Liberals are anti-life to the core. For instance, they want unfettered access to abortion. And after saying for decades that a new fetus is just a tiny mass of tissue, they have segued seamlessly into ‘birth murder’, the process in which abortionists kill babies literally at the point of birth.

What kind of people support this gruesome killing of the most innocent among us? And what kind of people would perform it?

Angry, hateful people, that’s who. Feminists, that’s who. The most callous people in America. And then they act like they are for “women’s rights”.

Nonsense…

The socialist agenda is dark. They want to euthanize old people. They have ruined the nuclear family and replaced it with a dog-pack culture that has caused millions to descend into irrationality and even insanity with no structure to guide their lives.

TV productions like Jerry Springer show people at their worst – fighting, cursing, brawling. Springer is a huge liberal, by the way. He once was the Democrat mayor of Cincinnati, Ohio. And he made his millions like many liberals do; by undermining decency.

Violence, murder, illegitimacy and mayhem are out of control in the inner cities that Democrats control. Ignorance and greed thrive among the idiot classes – many feeding at the government trough and nurtured by a Springer ethos – who live in nihilism, narcissism, stupidity and sloth.

Yes, this is what liberals and the feminist left have created for America.

And then they tell us how much they love “the common man”.

What rubbish. They wish to weaken and destroy our society so as to control us with their all-powerful government. Go to any communist nation and the society is confused and powerless and materially and intellectually destitute while the elites steal everything in sight.

And this is precisely what feminism is about, with the ones at the top like Hillary Clinton and Pelosi getting all the privileges and money and power while the “common woman” is told to be thankful for her “right to choose”. As she struggles fruitlessly to raise her children alone because feminism told her that a husband was not essential and that her children did not need a father.

Indeed they won’t even call it “right to an abortion”. Because they are master manipulators in every word they say.

We have seen this all before in the 1960s. The same leftists told the ‘hippies’ to take drugs and have as much sex as they wanted, and not to listen to their priests or their parents or to morality. And millions of lives were destroyed that way. Meanwhile today their “women’s rights” crusade does the exact same thing. It is holding women down by confounding and undermining them by erasing any boundaries on behavior.

So today, it’s this: “Go and have sex! Use contraception! And if that doesn’t work, have an abortion! Everything will be fine in the end!”

Look at Obama’s shot at the Catholic church, with his abortion/birth control regs. He wanted to put a stick in the eye of Catholic doctrine, to weaken the church even more than liberalism already has.

And of course the feminist left went nuts when the backlash came, claiming that the church and that conservatives are waging a “war on women” and a “war on birth control” and a “war on abortion”.

No mention is made by these feminists about the “wars” that they are waging against women – about the epidemic of depression among women who have had abortions. Or that sexual promiscuity spreads bottomless emotional harm among women who are exploited and betrayed. Or about the link between abortion and breast cancer.

Yet when that link is shown, they claim that that cannot possibly be true and their media friends squelch it.

But don’t you think that when the woman’s body starts on a completely natural and uplifting and essential process of childbirth and then has that process interrupted abruptly and brutally and mechanically by abortion that that is going to be a shock to her body that could easily be manifested in other ways like breast cancer? That abortion is hardly the harmless procedure that feminists make it out to be?

Of course. Any rational person would see this just on the surface of it. Abortion is a brutal act. Which is why feminists love it. Because feminists are brutal people.

And rest assured that women are actually encouraged to have abortions so that they become ‘inoculated’ on the issue, i.e., once they have an abortion they cannot speak out against it or they risk exposing the real damage that it has done to them. It’s actually part of what’s called Stockholm Syndrome, where the hostage begins to agree with her captors and her tormentors. And it is utterly tragic for women who have been duped and harmed beyond measure.

Meanwhile the feminists tell us that every woman must have access to contraception. But in the big picture contraception has wildly increased sexual promiscuity. And that promiscuity spreads not only deep emotional harm among women who are exploited or betrayed, but it spreads vicious sexually-transmitted diseases (STDs) at epidemic rates. Which feminists ignore like they ignore breast cancer when it is linked to abortion.

Indeed what about the epidemic of gonorrhea, chlamydia, genital warts, herpes and all the other STDs that are running rampant in our promiscuous culture? How about hepatitis and AIDS and other ruinous diseases. Why are they never, ever discussed out loud in our media or among our “health care professionals” as those same people obsess about cigarettes and obesity and sugar in the soda?

Answer: Because these are diseases of the promiscuous left. These are diseases spread by the sexual license that the left promotes in order to anesthetize people with a promise of unlimited pleasure in order to make them forget about their real responsibilities and about the genuine hard-won joys in life.

Indeed to many on the left life is about pleasure and sex and sloth and abortion and drugs and corruption and living off the government. Or killing inconvenient things like your fetus child as he/she is on the verge of being born healthy.

No, friends, life is really about… “life”. And about finding joys in the simple but challenging things like playing by the rules, working hard, accepting personal responsibility, believing in a Supreme God and taking a positive view in a world that often seems dark.

But to the feminist left, we conservatives who demand personal responsibility and sexual restraint are waging a “war on abortion” and a “war on birth control” and a “war on women”.

No, we are waging a war on narcissism and barbarism and heartlessness, all characteristics of the angry left and its feminist adherents. And ultimately we will win. Because we believe in life.

Please visit my website at www.nikitas3.com for more conservative insights. Enjoy the lively new Arts section.

Answer: The street robber has a mask of fabric and a gun of steel. Obama hides behind the mask of socialism and uses the government as his weapon.

Said cnn.com:

‘The deal settles potential state charges about allegations of improper foreclosures based on robosigning, seizures made without proper paperwork.’

Oh, yes, “improper foreclosures” and “robo-signing” (automatically signing foreclosure documents) which both were the result of mountains of paperwork. And why did such practices come to the fore?

Because the banks were inundated with this paperwork after the Democrat party over the last 50 years has forced banks to make millions of bad loans in the first place. This led to a situation which any rational person could see would ultimately go belly up.

And the front man for Obama’s bank heist is his corrupt attorney general Eric Holder. These two are a joke. They couldn’t add up a grocery receipt.

Question: What set off this whole housing crisis in the first place? Can anyone remember the Two Magic Words that were everywhere in 2008?

The two words were “subprime crisis”. But the Media Left quickly dropped them because those words reminded Americans that the collapse was the fault of Democrat handout programs that forced banks to make loans to ‘poor people’ (the very risky “subprime loans”) who didn’t have a prayer of paying them back.

These were loans amounting to trillions of dollars that polluted the entire financial system when they were guaranteed by the government and securitized and sold into the general economy as investment packages.

So then when banks were faced with an avalanche of paperwork to resolve the ensuing foreclosures, Obama & Co. arrogantly charged that they hadn’t crossed every T and dotted every I in foreclosing. And fined them $25 billion.

When in fact the real culprits in this crisis were Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Community Reinvestment Act, ACORN and the entire Democrat agenda to insure house ownership for poor people who couldn’t afford it in the first place and didn’t have the discipline for home ownership either.

What other event hit simultaneous with the “subprime crisis” to compound the calamity?

It was the collapse of a “housing bubble” that was based on too much borrowing based on too-low interest rates, i.e., easy credit.

And according to virtually anyone you ask, one man in the government, Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, set those interest rates too low.

Yet we capitalists always, always, always warn over and over that the government never, ever should set wages or prices.

And disaster was the result because Greenspan was setting the “price” of loan money.

So it was two-pronged socialism that upended the economy: Letting Greenspan set interest rates, and forcing banks to lend trillions to the poor.

But wait, there’s more! What is the third socialist leg of this stool, the 800 lb. gorilla in the room of this economic collapse?

It is this: The transformation of the banking system itself.

Historically banks have been managed and manned by people who knew a few basic things about finance, that Column A and Column B must add up to the same thing. It is not rocket science.

Working in a bank back, say, in the 1950s, you used common sense. You knew that people should be lent money only when they had a solid and provable credit history. When they were gainfully employed. When they had a 20% downpayment so that they had their own skin in the game.

But what did the Democrats say about these diligent bankers?

They called them evil, manipulative people like Mr. Potter in It’s A Wonderful Life. They said that banks didn’t want “the poor” to have houses. And this defamation and caricature and character assassination went on for decades. Obama says it every day.

So who has moved into many positions in the banking and financial system since the 1960s?

You guessed it… incompetent, college-educated, propagandized, left-wing zealots from our universities and business schools who brought with them the implanted idea that banks are institutions of social engineering, not businesses that lend money sensibly and make a profit.

Go into any bank or financial institution today and you are going to find a large proportion of employees who are do-gooders and bleeding hearts and leftists and Obama-lovers and feminists and all sorts of other people with an agenda in hand – urge the banks do “the right thing”.

Yeah, sure… While the guy with the common sense is mopping the floor.

The stories about the buildup of the ‘housing bubble’ are legend, about banks using the flimsiest basis for making loans, practices that would have been grounds for termination 50 years ago.

Indeed what these morons have done, in tandem with relentless government mandates and easy credit, is they destroyed the banking system.

Just like we conservatives said they would.

And when the government came along with something as preposterous as the NINJA loan, which forced banks to loan money to people with No Income, No Job or Assets, such a policy would have been laughed out of the boardroom in the Good Old Days.

But those days, and those bank directors, are gone. In today’s politically-correct banks, many probably thought the NINJA loan was a perfectly good idea. You know, to help “the poor”. While the sensible ones were deathly afraid to contravene the government’s demands.

Will the Democrats retreat on NINJA loans and all the other bad practices now?

No. They will double down, even after Obama himself said what we conservatives have been saying all along, that “the poor might be better off renting.”

Yeah, right, stupid.

It’s a little late for that…

Please visit my blog at www.nikitas3.com for more conservative insights. Enjoy the lively new Arts section.

The requirement does not currently apply to churches themselves.

Failure to provide the plans would result in large fines being levied by the federal government.

More than 150 bishops have spoken out against the regulations with a leading bishop accusing Obama of waging a “severe assault on religious liberty”.

Wrote Alexander Sample, the Bishop of Marquette (Michigan), “We Catholics will be compelled to either violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees and suffer the penalties for doing so.”

Many of the nation’s 78 million Catholics could very well turn on Obama in the November election if the law is not withdrawn and their anger festers. Obama won Catholic voters by 54% to 45% for McCain in 2008. But a swing of just a few percents of Catholic voters in key states like Ohio and Pennsylvania could easily cost Obama the 2012 election.

“Never before, unprecedented in American history, for the federal government to line up against the Roman Catholic Church,” said Bill Donohue, who heads the Catholic League.

And rest assured that this is much more than just another church-state spat.

So what ever happened to ‘separation of church and state’ which is so carefully cultivated by the left? Yet when the state wishes to control the church, there is no separation.

Archbishop Timothy Dolan has spoken out against the requirements and priests around the nation are reading objection letters during services. Donohue said Catholic officials will fight to the end to overturn the provisions. Some leaders are calling for a march on Washington, hardly what Obama wants to see in a re-election year.

“This is going to be fought out with lawsuits, with court decisions, and, dare I say it, maybe even in the streets,” said Donohue.

Republicans are going to strike back. House speaker John Boehner called the Obama policy a violation of First Amendment rights. “This attack by the federal government on religious freedom in our country cannot stand, and will not stand,” said Boehner, who himself is a Catholic from the electorally critical state of Ohio.

GOP senators are pushing to undo the requirement. Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire rightfully called the rule “an unprecedented affront to religious liberty. This is not a women’s’ rights issue. This is a religious liberty issue.”

Senator Marco Rubio of Florida said the real issue is “whether the government of the United States should have the power to go in and tell a faith-based organization that they have to pay for something that they teach their members shouldn’t be done. It’s that simple. And if the answer is yes, then this government can reach all kinds of other absurd results.”

And this indeed is all true. Because this issue is a double-whammy for Obama. It is as much about religious liberty as it is about the very serious moral issues at hand – contraception, abortion and sterilization.

If the Congress undoes the legislation before Obama withdraws it or if Obama refuses to withdraw it, that could spell real trouble for the president. Because millions of centrist Catholics might have grudgingly voted for him for re-election because many of them are liberal-leaning. But they now will be swayed by this law. He now has aroused them and this genie is not going back in the bottle unless the requirement is withdrawn.

And even if he did withdraw it, there may be many who wisely see what Obama’s real goal is and who will vote against him as a result of the firestorm around the issue.

It is possible that Obama will play politics and withdraw the requirement. Nikitas3 predicts that he will withdraw it in order to appear magnanimous. He certainly understands the electoral ramifications, although his hard-left advisors will demand that he stay the course. Others on his team will pragmatically ask him to withdraw the regulation.

Unfortunately Catholics have only themselves to blame. Tens of millions of liberal Catholics voted for Obama even though we conservatives have warned them for decades about what was ultimately coming from the left. And there is more in store. This law is just another battle for the destruction of Catholicism and for all religion in America.

Indeed many Catholics have openly supported the Democrat party for decades with conclaves of bishops repeatedly siding with Democrats on myriad issues from government handouts to nuclear weapons.

But the emergence of this issue also is problematic on another front; it shows Obama reneging on an assurance that he made in 2009 in remarks at the University of Notre Dame about his planned health reforms.

“Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause”, he said at the Catholic college.

And we conservatives have warned repeatedly that this man is full of empty words, just as Democrats have promised that churches will never be forced to marry homosexuals, which also is going to go out the window over the long run if Democrats have their way.

A White House spokesman said the requirements struck “an effective balance between religious beliefs and increased access to important preventative services”.

Pro-abortion groups are going to fight for Obama. But that is not the point. The fact is that this health-care issue has introduced a whole new element into the election that can only be a negative for Obama. There is no upside for this president. He has awakened the proverbial sleeping giant.

Please visit my website at www.nikitas3.com for more conservative insights. And enjoy the lively new Arts section.

One of the eco-shibboleths most often promulgated was,  and is, the myth of ‘peak oil’ which meant that America had produced a ‘peak’ amount of oil and that production is going to decline until we run out.

