Bill to Abolish Corporate Income Tax, Create Jobs

by Bob Ward

Sept. 14, 2011 – U.S. Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-TX) has introduced legislation, his version of an "American Jobs Act of 2011," preempting the title that dithering President Obama wanted used for the tax-and-spend-to-create measure he had in mind.  Alternately, Gohmert's version of the Act would abolish the corporate income tax.  The very conservative East Texas Congressman asserts that the measure will create jobs in the U.S. as well as increasing revenue to the government.  “America,” Gohmert said, “would instantly become a safe haven for businesses resulting in an explosion in revenue increases.” Currently, he noted, American manufacturing jobs are moving overseas where the business climate is more favorable.

Gohmert correctly pointed out that corporate taxes are “paid for by people in the form of lower wages to American workers and less money paid out in dividends in everything from 401K retirement accounts and to those who would risk their capital in business ventures. This type of capital investment is where jobs come from.”

The corporate income tax is also unfair because it double-taxes money earned by the business.  An income tax is levied on money earned by the corporation and that same money is taxed again when it is distributed to the corporation's owners -- the shareholders -- in the form of dividends which are regarded as personal income. It is comparable to a worker's wages being taxed when he earns them, at the end of each working day, and again when he collects them on payday.

Some politicians want the public to believe that the corporate income tax reduces the tax burden of individual  taxpayers.  But savvy taxpayers know that corporate taxes make tax collectors, not taxpayers, out of corporations. The corporation's tax bill is converted into higher prices for its customers, lower pay for its employees, fewer jobs for the community and lower dividends for its stockholders.

The impracticality of the corporate income tax is especially salient at the present time when government is supposedly doing all it can to reduce unemployment.  Billions have been appropriated to create makework jobs which merely shift work from the private to the public sector.  It would be preferable to remove the obstacles to expansion and investment so that Americans can return to real jobs that produce goods and services.  A drastic reduction in the corporate income tax would help achieve this.  Gohmert's bill abolishing the tax is even better.

While politicians may find it useful to cultivate the myth that "the little guy” is helped by socking it to "big business," it just isn't so and Rep. Gohmert is a politician with the wit and courage to say so.

Corporate Income Tax Unfair, Impractical

by Bob Ward

As Congress takes up the President’s plan to revive the economy, it would be an opportune time to review an inequitable and impractical feature of our Federal tax system - the corporate income tax.

Currently, an income tax is levied on money earned by the corporation.  That money is taxed again when it is distributed to the corporation's owners -- the shareholders -- in the form of dividends which are regarded as personal income.  It is comparable to a worker's wages being taxed when he earns them, at the end of each working day, and again when he collects them on payday.

Too many politicians want the public to believe that the corporate income tax reduces the tax burden of individual taxpayers.  But savvy taxpayers know that corporate taxes make tax collectors, not tax payers, out of corporations.  A corporation does not produce money out of thin air with which to pay its taxes.  A corporation's tax bill is converted into higher prices for its customers, lower pay for its employees, fewer jobs for the community and lower dividends for its stockholders.

The impracticality of the corporate income tax is especially salient at the present time when government is supposedly doing all it can to reduce unemployment.  Billions have been appropriated to create makework jobs which merely shifts work from the private to the public sector.  It would be preferable to remove the obstacles to expansion and investment so that Americans can return to real jobs that produce goods and services.  A drastic reduction in the corporate income tax would help achieve this.  Its abolition would be even better.

While politicians may find it useful to cultivate the myth that "the little guy” is helped by socking it to "big business," it just isn't so and we need politicians with the wit and courage to say so.

Congress should take this opportunity to encourage capital formation and make it easier for business to expand and hire workers.

DEFAULT, A RED HERRING

-By Bob Ward

From the beginning of the debate over raising the debt limit, Democrats and the media have been warning us that not raising the limit means the U.S. defaults on its debt for the first time in our history. With few exceptions, the Republicans have failed to refute this claim.

In recent days, Obama has upped the ante by suggesting that there may not be enough money to make Social Security payments if the limit is not raised. The claim is not believable on its face. The President does not have to cut off payments to the elderly and the disabled. He would only do it if he hopes to blame the cut-off on the Republicans. With the help of the media it is entirely possible he could pull it off.

