The Politics of Naming a "Special Prosecutor" For Trump/Russia

Over the years, investigations into things like such as Watergate, 911, the JFK Assassination, Clinton/Lewinsky etc., have all been headed by a supposedly independent investigator. The titles of those investigations and others have ranged from Commissions, Independent Counsels, Special Counsels, and Special Prosecutors; all to do essentially the same thing.

It is interesting to me, that Democrats are now calling for a "Special Prosecutor" regarding the investigation of Russian meddling in our presidential election and possible collusion by Trump and/or his surrogates rather than calling for an Independent Counsel or a Special Counsel.  So why the words "Special Prosecutor"?  Well, it implies that a conclusion of wrong-doing has already been reached.  Here's the definition of a prosecutor: "a person, especially a public official, who institutes legal proceedings against someone."  Of course, the firing of Comey only helps solidify Trump's guilt in the minds of the Democrats.  Thus they feel, more than ever, a Special Prosecutor is needed.

It is all about the Democrats making the voting public believe Trump is already guilty by simply choosing the words that imply it.  Once again, its all about politics, since after months of FBI investigations, no Trump-collusion with the Russians has been found, stated or leaked.

References:

Senate Dems: Hey, Maybe We Won't Confirm a New FBI Director Until a Special Prosecutor is Appointed: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2017/05/15/senate-dems-hey-maybe-we-wont-confirm-a-new-fbi-director-until-a-special-prosecutor-is-appointed-n2326728

Definition: Prosecutor: https://www.google.com/search?q=prosecutor&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

CNN: The public really wants a special prosecutor for Russia investigation: http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/15/politics/donald-trump-russia/

The Democrats and the Politics of Victims and Villians

I used to be a Democrat.  I grew up knowing nothing else because the extended families of both of my parents were all Democrats.  I firmly believed in the Democratic politics of "inclusion" and that the party embodied the words at the base of the Statue of Liberty:

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me..."

 I left the party when I realized that the so-called party of "inclusion" was actually a party of "exclusion" by only identifying with the victims in society.  If there are victims, then there are villains.  Hillary Clinton was the embodiment of that type of politics.  She stated that half of Trump supporters -- more than 30 million people -- were deplorable and were misogynists, racists, white supremacists,  and any other "ist" she could conjure up.  The victims of all those deplorable villains were women, blacks, gays, immigrants, Muslims, Hispanics, and many more.  She also villainized Wall Street and the banks by blaming them for the recession. She aligned herself with Black Lives Matter, and by doing so, effectively implied that all cops were racists.  Then, too, the poor were only poor because they were the victims of the rich. All this is merely an attempt to divide the country. 

Those who don't believe in same-sex marriage or abortion, are not automatically villains to those of us who are gay or women who support pro-choice.  But Democrats and Hillary think they are.  I believe this is one of the reasons that Democrats have lost so much legislative control.  They are purveyors of negativity. There is nothing at all positive about their message.  As a result, most American's -- those in the middle class -- can't see what's in it for them if they vote for a Democrat.  Of course, this is just my opinion but, something to consider.

References:

The Democratic Party Is Not One of Inclusiveness: http://time.com/4423975/democratic-party-divided/

Dem blame game rages over Clinton loss: http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/308600-dem-blame-game-rages-over-clinton-loss

Democrats must drop identity politics: http://www.denverpost.com/2016/11/15/democrats-must-drop-identity-politics/

Dems hit new low in state legislatures: http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/306736-dems-hit-new-low-in-state-legislatures

Obama’s legacy is a devastated Democratic Party: http://nypost.com/2016/12/25/obamas-legacy-is-a-devastated-democratic-party/

pb

Hillary Clinton's Climate Change B.S. on Hurricane Matthew

Campaigning with Al Gore in Florida, Hillary Clinton said this about hurricane Matthew:

"Hurricane Matthew was likely more destructive because of climate change. Right now the ocean is at or near record high temperatures, and that contributed to the torrential rainfall and the flash flooding that we saw in the Carolinas."

Hillary the lawyer, and I guess now, a climatologist, is simply wrong.  As Anthony Watts is reporting on his website "Watts Up With That", 30 peer reviewed scientific studies have have found no correlation to the frequency and intensity of hurricanes and global warming (see link below for the full list). Hillary's attempt to link Matthew to climate change is just a bunch of political B.S.

