Harry Reid, the disastrous senator from Nevada whose democratically controlled senate is incapable of passing a budget is doing everything possible to make sure Americans will pay higher taxes. The so-called Bush tax cuts are set to expire this year, and unless Republicans bend to the will of the dems, all our taxes will rise. Of course, if the Republicans do wilt, our taxes will go up anyway.

Congress is facing a year-end intersection of the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts, the $1.2 trillion spending cuts due to the sequester, and expiring payroll tax breaks, meaning that if Congress and the president do not act, American taxpayers could be faced with $310 billion in tax increases next year.

Which is exactly what Reid wants. All he has to do is nothing, and the American taxpayer gets belted with new taxes. What Reid proposes is to raise taxes on the so-called wealthy, those making more than $250,000 a year (sound familiar), ignore exploding Medicare costs until Obamacare gets it hands on it, and try to silence the citizens of this country, which he refers to as the tea party. Those are concerned citizens, but Democrats and RINO’s alike freely bash those that commit to eternal vigilance and dare to question and expose those in the Washington beltway.

I can see what Reid is doing because it’s already happening in California. Tax the job creators and there are ultimately less jobs. Less jobs means more people on the public dole. More people on the public dole means more taxes to take care of the folks that can’t find work anymore. The only logical conclusion to this cycle is to eventually tax everyone at 100 percent and have the goverment redistribute as they see fit. That’s not rhetoric, that is actually occurring as we speak in California. Eventually folks stop producing because they’ll get a government stipend regardless of what they do and the whole thing collapses. Don’t believe it? Look at Europe. They’re trucking in Muslims by the millions in an effort to get somebody-andybody to work in order to prop up the cradle to grave nanny state. We see it in action, and if Harry Reid just does nothing, America will take one more step towards oblivion. Of course, oblivion to some is social justice to others. To Reid it looks like a little SJ, and alot of power and control.

No, life ain’t fair. If I performed my job as badly as Harry Reid, I would be like one of the citizens of Nevada: Unemployed. He on the other hand, ends up as senate majority leader.

I’m starting to think that Mark Levin’s statement was a little more than tongue in cheek: Liberalism is a disease. They have to know their scheme is doomed to failure and will end up harming those they claim to care about the most. They must know that. Harry Reid will not compromise at all, even as he watches his own state go into the ditch. If he had his full mental capacities, he would see that his way is the road to perdition. He clearly does not though, and in his position, he has the power to inflict his mental incompetence on the rest of us.

When Barry decreed that insurance companies-and hospitals that administer the services thereof would have to provide free birth control by way of Obamacare, conservative pundits were up in arms. Not necessarily rank and file conservatives, but the ones making the most noise. Not only were they upset that an unnecessary-and even a non-medical service was being dictated by law, the fact that religious institutions that were philosophically opposed to such things would have to go along. Conservatives fell into a trap by ignoring the bigger issue: Obamacare. When that monstrosity goes into full effect 2014, birth control will be the least of our worries. But pundits talked about it as if this was one of the worst things to come out of the law. Anyone with just summary knowledge of Obamacare knows that there are far worse fates awaiting American citizens. Death panels, employers dropping coverage, extended waits to see your doctor, bureaucrats deciding if you get a procedure at all, and the list goes on. Not only was all that put on the backburner, but adding insult to injury was Rush Limbaugh being crowned the voice of the conservative movement after calling a leftist activist a slut for wanting free birth control. The king promptly apologized for what turned out to be nothing at all. Last I heard that woman was in Europe vacationing with her rich boyfriend. Conservatives fell for that one hard. A little research before scattering like cockroaches guys.

It’s so easy that the left uses the same formula over and over, and conservatives just keep playing along. How about the fair share argument? The Buffet rule? It would take 30 seconds to explain how ridiculous that is, but so far, noone has take the time. I’ll take the time. If you took the entire net worth of the 99 percent in this country-not this year’s income, but their whole net worth, it wouldn’t cover next year’s budget. The Buffet rule? He pays less taxes than his secretary? Buffet is not an employee. He makes his money with capital gains. That rate is lower than personal income tax. You want to raise it? Do you buy stock? Do you have a 401k? Could you possibly sell your home in the future? There’s a little something called capital gains you’ll have to deal with, and if Obama gets his way you’ll suddenly become the 1 percent. Yes, I think that took about 30 seconds to explain.

Now the latest conservative gaffe is Obama’s evolution on gay marriage. Every pundit I heard on the radio today couldn’t get off that. Heidi Harris, Hugh Hewitt and who knows who else were all immersed in Obama’s change of heart. Remember, this is the guy that decided to ignore DOMA. He rules by decree. Laws are too structured for a dictator, so by not having a law that allows gays to legally marry gives Obama room to rule as he sees fit. Look at immigration. He doesn’t need to follow any rules as is. An amnesty bill would tie his hands on several fronts. Hence, ignoring DOMA. Obama probably didn’t want this, but his goon Biden probably forced his hand. This is a campaign issue? This is going to sway an election?