This is all a blatant deception or outright lie, friends. And take it from someone who has read lots of actual data from serious people who are charting the facts and not using false propaganda and skewed figures to mislead the public for the purposes of an agenda.

Here is an excerpt disputing the very concept of ‘peak oil’ from the executive summary of a recent report from the Institute for Energy Research (IER):

‘Moreover, it is important to note that that “reserves” estimates are constantly in flux. For example, in 1980, the U.S. had oil reserves of roughly 30 billion barrels. Yet from 1980 through 2010, we produced over 77 billion barrels of oil. In other words, over the last 30 years, we produced over 150 percent of our proved reserves.’

It is important to remember that environmentalism has a clear agenda – to replace our energy abundance with energy scarcity through ‘green energy’. In other words ecologists themselves will create the very scarcity that they are warning about.

‘Green energy’ will drastically push up the cost of energy for all Americans by reducing the supply through gross inefficiency. Obama himself said that electricity prices will “necessarily skyrocket” under his enviro policies.

Environmentalists know this and desire this because they believe that the human population is too large and should be drastically reduced. One way is to make life too expensive to live, essentially to starve people out. Don’t doubt this. These enviros literally hate mankind and love trees and bears. And they draw in gullible, irrational people to their angry agenda with utopian pictures of ‘clean energy’.

The IER study reflects statistics that have been around for decades that say that America is an energy-rich nation that easily can produce vast amounts of carbon-based power for centuries to come. And this report does not even discuss the most efficient energy source of all – nuclear power – which could multiply our effective energy supply significantly.

You can read the entire report here

Consider the manipulation of language that environmentalists use. The IER explains that ‘proved reserves’ of coal, oil, natural gas etc…. ‘Refers to oil and natural gas that have already been discovered, typically through actual exploration or drilling, and which can be recovered economically today.’

IER goes on to explain that ‘proved reserves’ is the lowest number used to describe energy reserves out of the various terms used to describe them (technically recoverable reserves, estimated reserves etc.) and is commonly used by those promoting energy scarcity.

In other words, every word and phrase and statistic that environmentalists use is manipulated to instill uncertainty and fear and move us toward inefficient ‘green’ energy which in fact is the least sustainable energy form of all.

Because, for instance, the expensive labor required for manufacturing, installing and maintaining a massive army of scattered, individual, low-yield windmills is literally hundreds of times the labor required to build and operate a nuclear power plant of the same output (i.e., windmills are unsustainable economically).

This is why we have the ‘global warming’ attack on our carbon energy supply: Because it shifts the spotlight from the unsustainable nature of labor-intensive ‘green energy’.

In fact it never even has been proven that the ethanol produced from one acre of corn actually contains more energy than is required to plant that acre of corn, apply the petroleum-based herbicides and pesticides, harvest the corn, transport the corn to the distillery and run the distillation process.

Here are more excerpts from the IER study with a nikitas3.com comment after each.

Study said: When the authoritative Potential Gas Committee (PGC) at the Colorado School of Mines completed its most recent biennial resource evaluation in 2010, it found that total natural gas resources in the United States were at their highest level in the Committee’s 46-year history (the PGC has slightly more conservative estimates of total U.S. resources—2.17 quadrillion cubic feet—although this still represents a multi-century supply of domestic natural gas.) Comment: Astounding abundance. And increasing abundance, not declining abundance. Because new technologies allow us to find and extract more and more gas.

Study said: Another unconventional source is gas trapped in shale rock, or “shale gas,” which arguably represents the most promising source of current and near-future production. In 2010, the EIA estimated the United States had 347 trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable shale gas resources but by 2011, that number is estimated to have almost doubled to 679 trillion cubic feet. Comment: Doubled in just one year… Amazing.  Because original estimates of energy production are typically low compared to actual production.  The original estimate for the Prudhoe Bay oilfield in Alaska was 1 billion barrels. By the time it is pumped out, it will have produced 18 billion.

Study says: In terms of energy capacity, North American recoverable coal could provide enough electricity for approximately 500 years at coal’s current level of consumption for electricity generation. Comment: And all that coal can be converted to motor fuel, heating oil etc., in a process developed in the mid-20^th century.

Here is the rest of the executive summary of the IER report:

‘The amount of oil that is technically recoverable in the United States is more than 1.4 trillion barrels, with the largest deposits located offshore, in portions of Alaska, and in shale in the Rocky Mountain West. When combined with resources from Canada and Mexico, total recoverable oil in North America exceeds 1.7 trillion barrels.

That is more than the world has used since the first oil well was drilled over 150 years ago in Titusville, Pennsylvania. To put this in context, Saudi Arabia has about 260 billion barrels of oil in proved reserves. For comparative purposes, the technically recoverable oil in North America could fuel the present needs in the United States of seven billion barrels per year for around 250 years.

Restrictions in the form of federal bans and leasing combined with declining offerings of lease acreage mean only about 2.2 percent of America’s offshore acreage is currently leased for production.

Proved reserves of natural gas in the United States and throughout North America are enormous, and the total amount of recoverable natural gas is even more impressive. The EIA estimates that the United States has 272.5 trillion cubic feet of proved reserves of natural gas. The total amount of natural gas that is recoverable in North America is approximately 4.2 quadrillion (4,244 trillion) cubic feet.

Given that U.S. consumption is currently about 24 trillion cubic feet per, there is enough natural gas in North America to last the United States for over 175 years at current rates of consumption.

Total supplies of natural gas in North America dwarf those of other countries. The United States, Canada, and Mexico have more technically recoverable natural gas resources than the combined total proved natural gas reserves found in Russia, Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkmenistan.

With respect to total recoverable resources, however, North America’s combined coal supplies are even more staggering. The United States, Canada, and Mexico have over 497 billion short tons of recoverable coal, or nearly three times as much as Russia, which has the world’s second largest reserves. North America’s recoverable coal resources are bigger than the five largest non-North American countries’ reserves combined (Russia, China, Australia, India, Ukraine).

North American recoverable coal could provide enough electricity for the United States for about 500 years at current levels of consumption.

While the US and North America contain enormous energy wealth, US policies have increasingly made exploration, development, production and consumption of that energy more difficult.

Therefore, a scarcity of good policies, not a scarcity of energy, is responsible for US energy insecurity.’

Read the entire report! It is exactly the kind of realistic picture of American energy reserves that the enviro propagandists do not want you to see.

And considering that the United States is just a fraction of the globe’s surface and that the whole world has resources that have not even been sought yet and you have a clearer picture of the truth about global energy supplies and the contrived need for unsustainable ‘green’ energy.

Please visit my website at www.nikitas3.com for more conservative insights. And enjoy the lively new Arts section.

To which Nikitas3 says: Chill out, folks. The election is nine months away. And while this concern is certainly part of the territory, it masks the intense worry on the Democrat side which is worse than on our side. And that worry is that Obama cannot possibly be re-elected. They are terrified about this. Even some prominent Democrats and reliably liberal commentators have urged Obama to drop out.

So stop fretting about our side. Think about the Democrats for just a minute, OK?

Here’s why: Imagine it is Labor Day 2012 and you start seeing ads saying thing like this, from a January 2012 article by Joseph Curl in the Washington Times:

‘The unemployment rate when Mr. Obama was elected was 6.8 percent; today it is 8.5 percent — at least that’s the official number. In reality, the Financial Times writes, “if the same number of people were seeking work today as in 2007, the jobless rate would be 11 percent.”

In addition, there are now fewer payroll jobs in America than there were in 2000 — 12 years ago — and now, 40 percent of those jobs are considered “low paying,” up 10 percent from when President Reagan took office. The number of self-employed has dropped 2 million to 14.5 million in just six years.

Regular gasoline per gallon cost $1.68 in January 2009. Today, it’s $3.39 — that’s a 102 percent increase in just three years. (By the way, if you’re keeping score at home, gas was $1.40 a gallon when George W. Bush took office in 2001, $1.68 when he left office — a 20 percent increase.)

Electricity bills have also skyrocketed, with households now paying a record $1,420 annually on average, up some $300.

Some 48 percent of all Americans — 146.4 million — are considered by the Census Bureau either as “low-income” or living in poverty, up 4 million from when Mr. Obama took office; 57 percent of all children in America now live in such homes.

Since December 2008, a month before Mr. Obama took office, food-stamp use has increased 46 percent. Total spending has more than doubled in just four years to a record high of $75 billion. In 2011, more than 46 million people — about one in seven Americans — got food stamps. That’s 14 million more than when Mr. Obama took office.

Median household income has dropped nearly 7 percent in the last six years, taking inflation into account. What’s more, nearly 20 percent of males age 25 to 34 now live with their parents.

Low- and middle-income Americans 65 and older now hold more than $10,000 in credit card debt, up 26 percent since 2005. The average age of the American car is 10 years; in 1990, it was 6.5 years old (by the way, in 1985, Americans bought 11 million cars; in 2009, less than half that, 5.4 million).

On the macro side, America’s annual budget has jumped to $3.8 trillion — and yet the United States brings in only about $2.1 trillion in revenue. The U.S. trade deficit for 2011 was $558 billion. America’s total public debt stands at $15.23 trillion; in January 2009, the debt was $10.62 trillion. Mr. Obama is on pace to borrow $6.2 trillion in just one term — more debt than was amassed by all presidents from Washington through Bill Clinton combined. The debt is rising by $4.2 billion every day — $175 million per hour, nearly $3 million per minute.’

Wow. You forgot that it was that bad, didn’t you. Because you are allowing the Media Left to control your thoughts with lies and obfuscation. But American voters know the pain in their everyday lives; it is burned into them.

OK, so now imagine that these stats above pertained to a GOP president. Republicans across the nation would be writing final farewells to their families. Yet here we are fretting about which Republican candidate is going to take on a Democrat president with the worst economic record of the last 50 years.

How about all this:

*From the washingtonexaminer.com:

In another indication of the difficulty President Obama’s reelection campaign faces, only 36 percent of likely voters grade the administration’s handling of the economy at good or excellent, according to a new Rasmussen poll.

In a national survey of 1,000 likely voters January 31-February 1, a whopping 62 percent grade the president at fair to poor, with poor collecting the largest number: 45 percent.

*From Gallup.com:

‘Gallup released their annual state-by-state presidential approval numbers yesterday, and the results should have 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue very worried. If President Obama carries only those states where he had a net positive approval rating in 2011 (e.g. Michigan where he is up 48 percent to 44 percent), Obama would lose the 2012 election to the Republican nominee 323 electoral votes to 215.’

*From CNN.com:

(CNN)–After years of bridge building with the Catholic Church, the Obama administration may have damaged some of the good will it built up with the nation’s 70 million Catholics, which could have steep consequences at the polls in November.

Some rank and file Catholics are beginning to express the same frustrations as clergy  about a new U.S. Department of Health and Human Services policy requiring all employers, including religious ones, to pay for FDA-approved contraceptives, such as the birth control pill and Plan B, through health insurance plans. Churches are exempt but hospitals and schools with religious affiliations must comply. The new policy goes into effect August 1, 2012, but religious groups who oppose contraception have been given a yearlong extension to enforce the policy.

*Look at this shocking statistic from CNN in an essay entitled ‘Have the youth given up on Obama’? (with italics added for emphasis):

‘In 2008, the youth vote helped sweep Barack Obama into office. Americans 18-29 spread the word on social media, energized fundraising and went to the polls.

…The 18-29 vote is up for grabs in 2012 because youth can’t afford cars to put bumper stickers on and those t-shirts are worn out from too many days sitting on the couch unemployed.

The sobering reality: just 55.3 percent of Americans between 16 and 29 have jobs. And earlier this year, Americans’ student loan debt surpassed credit card debt for the first time ever.’

*Gallup, the polling organization, recently reported on its website:

‘PRINCETON, NJ — Americans’ political ideology at the midyear point of 2011 looks similar to 2009 and 2010, with 41% self-identifying as conservative, 36% as moderate, and 21% as liberal.’

Is Obama cooked? It sure looks that way. He cannot mathematically win if these facts are true.

*A federal report said:

Real GDP increased 1.7 percent in 2011 (that is, from the 2010 annual level to the 2011 annual level), compared with an increase of 3.0 percent in 2010.

This is utterly terrible economic news.

*Gallup.com also recently reported:

‘Two in three Americans (64%) say big government will be the biggest threat to the country, one percentage point lower than the record high, and more than twice the number who say the same about big business (26%). Democrats have led the recent increase in concerns about big government.’

*USAToday.com recently reported:

‘Since the heady days of 2008, a new USA TODAY/Gallup Swing States Poll finds the number of voters who identify themselves as Democratic or Democratic-leaning in these key states has eroded, down by 4 percentage points, while the ranks of Republicans have climbed by 5 points. …This is the second in a series of surveys that USA TODAY and Gallup will be taking through the 2012 campaign focused on 12 swing states: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin. In swing states, Obama trails former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney among registered voters by 5 points, 43% vs. 48%, and former House speaker Newt Gingrich by 3, 45% vs. 48%.’

Wow. And the Republicans are fighting amongst each other. This is stupid. They should be pointing out these polls.

*AP wrote about an Associated Press-GfK poll:

‘For the first time, the poll found that a majority of adults, 52 percent, said Obama should be voted out of office while 43 percent said he deserves another term. The numbers mark a reversal since last May, when 53 percent said Obama should be re-elected while 43 percent said he didn’t deserve four more years.’

*Activists on the political left from Ralph Nader to Dennis Kucinich have called for a presidential primary challenge to Barack Obama. This is only adding insult to Obama’s current political injury.

*Here is US News & World Report talking about Obama:

‘President Obama’s slow ride down Gallup’s daily presidential job approval index has finally passed below Jimmy Carter, earning Obama the worst job approval rating of any president at this stage of his term in modern political history.

Since March, Obama’s job approval rating has hovered above Carter’s, considered among the 20th century’s worst presidents, but today Obama’s punctured Carter’s dismal job approval line. On their comparison chart, Gallup put Obama’s job approval rating at 43 percent compared to Carter’s 51 percent.’

