a recession over to "W" Bush.  A not-so-small point that Democrats and the media seemed to have forgotten about those supposedly golden Clinton years.

Personally, I say: Republicans step aside and quit trying to hold the line on keeping the Bush tax cuts for the high income earners.  Only, then, will American voters learn the lesson that tax increases on anyone have consequences.  Even if those consequences have to be another recession and higher unemployment.  Once and for all, let's take the "tax cuts for the rich" issue out of theoretical argumentation and prove which political party is actually right. Maybe, then, in the 2014 mid-term elections, the Republicans can retake the Senate and reverse the mess that will have been created with Obama's higher taxes and ObamaCare.  It could also pave the way for a Republican president being elected in 2016.

On last thing.  If higher taxes were so great for the economy under Clinton, why shouldn't we be calling for all the tax rates that existed under his presidency?  In other words, let "all" the Bush tax cuts expire.  Surely, this economy would take off like a rocket!


--- United State Senate Democrats: On Taxes, The Voters Have Spoken:  http://democrats.senate.gov/2012/11/08/on-taxes-the-voters-have-spoken/

On Sequestration, Obama Is Three Times A Liar

In Monday's debate, Obama responded to Romney's comments that "sequestration" will slash a half trillion dollars from the military budget by saying that "sequestration" was Congress' idea; not his. Then, he went on to declare that it just won't happen.

First of all, the idea for sequestration came from the White House.  According to Bob Woodward's latest book, 'The Price of Politics', Jack Lew, Obama's-then Office of Budget Director, pitched the idea to Harry Reid who, in turn, pitched it to Nancy Pelosi; and, those two negotiated the terms of sequestration with their GOP counterparts.  Further, for this President not to have known what Lew was proposing is highly unlikely since sequestration was the key negotiation point to breaking the deadlock that would have ultimately shut the government down.

Secondly, Obama signed the sequestration bill into law; thus further certifying his agreement with it.

Third, with regard to his "it won't happen" comment, the sequestration bill is the law of the land.  It will automatically happen unless Congress acts or our Federal courts nullify it. Its not up to the President to stop it or even declare that it won't happen.  He gave up that right when he signed it into law.

--- Bob Woodward: The Examiner: FACT: Obama’s White House proposed defense sequestration: http://washingtonexaminer.com/fact-obamas-white-house-proposed-defense-sequestration/article/2511489#.UIcT84ZEbf0

I Would Hope That Harry Reid Is Not The Face Of Mormonism

According to several reports, Harry Reid has now come up with a new attack line against Mitt Romney.  As one Mormon to another, Harry has stated that Mitt is not the "face of Mormonism" and has even gone so far as to say that he has "sullied" the LDS Church.

I'm not a Mormon but, when looking at these two, Reid and Romney,  I would seriously hope that Harry Reid is not the face of the Mormon Church.   In Reid, I see nothing Christian.  I see a person that does not believe in that foundation belief of "do unto others" or "Thou shall not bear false witness".  At every opportunity he lies or presents deceitful statements in order to score political points.  For weeks, he has lied about Romney not having paid any taxes in the last 12 years.  Then it was 10 years. To justify his words, he claimed a credible source: A nameless Bain investor.  Now, this week, we know that Romney has paid hefty taxes in all of the last 20 years.

He has refused to walk across the aisle to work with Republicans on budgets, health care, or anything else.   He has treated them as lepers; not willing to hear any of their concerns.  He has facilitated Obama's destruction of this country by helping create a situation where millions of Americans are no longer employed and have lost thousands of dollars in salary over the last four years..   Reid was a pugilist by trade and has continued to act like he's still in the ring every day of his life.  I see a person that is constantly combative and unchristian; and, I would, hope, too, not Mormon.

Romney, to me, is more Christian than either Reid or Obama could ever hope to be.  He has helped many in need.  He has contributed his time and millions, each and every year, to his faith and other charities in order to comfort others.

Reid has gone too far, this time.  Hopefully, his words will backfire both on him and, as the Senate leader, and on the entire Democratic party for such a cheap-shot.