Terence P. Jeffrey, writing for CNSNews, reports that according to the Treasury Dept, since Federal borrowing reached the legal limit on May 16, tax revenue will more than cover the cost of interest payments, Medicare,Medicaid, Social Security, the Veterans Affairs department and federal workers wages and insurance benefits including wages and insurance benefits for military personnel.

Jeffrey notes that between May 16 and July 7, the Federal government took in a total of $296.176 billion in new tax revenue. In that same time period, total interest payments on the national debt equaled $14.632 billion. So the Federal government took in enough money between May 16 and July 7 to pay the interest on the debt 20 times over.

The combined expenditures for interest payments, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the Veterans Affairs Department and Federal workers wages and insurance benefits equaled $270.151 billion. So government would have met all those expenses, paid the interest on the debt and still have $26.025 billion left over. By claiming that the government may lack the funds to pay Social Security recipients Obama is making Bill Clinton look like Honest Abe. If the government fails to send out Social Security checks it will be because Obama wants it that way for political, not economic, reasons.

If there really was a money squeeze he could take a bite out of the Education Dept, or, better yet, ask Congress to abolish it. Every state in the union operates a public school system. The Federal department is an expensive redundancy.

Or he could agree to shut down the Public Broadcasting System. There are hundreds of TV channels available on cable so there is no need for this unconstitutional haven for artists who couldn’t cut it in the private sector. And National Public Radio could go too. Americans should get their news from real journalists, not from government flaks masquerading as reporters.

Also a suitable target for abolition is the National Endowment for the Arts. Before the government was in the business of supporting art, we got composers like George Gershwin, Aaron Copeland, Rodgers & Hart, and Cole Porter, playwrights Eugene O’Neill, Tennessee Williams, Arthur Miller, novelists Mark Twain, Sinclair Lewis and Theodore Dreiser. With government money we get a photograph of a crucifix dipped in urine.

And if things really got desperate he could stop funding Planned Parenthood’s abortion mills or even cut off Obama's pals at ACORN. Imagine that!

TAX CUTS HELP DEFICITS, JOBS

By Bob Ward

(updated 12/07/2010)

Even though President Obama has agreed to extending the Bush tax cuts for all income levels of taxpayers in return for GOP concessions on unemployment benefits, some Congressional Democrats are still opposed claiming the tax cuts will add to the deficit by reducing Federal revenues. It’s anybody’s guess whether they are lying or just ignorant of the historical record which shows that just the opposite is true: lower taxes produce greater revenue for the Federal government, not less.

The Bush tax cuts did not diverge from this record. In July, 2006, Michael Franc of The Heritage Foundation reported that Federal revenues rose by $206 billion (13 per cent) during the first nine months of the fiscal year when he was writing. That increase followed that previous year's “record surge in revenues,” when Federal revenue grew by $274 billion (15 per cent). These increases following the Bush tax cuts allowed the White House to lower its projected budget deficit by more than $100 billion.

Franc noted that in the two years before the Bush tax cuts U.S. economic growth averaged about one per cent and unemployment was at six per cent. After the tax cuts, he said, economic growth averaged four per cent for three years and the unemployment rate dropped to an “historic low” of 4.6 per cent.

Economist Daniel Mitchell was not surprised by these results. “Lower taxes,” he said, “leads to more work, saving and investment. It's not exactly rocket science."

The experience with the Bush tax cuts was not unique. A similar result occurred when Ronald Reagan cut taxes. The Heritage Foundation notes that annual revenues over the next decade averaged $102 billion above their 1980 level. Total tax revenues for the decade rose by 99.4 per cent, just short of double. Heritage also noted that Federal revenues had been dropping in the years just prior to Reagan’s tax cut.

Once upon a time even Democrats understood economics. President Jack Kennedy observed: “Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that . . . an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits... In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.”

Kennedy’s solution to low tax revenues was to reduce the top tax rate (the one paid by Barack Obama’s hated millionaires) from more than 90 per cent down to 70 per cent. As a result, tax revenues went from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 per cent.

Kennedy, Reagan and Bush just retold an old story. Way back in the 1920s tax rates were slashed from over 70 per cent to less than 25 per cent. And revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.

Andrew Mellon, Treasury Secretary during the 1920s, had figured out that when taxes are too high, people just don’t pay them. Wealthy taxpayers, the target of the high marginal rates, simply withdraw their money from productive business and invest instead in tax-exempt securities or other lawful methods of avoiding having their income taxed. The result, Mellon observed, is that capital is diverted into channels “which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people.”