Note: Carter was swamped by Ronald Reagan in 1980.

*Here are two political consultants, Doug Schoen and Patrick Caddell, writing in The Wall Street Journal. Schoen is a lifelong Democrat operative and Caddell was Jimmy Carter’s pollster who is now much more of an independent:

‘Certainly, Mr. Obama could still win re-election in 2012. Even with his all-time low job approval ratings (and even worse ratings on handling the economy) the president could eke out a victory in November. But the kind of campaign required for the president’s political survival would make it almost impossible for him to govern—not only during the campaign, but throughout a second term.

Put simply, it seems that the White House has concluded that if the president cannot run on his record, he will need to wage the most negative campaign in history to stand any chance. With his job approval ratings below 45% overall and below 40% on the economy, the president cannot affirmatively make the case that voters are better off now than they were four years ago. He—like everyone else—knows that they are worse off.

President Obama is now neck and neck with a generic Republican challenger in the latest Real Clear Politics 2012 General Election Average (43.8%-43.%). Meanwhile, voters disapprove of the president’s performance 49%-41% in the most recent Gallup survey, and 63% of voters disapprove of his handling of the economy, according to the most recent CNN/ORC poll.’

 

Yeah, right… 8.3%. This is the Democrats defining “the new normal” for socialist Euro-type unemployment where we applaud bad news.

But look closely at the overall situation and you will see the real truth – that Obama/Democrat policies are in fact devastating the economy.

First, when did hiring start to pick up?

Answer: In 2011 after the huge nationwide Republican sweep into power on the state and federal level in November 2010. Businesses breathed a sigh of relief and loosened their belts just a little because they were no longer terrified that Obama could legislate against them with impunity.

What else happened?

In December 2010 the Congress passed and Obama signed into law a two-year extension of the lower Bush-era tax rates. And the Social Security tax holiday was put into effect. These tax abatement measures alone have been playing a major role in keeping the economy afloat.

And Obama signed them because he knew that they would help the economy. Because even a leftist like Obama has to admit the truth sometimes.

But the fact is that there still are many, many very serious problems in the economy like the fact that the real unemployment rate is anywhere from 10% to 18% depending on how you calculate it. This current “official” unemployment rate of 8.3% no longer has any validity to it. Everything is different than what it used to be.

Now look at what zerohedge.com reported (with bold face by zerohedge itself):

‘A month ago, we joked when we said that for Obama to get the unemployment rate to negative by election time, all he has to do is to crush the labor force participation rate to about 55%. Looks like the good folks at the BLS heard us: it appears that the people not in the labor force exploded by an unprecedented record 1.2 million.  No, that’s not a typo: 1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in one month! So as the labor force increased from 153.9 million to 154.4 million, the non institutional population increased by 242.3 million meaning, those not in the labor force surged from 86.7 million to 87.9 million. Which means that the civilian labor force tumbled to a fresh 30 year low of 63.7% as the BLS is seriously planning on eliminating nearly half of the available labor pool from the unemployment calculation. ‘

So if all those people drop out, of course the unemployment rate is going to fall. Out of sight, out of mind for 1.2 million people. With millions more coming.

Other things are happening in politics right now that are encouraging some optimism and keeping the economy afloat.

Most polls show a majority of Americans dissatisfied with Obama and prepared to vote him out of office in the coming November elections. This is lifting up business confidence. The idea that a pro-business candidate like Mitt Romney may be in the White House next year at this time is buoying hopes.

But still the numbers are terrible. Because Obama still is a dark cloud on the economic horizon.

Look at the January numbers with cnbc.com reporting:

‘The so-called real unemployment rate, which measures discouraged workers as well and is referred to as the U-6, nudged lower to 15.1 percent.’

15.1 percent… And that is even after millions have dropped out of looking for work over the last few years.

And look at where in the economy the jobs were created, according to cnbc.com:

‘True to form, services were responsible for 162,000 of the January swell, with manufacturing payrolls growing 50,000.’

But “services” – waiters, bartenders, retail etc. – are not really great jobs, do not “create” wealth and they generally pay much less than manufacturing. Only manufacturing “creates” wealth. And manufacturing still is being harmed all over America by Democrat policies like restricting resource extraction (like the Democrat war on the Keystone pipeline and enviro crusades against natural gas extraction in New York and Pennsylvania); excess taxes, mandates and regulations on all business; labor union agitation; legal harassment by Democrat trial lawyers; and extremist environmental regs.

Meanwhile a horrible public education system controlled by Democrat teacher unions is leaving tens of millions of people without the ability to hold good jobs – even if they were available.

We need to create 100,000 manufacturing jobs every single month for years to get our economy back. But the Democrats are throttling our economy as they have for decades with increasingly socialistic/enviro policies designed to thwart genuine job creation particularly in the crucial manufacturing sector. 50,000 jobs is pent-up demand after years of stasis.

We also have a housing crisis, an energy crisis and a debt crisis. These unemployment numbers do zero for all that. And Obama policies are only making things worse overall.

And here is something else to think about: It would be interesting to see exactly where the jobs are being created because the Bureau of Labor Statistics report does not say specifically. Because we know that jobs generally are being created in conservative states like North Dakota, Texas, Georgia and Florida and they are generally being lost in heavily-Democrat states like New York, California and Obama’s home state of Illinois.

Please visit my website at www.nikitas3.com  for more conservative insights. Enjoy the lively new Arts section.

It was a somewhat clumsy statement but Romney really was saying something valuable. And of course the media and Democrats went koo-koo over his statement. How dare he say he is not concerned about ‘the poor’! they said in unison. We all must be completely obsessed with ‘the poor’!

Libs say this is order to enrich the welfare state that they control. They have been shoving this mantra down our throats for 50 years…. the poor, the poor, the homeless, the poor… This is to empower liberalism while they are actually destroying ‘the poor’ with dependency and, in the long run, creating more poor people by subsidizing them.

Because what this recession has pointed out is that many of these long-term ‘poor’ – who are disproportionately black – have had everything handed to them by the Democrats for decades now. And this has intentionally destroyed these people and their initiative and their ability and will to improve themselves, allowing the Democrats to control and manipulate them in exchange for votes. It is shameful.

At the same time many millions of self-supporting people have seen their incomes cut dramatically or eliminated. These are the people whom Romney is concerned about. And he is right to be concerned about them first and foremost.

These self-reliant people would never run to the government unless it was a last resort. Yet millions of these chronically ‘poor’ go running to the government as a first resort. And they go shamelessly back time and time again, like the single mothers who have child after child even when they rely on the taxpayer for the first one.

Said Romney: “We have a very ample safety net and we can talk about whether it needs to be strengthened or whether there are holes in it. But we have food stamps, we have Medicaid, we have housing vouchers, we have programs to help the poor. But the middle-income Americans, they’re the folks that are really struggling right now.”

Still the Democrats go nuts over any suggestion of reform. Remember when welfare reform was passed and the Democrats said the sky would fall? Yet facts showed that millions of people actually changed their habits for the better once the handouts were curbed.

A statistic recently was published that the richest 1% of New York city residents pay 43% of the city’s taxes(!) and that 1.3 million people pay zero New York taxes.

Yet what is the running commentary of the Democrat left in America?

It is hatred of “the rich” and never that many ‘poor people’ are selfish and stupid and are contributing nothing to our economy or our tax base; that “rich people” don’t pay enough and that we need to give more and more and more to “the poor”.

This is hogwash. And you can rest assured that among the 1.3 million who pay zero in New York taxes that many already collect vast amounts of income from the government. In other words they produce nothing and take everything. They truly are the ‘takers’ in our society.

Here is a test: Go into one of these chronically poor neighborhoods and ask questions like “Did you graduate from high school?” and “Did you get good grades?” and “What was the last job you had?” and “Have you ever worked long hours in order to get ahead economically?” and “What special education, skills or training to do you have?” and “What special efforts are you making to better yourself?”

You are going to get a blank stare from many of these people. Because they have no ambition, education or skills. And they have never been asked such intrusive questions before. After all, they are ‘poor’. And that is never questioned in America.

It should be, however. Because the party’s over.

Don’t you just wish that one of those nosy ABC/NBC/CBS reporters like Chelsea Clinton would go out and find a few freeloaders and point out how much they really are getting for free from the taxpayers? Don’t you wish Chelsea would show their ample apartments and their flat-screen TVs and their idle lifestyle?

No, you will not see that. Because then Americans would see the truth. Because Americans are kept in the dark about these ‘poor people’ year after year.

Just look around, however, and you will see them sitting around drinking soda on a park bench, smoking cigarettes, talking on their taxpayer-provided cell phones, eating potato chips and sandwiches and slurping iced coffee from the deli and riding on their taxpayer-funded scooters. Many now have pets. They get free medical care. They get food stamps. Their children often have new clothes as they often do. And many live in perfectly good apartments with cable TV and air conditioning, with the heat turned up all winter. Because they are not paying a penny for any of it. The actual statistics about what these people have are shocking.

Meanwhile many working people cannot afford cable TV or air conditioning or to have the heat turned up all winter.

Fact is that many of these chronically poor and dependent people live like the middle class does while they don’t have any of the cares or worries of the middle class. They have every need taken care of by the welfare state. What a scam…

These people are perfectly comfortable on the government dole and know how to game the system. And who could blame them? The Democrats have given them a golden hammock to lie in.

I say: “So what if these people are poor. Many of them deserve to be poor.” Yet the longer they are poor, the less they know about working or the less they care about working.

And I am not talking about working people who are poor or working people whom Obama has devastated with his policies and made poor. Or rural Americans who have seen their livelihoods destroyed by Obama’s environmentalist friends.

No, I am talking about the many, many millions of chronic, long-term freeloader, non-working poor, i.e., the permanent underclass nurtured by the Democrats.

And of course I am accused of being a heartless conservative for saying all this.

Baloney. The Scrooges in America today are in the Democrat party and they are giving away the hard-earned wealth of productive American taxpayers to their slothful clients in the welfare state. They are hurting everyone else in America with taxes and terrible Democrat policies while their ‘poor’ friends have everything that they could ever want. It is a sham.

Please visit  my blog at www.nikitas3.com for more conservative insights. Enjoy the lively new Arts section…

Heating bills are low, plowing costs are almost zero which is aiding city and town budgets, and people generally are suffering much less hardship than usual (slipping on the ice etc.)

Of course we should be expecting the ‘global warming’ (GW) nuts to be going, well, nuts… But they have been strangely silent. Why?

Answer: Because the minute they open their big mouths something happens to make them look stupid. Like the time Al Gore gave one of his ‘warming’ speeches in New York City on the coldest day of the decade.

Oh, you could hear the guffaws from coast to coast. Imagine how Gore felt deep inside. If there indeed is a soul inside him. Which is doubtful. He is one scary dude.

At the height of ‘warming’ hysteria right after Gore won his Nobel Prize GW was on the lips of everyone. But a funny thing then happened as if God were out to embarrass Fat Al: World temperatures started plummeting. Here in the US it was snow in Phoenix and freezes in Florida.

So the zealots just can’t win. And that is why they changed the name of their crisis to ‘climate change’. So that anything that happens falls under their alarmist umbrella. If it gets cold, it’s ‘climate change’. If it gets hot, it’s ‘climate change’. If it is rainy, it’s ‘climate change’. And on and on.

In January 2007 up here in New England we had several weeks of very warm weather.  So the eco-maniacs went berserko. But then April 2007 got very cold. So they concocted a fantastic script that the seasons were being pushed forward and were being confused by ‘global warming’.

Never mind that it might just be “the weather” like any old farmer could tell you.

You know, an old farmer who goes to work every day rather than dreaming up apocalyptic scenarios about the planet at some environmental think tank.

In fact now that they are calling it ‘climate change’ the GW fraudsters are in effect agreeing with us common-sense conservatives. Because we have always said that there is no pattern to the weather or the climate. That it… changes…

Remember when Gore testified before the US Senate that “the planet has a fever” and that “if your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor”?

Yes, what a manipulator.

Because a child has a known baseline temperature of 98.6 degrees against which to measure its fever. But planet earth has no baseline temperature against which to measure warming or cooling. Yet Gore’s blatant deception passed under the radar. It shouldn’t have. This guy should be exposed at every turn.

Consider this: Warm weather is actually beneficial for mankind. Wouldn’t you rather live in a warm place than in a place that is frigid all the time? Which would be easier to survive in?

Obviously the warm place. Which is why so many Americans are moving South. And why people have generally avoided the very coldest regions of the world. It is common sense.

In fact during the Medieval warm period, which was 400 years of really hot weather from about 900 AD to 1300 AD that was much hotter than today, the European peasants thrived and even grew taller.

Then when the climate shifted quickly into the mini-Ice Age that lasted until roughly 1850 AD, people suffered and even the Thames River in London froze over repeatedly.

But no more. Because the climate has changed. Again.

Here’s another observation: Gore and his cronies were warning us over and over that the coastal cities were going to be submerged under the rising seas when all the world’s ice melted. And he showed us his maps with Miami and New York and Baltimore under water.

So where is the sea level rise today? I sure haven’t seen it. Have you?

No. And wouldn’t you expect all those billionaire urban environmentalists like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to be supervising the construction of walls around their cities to prevent them from being submerged in the coming flood?

Yes you would. But they have built no walls.  Because they all know that this stuff is bunk.

Meanwhile Time magazine had a cover story in June 1974 about ‘How to Survive the Coming Ice Age: 51 Things You Can Do To Make a Difference’

Yessir… the very same alarmists were predicting a New Ice Age just a few decades ago. And you should see the documentary from the 1970s hosted by Leonard Nimoy about the centuries of freezing that were soon certain to arrive. It is hilarious relative to what we are hearing today about ‘warming’.

Except that we seem to be in another cooling trend right now. Except for this winter…

Boy, this is getting confusing.

Here are just a few headlines from The New York Times to tip you off to the nonsensical nature of ‘global warming’ hysteria:

In 1895, a headline read: Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again

In 1933: America in Longest Warm Spell since 1776. Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise

In 1952: An article stated that the “trump card of global warming“ has been “the melting glaciers”.