-- Politico: Harry Reid attacks Mitt Romney’s Mormonism: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81632.html

Harry Reid's Un-American Charge That Romney Didn't Pay 10 Years of Taxes

As an American, each of us has 3 sacred rights when it comes to being accused of something.  First, everyone is presumed innocent until "proven" guilty.  Second, each of us has a right to "face" our accuser, and three, "hearsay" evidence is "no proof of one's guilt or innocence" unless substantiated by other facts.

But, in Harry Reid's America, those rights don't exist.  This week he "publicly" charged that Romney had paid no taxes for 10 years; citing an anonymous source.  Further, he went on to say that Romney needs to prove otherwise.  In doing so, he violated all three of those basic rights.

The burden of proof is on Harry; not Romney. Romney has the right to know who told Harry that he didn't pay taxes; because, not to do so violates the hearsay rule of law and Romney's right to face his accuser.  Simply, in violating Romney's rights, Reid is committing both slander and defamation of character.  Until Reid can prove his claims, Reid can only be viewed as a liar.

Dems Think Unconstitutionality of ObamaCare Is a Positive

After two consecutive days of disastrous oral arguments before the Supreme Court, the Democrats and supporters of ObamaCare are starting to sense that all or part of that law will be struck down on a constitutional basis. So, now, those like James Carville and Harry Reid are out spinning the possibility of a loss into a good thing for the Democrat Party and Barack Obama. The basis of this belief is three-fold. First, they feel that Americans will see a decision to strike down ObamaCare as a primarily political one by a Republican dominated Supreme Court. As a consequence, they foresee the House and Senate Republicans being swept out of office in the fall. Secondly, Barack Obama will be able to win reelection because he, too, can blame a Republican Supreme Court. And, thirdly, Americans will vote against the Republicans because the they have provided no alternative to ObamaCare; leaving millions without health care.

This is just so much spin. The Democrats seem to forget that a majority of Americans don't want ObamaCare. At the same time, most believe it to be unconstitutional. Further, many realize that ObamaCare went well beyond the two primary goals of that law: (1) to provide health insurance coverage for those millions of Americans who are either uninsured or uninsurable; and, (2) to bend the cost curve down; making health insurance more affordable for all. However, if anything, it will force millions to lose their employer-provided insurance and the doctors they trust. On top of that, insurance premiums are still rising and are expected to rise even faster; once ObamaCare is fully implemented in 2014.

Instead of all that Dem spin, I'm of the belief that a constitutional slap-down will hurt the Democrats for a variety of reasons. Psychologically, Americans will come to the conclusion that ObamaCare was a bad law if it is struck down. It will show that it was hurriedly passed by the Democrats and Obama without taking into consideration its constitutionality, and, it will reinforce the belief that forcing people to buy health insurance is just wrong. For those reasons, along with the massive cost of ObamaCare, I think it will be the Democrats, not the Republicans, who suffer at the polls this Fall.

pb

The Latest ObamaCare Lie Is Exposed

When the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) was days away from passage, Nancy Pelosi infamously said that "you have to pass it to see what's in it". At that time, the Democrats used every possible accounting trick in the books to keep the 10-year costs below $1 trillion. Even going so far as to say that ObamaCare would reduce the deficit by $143 billion in ten years.

Well, we're well past the passage of ObamaCare and it appears that the American public have been ripped-off by the Democrats. The new 10-year costs have been scored by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and ObamaCare will now cost the American taxpayer $1.7 trillion dollars over 10 years. Worse yet, it is also estimated that, next year, that 10-year cost will zoom to nearly $2.65 trillion or almost 3 times the bogus numbers that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama fed this country.

Bernie Madoff only stole $10 billion (relatively speaking) and was convicted and sent away to Federal prison to serve 150 years. So, what to do with Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid and the rest of the Democrats after they cheated and lied to the American public to the tune of $2.65 trillion dollars? Hopefully, the American voter will be the judge, jury, and executioner in this Fall's elections.

Harry Reid's Teeny, Tiny Tax On The Rich

Just a couple of days ago, Harry Reid took to the after hours podium of the Senate floor to drum up support for what he calls a "teeny, tiny tax" on the rich. But, once again, Reid's words don't match his actions.