Democrats have to choose. Do they want a tax policy that increases revenue and creates jobs, or do they want to indulge in class-warfare by opposing any tax cuts that might benefit a wealthy person.

Mark Strama's Uncle T - How the Elected Class Stays in Power

Just for the record, I am pro tort reform and very thankful that Texas leads the Nation in the important area of tort reform. I do, however take issue with the methods of single issue focused Texans for Lawsuit Reform (TLR) PAC which perpetuates bad incumbent lawmakers on the sole basis that they support TLR’s legislative agenda. In other words, groups like TLR perpetuate the problem that the TEA Party movement has recently--and Republican Assemblies have for many years--risen up to remedy.

I’m happy that Dan Neil and Paul Workman are getting matching funds from Conservative Republicans of Texas. However, it is my understanding that TLR has threatened to match dollar for dollar, in contributions to Patrick Rose and Mark Strama, any contributions to Jason Isaac and Patrick McGuinness, respectively from Conservative Republicans of Texas (CRT) and other PACs, hence no such matching funds to Patrick or Jason from CRT.

I’ve exposed Rose’s connections to powerful interests previously. But since I looked it up I might as well mention that TLR has funneled contributions to Patrick Rose to the tune of $18,493.30 (including in-kind contributions to The Committee To Elect Patrick Rose) since October 2009, $10,000 of which has been contributed since May 2010.

Now, turning my attention to Mark Strama.

Note firstly that Richard Trabulsi, Jr. is president of Texans for Lawsuit Reform and chairman of its political action committee (TLR PAC). In that capacity he has funneled “other people’s money” to both Patrick Rose and Mark Strama for their support of TLR’s agenda, even though on most all other issues they are in lock step with liberal Democrats seeing as how they are liberal Democrats, very liberal.

In the case of Thomas Mark “Obama” Strama, Mr. Trabulsi is his uncle. It must be nice to have an uncle who can funnel other peoples money ($15,000 since November 2009, $10,000 of which has been contributed since May 2010) to your campaign in exchange for a few token votes for TLR on its issues.

Also, I note that Mark Strama’s brother (and thus also Trabulsi’s nephew), Keith Strama is a lobbyist and just look who one of his clients is:

Texans for Lawsuit Reform
919 Congress Avenue, Suite #455, Austin, TX 78701
Type of Compensation: Prospective
$25,000 - $49,999.99
Client Start Date: 01/12/2010
Client Term Date: 12/31/2010

Now if that doesn’t smack of...

As for Strama’s Obama loving credentials, note the excerpt below about the split between Aunt Judy Trabulsi (Richard Trabulsi’s sister) and Nephew Mark (especially the red letter text):

....
Trabulsi, who noted she made her first political contribution — $30 — to Bill Clinton's race for Arkansas attorney general in 1976, has since given more than $18,000 to Hillary Clinton's campaigns since 1999, including $4,200 for her current presidential bid.
....
Generational split
Not everyone is convinced that Hillary Clinton's longtime ties in the state will tip the election in her favor.

Matt Glazer, the editor of the Burnt Orange Report, a liberal blog based in Austin that endorsed Obama, said the question is whether traditional Democratic organization will prevail or whether the primary will be decided by the first-time voters who are drawn to the Illinois senator.

"Is it the new young hip or the usual thing?" said Glazer, a native of Spring. He noted that one of the contributors to his blog is David Mauro, Garry Mauro's son.

One sign of generational differences is that Trabulsi's nephew Mark Strama, a 40-year-old state legislator from Austin, has endorsed Obama.

"Obviously, it was a hard conversation when I told my aunt a year ago I was going to support Obama," said Strama, noting his aunt was "horrified."

"For people in my generation, who didn't get to experience the JFK and RFK candidacies, this is our first chance we have had to be inspired," Strama said.

Source: Clinton's not alone in the Lone Star State: Despite 36-year network, a victory isn't guaranteed

Politics as usual must stop. November is coming! May the conservatives smash their opposition on election day.

(The source of all the PAC contributions and lobbyist information given above is the Texas Ethics Commission website.)