In 1975, when ‘global cooling’ was in vogue: Climate Change Endangers World’s Food Output

Washington Post in 1923: Scientists Say Arctic Ice Will Wipe Out Canada

Enough said… Enjoy your winter. May we have many more like it. But it still could get cold. Remember… the weather and the climate are always changing.

Please visit my blog at www.nikitas3.com for more conservative insights. And enjoy the lively new Arts section.

Romney has regained the momentum that he lost in his big defeat in the South Carolina contest and is expected to do well in many of the February primaries. He is moving toward the Republican nomination, according to many projections.

Romney was aided by so-called Super PACs which are a new phenomenon in which independent advocacy groups run political ads on behalf of or against a candidate.

They are not limited in the amount of money that they can raise or spend. In short a multi-billionaire could spend a billion dollars of his own money running ads on behalf of a single candidate or issue.

Super PACs can be run by individuals, by businesses, by labor unions or by interest groups. A candidate, however, cannot have any contact with the Super PAC or coordinate the message in the Super PAC ad.

Super PACs can be problematic, however. For instance a Super PAC ran a controversial anti-Romney ad on behalf of Newt Gingrich in New Hampshire. But the ad had misleading information, according to Romney forces. Thus Super PACs are like the Wild West of political advertising.

Super PACs are new. They were legitimized in the famous Citizens United case which was decided by the Supreme Court in 2010. The decision said that corporations, labor unions, interest groups and individuals can fund independent political action groups to run ads for or against candidates in an election.

Democrats vociferously opposed the decision because liberals already have labor unions and the Media Left operating as agents – free of charge – for the Democrat party and do not want corporations, conservative interest groups and private citizens to have the right to put out messages, even when paid for, that might favor Republicans.

Watch for the explosion in independent Super PAC ads throughout the 2012 campaign, ads that are completely out of the control of the candidates. And don’t think that Democrats will benefit any less from the new law than Republicans; they even could benefit more. Because labor unions are included in the Supreme Court’s decision and unions are virtually 100% Democrat, while many major corporations like General Electric and Google already favor Obama, along with millions of smaller businesses across America.

Romney’s win in Florida came as more Republicans and conservatives are coming to believe that Obama’s opponents should rally behind one figure and that Romney is probably going to be the nominee, although this certainly is not yet a sure thing.

Gingrich is promising to fight all the way to the convention but was bloodied in Florida. Anti-Gingrich commentators mounted a coordinated assault on the former House speaker over his record and his character right before the primary. Gingrich also was far outspent by pro-Romney forces in Florida by as much as 5 to 1, according to several news sources.

And now many Republicans and conservatives believe that Romney is the candidate who can beat Barack Obama. And they do not want to see any more conflict in the Republican primaries that would hurt the party in the general election.

This is not likely to happen, however. Gingrich is angry, aroused and defiant. And this is not good news for Republicans. More bickering only gives the Democrats more ammunition when the focus should be on Obama’s failed policies.

There is no ideal candidate for conservatives. Michele Bachmann has dropped out as has Texas governor Rick Perry. Former US senator Rick Santorum is being questioned over his past positions in voting for Bush’s Medicare expansion and for pro-union legislation.

But now the media and the public are increasingly seeing Romney as the GOP candidate. Meanwhile Obama’s failed record is burned into America’s psyche. Obama is very weak; he is Jimmy Carter. And if Romney is smart, he will run hard against Obama like Ronald Reagan did against Carter. And the sooner the primaries are settled, the quicker Romney can focus on Obama.

Some polls show Romney already beating Obama, especially in crucial states. This shows how weak Obama is.

From the start, many contended that Romney was going to be the nominee. Romney ran in 2008, lost, and is now running again. This is the Reagan model. Romney is showing that he is in for the long run. This is important.

But Romney faces many questions over his liberal past. And while many say Romney is not conservative enough, he has matured and he has changed some of his positions over those he held 5 or 10 or 20 years ago. Consider the following conservative pluses for Romney:

*Romney’s business experience at Bain Capital and in saving the 2002 Winter Olympics will appeal to voters at the ballot box in November despite the Democrats’ class warfare strategy. Meanwhile Obama just appointed a Bain alumni as director of the White House’s own Office of Management and Budget. This mutes the Bain issue for Democrats.

*Romney has talked tough about using executive orders on Day One of a Romney administration to offer waivers to states for ObamaCare and to roll back Obama enviro regs.

*Romney wants major tax and entitlement reforms.

*He appeals to the Establishment Wing of the Republican party while his book No Apology: The Case for American Greatness sounds like Reagan. He talks tough about the idea that America must lead the world.

*Romney is pro-growth.  After another defeat for the Keystone oil pipeline, he said: “President Obama’s decision to reject the Keystone XL crude oil pipeline is as shocking as it is revealing. He seems to have confused the national interest with his own interest in pleasing the environmentalists in his political base.” This is good strong language. This sounds like Ronald Reagan talking about Jimmy Carter.

*He supports a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Romney has signed a pledge to oppose same-sex marriage on a number of specific fronts including a promise to appoint federal judges who don’t see a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage, and a vow to support the Defense of Marriage Act, which is already law.

*Romney says that Roe v Wade was wrongly decided and would support overturning it.

*Romney even has said that he would deport Barack Obama’s African uncle from Massachusetts where he has been charged with immigration violations.

*Romney has routinely slammed Obama in harsh terms about his policies, his golf etc. This is something that he must do to win. If you remember McCain was afraid to criticize Obama in 2008. This is one reason why McCain is not president today.

Now here is an excerpt from gallup.com on January 12, 2012:

PRINCETON, NJ — Political ideology in the U.S. held steady in 2011, with 40% of Americans continuing to describe their views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This marks the third straight year that conservatives have outnumbered moderates, after more than a decade in which moderates mainly tied or outnumbered conservatives.

This Gallup poll points toward a Republican victory for the White House in 2012. And with the House and Senate both likely to be in Republican hands after the 2012 election conservatives can begin repairing the nation with the majority behind us.

Please visit my blog at www.nikitas3.com  for more conservative insights And enjoy the new and lively Arts section…

‘The White House will propose a 0.5 percent pay increase for civilian federal employees as part of its 2013 budget proposal… The proposal… differs from Republican plans supported by lawmakers and presidential candidates that would freeze basic pay rates for one more year. Some of those plans also call for denying within-grade raises. …But, “a permanent pay freeze is not an acceptable policy,” one of the senior administration officials said Friday. “While modest, a 0.5 percent increase reflects the belt-tightening we must do in these difficult times.”’

And we are stupidly supposed to think that Obama is actually reigning in the federal bureaucracy. He is not. This is a re-election ploy. This “small” pay increase will be made up with interest some time in the future.

And to boot it comes after decades in which these bureaucrats have been getting big increases every year, more than the private sector has been getting. And as the bureaucracy itself has been unnecessarily expanding, consuming more and more of our national wealth.

So Obama is simply issuing an IOU to federal workers, i.e., as soon as he can do it he is going to make up every concession that they have made or are being forced to make. This is how unions always work with the Democrat party.

Now look at this from the washingtopost.com piece:

‘The federal government employs roughly 2 million civilian federal employees, with about 85 percent living and working outside the Washington area. The federal sector added about 2,000 new jobs in December, according to employment statistics released Friday.’

So even as the economy sinks, we still are adding useless federal jobs at the rate of 24,000 a year to an already bloated bureaucracy of two million workers. This work force should be cut significantly.

Look at that number… 2 MILLION federal employees, most living around Washington, DC. So if you wonder why more and more young people are flocking not to New York City or Chicago or San Francisco for their futures, but to Washington, DC, wonder no more. This is how socialism works – put more and more people either directly or indirectly on the government dole and tax the rest economy heavily to pay for it.

Look at this from washingtonpost.com (italics added for emphasis):

‘The modest (0.5 percent) across-the-board pay jump would be the first increase for federal workers since before a two-year freeze began in late 2010. Raises for within-grade step increases and promotions have continued during the freeze.’

This italicized statement means that many federal employees have not even been affected. Because in the world of the government, there is usually a way around any pay freeze.

Overall, if you read between the lines, this story means that even after decades of massive growth in both the size and wages of the government bureaucracy to where federal government employees have up to twice the pay/benefit/pension package of the average private-sector worker, that this explosive growth is only being slowed just a tad and only temporarily, like an aircraft carrier reducing its speed by a few inches an hour.

Because this boat is still moving inexorably toward more, more, more for the bureaucrat class. It has never been actually reversed as, meanwhile, the private sector shrinks and wages are cut in private jobs that pay the taxes to support the bureaucrats in Washington.

Meanwhile a report on unemployment from cnn.com said:

‘While private businesses have been adding jobs consistently since March 2010, the government has been slashing payrolls. In December, private employers added 212,000 jobs, and the public sector cut 12,000 jobs.’

So while the federal government added 2,000, a total of 12,000 jobs were alleged to have been cut elsewhere in the public sector. But who knows where that 12,000 cut came from. It could have easily come from attrition and nobody would feel a thing.

But knowing how the bureaucracy works, it probably included many crucial cops and firefighters and teachers being fired in the “budget crisis” while millions of deadwood employees stay on the government payroll. That is a tactic that Democrats use to frighten people into paying more taxes, i.e., lay off crucial people first so that citizens become alarmed.

And even if 12,000 jobs were cut, that is nothing. There are 22.5 MILLION people in the public sector in federal, state and local jobs according to Stephen Moore at The Wall Street Journal. A drop of 12,000 jobs is nothing in public employment when the private sector has lost as many as 8 million jobs over the last few years.

See how they fake you out? This is the biggest con of the century.

Here is just one other example of many: In North Carolina, between December 2007 and April 2011, private-sector job losses were a whopping 8.9%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But public employment actually increased by 500 jobs, or .07%. This is astounding. See how the bureaucrats work? They never, ever, ever stop scheming.

In an analysis in Spring 2011 in The Wall Street Journal online edition called  We’ve Become a Nation of Takers, not Makers, Stephen Moore explains why our nation is in such economic straits.

Moore says that the number of people working for government today on every level has increased dramatically since 1960 from 8.7 million to 22.5 million. Yet at the same time the number of people involved in wealth-creating manufacturing has actually declined from the 1960 level of 15 million to 11.5 million today.

So if you wonder why the middle class is disappearing, look no further. Because after a certain ideal point every increase of one person in the government means a loss of one, two or three jobs in the private sector as more and more critical wealth is drawn from the private economy to finance the public economy. Eventually the private sector collapses.

Here is another part of the report on December unemployment from cnn.com:

‘American employers stepped up their hiring in December (2011), bringing the unemployment rate down again. The economy added 200,000 jobs in the month, the Labor Department reported Friday, closing out the year with 1.6 million jobs gained in 2011. … Still, more than 13 million people remain unemployed in the United States, and 42.5% of them have been so for six months or more. Overall, the job market has a long way to go to fully recover from the financial crisis. The economy still needs to add about 6 million jobs to get back to 2008 employment levels.’

This all means that Obama is seeking re-election on abysmal numbers because we know that millions have given up looking for work and aren’t even counted. CNN also said that ‘some analysts caution that these (December) positions could be related to holiday hiring.’

‘Could be related’? This is bunk. They are absolutely related. As Nikitas3.com wrote in early December about the November employment figures:

‘Wait, however, and you will see the unemployment rate fall again when the January report comes out, because of December Christmas hiring. But you watch the February report. You will see a spike in unemployment in January when all the seasonal jobs disappear.’

According to aol.jobs.com, UPS alone – one single company – hired 55,000 seasonal workers.

Meanwhile the Burlington (Vt.) Free Press reported:

‘(Vermont Democrat US senator Bernie) Sanders gave $2,000 bonuses to 32 people on his personal staff, totaling $64,000. He also gave $2,000 bonuses to two staffers on the Senate health subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging, which he chairs. (Vermont US congressman) Peter Welch, a Democrat, gave each of his 17 staffers a $2,000 bonus, totaling $34,000’

Look at the size of those staffs! And this is just one tiny corner of the federal government. No wonder there are 2 million workers in the federal bureaucracy…

In New York state far-left Democrat governor Andrew Cuomo had threatened to lay off up to 13,000 state workers in his first year in office. Ultimately he laid off zero. Because all the unions made minor “concessions” that will be made up as soon as Cuomo can cook the books.

New York state has 1.48 MILLION state workers, according to Moore.

But that doesn’t stop the New York state Democrat party and special interest groups from cheerleading Cuomo every step of the way with radio ads, many paid for by the public-employee unions themselves. Because Cuomo wants to be president, rest assured.

Cuomo is doing the same thing Obama is doing – making no genuine reforms in the public sector, making backdoor deals with the public-employee unions that ultimately will be made up with interest, while fooling the public into believing that he is doing a great job.

It is all a lie. Those 22.5 million government workers should be cut by 5 million just for starters in order to get back to the proportional level of the 1960s. And the rest of them should get major and permanent pay cuts.

Otherwise the tax levels to support this bureaucracy are going to continue to force employers from our shores, just as employers have fled New York state in the last decade to the tune of 400,000 jobs at the same time that New York state already had some of the highest taxes in the nation and now has a statewide sales tax of 8.25%.

Please visit my blog at www.nikitas3.com for more conservative insights. And enjoy the new Arts section!

A handful of anti-Gingrich commentaries by prominent Republicans/conservatives appeared on January 25 and January 26. This is intended to urge primary voters in Florida to abandon Gingrich as a possible presidential nominee.

Indeed Gingrich has always been controversial. His negative ratings are as high as for any politician in recent memory. This is not an opinion. This is a fact. And this is not a good basis for a presidential bid.

No matter what you think, Newt would have a hard time getting elected president. And this comes from someone who has admired Gingrich’s intellect and his feistiness, but who is simply observing political common sense now that he is running for president.

No matter how strong you may perceive Gingrich as being, he will be targeted by the same media that have beaten up on him for decades as the extreme caricature of a Republican – an older, gruff, know-it-all, overweight white guy who often seems full of himself.