References:

Al Gore and Hillary Clinton just strongly linked Hurricane Matthew to climate change: http://www.myajc.com/news/news/national-govt-politics/al-gore-and-hillary-clinton-just-strongly-linked-h/nsqC4/

30 peer reviewed studies show no connection between climate change and hurricanes: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/14/30-peer-reviewed-studies-show-no-connection-between-climate-change-and-hurricanes/

Another Renewable Power Disaster

On September 15th, I wrote about how unreliable and uncontrolled wind and solar was putting our electrical grids at risk.  The focus of that blog was on a near meltdown of the power grid that occurred earlier this year due to the overproduction of solar power in Germany.

Well, we have yet another example of the impact of unreliable renewable power.  This time in South Australia, where the problem was wildly fluctuating winds on September 28, that resulted in the complete shutdown of wind power and the triggering of a blackout:

Simply, the quick and wild fluctuations in wind energy could not be managed with the insertion of conventional power, and the result was a blackout.  In fact, because the winds were so strong, the turbines actually shut themselves down to keep from ripping themselves apart.

Of course, the Energy Minister of Australia -- a liberal politician and advocate of renewable power -- refuses to believe that the lack of wind power had anything to do with the resulting massive blackout, and therefore, Australia should continue to pursue its aggressive wind and solar plans.  Really?

References:

Roof-Top Solar Is Putting Our Electrical Grid at Risk: http://cuttingthroughthefog.blogspot.com/2016/09/roof-top-solar-is-putting-our.html

Renewables 'not to blame' for South Australia blackout, but energy debate rages: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/renewables-not-to-blame-for-south-australia-blackout-but-energy-debate-rages-20161002-grt4lo.html

Source of above chart: South Australia’s blackout apparently ‘triggered by the violent fluctuations from the Snowtown wind farms’: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/01/south-australias-blackout-apparently-triggered-by-the-violent-fluctuations-from-the-snowtown-wind-farms/

SA power outage: How did it happen?: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-28/sa-power-outage-explainer/7886090

pb

Comey Hearing: Complete Bipartisan Partisanship

Yesterday, I listened to Congress grilling FBI Director Comey over his decision not to recommend any charges against Hillary Clinton, for her use of a personal email server.

What I basically heard is the Republicans focusing in on Hillary's lies that contradicted the FBI reported facts.  On the other hand, Democrats were dismissive of those lies and attempted to prove that no actions rose to a level that would warrant charges.  I actually  heard one Democrat slam the hearing as being purely political partisanship, as if the defense of Secretary Clinton wasn't, in itself, partisan.

In my opinion, this country will never achieve true bipartisan agreement on anything if the Democrats can't understand that lying to the American people, over-and-over again, is a violation of the public trust by a person who wants to lead this country.  I feel that is actually a bigger problem than whether or not Hillary was charged.

The Trial of Hillary Is Happening Anyway

When FBI Director Comey outlined a litany of security violations with regard to Hillary Clinton's email server, he essentially showed her to be a liar and a reckless individual on so many issues as this video clip of MSNBC's Morning Joe so clearly states:

In my opinion, this may possibly explain why Comey didn't bring any charges.

He merely tossed all of the violations out into the public domain and, as a result, she will be  tried in the court of public opinion; and, as that video shows, not favorably.  He could have simply handed the conclusions of his FBI investigation to the Justice Department without a press conference and allowed that agency to decide whether or not to press charges.  But, by having an unprecedented news conference, he ensured that what she did wouldn't be swept under the rug.  He also gave Donald Trump, the Republican National Committee (RNC), and any Trump SuperPacs, all the sound-bites they need to keep prosecuting her in that fabled public court.  In fact, as of this writing, the RNC has already released this ad:

If Hillary Clinton does lose the election because of her server problem, the Democrats may regret that she wasn't charged so that they could have had the opportunity run someone else for President.