Under the Senate Democrat's version of the Obama jobs bill, a 5.6% surtax would be levied on all incomes above one million dollars. Certainly, most Americans would see this as a reasonable increase on high end wage earners to solve our debt problem and to theoretically create jobs. But, you see, Harry's assault on the rich doesn't stop there. Harry fully expects the Bush tax cuts for the rich to expire in 2013; meaning that millionaires will see their current tax rate of 35% rise to 39.6%. So, when you add in the new surtax rate, millionaires will actually see their income tax rate rise from 35% to 44.6%; a jump of 26%. Not hardly a teeny, tiny bump in their tax rates.

Then, too, the expiration of the Bush tax cuts would increase the capital gains tax from 15% to 20%. This is another 33% rise that will not only hit the rich but anyone else who sells stocks or bonds at a profit. But, the tax rate won't simply stop at the 20% level. When ObamaCare was passed, another 3.8% tax was applied to capital gains activity; meaning that the true capital gains tax will rise to 23.8%. Overall, that's a whopping 58.8% increase in the tax on any capital investment income.

I'm still not done. There's one more teeny, tiny tax increase on the rich. Under ObamaCare, another 0.9% tax would be applied to them as a surcharge to pay for that health care law; bringing their total non-investment income tax rate to 45.5%.

So, Harry's supposed teeny, tiny increase appears to be a 30% jump in income taxes and a near 60% increase on investment income. Combine that with state income taxes, sales taxes, and real estate taxes and most millionaires with be paying more than half their income to taxation while nearly half of this country's wage earners pay nothing. Of course, in the eyes of a socialist Democrat like Harry, it's only fair.

Pathetic Harry Reid On Immigration and Construction Jobs

In a recent interview, Harry Reid claimed that no illegal immigrants were taking high-paying construction jobs away from American workers in the state of Nevada as seen in this clip:



Obviously, this report (at the very end) refutes Reid's claim by clearly using pertinent data from the Pew Research group.

Actually, I think the number of illegals is quite a bit higher than what was stated here as well. I live in Las Vegas and at most construction sites, English is the forgotten language. In most cases, approaching any Hispanic looking worker on a construction site and asking for the time of day, will get you a blank stare before being pointed in the direction of the one worker designated as the official "interpreter" for that job site or work crew.

Harry doesn't want to destroy the big Democrat lie that illegal immigrants are only here to take the jobs that Americans won't do. Apparently, he doesn't seem to understand that illegals are throwing a lot of Americans into the unemployment lines because they are willing to undercut the salaries that are usually demanded by American workers. As a consequence, employers will gladly fill any vacancies with illegals. That is, if they think they can get away with it!

Against Harry Reid: An Angle Too Right

Sharron Angle -- running against Harry Reid for the U.S. Senate here in Nevada -- is probably the best example of why the Tea Party should stay out of the business of backing candidates. By any measure, Angle is a ditz. She's the candidate that Reid wanted to run against; just because he knew she could be easily beaten. Old Harry probably did a jig when he knew Angle would win the nomination.

The Tea Party backed her "solely" because of her stand on taxes and spending. However, the Tea Party completely ignored her wacko, unelectable views on a variety of other issues; particularly on Social Security in a state with a very high number of retirees. To make matters worse, she does not present herself well in interviews; coming off as somewhat adolescent and constantly making "dumb statements" on the issues. I think this is why her campaign is avoiding, at all cost, any interviews with the media.

Given the economy, the public anger against health care reform, and the variety of other issues, the GOP could have literally ran a "rock" against Harry Reid and won. Sharron Angle is a loser. Prior to being nominated, any candidate running against Reid had a double digit lead. Now, because of all of Angle's silly baggage, she has handed Harry a 7-point lead in the most recent Las Vegas Review-Journal poll.

It was past controversial views that hurt another Tea Party backed candidate, Rand Paul, and it is past controversial views that are now hurting Sharron Angle. The Tea Party is a novice when it comes to properly vetting candidates; and, that's a big problem. In a year that is so crucial to the anti-Obama and anti-Democrat movement, they have managed to insert candidates that could very well lose because of the false belief that Americans are only focused on spending and taxes. A defeat of Harry Reid would be massive anti-Obama win. It would psychologically shake the Democrats to their very foundation and would serve notice to them that all their jobs are in jeopardy if they continue to follow Obama's lead. But, sadly, the nomination of Sharron Angle may have completely thrown that possibility out the window.