Indeed the man who claimed repeatedly in 2011 that the Republican nomination for the presidency is his for the asking has run up against a juggernaut of opposition to his candidacy in his own party after he surged by winning the South Carolina primary.

This opposition is to be expected. After all, this is politics. But this seems to be somewhat different than politics as usual.

Republican stalwart Bob Dole, the 1996 presidential candidate and a former US senator from Kansas, recently blasted Gingrich for historically being a “one-man-band who rarely took advice.”

In supporting Mitt Romney, Dole has written a letter to conservatives saying that he, Dole, personally assisted former House speaker Gingrich to pay off a penalty imposed by the House Ethics Committee.

Wrote Dole about Gingrich: “In 1997 a number of House members wanted to throw him out (after 2 years) as Speaker. But he hung on until after the 1998 elections when the writing was on the wall. His mounting ethics problems caused him to resign in early 1999. I know whereof I speak as I helped establish a line of credit of $150,000 to help Newt pay off the fine for his ethics violations. In the end, he paid the fine with money from other sources.”

Dole wrote many other unflattering things about Gingrich to add to the rising tide of concern over a potential Gingrich presidential candidacy, including:

“If Gingrich is the nominee it will have an adverse impact on Republican candidates running for county, state, and federal offices. Hardly anyone who served with Newt in Congress has endorsed him and that fact speaks for itself. He was a one-man-band who rarely took advice. It was his way or the highway.”

Dole added that “Gingrich had a new idea every minute and most of them were off the wall. …He loved picking a fight with Bill Clinton because he knew this would get the attention of the press.”

This is pretty powerful stuff. And Dole’s statements are going to have an impact because everybody knows that they have truth in them, and that the Republicans themselves forced Gingrich out of his speakership. This is not just the ‘Republican Establishment’ going after Newt. It is much bigger than that.

Indeed there are major figures all across the Republican spectrum who just don’t like Newt and who are terrified that he will bring down the entire GOP if he is the nominee.

Wrote Dole: “In my run for the presidency in 1996 the Democrats greeted me with a number of negative TV ads and in every one of them Newt was in the ad. He was very unpopular and I am not only certain that this did not help me, but that it also cost House seats that year.”

For those who know history, this is all established fact.

To put Gingrich into perspective, just imagine the reverse situation – that liberal Democrat former House speaker Nancy Pelosi were running for president. Conservatives and Republicans would be ecstatic because she has much the same template as Gingrich does – she ushered the Democrats back into power but then she overreached and became personally unpopular.

Republicans would be preparing the attack ads today, that Pelosi is unpopular, unstable, unelectable, a caricature of the far-left party. While at the same time some liberal Democrats would be arguing that Pelosi is a good liberal who could be president – just like some conservatives are arguing the same about Gingrich.

Controversial quotes by Newt also have been dredged up. During Ronald Reagan’s tenure Gingrich made some unflattering statements about The Gipper. And while these are said to be isolated comments, Gingrich still made them, and in very public venues like the House floor.

These types of negative comments do not go over well with many conservatives. Meanwhile today Newt is making films about Reagan and talking highly of him. This paradox in itself is troubling and indicative of a credibility problem with Gingrich.

And while Gingrich repeatedly ties himself to Reagan, his name is only mentioned two times in four significant books about Reagan, according to Albert Hunt of bloomberg.com.

Has Newt been a good conservative?

Well, yes… but

Indeed Gingrich has a 90% conservative voting record. And we all have admired him for it. He led the 1994 revolution in which the Republicans took back the House of Representatives after 40 years out of power. He has taken on the media without fear, and criticized Obama, Democrats and their policies ruthlessly and smartly.

But he often shoots from the hip and has way too many ideas – such as his suggestion that school kids take on janitor jobs – rather than focusing on a few big ideas. This is the type of intellectual rumination that belongs in a think tank, not on the campaign trail. This is what Dole meant when he said that Newt “had a new idea every minute…”

And Gingrich certainly did attack congressman Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform plan as “right-wing social engineering”, almost sinking his current campaign from the start. And he did viciously impugn capitalism in his assault ads on Romney. And he has supported the individual health insurance mandate. He has repeatedly praised FDR. He appeared in a ‘global warming’ ad with Pelosi. And when Newt sidled up to Al Sharpton in 2009 to talk about education, that was not good. Sharpton is America’s #1 political hustler.

Gingrich supported the ‘global warming’ theory early on saying in 2007 that “the evidence is sufficient to move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading.” This was at the height of GW hysteria, and shows Gingrich playing to the media. So conservatives must understand that Newt has shown streaks of unadulterated opportunism.

We conservatives also have embraced Gingrich’s toughness against the Media Left. In the January 26 debate, however, Newt tried taking on CNN moderator Wolf Blitzer as he had taken on moderators in two previous debates. But his attack was muted by Blitzer because the media are onto Gingrich’s anti-media strategy.

Thus it will not work any longer, silencing one of Gingrich’s potent weapons. In fact it may end up backfiring as the media focus their energies on tripping up Gingrich, whom they always have hated.

And the fact that the media always have hated Gingrich is another huge problem. Because whatever you think about Gingrich, it is true that the media hate him like they hated Nixon, with a special vitriol beyond their standard hatred for most Republicans.

Newt also has had a chaotic personal life that is completely out of synch with conservative beliefs. And that is very troubling. He is in his third marriage. He cheated on his first two wives. His second wife charged that Gingrich demanded an “open marriage” where he could continue to have relations with his now-wife Callista.

Conservative commentator R. Emmett Tyrell even called him ‘William Jefferson Gingrich’ for his repeated marital lapses. And these lapses are real, not imagined.

And don’t think for one second that independent feminist and leftist groups, armed with tons of Silicon Valley cash and Follywood cash and Warren Buffett cash would not mount vicious independently-funded (i.e., unlimited) TV and radio assaults in critical electoral states in the general election in order to savage Gingrich over his personal life and turn women voters away from him. This is just one of the fears of Republicans.

Who knows what else might come up. You know, the October Surprise that we don’t know about yet.

This is all observation of fact, not opinion. It is something that we all must think about. And cumulatively it is very troubling for those of us who understand the absolute necessity of defeating Obama. So stay tuned. The Florida primary is tomorrow, Tuesday, January 31. Romney is rising strongly in the polls and Gingrich is falling as the anti-Gingrich forces ramp up and spread their message.

Please visit my blog at www.nikitas3.com for more conservative insights. And enjoy my new Arts section!

Because Buffett was referring to the 15% that Romney was, and that is a completely different tax (a capital gains tax) than what most people pay (which is a personal income tax) or what Buffett or Romney originally paid on their business income (a corporate income tax or business income tax).

That 15% is called a ‘capital gains tax rate’. You certainly have heard the phrase. It works like this:

It has been revealed that Romney had taxable income of $21.7 million in 2010. And when you compare it to Bill Gates’ fortune of roughly $45 billion, then there is a big difference. Thus Romney is a piker in comparison; his whole fortune is estimated at around $270 million. Yet if Gates ran for president the Democrats would make every excuse for his money because he supports Obama.

Romney earned $21.7 million on his “investments” in 2010. And on that $21.7 million he paid about a 15%’capital gains tax’ or about $3 million in federal taxes.

The “investments” that produced the $21.7 million refer to Romney’s “personal fortune” of $270 million. And this fortune came after he and his firm paid huge amounts of taxes, salaries, benefits etc. over several decades on much higher ‘gross revenues’ (probably in the billions) from his successful company Bain Capital, leaving Romney with his cumulative personal wealth of $270 million.

In other words, his “investments” or his “net worth” or “personal wealth” is money left over from all of his business activities, i.e., it is Romney’s “profit” from his decades in business.

Romney’s income in 2010 of $21.7 million was about 8% of his $270 million personal fortune or his “nest egg”. And that $270 million is invested in various investment accounts to provide him an annual income stream – it is invested in stock portfolios, bank accounts, bonds, real estate interests etc.

Of course liberals like to say that that $270 million is under Romney’s mattress and that he is using it only to buy jewelry and caviar for his wife.

But that is nonsense. This $270 million is ‘investment capital’ that is doing positive things like helping companies to start up or to grow and prosper and provide jobs. That is why it is best kept away from the government.

If there were no investment capital, the economy would collapse. Because most people who want to start or expand a company, from Steve Jobs to the guy on the corner with a convenience store, eventually need investment capital to buy tools or machinery or inventory, or to build a factory or a store etc.

They take out a loan and hope that their company does well enough to pay the loan back and then make a profit. Or they issue stock in their company which is purchased by people like Mitt Romney in big quantities, or by your neighbor in smaller quantities.

And saying that Romney’s personal fortune is simply funding his exorbitant lifestyle is like saying that your life’s saving are being used to fund your exorbitant lifestyle when actually your bank account (your deposit in the bank like your life’s savings) is being lent out by the bank for people to buy houses or start businesses, i.e, to grow the economy. And the bank makes a profit on that loan (interest on the loan) and some of that profit is turned over to you as interest on your bank account.

So your bank account or Romney’s bank account and other investments are earning income (interest, dividends, profits etc.) because they are invested in productive economic growth.

And thus if the government takes that money away like communism does and like Democrats want to, then there is no investment capital and the economy collapses. That is why socialist nations always have poor growth stats and communist nations are always destitute.

So the ‘capital gains tax’ is a second tax on income. And liberals favor it  because Romney made the ‘capital gains’ on his “investments” without going out and working for it every day and so, in their view, he must be punished.

Indeed since Romney does not go to the office every day but lives off of his investments then his income is not taxed as ‘personal income’ but as ‘capital gains’. That is why Romney is taxed at 15% which is the capital gains tax rate.

And this is precisely what tens of millions of retirees in the middle class do every year in their retirements – they live off of their investments.

By the way, Romney also gave almost 14% of his $21.7 million annual income to charity in 2010 or almost $3 MILLION, while vice president Joe Biden gave .3% (that’s three tenths of one percent…) of his income to charity annually during the last ten years of his US Senate career ($369 a year average). In 2010, Biden gave only 1.4% to charity, or one-tenth of what Romney gave. While the Democrats portray Romney as a selfish businessman.

Thus if Warren Buffett’s secretary indeed paid, say, a 16% tax rate on her personal income (the Buffett story is a huge distortion of the facts made up for public consumption) then she would technically pay more than his capital gains tax rate. But remember that his capital gains rate is a second tax on his income, not his primary tax.

So if for instance you are a doctor and you make $200,000 a year, you would be in the top personal income tax bracket which is a 35% tax rate (the top personal rate and the top corporate/business rate just happen to be the same right now at 35%. But this has not always been true by any means.).

But after deductions, you might pay a 27% federal tax rate. Obama paid 26% on his 2011 return, even though he was in the 35% personal income bracket. Because he had deductions and took every one of them even though he and all his rich Democrat friends always say they don’t need any breaks. But Obama took them anyway like all his cronies do.

And after all your doctor taxes are paid and you’ve paid for your house and your kids’ education and cars and groceries and everything else, you might put some leftover money like $30,000 in a certificate of deposit or buy stocks with it and do the same thing every year to build up your “nest egg”.

So while you paid 27% on your original income, you will pay 15% on the annual income stream from your “nest egg” in that same year. This is your 15% ‘capital gains tax’. It is separate and second tax from your income tax or your Social Security or Medicare tax or any other tax.

But the media are making it look like Romney is a skinflint for paying 15% when millions of people, particularly retirees, do the same thing. But the more the hyperactive media attack Romney now, the less impact their attacks will have closer to the election if he is the nominee. So let them attack him and get it over with.

Many of us believe that the capital gains rate should be zero, that you should not have to pay a second tax on your success. This may be in the future. It will greatly help our economy to make it zero. Because a low-tax economy always produces more wealth and jobs than a high-tax economy. History has proven this over and over.

Please visit my blog at www.nikitas3.com for more conservative insights.

Obama said: Most of Al Qaida’s top lieutenants have been defeated. The Taliban’s momentum has been broken. And some troops in Afghanistan have begun to come home. These achievements are a testament to the courage, selflessness, and teamwork of America’s armed forces. At a time when too many of our institutions have let us down, they exceed all expectations. Comment: Yes, indeed. Because it is the military, the institution that Democrats hate most. The institutions of government that have let us down are Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the rest of the Democrat-built bureaucracy.

Obama said: We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by, or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules. Comment: OK, here it comes. Get out the violins. And don’t you think he might avoid the words “fair shot” when Gabrielle Giffords is in the audience? How about “fair chance”? And this idea that everyone should play by the same rules is more Democrat hypocrisy. So Mr. President, when will all those poor people start paying taxes instead of sucking the economy dry?

Obama said: In 2008, the house of cards collapsed. We learned that mortgages had been sold to people who couldn’t afford or understand them. Banks had made huge bets and bonuses with other people’s money. Regulators had looked the other way, or didn’t have the authority to stop the bad behavior. Comment: Yes, loans that banks were forced to make by Democrat government plan. And Republicans tried to rein in Fannie and Freddie. Regulators didn’t look the other way, however. They were stripped of their power by votes made by Obama himself along with his fellow Democrats.

Obama said: On the day I took office, our auto industry was on the verge of collapse. Some even said we should let it die. With a million jobs at stake, I refused to let that happen. In exchange for help, we demanded responsibility. We got workers and automakers to settle their differences. We got the industry to retool and restructure. Today, General Motors is back on top as the world’s number-one automaker. Comment: Obama’s union buddies had ruined Chrysler and GM in the first place! And now they owe the taxpayers billions that they will never pay back. Meanwhile Obama gave large parts of those two companies over to the same unions.

Obama said: What’s happening in Detroit can happen in other industries. It can happen in Cleveland and Pittsburgh and Raleigh. We can’t bring every job back that’s left our shore. Comment: It won’t happen if Obama’s union cronies organize the labor forces at these new companies. Or if the environmentalists block every factory. Or if Democrat regulators continue to undermine the business climate.