Obama and Clinton Prepare for State Visit From China's Hu

Recently, the Obama Administration announced that it was freezing arm sales to Taiwan out of fears that those weapons, outdated though they might be, may end up in Communist Chinese hands. This concern reportedly stems from from the recent environment of cooperation between Beijing and the Ma Ying-jeou government in Taipei, cooperation that US State Department policy has actually encouraged. A recent private conversation between President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton that was somehow captured on video has been made public and it shows the real reason for the freeze on defensive weapon sales to long time ally, Taiwan, weapons authorized if not mandated by the Taiwan Relations Act.

WARNING: Since this was a private conversation you may find some language used by President Obama shocking/offensive.

IT DOESN’T MATTER WHERE HE WAS BORN

By Jack M. Pinscher

Some Americans are convinced that President Obama is not an American and are trying hard to prove he was not born in the U.S.A. but rather in Kenya or some other alien locale. They can relax. It doesn’t matter.

It would make no difference if Obama were born in Mayberry right down the street from Sheriff Andy. He is not an American and it is not because of where he was born. It is because he does not consider himself an American and has no loyalty to this country and what it stands for.

The recent flap over Joe Barton and his apology to BP are an example. It is an American maxim that everybody is entitled to his day in court and that the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Nobody has to prove he is innocent. But Obama, in that lame speech about the oil spill, simply stated as a fact that BP was “reckless” and that he was going to extract at least $20 billion from the company and put it into an escrow fund to compensate persons injured by the spill.

This was contrary to the principle of separation of powers which is a key factor distinguishing the American form of government from that of its European predecessors. It is also contrary to the explicit language of the Constitution which states that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” That means BP’s alleged recklessness must be proven in court and if it is, the court will determine the remedy. Barack’s action was more kingly than American.

By the way, Joe Barton was right the first time. It was a shakedown and the GOP leadership that jumped all over Barton needs to grow a pair and stand up for the Constitution.

Another uniquely American ideal is the belief, spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, that “governments are instituted among men” in order to secure our rights. This was a reversal of the old European notion that kings ruled by “divine right” making governments the agents of God. In America, the government was made the agent of the people.

A mid-June Rasmussen poll reveals that almost half of Americans (48 per cent to be exact) believe that principle has been abandoned and that government has become a threat to our rights. Only 37 per cent believe the government is performing the job for which it was created – protecting our rights.

Which brings us to another hallowed principle underlying the American form of government – the belief – also set down in the Declaration of Independence – that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Only 21 per cent of Americans, according to the Rasmussen survey, believe that today the government has the consent of the governed.

Would a true American, elected to the presidency, choose for a science advisor a man who believes the government has the right to introduce sterilizing chemicals into the nation’s drinking water in order to limit population growth? Science advisor John Holdren set out his views on population control in a book he co-authored with population fanatic Paul Ehrlich who predicted in 1968 that the human race wouldn’t make it through the 1970s because of population pressures.

And Holdren doesn’t confine himself to the U.S. government determining how many children we should be allowed to have. He believes that chore should ideally be turned over to a “Planetary Regime.” This Planetary Regime, he suggests, could determine the “optimum population” for the world and decide each country's share of population.

And the Regime’s authority shouldn’t stop at population control. Such an international, body, he proposes, "could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable.”

Does that sound like someone an American president would turn to for advice on science issues?

It’s pretty clear that Obama, regardless of where he was born, does not identify with this country, its history, its fundamental values. In fact, the waves of immigrants who came to America in the 19th century, although born in places like Italy, Ireland, Poland and Russia, were more committed to American values than the interloper who now presumes to govern this country.

The most important thing we can do now is work to elect an American to the White House in 2012.

Obama's Four Vicious Lies

This video was shot at the Recess Rally in downtown Austin on Saturday, August 22, 2009.

NewsBusted Video - August 4, 2009

Media Research Center's NewsBusted Video makes you laugh about some things worth crying over.

Health Care Rhetoric Check

From our friends at National Taxpayer Union, a quick break down of the actual language in the health care bill versus the Democrat rhetoric coming out of Washington.

Obama's Tax Hike Will Move Tech Jobs Offshore

Obama's Tax Hikes Would Move Microsoft Jobs Offshore, says Microsoft head Steve Ballmer.

Meanwhile, while Obama conducts apology tours overseas, the job picture continues to implode, and the high rate of unemployment is blowing through pre-Stimulus package projections and proving that the Stimulus Bill Does Not work:


UPDATE: Unemployment hits 9.4% ... the 'stimulus' gap widens. We are now officially worse off than without the stimulus ... Huh.