References:

Morning Joe eviscerates Hillary Clinton in wake of brutal FBI report about email conduct: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maVuOWDOHL8

Transcript: Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System: https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

America's Politics of Religion

America was founded on religious freedom by those who escaped religious persecution in other countries.  The phrase "Under God" appears consistently on our currency, and is integral to our Pledge of Allegiance.  However, God may be less important to Americans, today than He was even in 2007.  As the following chart shows, the percentage of those who were not affiliated with any religion has risen from 16% in 2007 to 23% in 2014.

Within that rise of unaffiliated, the percentage of Atheists rose from 1.6% to 3.1% and those who consider themselves Agnostic rose from 2.4% to 4% over that same 7 year period.  In general, members of mainstream religion are losing steam to non-believers:

The fact is simple, the country is becoming increasingly secular.  Evangelicals, Protestants, and Catholics are all in decline. As such, the Democrat party seems to be the biggest beneficiary of the decline with 28% of the party being non-affiliates.  How this will play out in this year's election is anyone's guess.  But, on the surface, it looks as if the Democrats are gaining in the size of their electoral base.

References:

Secular Voters Raise Their Voices - WSJ: https://www.google.com/search?q=Secular+Voters+Raise+Their+Voices&safe=off&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjikcOLpZbNAhUES2MKHXCADbcQ_AUICCgC&biw=1067&bih=521#imgrc=kdNc32xWRl7mBM%3A

America’s Changing Religious Landscape: Christians Decline Sharply as Share of Population; Unaffiliated and Other Faiths Continue to Grow: http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/

Americans are less Christian, more atheist and agnostic: Pew survey: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/americans-christian-atheist-agnostic-survey-article-1.2219229

pb

Politics, Not Justice, on Display in Baltimore

For the Black Lives Matter crowd, Monday's acquittal of all charges against Officer Nero was, in their minds, a travesty of justice.  How is it even possible that a black judge in a bench trial could have found a white cop innocent in the death of Freddie Gray?

But,  rather than succumbing to the politics surrounding the issue of black men dying at the hands of cops, the Judge did the right thing.  Something that he may wind up getting death threats for.

From the onset, State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby made the arrest of 6 officers more about politics and less about justice.  As many legal analysts have noted, attempting to prove  there was an"intent to kill" in this case, is a pretty high hurdle to jump. Instead, Gray's death may have just been a horrible accident.  So far, two trials seem to have proven this. In the first, there was a hung jury; evidently some juror or jurors found the murder charge impossible to buy into.  And now, a fair judge has proven that point again by finding Officer Nero innocent of all charges.

My guess is that, going forward, the remaining defendants will also request a bench trial rather than trusting a potentially biased jury. This may ultimately result in none of the cops being found guilty of murder. If that turns out to be true, where is justice for these police officers? Condemned for risking their lives everyday trying to protect the predominately black residents of that city?  Will they ever be able to work in Baltimore again?

References:

Justice In Baltimore: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435759/freddie-gray-verdict-just-marilyn-mosby-conduct-shameful

May 2015: Law Professor: Baltimore Officers Were Overcharged, Charges Will Likely Be Dismissed: http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/01/law-professor-baltimore-officers-were-overcharged-charges-will-likely-be-dismissed/

May 2015: Baltimore: Why Marilyn Mosby may not be able to convict police on murder charges in Freddie Gray's death | Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/05/01/baltimore-why-state-attorney-mosby-may-not-be-able-to-convict-police-on-murder.html

Video: "On Tuesday night's The Kelly File, Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz says Baltimore's state's attorney Marilyn Mosby, the Freddie Gray prosecutor, acted irresponsibly, politically": http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/25/alan_dershowitz_black_lives_matter_is_endangering_the_fairness_of_our_legal_system.html

Judge Barry Williams:  https://www.google.com/search?q=Judge+Barry+Williams&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Hung jury in Freddie Gray case: What's next? - CNN.com: http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/17/us/baltimore-police-trial-freddie-gray/

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/

Liberals Bemoan Jon Stewart's Leaving The Daily Show

There are many liberals who believe that Jon Stewart was a powerful force in American politics; bringing millions of voters -- especially young voters -- to their political way of thinking.  They laud his use of humor in disparaging Republicans.  So, his announced retirement from the Daily Show has brought many a tear to a bunch of  liberal eyes.