Obama said: We should start with our tax code. Right now, companies get tax breaks for moving jobs and profits overseas. Meanwhile, companies that choose to stay in America get hit with one of the highest tax rates in the world. It makes no sense, and everyone knows it. Comment: You lie! Companies have moved overseas because the Democrats have forced them. And then the same Democrats want sky-high taxes on firms that stay.

Obama said: Tonight, I’m announcing the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit that will be charged with investigating unfair trading practices in countries like China. There will be more inspections… Comment: Wow. Another bureaucracy. Big surprise.

Obama said: I also hear from many business leaders who want to hire in the United States but can’t find workers with the right skills. Growing industries in science and technology have twice as many openings as we have workers who can do the job. Think about that: openings at a time when millions of Americans are looking for work. Comment: Workers are not prepared because of our pathetic, union-controlled public schools and our left-wing colleges that teach ‘global warming’ alarmism rather than real science.

Obama said: Model partnerships between businesses like Siemens and community colleges in places like Charlotte, and Orlando, and Louisville are up and running. Now you need to give more community colleges the resources they need to become community career centers, places that teach people skills that businesses are looking for right now, from data management to high-tech manufacturing. Comment: Yes, more money for community colleges. That is what this is all about. Because these colleges are just like high schools – all run by the government and full of unionized employees who vote largely Democrat.

Obama said: At a time when other countries are doubling down on education, tight budgets have forced states to lay off thousands of teachers. We know a good teacher can increase the lifetime income of a classroom by over $250,000. A great teacher can offer an escape from poverty to the child who dreams beyond his circumstance. Every person in this chamber can point to a teacher who changed the trajectory of their lives. Most teachers work tirelessly, with modest pay, sometimes digging into their own pocket for school supplies, just to make a difference. Teachers matter. So instead of bashing them, or defending the status quo, let’s offer schools a deal. Give them the resources to keep good teachers on the job, and reward the best ones. And in return, grant schools flexibility: to teach with creativity and passion; to stop teaching to the test… Comment: Blah, blah, blah. Many of these teachers stink. And many of the public schools stink. They’re all run by and for the benefit of Democrat unions. They don’t need more money. A public school teacher in the failed Milwaukee, Wisconsin system makes $77 an hour in wages, benefits and pension.

Obama said: Extend the tuition tax credit we started that saves millions of middle-class families thousands of dollars. And give more young people the chance to earn their way through college by doubling the number of work-study jobs in the next five years.  Of course, it’s not enough for us to increase student aid. We can’t just keep subsidizing skyrocketing tuition. We’ll run out of money. States also need to do their part, by making higher education a higher priority in their budgets. And colleges and universities have to do their part by working to keep costs down. Comment: These price-gouging colleges and universities are run by Obama’s left-wing cronies. And tuition tax credits are nothing more than a way to shift those costs to the taxpayer, and let the price gougers off the hook.

Obama said: And nowhere is the promise of innovation greater than in American-made energy. Over the last three years, we’ve opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration. And tonight, I’m directing my administration to open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources. Comment: It makes no difference what the feds do in most of these cases. Obama knows that his radical enviro cronies will halt or try to stop development. In New York state, in the Marcellus Shale natural gas area, enviros are putting on the pressure to stop the whole process.

Obama said: I’ve ordered every federal agency to eliminate rules that don’t make sense. We’ve already announced over 500 reforms, and just a fraction of them will save business and citizens more than $10 billion over the next five years. Comment: Yeah, right the Democrat reformer. What bunk. For every reform, five other laws kick in. Meanwhile state and local laws and regs create a whole new layer of bureaucracy.

Obama said: When Bryan Ritterby was laid off from his job making furniture, he said he worried that, at 55, no one would give him a second chance. But he found work at Energetx, a wind turbine manufacturer in Michigan. Before the recession, the factory only made luxury yachts. Today, it’s hiring workers like Bryan, who said, “I’m proud to be working in the industry of the future.” Comment: It’s all government jobs. ‘Green energy’ only survives with taxpayer subsidies.

Obama said: I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China or Germany because we refuse to make the same commitment here. We’ve subsidized oil companies for a century. That’s long enough. It’s time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that rarely has been more profitable and double down on a clean energy industry that never has been more promising. Pass clean-energy tax credits. Create these jobs. Comment: This is a lie that Democrats and enviros repeat over and over. The oil industry has never been subsidized. “Subsidized” means it gets more from the government than it pays in taxes. The oil industry does not need subsidies; it is profitable. ‘Green energy’ on the other hand, would never survive without subsidies.

Obama said: So much of America needs to be rebuilt. We’ve got crumbling roads and bridges, a power grid that wastes too much energy, an incomplete high-speed broadband network that prevents a small-business owner in rural America from selling her products all over the world. Comment: Here’s the “infrastructure crisis” again. Yet Obama spent $800 billion in ‘stimulus’ and fixed zero crumbling roads and bridges. What a phony.

Obama said: We’ll also establish a Financial Crimes Unit of highly trained investigators to crack down on large-scale fraud and protect people’s investments. Some financial firms violate major antifraud laws because there’s no real penalty for being a repeat offender. Comment: Obama made this speech on the very same day that the second biggest Ponzi swindler in American history, R. Allen Stanford, went on trial in Texas. Stanford is a HUGE Democrat liberal. Like Bernie Madoff and virtually all of the other swindlers.

Obama said: Finally, none of this can happen unless we also lower the temperature in this town. We need to end the notion that the two parties must be locked in a perpetual campaign of mutual destruction, that politics is about clinging to rigid ideologies instead of building consensus around commonsense ideas. Comment: Yeah, right, from the guy who told his audience to “punish your enemies”.

Please  visit my blog at www.nikitas3.com for more conservative insights.

‘”We have a general morality gap, we are over-leveraged, we have neglected to invest in the future, we have undermined social coherence, and we are in danger of completely losing the confidence of future generations,” said Klaus Schwab, host and founder of the annual World Economic Forum (held annually in Davos, Switzerland). “Solving problems in the context of outdated and crumbling models will only dig us deeper into the hole. We are in an era of profound change that urgently requires new ways of thinking instead of more business-as-usual.” Schwab added that “capitalism in its current form, has no place in the world around us.”’

So what is Davos?

It might be called The Annual Blowhard Festival of Economics, where, according to Breitbart, ‘Some 1,600 economic and political leaders, including 40 heads of states and governments, will be asked to come up with new ideas as they converge at eastern Switzerland’s chic ski station for the 42nd edition of the five-day World Economic Forum’ held in late January.

Yes, just what we need… ‘1,600 economic and political leaders’, the same people who created this economic mess.

How about 1,600 businessmen and businesswomen from all over the world? You know, people who actually create jobs and wealth?

Oh, no. We need to listen to these insufferable actors like US senator John Kerry, who married into a fortune, who has never created one single penny of wealth in his lifetime but who is uber-critical of our capitalist wealth creation system. Or left-wing Bill Clinton who is reported to have earned tens of millions of dollars giving speeches in the last ten years… you know, money only for himself, not for others in the way that capitalist Henry Ford created cars for the masses and hundreds of thousands of jobs making them.

And look at where these clowns are meeting – in the heart of Europe, which has been a socialistic bastion for centuries, which has practiced rabid nanny-state politics for the last 50 years and which is in many places in a state of total collapse.

Wasn’t socialism supposed to create utopia?

Yes. In theory, it always does. But in reality it creates hell.

Meanwhile the current American crisis was set off by the “subprime crisis” in which the government (i.e., state socialism) forced banks to loan trillions to poor people to buy houses, people who couldn’t and didn’t pay it back. Now massive American indebtedness, caused by reckless government spending over many decades and particularly under Obama, is preventing any kind of economic rebound.

Meanwhile China and India are rising as our Western economies sink. Because in the last 20 years those two nations have adopted free-market capitalism after socialism and communism strangled their economies for decades. And now they are laughing at the West for doing what they did for years.

Now just look at where these elites hold their Blowhard Economic Festival – in one of the most posh resorts in the whole world, Davos, Switzerland. This is classic arrogance, looking down their noses at the rest of the world just like American academics look down their noses at the rest of the nation from their price-gouging university ramparts as they live in comfort and economic security.

This is so much of the same baloney. What the world needs to do is to expose these Davos hogs for their corruption, selfishness, greed and incompetence.

No, Mr. Klaus Schwab, it is YOU who is outmoded. It is YOUR way of thinking that has ruined the world. It is YOUR wealthy champagne-sipping elitism that is causing the world’s people to fall into hopelessness.

Indeed, it is YOUR nanny-state policies, like retiring after 30 years of work and taking the whole month of August for vacation and working 35 hours a week maximum, that are unsustainable. Or how about tens of millions of deadwood government employees worldwide who barely work at all, but instead are involved in featherbedding and economic corruption sanctioned by the political left.

And then you elites tell us hard-working people of the world that we need to reform??! What utter rubbish. These Davos fakers should be out scrubbing bathrooms so that they can learn what real work is.

So who is Klaus Schwab?

His profile explains it all. He is a do-nothing academic and a United Nations shill. He has never created a single penny of wealth in his life. He only has created “foundations” and “non-profit organizations” and sucked the academic boob his whole life. Wikipedia.org reports:

‘Klaus Martin Schwab (born March 30, 1938) is a German economist best known as the founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum. His wife and former secretary, Hilde, co-founded the Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurshipwith him. He was born in 1938, in Ravensburg Germany.

In 1971, Schwab founded the World Economic Forum as a not-for-profit foundation committed to improving the state of the world, later building it into today’s global partnership of business, political, and intellectual leaders.

In 1998 Schwab and his wife founded the Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship, a non-profit organization based in Geneva, Switzerland.

In 2004, Schwab created a new foundation using the US$ 1 million prize money from the Dan David Prize he received that year. The Forum of Young Global Leaders aims to bring together over 500 people under 40 from all walks of life who have demonstrated their commitment to improving the state of the world, and encourage them to work together over the span of five years to identify and realize global change.

Dr. Schwab holds a Doctorate in Economics (summa cum laude) from the University of Fribourg, a Doctorate in Engineering from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and a Master of Public Administration from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. Additionally, he has been the recipient of seven honorary doctorates and is an honorary professor of the Ben-Gurion University of Israel and the China Foreign Affairs University.

Schwab was Professor of Business Policy at the University of Geneva from 1972 to 2002.  He is the author of several books. Since 1979 he has published the Global Competitiveness Report, an annual report assessing the potential for increasing productivity and economic growth of countries around the world, written by a team of economists. The report is based on a methodology developed by Schwab, measuring competitiveness not only in terms of productivity but also based on sustainability criteria.

From 1993-1995, Schwab was a member of the UN High-Level Advisory Board on Sustainable Development.From 1996-1998, he was Vice-Chairman of the UN Committee for Development Planning.  He also exercised a number of functions in the global public interest, such as being a member of The Peres Centre for Peace and a member of the board of the Lucerne Festival. During the earlier years of his career, he was on a number of company boards, such as The Swatch Group, The Daily Mail Group, and Vontobel Holding.’

What a con man this guy is. Notice again – never one single penny of wealth creation in his entire resume. Yet here he is writing reports and telling the world we need to abandon capitalism, the only system that actually creates wealth in the first place.

The average small-town welder in Iowa does more for the global economy than this charlatan does.

Look at what else Breitbart.com reported:

‘But anti-capitalist demonstrators are planning to make their presence felt. The Occupy (World Economic Forum) protestors have built igloos in the middle of the (Davos) village perched 1,500 metres above sea level and are planning a protest against those they call “self-proclaimed elites.” ‘

Yes, indeed, for once the ‘occupiers’ are correct – these Davos attendees are “self-proclaimed elites”. They are overwhelmingly left-wing socialist political/academic hacks, the same people whom ‘occupiers’ think should be running everything, the same elites who have ruined the world with massive debt and unbridled government interventions in the global economy.

Please visit my blog at www.nikitas3.com for more conservative insights.

‘Noem received 27 traffic citations, including 20 speeding tickets from 1989 to 2010. Noem incurred stop sign and seat belt violations, no driver’s license, failure to appear notices, and two arrest warrants. Noem said, “I’m not proud of my driving record, but [I've] been working hard to be a better example to young kids and young drivers out there.” She has paid her fines and penalties.’

So what are we to make of congresswoman Noem?

We conservatives say: Welcome to the US Congress. Because Noem’s all-American resume – speeding tickets included, since the spaces indeed are wide in South Dakota – is precisely the kind of background that every congressperson in our great nation should have.

Noem’s resume reads like a Sarah Palin of the Prairie. The Washington Post described Noem as “a made-for-Fox News star” and a “mama grizzly” in the Palin mold. Noem is a pro-life evangelical Christian to boot.

Noem was born in 1971, and her profession is described as farmer, rancher, hunter, hunting lodge owner and restaurateur.  She was born to a South Dakota farm family, and when her father was killed in a farming accident – farming is statistically one of the most dangerous professions in America – Noem left college to help keep the farm operating. All three of her siblings since have joined Noem, her husband and her three children in nurturing the family farm through the difficult times that all farmers face.

Noem expects to earn her college degree in political science by 2014. To which we conservatives say: Don’t worry about it, congresswoman. Just be who you are – a genuine, hard-working, sensible conservative American. Traditional education does not matter. Common sense is the most crucial need in Washington today. It will take you and our nation much further than any college degree.

Because Noem is the precisely the type of person that we need many more of in the US Congress, people with real-world experience in an essential industry like farming. This is what the Founders believed in in anticipating a citizen-legislator form of government.

Noem represented the South Dakota 6th District in the state’s House of Representatives from from 2007 to 2010. She served as the assistant majority leader from 2009-2010, obviously showing great promise in her public life.

She was elected to the US Congress in the Republican landslide of November 2010 defeating 3-term incumbent Democrat lawyer Stephanie Herseth Sandlin for South Dakota’s single at-large congressional seat.

Noem was endorsed by 2008 presidential candidate Mitt Romney and defeated Herseth Sandlin by 48.1% to 45.9%. An independent candidate got 6% of the vote.  And with Romney a likely nominee for president, you may be seeing Kristi Noem in even higher roles in American government.