Diversity Doctrine in media a Trifecta of Evil

Seton Motley eviscerates the 'diversity' Doctrine, media censorship with a race-based twist:

The proponents of station owner affirmative action are the same Leftists who were so ardently in favor of reinstating the Doctrine. One can thusly be forgiven for seeing this as an alternative route for the Left to reach their long-sought original destination - the silencing of conservative and Christian talk radio via governmental regulatory fiat.

Using 'diversity' as an excuse for race-based decisions is implicit racism. It's racial identity politics of the worst sort, based on the false premise that race is what makes us different. (Silly MLK Jr, thinking it was all about "content of our character.") Isn't it racism if a Governor fires an employee of one race just so he can hire an employee of another race? Is it not racial discrimination to hand out broadcast licenses on the same basis?

Racial discrimination is wrong, censorship is wrong, and abusing power to corruptly use it to help political allies and punish adversaries is wrong. That makes the 'diversity' Doctrine a Trifecta of left-liberal evil.

How Would a Patriot Act?

I am thinking of writing a book about how a patriot could respond to the Obama administration. Think of it as Tea Partier's Guidebook to defending American liberty from a rapacious President and his leftist minions. In fact this title - "How Would a Patriot Act? Defending American Values from a President Run Amok" - would be a great title. It's a pity a leftist already used it in the Bush era.

But it got me thinking. There were so many anti-Bush books written whose titles could be renewed as critiques of the new administration... it could make it really easy to get those titles worked out. Here's are some of those Bush-era book titles and updated themes:

The Cheating Culture - a book about ACORN and how Democrats steal elections.
Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them - A book about new Senator and foul-mouthed dirtbag Al Franken
Tempting Faith - A book about how a President lies to religious voters would be well worth writing on Obama's "We are not a Christian nation" watch. He spent 20 years in Rev Wright's church, called him a mentor, and now in DC hasn't had much hankering for Sunday sermons. Hmmm.
Had Enough? - 100 days, yep, I've had enough, Mr Carville.
The Truth With Jokes - This was an unfunny Al Franken book, maybe we could do better with Dennis Miller writing it.
Big Lies - Liberals call conservatives liars for the crime of not agreeing with the liberal's opinions; we could do better. Just a book about Obama's campaign lies and broken promises so far, combined with the lynig media covering his tracks would fill a book.
Thieves In High Places - original was by Jim Hightower, surely a great title for the great TARP and Porkulus Robbery of 2008-2009
Is That a Politician in Your Pocket - Soros, Obama, Rezko, Blago, Spitzer, etc. The possibilities are endless.
The Great Unraveling - A critique of the arrogance of an administration that is destroying the Constitution and our economy. Let the iconoclastic Peter Schiff, an anti-Krugman-type realist who has railed against bailouts and Govt debt spending, pen it.
The Conservative Soul - Andrew Sullivan caught BDS in 2004 due to his gay marriage desires overwhelming his senses, and he created an anti-Bush screed in 2006 with an unlikely title; if he's true to fiscal conservative claims, his weak excuse for clinging to the conservative banner, he'd update it for the disaster that is the Obama administration. I'm not holding my breath.

Oh, and so many slogans too: "Obama lied. Jobs died." (Lied about the impact of the Stimulus bill. The Stimulus bill was supposed to keep unemployment under 8%. It failed.)

A Cool Rant

I saw on Yahoo, NBC, MSN, ABC,etc. that Obama is “Mr. Cool” and is undoubtedly the finest President this lucky Nation has ever had, and that so far everything he has done has been unbelievably cool and successful.

Seeing this got my dander up. What is so great about 'cool' and what the heck does it mean and why is it considered 'good'?

And IBM ad has a middle-aged manager go off on how "I hate cool. Cool costs money."

I've got to agree. Fact is: Cool bites. I'd say "Cool sucks" but 4-letter word usage is one of those 'cool' things that is precisely what is wrong with 'cool'.

Cool is paying full price instead of shopping smart.

Cool is all sizzle and no steak.

Cool is what made you puke your guts out at 18 when you took more liquor than you could handle.

Cool is an excess of beauty encasing a deficiency of brains.

Cool is that dumbass tattoo you cant get rid of.