Even, the left-leaning CNN felt compelled to write an opinion piece following his announced departure from his Comedy Central hit show.  In the piece titled "How Jon Stewart changed politics", the writer, Stephen Collinson, said this:

"The Daily Show" host's hordes of millennial fans and political junkies will soon find out what a sans-Stewart election is like as they pick their way through the spin, obfuscations and outrages of the 2016 race without him.

Reading that, you almost get the impression that, without Stewart, Republicans will indeed be able to spin, obfuscate and outrage their way to victory in 2016.  However, anyone who has honestly and unbiasedly watched the Daily Show knows that it is Stewart who is spinning, obfuscating, and outraging as he cherry picks and removes context from carefully selected video clips of certain Republicans and, then, follows them up with a humorous, but politically biased, punchline or slanted commentary.

Then, there's the reference to the "hordes of millennial fans" in the CNN story.  Well, hordes is a non-specific term.  But, the word gives the reader the impression that millions of young people tune-in to see Stewart.  As referenced by the writer, PEW Research found that 39% of Stewart's audience is between 18 and 29 years of age while, at the same time, that age group only makes up 23% of the population.  Collinson goes on to say "That is a demographic politicians kill for."  The problem with that statement is that 18-to-29 year-olds don't vote relative to their percentage of the population.  In 2012, the Census Bureau stated that of the 133 million who voted, only 20.5 million or 15% were ages 18-to-29. 

Also, lets chew on the following:

The Daily Show has an average audience of about 2.5 million each night.  If 39% are in that young demographic, only about one million are 18-to-29; or, less than eight-tenths of a percent of all the voters. We already know that their voting turnout is low.  Not a fact that supports the belief that Stewart has changed or is changing the political landscape. You also have to understand that 45% of the Daily Show's viewers are self-described liberals.  Therefore, Stewart, for the most part, is preaching to the choir.

Simply, the belief that Stewart has impacted the political landscape in ways beneficial to the Democratic party is pure myth.  His audience is too small and heavily biased.  And, the millennial group  that everyone talks about, and which was his largest audience demographic, is typically a no-show at the voting booth.  In reality Jon Stewart has not changed politics in any significant way.

References:

How Jon Stewart changed politics: http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/10/politics/how-jon-stewart-changed-politics/

Demographics and Political Views of News Audiences: http://www.people-press.org/2012/09/27/section-4-demographics-and-political-views-of-news-audiences/

"The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" Finish 1Q 2013 as #1 and #2 Among Adults 18-49 and All Key Young Demos: http://www.thefutoncritic.com/ratings/2013/04/04/the-daily-show-and-the-colbert-report-finish-1q-2013-as-number-1-and-number-2-among-adults-18-49-and-all-key-young-demos-795303/20130404comedycentral01/

Young-Adult Voting: An Analysis of Presidential Elections, 1964–2012: http://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/p20-573.pdf

Why Few Of Those 4.5 Million Immigrants Will Get Amnesty

OK. President Obama has proclaimed that 4.5 million illegal immigrants will get amnesty.

So, what now?

Well, probably very little will happen before a new President is elected in 2016 with the potential of nullifying Obama's action with his/her own executive order.  This is because our immigrant processing  is already behind by at least 2 years.

In fact, back in July, 40,000 immigrants filed a federal lawsuit because they had been waiting for up to 2 years simply to get interviewed so that the processing of their asylum requests could even begin. If our immigration service doesn't have enough staff to start processing 40,000 requests, how can they handle 100 times that amount and, fulfill the daunting task of verifying their dates of entry along with verifying that their children are U.S. born?  In addition, this must be done with people who, in most cases, speak little or no English.  A fact that only slows things down even further because an interpreter or bilingual agent will be needed to facilitate the process.

Essentially, Obama's amnesty proclamation is in name only and impractical to implement without any substantial increases in both budget and staffing.

But, the President doesn't really care that these people won't get processed.