An attractive woman and a principled conservative, Noem has voted to repeal ObamaCare and has stated that she will work with like-minded House members to defund the act and to replace it with measures that are more affordable and private-sector oriented, including restraints on trial lawyers and allowing consumers to buy health insurance across state lines.

Noem is a fiscal hawk and a supporter of a balanced budget. She wants to see cuts in budgets for the Environmental Protection Agency, Medicaid and many other federal programs and departments.

Noem wants to eliminate the estate tax and simplify the tax code to make it less cumbersome She also wants to lower the corporate tax rate and has said that she would not raise taxes to balance the budget.

Her animus toward the estate tax comes from personal experience. Her father’s death left the family with a large estate tax debt which made it very difficult for the farm to remain in the family.

Noem also is a strong advocate of 2nd Amendment gun rights.

Noem continues to support offshore oil drilling and federal ethanol subsidies to farmers in South Dakota. This stance on ethanol, along with federal subsidies that her family farm has received, certainly seem not to be very conservative positions. But they might just be a response to the role that heavy federal taxes and estate taxes and regulations have played in harming farmers in the first place.

She opposes a bill introduced by Democrat South Dakota US senator Tim Johnson that would designate 48,000 acres of the Buffalo Gap National Grassland as protected wilderness. She says that the land already is managed like a wilderness and that raising its status will further limit leaseholder access to the land and threaten ranchers’ grazing rights.

So good luck congresswoman. And by the way, keep your foot on the gas. We need more people like you powering our nation as quickly as possible toward genuine reform.

Please visit my blog at www.nikitas3.com for more conservative insights.

This is an astounding turnaround from Gingrich’s poor showings in the Iowa and New Hampshire contests and further scrambles the GOP primary field.

Gingrich’s strong showing in a conservative place like South Carolina is not wholly unexpected, although the state’s popular GOP governor Nikki Haley had endorsed Romney.

South Carolina shows that this may be a volatile race. But the upcoming January 31 Florida primary, with a more moderate electorate than South Carolina, could turn the race back to Romney who also is expected to do well in several early February contests. But then again, who knows.

What does this South Carolina outcome portend?

It means more tension and it again pits the moderate GOP Establishment against the Tea Party conservatives. It’s an old story.

Some observers were hoping that a string of Romney wins would put the primaries in the past so that Romney could focus on Obama. But the other side of that coin is that an extended primary could actually benefit the eventual GOP nominee by relieving him of becoming the one clear target for Democrat attacks until later on.

And despite the disorder associated with feuding candidates, an extended primary also keeps the Republicans in the news with opportunities to promote their agenda and attack Obama.

Primaries like this one are notorious for upsetting the plans of the “experts” anyway. Who can forget Obama/Clinton in 2008? It was fratricide after literally several years in which Hillary was the assumed nominee.

There is no need for conservatives or Republicans to panic over South Carolina, however. Because Obama already has sunk to the bottom among many key voting blocs. Democrats are as worried as Republicans at this point.

For the GOP this primary conflict is an old story. The Establishment wing of the party never even liked Ronald Reagan despite his success at revitalizing the GOP. And who could forget the bad blood between McCain and Bush in 2000.

So now Newt Gingrich is going to anoint himself the conservative alternative to Establishment figure Romney and many conservatives are going to go with Newt in the name of political payback to the Establishment.

Gingrich in fact has a lot going for him from the conservative point of view – he led the 1994 Republican revolution; he led the way in Congress to balanced federal budgets; he advocated the welfare reforms that Clinton ultimately signed; he is very smart; he has been strong in debates; he has trashed Obama without apology; and he aggressively has taken on the media.

The big problem, however, is Newt Gingrich as a person. First, he has not been such a pure conservative, praising FDR and Teddy Roosevelt and supporting an individual health insurance mandate.

And second he has alienated millions of Americans throughout his career, including people in his own party, and for good reason – because Newt is not the most likeable guy in the world. Polls show him with very high public negatives, as much as -30 in some polls unfavorable/favorable.  And current polls show Gingrich much less likely to be able to beat Obama compared to Romney.

But all that could change…

To put it bluntly many people just don’t like Newt because Newt often seems like he is out for only one thing… Newt Gingrich. If you asked people whom they would rather drink a beer with, Gingrich or Obama, a clear majority would probably pick Obama at this point.

But that all could change…

And Gingrich’s checkered personal life is as much a subject of debate as his strong and sometimes conflicting and controversial political stances. His ex-wife’s recent claim that Gingrich wanted an “open marriage” is going to linger no matter the truth. And it does in fact comport with Gingrich’s randy image.

But as they say, nice guys finish last. So perhaps Gingrich’s aggressiveness and his darker, untamed side are good things. Gingrich is just being out front about himself and his agenda. He is saying that he has his flaws but that he will take on Obama and lead the nation with toughness. This appeals to many people who see Romney and the GOP Establishment as too timid in confronting the socialist Democrat juggernaut that controls our nation.

Newt is the stereotype Republican – a gruff, smart, white guy who knows what he knows, who does not take any nonsense, who is not afraid to speak his mind, and who is not politically correct regarding racial issues or other “sensitive” topics. And this is both a positive and a negative. Thus if he were the nominee, he would be strong in some ways and weak in others – like anyone else, of course.

So Republicans and conservatives have a dilemma: Do they elevate a man like Newt who is aggressive and who seems somewhat cold and clinical at times but who is outspoken and bold on behalf of the conservative cause? Is this the type of leader that Republicans need as the GOP standard bearer for 2012? Because these certainly are good characteristics in a president.

Or is Mitt Romney’s “softer” approach better in the general election?

Romney is really a classic successful white Mormon/Christian American man. He is wealthy (estimate $270 million), disciplined, smart, handsome and a good businessman. Romney seems like a nice guy with a beautiful family. He seems happy, unlike Obama and his wife or like the abrasive Gingrich.

His life is an open book. He probably is a decent person in private. Romney’s one wife (Gingrich is in his third marriage) seems like a nice person; she surely never has disparaged America as Michelle Obama did. Romney is like your wealthy neighbor – he may be somewhat aloof and you may not be best friends, but he is not a creep either.

But there is a hard edge to Romney. Don’t believe for a second that Romney is like McCain – someone who doesn’t really care about being president. Romney wants it badly; this is his second try. And he will do whatever he needs to do to win. And with this South Carolina loss, he probably will change his strategy somewhat and drop the Mr. Nice Guy stuff if he perceives it as harming him.

Watch him in the Tampa debate Monday night (January 23) to see if he becomes more openly aggressive.

Just before the South Carolina primary word was leaking out that Republican Establishment figures were unhappy that Romney was falling in the polls, that he was not being aggressive enough, that he was too nice, and that Gingrich was rising again.

On the other hand, reality has shown that Romney has repeatedly slammed Obama and has used scorched-earth tactics in the primaries. So Romney is no Pollyanna, rest assured. In fact he may only appear that way temporarily as Gingrich wins one race.

But these polls have been all over the place and this race is still very unsettled. Remember last summer when Gingrich’s New Hampshire staff quit and everyone considered him dead? Or that most observers counted John McCain out in Summer 2007 until he surged in the primaries?

This all can change, rest assured. Quickly. After all Jon Hunstman came in far ahead of Gingrich in New Hampshire and then dropped out.

And the Republican Establishment which backs Romney has not put the full force of its power behind Romney… yet. But they will when necessary like in Florida. They clearly do not want Gingrich as the nominee and have a lot of power to stop him.

So Republicans and conservatives face an ongoing debate over the soul of the GOP. And this is nothing new. And for the Establishment to count out the conservative wing of the party is folly. And for conservatives to dismiss Romney and the Establishment is folly as well. They must all work together to defeat Obama. The only question is: Who will lead?

Please visit my blog at www.nikitas3.com for more conservative insights.

Meanwhile Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper has warned that Canada may sell the oil to China if the pipeline to US refineries is permanently blocked.

So… so much for Obama’s oft-touted “energy independence” from foreign sources. This is another Obama nail in the American economic coffin.

Keystone is designed to carry crude oil from sources in Alberta, Canada through the American Midwest to refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast.

There are several reasons that the pipeline is being opposed by the enviro left:

*First Democrat liberals oppose the involvement of the conservative billionaire Koch Brothers in the Keystone project. Because the Koch Brothers have been involved in the petroleum industry for decades; that is where their fortune came from. But liberals hate them because of their conservatism and because of their involvement with petroleum.

That is one of the reasons liberals hate Sarah Palin. Because she used her political muscle to push through a natural gas pipeline from Alaska to the Lower 48 through Canada that had been stalled for three decades. Environmentalists also still are enraged over the construction of the Alaska pipeline, which first started carrying crude oil in 1977.

*Meanwhile, on the enviro side of the Keystone issue, the ecologists are opposed to the Canadian ‘oil sands’ that are the source of the oil; and they are claiming that the pipeline will rupture or blow up or leak toxic oil onto the ground and into the massive Ogalalla water aquifer that is situated beneath the Midwest.

This is all nonsense. ‘Oil sands’ are oil mixed in sand, not pumped out of underground reservoirs. Canada is reported to have a 1 trillion barrel supply. One trillion barrels is the equivalent of all the oil that the world has used in the last 150 years.

Environmentalists are claiming that ‘oil sands’ are dirty and environmentally unsound. Yet this is what they say about every single carbon source (oil, coal, natural gas) on earth. If we listen to them, we will have no energy whatsoever.

Regarding the potential rupture of the pipeline, America already is criss-crossed by tens of thousands of miles of pipelines. They operate perfectly well and are 99.9% safe because only God is perfect. And the Keystone line will be built with the latest technology, which will make it even better and safer than earlier lines.

Meanwhile the agricultural Midwest already is showered in millions of gallons of pesticides and herbicides and chemical fertilizers every year and dotted by thousands of fuel tanks, and there doesn’t seem to be much outrage about all that harming the aquifer. Because the ‘rupture’ argument is phony.

This Keystone project would create tens of thousands of jobs, an example of a real ‘shovel-ready’ project that will put people to work immediately. It will not be one of these fake ‘green jobs’ projects with the government subsidizing it every step and creating only government jobs for inefficient energy.

So what are the enviros really up to?

They are seeking to strangle our petroleum supplies and make traditional energy artificially expensive so that solar/wind don’t seem so expensive in comparison. Because the relatively low and stable price of carbon fuels is what is preventing solar and wind from becoming economically viable.

That is why enviros are seeking to shut down every single oil/coal/natural gas project that they possibly can. It is an attack on our economy. Because many of these people are radical, left-wing anti-growth activists who hate America. Period. End of story.

Meanwhile Obama wants these fake ’green jobs’ because under socialism more and more people work for the government or are reliant on government. It is estimated that the American workforce employed by government today on the federal, state and local level is 30% bigger than it needs to be (with 22.5 million people) by an estimated 5 million people compared to the population just 50 years ago. And more and more people are going to work for government every day in relation to private-sector job growth.

So as they fight the Keystone pipeline, the enviros are pushing more and more inefficient and ineffective windmills and solar panels to create more wealth for the left – from government handouts – and less energy and higher prices for everyone else.

There’s only one problem; ‘green energy’ does not work. Only petroleum and coal and natural gas and nuclear power can provide our energy sources.

Here is a test: Next Thanksgiving, one person should cook the turkey in the oven in the kitchen and the environmentalist should try to cook it in the most efficient solar oven available in the back yard using the sun’s rays. Then see who gets to eat dinner in a normal way.

You get the point.

We need to stop this ‘green energy’ sham and get serious about our future energy supply. We have dithered for decades.  We have built no new refineries or nuclear plants in 30 years, yet windmills are sprouting all over.

This is bogus. Wind energy is only about one-third as efficient as nuclear and coal or oil.

And if you think this is no big deal, try living on one-third the energy you use today. Instead of putting 21 gallons in your tank try getting along on 7. Or put solar panels on your house without a government subsidy ($30,000 for the average home solar installation, versus $1,000 per year average for electricity from your utility.)

Environmentalists manipulate every fact for themselves. In a recent interview on the Sean Hannity radio show, the washed-up Follywood celebrity and Keystone opponent Darryl Hannah said something like “enough solar energy falls on the earth every day to power man’s needs one hundred times over”. This is the type of sophistry that you can read in any enviro pamphlet. And it very well may be true.

Only problem is that nobody has figured out how to efficiently harness that very diffuse solar power.

Because the systems that man has developed cannot do it. And they never will be efficient; everything has been tried. Which is why we must stop subsidizing solar and wind and wasting our precious wealth on ‘green energy’ and get back to those energy sources that we really need to progress – oil, coal, natural gas and above all, nuclear power. And the Keystone pipeline.

Please visit my blog at www.nikitas3.com for more conservative insights.

Rick Perry easily could be a great president of the United States. He is bold, strong, patriotic, smart and obviously has good policies because Texas is thriving relative to the rest of the nation.

And the fact that he was inordinately harmed by one verbal debate slip-up, about the three federal agencies that he would eliminate as president, surely would never put a Democrat out of contention. After all Obama campaigned in “57 states”, did he not?

Perry is the leader of a state with some of the best economic growth stats in the country. Meanwhile Obama’s Illinois is sinking like a stone and is deeply in debt, Andrew Cuomo’s New York state is bleeding jobs and people while left-wing California is in slow and sure decline.

Don’t count Perry out in the future however. He is still a young man in political terms. And he certainly learned a lot in this effort that will make him a better candidate down the road.

Meanwhile the media assaults continue on the Republican field. Mitt Romney was singled out this past week for his tax rate, for his investments, for his success. Meanwhile any alternative to Obama would be an improvement. Romney would be superior to Obama in his sleep.

This strategy to tarnish any and all opposition to the hard-left Democrat agenda is the abhorrent American Media Left seeking to push our nation into slow decay as socialism always does, something that we conservatives have always predicted would happen with a potemkin president like Obama and a compliant media and Congress.