I think that if Harry Reid wins, the Tea Party will lose its current luster and wind up being relegated to the ranks of all those minority parties that typically run "no-chance-of-winning" candidates in almost every election.

The Rage From Within

Right now, the Democrats are desperately trying to paint those who are angry about the health care law as a bunch of right-wing radicals. They point to death threats that a couple of people have received over the votes. But, in contradiction to Democrat's efforts, the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Congress has noted that, currently, there aren't any widespread death threats but they are remaining vigilant. My guess is that someone like Glenn Beck probably gets more death threats from the left in one day than all of Congress in a year.

Yes, there is anger out there. What was done was done on a purely partisan basis. Not a single Republican voted for this health care takeover. The only bipartisanship was in opposition. That's because more than just a few sensible and fear-for-their-jobs Democrats joined the Republicans against what Pelosi/Obama/Reid wanted passed. That bill, which was so far reaching in its impact on all Americans, was only passed with a slim 3-vote majority in the House and only achieved a 2/3 majority in the Senate after arm twisting and bribery ruled the day; and, that hardly makes it a true piece of good-for-all legislation.

I lived and served during the Vietnam War era. I saw a lot of anger then. However, it was initially from an extremely vocal and active minority of young pacifists. As the death tolls rose to unbearable levels and when it was obvious that we were backing a corrupt government in Saigon, only then did the polls shift to a majority anger against the war.

Today's anger is different. In fact, it might not just be simple anger but, instead, a form of rage. Initially, there was a majority support for health care reform. As the process rolled on, the opposition grew because it was obvious that the corrupt government to be angry over was our very own. Because of this, the American people have coalesced more quickly against this partisan health care bill/law than was the case of Americans against the Vietnam War. People are aware that this thing wouldn't be law, today, if it hadn't been bought and paid for with a lot of bribery and dirty deal making from the Democratic leadership and from this President and his Administration. Yes, people are angry; maybe even enraged. However, America understands that the way to solve most all of our problems is to do it at the voting booths. They threw the bums out when Clinton was President and, it is my guess, that there's enough rage to do the same in this year's Fall elections.

The Tyranny Of Barack, Harry, And Nancy

The Democrats love to point to public opinion polls that say that the majority of Americans want health care reform. And, it is true that they do want some kind of reform. However, those same Democrats totally ignore the more specifically addressed polls where as many as 75% of Americans say they don't want the reform being proposed by Barack Obama and the Democratically-controlled Congress. In fact, in the latest such poll from CNN, 75% were against the current Congressional proposals for health care:



Right now, Obama, Reid and Pelosi are strongly suggesting that they will proceed with Reconciliation -- a circumventing of the super-majority rules of the Senate -- to pass their health care package. I guess I could agree that Reconciliation could be used as a necessary evil if the political minority -- currently the Republicans -- are blocking the passage of a law or laws that the "majority" of people were in favor of. But in this case, a political party is willing to use an abuse of the Senate rules and their dominant power when it runs against the will of most Americans. That, my friends, is a pure example of tyranny!

Another Bad Employment Number

This morning, those filing first time unemployment insurance claims rose to 496,000. That's a 22,000 claim jump from last week and substantially higher than the drop that was expected by most economists. Except for a holiday and weather related one-week drop in claims, the amount of claims has been rising in the last 7 weeks of reporting. That is the opposite of what would be expected in a recovering economy.

The Associated Press (AP) is trying to spin this as being "snow-related layoffs" (Click to See Full Story: Jobless claims rise on snow-related layoffs). Please! Since when does any employer, even in construction, let people go because of a week or two of bad whether? If anything, the weather will only delay business activities; not cancel them completely. But, the AP will do anything to soften bad news for this President.

The reality, and not some slobbering defense of Obama by the Associated Press, is that mass layoffs are on the rise again -- as I reported two days ago. Believe me, Harry Reid's $15 billion jobs bill -- the one that was passed just this week -- isn't going to do anymore to improve things than his more than 50 times that amount in the $787 billion Stimulus Bill of last year. These people just don't get it. It is both current and future Federal spending, taxes, and regulation that is killing this economy. Give businesses a stable expense and tax outlook and, I guarantee you, the economy will grow and the employment situation will turn around. Past history shows that it was Reagan's policies and not those of FDR, Carter, and, now, Obama that can turnaround and grow an economy.