All that he cares about is the pro-Hispanic and pro-Latino politics of his action.  Politics which are intended to enhance the Democrats standing among this minority group, and the politics of trying to show Republicans as obstructionists because of any attempts they may make to reverse the order.  It is also quite possible that the timing of this has to do with the fact that January is likely to kickoff two years of announced campaigning for the presidency, and President Obama is most likely hoping that the Republican candidates will all denounce his amnesty order and therefore, inflame Latinos against them and any others in their party.  However, this action may have done the opposite. A recent poll shows that 37% of Latinos, and nearly half of all Americans disapprove of his order on immigration.


Reference:

Asylum-seeking immigrants file class-action suit against federal government over interview backlog: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/asylum-seeking-immigrants-sue-feds-backlog-article-1.1854548

A new NBC poll shows Latinos do not overwhelmingly support President Obama's decision to thwart Congress on amnesty through executive action: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/11/19/poll-not-all-latinos-approve-of-obamas-executive-amnesty-n1921128

Obama's Ebola Czar: A Political Move To Hide The Truth About The Disease

President Obama has just named a career political operative, Ron Klain, as his Ebola Czar.  He has zero medical background but is well equipped to navigate the political waters to make Obama's handling of the issue look much better than it probably is.  Obviously, any bad news or negatives will stop with Ron Klain now managing the crisis. And, for sure, keep it off the news and headlines while only being 20 days away from the November elections.

Further, the fact that Obama had to even appoint a Czar simply shows that his choice of a CDC head, Tom Frieden, was flawed.   Klain may be no better.  It was Klain who had the last word on the now-bankrupt Solyndra and other failed "green" companies that were given stimulus funds.

Reference:

Wikipedia: Ron Klain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Klain

Scottish Independence and the Survival of the European Union

Most Americans don't seem to understand why Scotland's independence from the United Kingdom (UK) is such a big deal. It is and, it will have a far reaching impact on the survival of the European Union (EU).

Arguably, beyond the pure advantages of having an economic cooperative between European countries, the glue that really holds the European Union together is the preponderance of like-minded liberal politics; with the only conservative and economic elephant in the room being Germany.  For the political stability of the EU, Germany's economic influence and conservative politics has always been countered by the economic power and political influence of  a predominately liberal United Kingdom.  This is where the small country of Scotland comes in.

Scotland is very politically liberal; and, is primarily responsible for maintaining liberalism in the U.K.  If it cedes from the United Kingdom, their dominant liberal voting will be gone and conservatism is sure to seep into the UK's political landscape and, suddenly, the EU could find itself with its two dominant partners, England and Germany, being conservative; meaning that the policy making within the European Union could also turn decidedly conservative.  This will not sit well the remainder of the EU countries who seek to maintain a liberal agenda.  Thus, Scotland's departure could force others to leave in order to protect their own internal need for a European Union that is steeped in liberal politics.

References:

Scots independence battle reaches fever pitch on streets and screens: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/14/us-scotland-independence-idUSKBN0H60MG20140914

If the Scots Gain Independence, Expect a More Conservative U.K.: http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/08/if-the-scots-gain-independence-expect-a-more-conservative-u-k/

The Gitmo for Bergdahl Swap: A Question of Why Now?

According to the President, securing the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl has been an ongoing process for five years.  That may well be the case.  But, it wasn't until about a year ago that the Taliban floated the idea of swapping five of the most highly valued and dangerous former Taliban leaders -- currently serving time at Gitmo -- in exchange for Bergdahl.  Apparently, the U.S. had resisted the swap until now.

Think about it.  A trade of one U.S. soldier -- one who might have actually been away-without-leave (AWOL) when taken -- in exchange for five of the highest valued Taliban prisoners we had under lock and key.  It doesn't make sense.  There are so many other higher valued "deals" we could have made in exchange for these particular prisoners.  Such as, perhaps helping to kick-start or solidify the peace process in Afghanistan. There has got to be a question as to why such a lopsided deal would have been made; and made at this particular time.

Call me a cynic when it comes to anything that the President does but, I really think the Gitmo5 deal was purely political.  In the past few weeks, Obama has been taking heat over the Veteran's treatment at the VA hospitals and his slowness to act in responding to that situation.  Then, there was the criticism--  by some in his own party and the usually liberal media -- over the tepidness of his speech at the West Point commencement ceremony where, even the cadets gave their Commander-In-Chief very lukewarm applause.  What better way to reverse an apparent "veteran" problem than to suddenly secure the release of one of their own?  This also helps to explain why Congress didn't get their lawfully-binding 30-day notice that prisoners were being transferred out of Gitmo.  That's because Obama needed the release now while the heat was still on over the VA scandal.  And, let's not forget that the President made sure that he could have speech time and a photo-op with Bergdahl's parents, as props, standing at his side.  See how caring he looks!