After the media hit on Herman Cain we again saw the template – destroy, destroy, destroy. Forget about the truth. This is our dishonest two-faced news hounds at work. This is the 1960s all grown up: Tell any lie as long as it advances you and your left-wing cause because you are so eternally wise.

By the way, where are Herman Cain’s accusers today? Because they seem to have disappeared just as honest people could have predicted.

The media had a Gingrich strategy this week since Newt was surging again into the lead in four separate polls – weaken Romney with their attacks on his success and then, after Gingrich won the South Carolina primary, drop the bomb on Newt this coming Monday with the video of his ex-wife charging that Newt wanted an open marriage.

This is a very disturbing revelation. And unfortunately it does comport somewhat with the image that we have of Gingrich – don’t forget that this is his third marriage and that, as a 19 year old, that he married his 26-year-old former algebra teacher.

But opening the CNN debate, Newt was not taking the charge lying down and was bold by calling the airing of the charge “as close to despicable as anything I can imagine” and (to CNN moderator John King) that “you and your staff chose to start the debate with it” and that “the story is false” and then Newt probably had every Republican in America cheering with “I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans…”

This is the kind of tough language that Republicans are using this year after decades of playing defense against the Media Left. And if Gingrich continues with it, he could very well be the nominee. Because the anti-Obama sentiment is also an anti-media sentiment.

But a denial is not an acquittal. And thus Gingrich now is caught in a “he said, she said” episode and the air may never be clear, allowing the issue to fester. And rest assured that millions of women who might have reluctantly voted Republican are now suspicious of Newt and his third wife whom they now see as a snake. The issue will remain unless the ex-Mrs. Gingrich recants it.

Before the Mrs. Gingrich tape, Newt was shown leading in South Carolina. That is why ABC did not want the tape to come out until Monday – to let Gingrich win on Saturday and then plunge him into controversy and chaos, along with the GOP nomination process.

But Drudge blew the caper wide open on Thursday and so the story is now out. Whether it hurts Newt in South Carolina is to be seen. But the ex-wife’s comments indeed are devastating and they add to Gingrich’s questionable image.

Meanwhile the media attacks on Romney are non-stop – that his success is a bad thing, that he too rich, that he didn’t pay enough in taxes. Expect this to continue. The attacks on senator Santorum have been somewhat muted, but expect them to ramp if Santorum rises again.

What are we to make of all this?

It is just business as usual in the corrupt Media Left. They are using the radical Saul Alinsky playbook – pick your target, isolate the target, destroy the target. Use every dirty trick in the book.

And what does Alinsky recommend that the media do for Obama?

Glorify him. Ignore his gaffes, his mistakes, the terrible economy, his incompetence, his wife’s utter arrogance.

Ultimately, however, the Democrats are desperate. They know the score – that Obama is slipping away and that Americans are angry. And so expect the worst as they seek to keep him in office.

Therefore we conservatives must choose our nominee carefully. Newt has already been hurt by his erratic behavior and his checkered past. This new revelation is going to harm him in a general election if he is the nominee, despite his denial. The anti-Newt ads will be everywhere and his denial will be ignored.

So we conservatives must get beyond Gingrich’s credentials and his intelligence and look at the whole man just as we must do with all the candidates. This election is too crucial for any other approach.

Tebow certainly uplifted millions in his first year in the NFL, but the Christian haters too came out of everywhere. And if their level of prejudice were aimed at, say, a homosexual or a black or an illegal alien, it would be condemned roundly in every media quarter.

Charles Barkley, a former basketball player who is black and who now is a sports commentator on TV said of Tebow, “the national nightmare continues.” This is precisely what you would expect from an uneducated bigot.

Just imagine… Tebow was in the news for, what, two months, and by dint of his Christian faith he is being called every name in the book.

Where is Barkley to denounce the real “national nightmare” of millions of illegitimate and poor children who have been born to runaway fathers in black America, fathers who never will see, support or love those children after they are born? Or where is Barkley to denounce the gambling and womanizing and drug-cheating and other abhorrent behaviors that are rampant in sports?

Nowhere. But one Christian rises up for just sixty days and the haters came out in full force.

And Barkley might do well to study history. It was the mighty force of Christian abolitionists that ended slavery and allowed the Charles Barkleys of America to live in mansions rather than in shacks.

These attacks are scandalous and they expose many in the sports world and in the sports media and in America itself for who they really are – a universe of faith-less materialists who know nothing about the world beyond their basketball courts and their luxury SUVs and their 10-foot televisions and their hideous manors.

Tebow is easily one of the most decent people ever to play pro football. His parents were Christian missionaries and during her pregnancy with Tim, Tebow’s mother faced possible death but did not abort her child. Tim was home-schooled along with his four siblings.

Tim Tebow is a good soul and was never seeking the fortune of his newfound fame. He does not believe what he believes in order to build his “brand”. He simply is an authentic Christian who happens to have played well in his first pro season. And he surely will play well for many more. We pray he will pursue his greatness.

For years Tebow has quietly and humbly given his time to sick kids and to other charities. He is gentle and forgiving. He never has sought attention for his good works or even for his miraculous wins in 2011 like a lot of these media gluttons would. He even says that he is keeping his virginity for his future wife and the mother of his children.

Wow. Good for him. Finally a decent role model for our children to substitute for all the degenerates that Follywood and professional sports have given us over the last few decades.

Look at what Tebow said about a success that most Americans would die for: “Number one, what my mom and dad preached to me as a kid. Just because you may have athletic ability and may be able to play a sport doesn’t make you any more special than anybody else. It doesn’t mean that God loves you more than anybody else. We play a sport, and it’s a game. At the end of the day, that’s all it is, is a game.”

Meanwhile the Christian haters do not even understand the founding of America, that Christianity is the basis for our… and their… freedom and prosperity. Here are some quotes from our Founding Fathers about the necessity for a God-based society.

John Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and the second president of the United States said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration said, “(T)he only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be aid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments. Without religion, I believe that learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind.”

Noah Webster, author of the first dictionary said, “The Christian religion, in its purity, is the basis, or rather the source of all genuine freedom in government. . . . and I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of that religion have not a controlling influence.” John Jay, the first chief justice of the US Supreme Court said, “The Bible is the best of all books, for it is the word of God and teaches us the way to be happy in this world and in the next. Continue therefore to read it and to regulate your life by its precepts.”  George Washington said, “Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society.”

And on and on. So there… Go look up the quotes or read David Barton’s wonderful book, Original Intent – The Courts, the Constitution & Religion.

But the haters are never scholars. They know nothing about history. Most are uneducated like Barkley or have been mis-educated at our universities and have been turned into atheist parrots. Their whole focus in life is on their own material comfort. The Seven Deadly Sins are often their Ten Commandments. The narcissistic, materialistic and God-less society that they have nurtured, and that much of America has become, is a frightening thing to behold.

After a string of victories that brought Tebow to national attention, he lost some games and all the haters immediately shouted in unison, “So where’s your God now, Tebow!?!”

This shows how frantic and emotional the haters are and how little they even understand about our Christian faith. Expecting Tebow to win every game on account of his faith would be like saying that God should have saved Christian America from the civil war and the great depression. This ignores the fact that God does not have control over man and his sinful and imperfect world.

The haters do not understand that our temporal world is separate from God and is full of sin, hatred and anger. That Christians are not immune to the wrath of man or of mother nature or of circumstance. Or of losing a football game. Because if Tim Tebow won every game, he would be God. And that is not possible.

The haters do not understand that loving God is a long-term proposition for the strong of heart and mind, people who believe that man can be better only by first sensing the presence of a perfect Supreme Being and then seeking to please His perfection or even emulate it.

And the haters do not understand that faith is a matter of, well, faith – that we Christians do not claim that God is something like the “settled science” that Al Gore foolishly claims about his ‘religion’ which is pagan environmentalism.

No, faith in God does not allow us to magically transcend or bypass the failures and vicissitudes of mankind. Just look at Tim Tebow’s Job-like rout at the hands of the New England Patriots when maximum media focus was on him.

Indeed faith in a loving Christian God is an ongoing process and can only uplift man when more and more of the world’s people recognize man as hopeless and faith in God as the only alternative to a barren and meaningless existence.

Faith in a perfect God is a partnership of as many of the faithful as we can muster. But once the faithful fall below a certain percentage of the population – into the despicable Charles Barkley category – then society will pay a huge price. In fact we already have.

But over the long run we know that Tim Tebow and people like him will turn that around. May he play for many, many years. He had a great start.

Here is a summary of the exchange between journalist Juan Williams, who is black, and Gingrich:

After Gingrich said recently that millions of poor black children have no good role models, the American Race Machine (black America, Democrats, the Media Left, Sharpton etc.) took umbrage.

Yet Newt was right. What are the role models in much of black America today?

Answer: Nobody. Nothing. The role models are often drug dealers, poor single mothers, runaway fathers, criminals, thieves and thugs.

But in the American Race Machine tradition, in which every single issue is seen through the prism of a deprived, discriminated-against black America, Williams went on the attack saying to Newt: “Can’t you see this is viewed, at a minimum, as insulting to all Americans, but as particularly to black Americans?”

Williams said this because most of black America – the 95% that votes Democrat and that is turning the Democrat party into a black party – cannot stop talking about race, no matter the reality. Did you ever notice how many black media figures talk only about one thing when they get on TV, the radio, the internet etc. – about being black and about black issues? Just watch the next interview or commentary that you see.

Which is why so much of black America is in the sad state that it is in. Because if you cannot stop talking about your grievances or your failures or yourself long enough to look outside yourself and to seek to better yourself, then you are going to stay angry and poor like so much of black America.

“No, I don’t see that,” Gingrich said to Williams about his comment being insulting.

Good for Gingrich. This is the type of courageous language that we conservatives need to speak every day. Because we are fed up seeing our tax dollars going down the racial drain and seeing nothing in return.

“Only the elites despise earning money,” said Gingrich, referring to the political elite of the Democrat party which seeks to keep black Americans dependent on the government dole rather than working to make themselves self-reliant.

Williams replied: “My Twitter account has been inundated with people of all races asking if your comments are not intended to belittle (the poor and racial minorities)…”

Why did his Twitter account explode? And why did the Republican debate audience boo Williams for this comment?

Because tens of millions of Americans on both political sides see much of black America as incompetent and incapable, but for opposite reasons. Democrats are exploiting black failure to keep blacks down and under their control. Many white Americans and conservatives, on the other hand, see this Democrat ploy and are angered by it. And they are angry at black Americans not for who they are, but for who the Democrat party has turned them into.

Williams then said that when Gingrich calls Obama a “food stamp president” that it is an unfavorable racial stereotype. This is an example of another black media figure obsessively making every sentence and thought into a racial issue.

But to audience cheers and applause Gingrich replied: “First of all, Juan, the fact is that more people have been put on food stamps under Barack Obama than any other president in history.”

Gingrich then said that he believes Americans have a right to “pursue happiness” and “…I will continue to find ways to help poor people find a job, get a job, and learn someday to own the job.”

This is conservative individualism writ large, but it is frightening language to Democrats. Because they want blacks dependent and kept under the Democrats’ thumb with their government handouts being perceived as the only route out of subsistence poverty.

But black America is never going to turn around until fundamental changes are made in the way blacks live their lives and perceive themselves negatively under the iron hand of the Democrat party.

The Media Left were unrelenting on Gingrich. NPR also reported on its website that ‘the shorthand former House Speaker Newt Gingrich uses, calling the nation’s first black president the “food stamp president,” is raising questions.’

In other words, NPR is using the American Race Machine playbook, saying that whenever anyone raises a legitimate challenge to the Democrats’ control of black America or to failed Democrat policies that it is “shorthand” or “code language” or “racist”. And we conservatives are all supposed to run away in fear of any debate.

But those days of running away are over. And this is why the Democrats are terrified of someone like Gingrich.  Because he is saying aloud what millions of white Americans have been saying behind closed doors for decades, including many liberals, rest assured.

Look at how NPR summarized Gingrich’s statement:

‘South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn, who is black, says it is no longer the “welfare queen,” a line oft-touted by Ronald Reagan, but “king of the food stamps.”… “I guess a lot of people see it as, if Ronald Reagan can do it and be so lionized by conservatives, then I ought to be able to do it,” says Clyburn, the third ranking Democrat in the House. Clyburn says it’s an old strategy: candidates using race as a wedge to get votes.’

Oh, really?! Using racial issues as a wedge to divide the nation?! Because that is precisely what the Democrats have done for decades. That in fact is how Obama won the presidency. America was essentially dared not to vote for its First Black President despite his inexperience and his questionable past.

And look at what else Clyburn said: “That is something they have been told will work to connect the president as being a black-oriented president, taking away from somebody else to give to black people.”

Yes. Precisely, congressman Clyburn, you are the first Democrat in 50 years to actually admit the problem. This is exactly what tens of millions of hard-working, taxpaying white people think, that the Democrats indeed are taking away their wealth and giving it to black people and creating a slothful, dependent culture that votes Democrat in return.

Meanwhile we conservatives have been saying for 50 years that this relentless redistribution is not only wrong and counterproductive but that there is a solution and that is to fundamentally alter the culture of black America – stigmatize illegitimacy, support marriage, open the churches, open charter schools, shutter the failed public schools, promote civility, encourage a work ethic, encourage cooperation with police, stop the violent rap music, change the outlook to one of optimism and stop looking down your Democrat noses at black Americans and allow them to care for themselves. Because indeed they can if only the Democrats will allow them to.

But Democrats will never let go of black America. Because the worse off black America is, the more Democrats benefit by appearing like the savior.

Look at what else NPR sneaked into its story (note statement italicized for emphasis):

 ‘That depends on the perception that African-Americans benefit disproportionately from the food stamp program, even though blacks are not the majority of food stamp recipients.’

This is another media subterfuge. Because blacks are not technically ‘the majority of food stamp recipients’ because blacks are only 12% of the population. But blacks have the highest RATE of food stamp dependency by far. Which is not significant to the Media Left when they can skew the argument with journalistic sleights of hand.