Cool is being the grasshopper instead of the ant.

Cool is piercing metal in unnatural and unhealthy places so you cant eat or talk properly.

Yesterday’s Cool is a bunch of clothes in your closet you wouldnt dream of wearing now.

Cool gets your daughter knocked up, your son in jail and your marriage in trouble.

Cool is what you do that later makes you say "What was I thinking?"

Cool is paying luxury car price for a vehicle that’s smaller than a sub-compact ... and still cant go any faster than the rest of the backed-up traffic on the road.

Cool is voting for the pied piper of kleptocratic despotism and thinking it was going to be unicorns and pixie dust all around.

Cool is Stupid’s younger brother, and just looks more adorable because he hasnt been whacked in the head by a 2 by 4 like Stupid has .... yet. Give it time and Cool becomes Stupid.

Yeah, I can believe Obama is “Cool”.

Obama at 100 days

Obama's 100 days, 100 mistakes.

Brit asks, why does Obama hate America?

A Brit questions Obama's patriotism, asking "why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly?"

Never in the history of the United States has a president worked so actively against the interests of his own people - not even Jimmy Carter.

Obama's problem is that he does not know who the enemy is. To him, the enemy does not squat in caves in Waziristan, clutching automatic weapons and reciting the more militant verses from the Koran: instead, it sits around at tea parties in Kentucky quoting from the US Constitution. Obama is not at war with terrorists, but with his Republican fellow citizens. He has never abandoned the campaign trail.

Brit wit.

But what's better is this comment - Obama is the Critical Theory President, Anarchist-in-chief, sowing chaos at many levels. (If you don't under stand this comment, read the prior article on political correctness):

Obama is a calculating anarchist.

Look, the man launches a new salvo against the US Constitution and capitalism every day. Perhaps he does not hate America....but it is clear he hates the governmental and financial infrastructure that propelled the US to both liberty and prosperity. At the same time, he revels in the confiscated fruit of others labor. The congnitive dissonance is stunning.

My sense is that Obama-the-Anarchist is intent on leveling the outcome of capitalism....in some Alice-in-Wonderland stride toward "fairness" within the US and across the globe. To achieve this "fairness", Obama must break down the current infrastructure as fast as possible....which he is doing.

All that said, Obama-the-Anarchist is not doing this independently. In fact, he has a willing co-conspirator in the body of Congress. Let me be clear, the checks-and-balances that are supposed to prevent political anarchy in the US have been coopted. Add an activist judiciary and the result may very well be impossible to reverse within a generation even with all due haste.

Before Obama, I scoffed at the hyper-cynical notion that Democrats would intentionally buy gargantuan blocks of votes using public treasure. I no longer hold this notion as cynical. In fact, it is true of both Democrats and Republicans with some exceptions: within the Republican body politic, some conservatives remain and more might well be born-again.

I'll close with this: for the forseeable future, the US will not be assuming the patriarchial role of our recent past. That may win some smiles....from those that cannot see past the first consequence and from others that have failed to account for American generosity in all its forms.

Obama endagers National Security with memo release

Americans believe Obama’s release of CIA memos endangers national security. The 58% majority is right. Obama, for purely political benefit purposes, released partial memos exposing the interrogation tactics used against Al Qaeda detainees. The consequence is to harm and limit our porsecution of the war on terror (a phrase President Obama will not use).

Obama’s Interrogation Mess exists because Obama wanted it both ways:

In his solipsism, the president failed to foresee that the “torture” memos — memos that, as Rich Lowry shows, in fact document an assiduous effort to avoid torture — would not support his overblown rhetoric or substantiate the allegations of misconduct raised by politicized leaks from the International Committee of the Red Cross. Critics were not cowed. That, combined with Obama’s disingenuous strategy of exposing our tactics while suppressing the trove of intelligence they produced, ensured that the Right would push back aggressively.

A Frontpage article, Prosecuting Bush shows how, sadly, we are unlearning lessons that were paid for in blood already:

We have seen this before, on the frontlines of the War on Terror and in its bureaucratic boardrooms. In Party of Defeat, David Horowitz and I recount the story of Navy SEAL Marc Luttrell, who with his fellow SEALS spared a group of “goat-herders” who spotted them on a covert mission in Afghanistan. The patriots considered shooting the spies but desisted, knowing the fire they would come under for “murdering” innocent civilians – including some teenagers. Within an hour of their hesitation, al-Qaeda terrorists killed 19 SEALs. Luttrell reflected he and his men were “tortured, shot, blown up, my best buddies all dead, and all because we were afraid of the liberals back home, afraid to do what was necessary to save our own lives.” (Emphasis added.) John Murtha and John Kerry’s hyperbolic rhetoric was paid for in American blood.