Of course, this is pure speculation on my part but, I think the timing of this deal stinks like a dead fish in the hot sun.

References:

Bergdahl release arrangement could threaten the safety of Americans, Republicans say: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bergdahl-release-arrangement-could-threaten-the-safety-of-americans-republicans-say/2014/05/31/35e47a2a-e8ff-11e3-afc6-a1dd9407abcf_print.html

Five of the Most Dangerous Taliban Commanders in U.S. Custody Exchanged for American Captive: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/five-most-dangerous-taliban-commanders-us-custody-released-pow-exchange_794017.html

the Taliban floated the idea of exchanging U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/taliban-five-guantanamo_736892.html

U.S. Pays High Price To Free POW Bowe Bergdahl: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/31/us-pays-high-price-for-last-pow-in-afghanistan.html

ObamaCare's Free Contraception Mandate

What if I told you that you could buy any new car, from any lot,  and I'll pay for it.  Do you think you'd pick the cheapest thing you could find?  Of course not.  Well, the same is true with ObamaCare's free contraception mandate.

Currently, women using contraceptives pay between $40 a year for the generic "pill" to as much as $1000 for other more convenient and newer forms of contraception.  The decision as to what form of contraception a woman uses is typically based on a doctor's recommendation, medicinal tolerance, efficacy, convenience, and, most importantly, affordability. 

The problem with ObamaCare is that, like the new car example, it puts no limits on costs.  As a result, women will gravitate to many of the more expensive products that had once been out of their financial reach.  The result will be ever rising costs for contraception; and, the insurers will be forced, by mandate, to cover it.  But, ultimately, those higher costs will be passed on to you and I in the form of higher insurance premiums.

There is also a more sinister possibility behind any increased expense associated with free contraception. The manufacturers of contraceptives, knowing full well that the insurers can't balk on  any increases, are now free to raise prices without impunity.
So, by the time the bureaucrats in Washington realize what a mess they've made with contraceptive costs spiraling out of control, it will be too late.  Many of the cheaper or generic birth control manufacturers will have stopped producing their products for lack of sales. Then, too, the politicians, especially those on the left, won't want to rein in prices and cut back on higher priced contraception because it might cost them votes.

The decision to go with free birth control was solely based on garnering the woman's vote with no regard as to what would happen down the road, and, if the Republicans balked, the Democrats would just use that as proof that the GOP are conducting a war on women.  But, the true war on women will be exposed when single mothers or women in traditional family settings have to pay more and more for the health care needed to protect their families.

The Politics About 1.3 Million Losing Unemployment Benefits

According to Barack Obama, those heartless Republicans in Congress decided to go home for the holidays and let 1.3 million Americans lose their much-needed and extended unemployment benefits --- just four days after Christmas.  Certainly, this makes the GOP the Grinches. Of course, they could have been even more heartless by allowing benefits to expire just before Christmas.  But, mercifully, and unlike Ebenezer Scrooge, they waited until the Saturday after.

In reality, the loss of these benefits was part of the bipartisan budget deal that was approved by both Democrats and Republicans alike; in both Houses of Congress; and, was signed into law by the President.  Everyone (Obama, the Republicans, and the Democrats) knew that the budget deal would drop extended benefits for the unemployed.   Never once was there a threat by Obama to veto the deal if the benefits weren't extended, nor was there any movement on the part of the Democrats to extend them before the bill was passed into law. Of course, once signed, the President, unlike the Republicans, who only went home for the holidays, flitted off to Hawaii for perfect weather, beautiful sand and beaches, and, of course, some of the best golf courses in the world.  No way was he going to stick around frigid Washington and attempt to get an eleventh hour deal to save those unfortunate workers from heir fate

Now, after the benefits are gone, Obama and the Democrats think that they should be renewed. Not by 13 weeks, or 26 weeks, but instead, by 47 weeks.  This odd number conveniently extends the benefits until after the November elections.  As usual, the President could care less about people losing their benefits.  Instead, like the delay of oh so many ObamaCare mandates, it's all about winning elections.