The Obama decision has impact for legal advisers, as well. On August 28, 2001, the FBI’s National Security Law Unit (NSLU) denied Minneapolis FBI agent Harry Samit the right to search the laptop of Zacarias Moussaoui, the 20^th hijacker. Samit sent 70 e-mails requesting permission to search the computer, which he learned too late contained the plans for 9/11, pleading once he was “so desperate to get into Moussaoui's computer I'll take anything.” But the NSLU denied requests from Samit and his superior, Coleen Rowley, on grounds stricter than those required by the law. The caution about overstepping bureaucratic bounds engendered during the Clinton administration, the fear of professional retribution, caused them to build a fence around the law big enough to hide al-Qaeda’s sleeper cells.

This was the path to 9/11 – it is and the path back.

The Obama administration, desperate to do the bidding of the anti-Bush-deranged Left, want to go after Bush administration GWOT decision-makers who acted in good faith to wage war against Al Qaeda. The consequence of this persecution will be a return to cautious legalistic approaches that the 9/11 commission exposed as feeble and incapable of stopping terrorists. The terrorists win. America loses.

UPDATE: Liz Cheney (VP Cheney's daughter) does a great job defending Bush administration on interrogation tactics.

Man of Steele Calls on Obama to withdraw Sebelius nomination

After GOP Senators delay vote to confim Governor Kathleen Sebelius to be HHS Secretary, and on the same day Governor Sebelius vetoed another late-term abortion bill, GOP Chairman Steele Calls on Obama to Withdraw Sebelius Nomination:

"She [Sebelius] admitted the full extent of the political contributions she received from Dr. Tiller only after press reports contradicted her previous financial statements," Steele pointed out. The GOP Chairman also challenged Sebelius to publicly reveal her position on "the extremist and heinous practice of late-term abortions."

Bravo to Chairman Steele. The Republicans are getting spine and a voice. I am going to call him "Man of Steele" if he keeps up hammering away like this.

More stories on the Sebelius nomination and her underreporting of financial support from abortionists:

Letter Reveals another $200,000 Donation from Notorious Abortionist Tiller to Help Elect Sebelius
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/apr/09041611.html

Sebelius Caught Underreporting Campaign Contributions from Notorious Abortionist: HHS Nomination May be in Jeopardy
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/apr/09041417.html

Senate Committee Silent on Sebelius Abortion Ties as Full Senate Vote is Delayed
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/apr/09040313.html

Happy Industrial Revolution Day

Obama celebrated Industrial Revolution Day by visiting a manufacturing plant - a 'model factory' for the Brave New Green World.

I celebrated by driving my car, and looking at some manufacturing data at work.

I hope your Industrial Revolution Day was as productive.

Obama's Stimulus Plan of Salvation

When I posted to Facebook the excerpts below, taken from the February 7th Epoch Times story, Obama Greets U.S. Stimulus Deal, Pounds Critics, along with my response, I was unaware of Obama's February 5th Washington Post editorial, The Action Americans Need. After reading Obama's editorial, I think I was really soft on him. We are in a real mess with this Administration's delusions of grandeur.

Excerpt:

"We can't expect relief from the tired old theories that, in eight short years, doubled the national debt, threw our economy into a tailspin, and led us into this mess in the first place," Obama said.

"We can't rely on a losing formula that offers only tax cuts as the answer to all our problems while ignoring our fundamental economic challenges."

Response:

So, what can we rely on to boost our economy, President Obama? HOPE? Hope that paying off the basest of your political base, handing our condoms, and expanding the killing of the unborn, will CUT COSTS and create jobs? CHANGE? Expecting that you changing back to Clinton administration faces, with special emphasis on tax evaders, will be the salvation of our economy.

Mr. President, Jesus Christ has redemptive power. I know Jesus Christ. I regret that I need to say this, but you're no Jesus Christ. Please repent, and propose a real stimulus plan, hold the condiments and the bacon, and hold out for real bi-partisan support.