Obama Should Learn A Lesson From His Home State

Moving into 2011, the Democrats of the Illinois State legislature and a Democrat Governor rammed through a 67% across-the-board tax increase in an effort to stop the accumulating red ink in that state.  Now, nearly 2-years later, the bleeding continues and is picking up steam.  It's as if that $7 billion a year in tax increases did nothing.  You see, like our Federal government, Illinois didn't have a revenue problem.  It had, and still has, a spending problem.

What Illinois is finding out is that government spending has a life of its own unless curtailed.  Pensions are rising fast as the base of retired Illinois State workers continues to broaden.  Healthcare costs are increasing because costs are rising faster than inflation and because more people, without jobs, are applying for Medicaid.  The over 9% unemployment rate is stressing all of the state's social support programs.

Like the Illinois Democrats, Obama and the D.C. Democrats want to increase taxes to cure our deficit problems; but only for the so-called rich. They seem to think we have a revenue problem. But, letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the so-called rich will only increase revenues by, at best, $85 billion a year; while, at the same time, the federal government is overspending by more than a trillion dollars a year.  So, mathematically, there is no way that simply increasing taxes on the rich is going to solve our deficit spending problems.  If anything, the increase in taxes on the rich might actually result in less revenues because the rich will naturally take whatever measures are necessary to legally use holes in our tax codes to reduce their tax burden.  Then, too, some individuals and their businesses may actually leave the country to move to a more tax favorable country; like Canada.

Obama created most of our massive debt problem over the last four years; despite promising to cut the deficit in half in that same amount of time.   Now, we're supposed to believe that he can fix it by simply taxing the rich.  Obama has an Illinois mentality that matches that state's inability to fix its own deficit problems.  This is why we seriously need to change management at the top and in the Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate.

--- Chicago Tribune: Record tax hike isn't fixing Illinois' problems:  http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-05-28/news/ct-met-illinois-budget-20120528_1_pension-payments-income-tax-tax-hike

The Housing Market: Never Analyze Statistics In A Vacuum

In May, several analysts, who should have known better, were all a twitter over the supposed improvement in housing statistics. It was especially true for those analysts who appear to be in the tank for Obama.  After all, an improving housing market, in an election year, can only be a good thing for Obama's reelection chances. Take for example, this May video of Ali Velshi at the always-Obama-loving CNN (click to view). My God!  He was so excited he actually said the housing numbers "shows signs of remarkable resurgence".  Of course, Velshi violated the first rule of analyzing statistics which is: One month doesn't make a trend.  In fact, a month later, the newest set of statistics are now showing a worsening of the housing market.  In June, new homes sales fell hard; down by 8.4%.  At the same time,  sales of existing homes fell by 5.4%.  Completely gone was that "remarkable resurgence."

Where people like Velshi make their mistake is in not understanding what, sometimes, causes anomalies in statistics.   The fact that home buying was up in May had less to do with Americans suddenly buying homes again; and, more to do with the value of the dollar and how that caused foreign investors to swoop in and snatch up real estate deals in terms of their own, improving currencies.  Check out this March article that appeared in the L.A. Times: Foreign buyers are snapping up U.S. homes. Apparently, that buying activity has now ceased with the fall in June sales. Probably, because foreign investors now see a risk in U.S. real estate with the apparent weakening of our economy.

Then, there's the issue of  rising home prices; and, a surprising reduction in the number of foreclosures; and, a reduction in the inventory of unsold homes.  Well, those positive facts are just temporary; and, have a lot to do with the fact that, over the last year-and-a-half, the number of foreclosures has come to a near standstill following the robo-signing foreclosure scandal and the resulting passage of nearly 400 anti-foreclosure laws across the entire United States.   Basically, the scandal had to do with the fact that banks were foreclosing on people without having, in their possession, all the original mortgage documents.  This was due to the fact that high risk mortgages were being sold from one bank to another during the height of the housing boom; and, the paperwork got misplaced in the process.   So, then came the laws that prevented banks and other lenders from foreclosing on anyone unless they had all the paperwork to support it.   Of course these laws completely ignored the fact that homes that were or would have been foreclosed on were all in arrears on their mortgage payments; a problem that is still with us.  So, we now have a paperwork snarl where, I'm sure, the banks are trying desperately to gain possession of the documents so they can proceed with foreclosure against any delinquent mortgagees.  When that happens, I'm quite sure that all those pent up foreclosures will hit like a roaring storm; with unsold inventories rising and prices falling again.

Velshi and a lot of analysts should have seriously questioned why housing statistics were improving while the economy and unemployment were in the process of worsening.  It didn't make sense and those improvements should have come into question.  But, all too often, people put their political ideology ahead of logic.

Data Sources:

June New Home Sales: http://www.cnbc.com/id/48318563

June Existing Home Sales: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/07/u-s-existing-home-sales-decline-in-june/

Impact of the Robo-Signing Scandal  on the Rate of Foreclosures: http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/06/27/us-usa-housing-nevada-idINBRE85Q05520120627

The $40 Per Pay Check Deception and Chicanery

For weeks now, Obama and the Democrats have told us that 160 million workers will lose, on average, $1000 a year in their paychecks if the payroll tax cut is not extended. If you do the math, that's about $19.23 a week; or $2.75 a day. But, you see, that $1000 is actually taxable income subject to an average tax rate of approximately 25%. Therefore, at best, the average worker will see about $750 in additional annual take-home pay; resulting in a $14/week or $2/day benefit. Of course, this is hardly enough to buy a single $2.14 non-frapp, standard-brewed and standard-sized coffee at Starbucks (sales tax not included).

Now, all of the sudden, Obama and the Democrats have decided to claim that the average worker's pay check will see a loss of $40 if the tax cut isn't extended. Conveniently, the Dems have attempted to make the amount of this benefit seem larger than it actually is by assuming the average worker is being paid on a bi-weekly basis. But in America, the most common pay period is weekly; especially for the trades and service workers. Management is typically paid monthly or bi-weekly. But, still, the reality is that the true, after-tax benefit will only be about $2/day.

Effectively, this amount is literally "peanuts" when compared to the inflation that the average worker and his family has seen in gasoline, food, energy, and clothing prices over the last three years. And, that's why this payroll tax cut has done very little to stimulate the economy. It is simply a political tool for the Democrats and Obama to run on against the Republicans and get reelected.

Everything But The Economy

Today, immigration reform lies squarely on Obama's plate. Of course, this is only because he can make some political hay out of it for the upcoming Fall elections. Whether or not it's good for America or whether its a legislative priority for this country at this current time of economic turmoil is completely immaterial. After all, Obama is the consummate campaigner. For him, that "leading the country crap" is just too boring.

It appears that the Gulf oil spill has dropped firmly out of his sight and mind as he now turns to the more pressing issues of financial reform, immigration, and the control of America's energy. The economy and jobs? What economy? What jobs? This despite the fact that the latest unemployment report proved, once again, that jobs are still non-existent and that the stimulus package was a failure.

Of course, I would be remiss if I didn't mention how things are going on the international front. Russia, now Obama's "bestest burger-buddy", was just caught having 11 spies in this country who were focused in on collecting data on our small scale nuclear weapons like bunker-buster bombs. This after Obama had "reset" relations with Russia and they are now "supposedly" working with us on limiting nuclear weapons; just not "those" nuclear weapons. Israel is out there floundering around on its own while it's party-time between Hamas and Obama. This week we learned from Obama's own Secretary of Defense that Iran has enough material for "two" nuclear weapons. Then, North Korea, those fun-loving fellows, have sunk a South Korean ship and we are now closer to the restart of the Korean war than we ever have been since the 1950's. Then, too, almost the entire G8 and G20 have turned their backs on Obama when he lectured them in Canada with regard to their current plans to stop spending; even though such spending might actually collapse many of their economies.

Obama is a busy man. Unfortunately, it's busyness without priorities. An ideological bull in a china shop; he's knocking over one capitalist activity after another. In doing so, he's tearing a path of destruction through what had been the greatest power and economy in the world.