Here’s the thing. The side issues being brought up take away from the bigger picture. That is exactly what Obama wants because anybody looking at his masterpiece would end up like Dorian Gray. You’re being forced to buy insurance-as dictated by the government. Not your own plan, but one designed by the likes of Ezekiel Emanuel. Obama wants to implement punishment taxes on successful people. You may be one of those people if it involves capital gains. If you’re a small business owner working 70 hours a week you may be part of the one percent living the high life. Obama has targeted you. Obama ignores laws. Obama insults the Christian leanings this country was founded on. Something he would never do to this beloved Islam. But conservatives get sidetracked from the bigger issues. They want to talk about the economy? Obama is fudging the employment numbers and we can’t get so much as a whimper from conservatives. All right, consider this a whimper. There are a few out there. That’s the problem, there’s just a few saying what needs to be said.

Just days ago the Arizona legislature imploded and passed HB 2549, a First Amendment violating, politically correct hysterical bill that would limit free speech and criminalize anyone that had the audacity to annoy anyone. Literally within hours though, a storm of protest led to the bill being pulled for revisions.

A group called Media Coalition allegedly led the charge against this bill, however, I heard about it from another source. Had the bill actually been signed into law, any Arizonan who took to the internet and left derogatory comments about any of the loons that voted for this thing could have faced criminal charges. As it stands now, we all can make those comments under the umbrella of free speech.

This bill was a clear violation of First Amendment rights, and would have likely been challenged if signed into law. But it never got that far because the people rose up and put the Arizona legislature in their place for the time being. The bill isn’t dead, but in for repairs. Even the next incarnation of this thing is likely to meet with opposition, the main reason being the huge numbers of citizens that use electronic communications in this country. That would cover the majority I suspect, and what this bill proposed to do is shut the mouths of an entire state. Instead it shut the mouths of wayward politicians that attempted to trample the Constitution.

Is it that easy? It was in this case, but as we have seen in recent history, politicians don’t always listen. Think Obamacare, and the stimulus package. Those both were unpopular with the citizens but were passed anyway. The good news is that many Democrats paid the price for supporting those things against the wishes of their constituents. Apparently, the Arizona legislature remember that and brought this bill back for revisions.

Sure, they’ll try to ram some kind of watered down bastardization of the same bill, but trying to push something that affects so many people will meet with stiff resistance. Again, think of Obamacare. Much easier to dump a state hack and they know it though. Just imagine where we would be today if we took the advice to Thomas Jefferson and employed eternal vigilance. Mountains of laws and regulations wouldn’t exist today. As it is, there are so many obscure laws and regulations that we are all likely violating something without even knowing it. But not as far as free speech in Arizona. Not today. A lesson-a tactic that should be employed around the country.

HB 2549 passed both the Arizona house and senate overwhelmingly, enjoying bipartisan support not seen in recent politics. The law would basically gut free speech and literally make anyone making any kind of statement a potential criminal.

A. It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use a telephone any electronic or digital device and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person. It is also unlawful to otherwise disturb by repeated anonymous telephone calls electronic or digital communications the peace, quiet or right of privacy of any person at the place where the telephone call or calls communications were received.

Annoy or offend. Are you getting this bloggers? If you use electronic media-such as your blog to criticize something-or anything in the state of Arizona, you may be subject to criminal penalties if this thing becomes law. The First Amendment gives Americans the right to annoy or offend as part of free speech. Harassment is a different issue. Most of us realize that you can’t open your mouth-or type a paragraph without offending or annoying someone. So under the logic of the Arizona legislature, to say or write anything at all would be a crime. I’m offended and grossly annoyed that a state would even come up with such a law. Would that make the entire Arizona legislature subject to criminal penalties? Certainly the law is intimidating. Under their own definition, they have committed a crime by passing the bill. Apparently they missed that while voting for this monstrosity. Even the Daily Kos balked at this piece of crap.

The law is blatantly unconstitutional, and my guess is that Jan Brewer will kill it and force the house back to the drawing board. I understand the frenzy over cyber bullying, and that this is just an attempt to pander to the cyber bullying hysteria perpetuated by the media. I understand bullying happens, but at the same time there are already legal remedies for the most serious definitions in the bill. Annoying, offending and even using profane language is all protected under the Constitution though.

We see the mess in Washington right now, but at the same time we need to keep an eye on what local and state hacks are doing as well. I don’t think this law would withstand a court challenge, but just the fact that such a poorly written bill passed with near unanimous support is disturbing.

Hats off to mcnorman’s weblog for bringing this to light. We’ve all heard that the gun running Justice Department has sued states such as South Carolina for daring to pass a voter ID law. I’ve detailed the fraud that occurs every election on this blog, although South Carolina certainly didn’t need me to figure that out. With an unnaturally burgeoning illegal alien population, the idea of voter ID just makes sense. That is, unless those that would commit voter fraud are the very ones you depend on to win an election. The state of Texas wanted to make sure that those folks would not be a factor in that state, and passed their own voter ID law last year. The Justice Department is currently reviewing the law, publicly stating the same rhetoric being used in other states they have attacked.

Photo ID laws have become a point of contention in the 2012 elections. Liberal groups have said the requirements are the product of Republican-controlled state governments and are aimed at disenfranchising people who tend to vote Democratic — African-Americans, Hispanics, people of low-income and college students.

According to liberal groups, apparently those groups of potential voters do not have the mental capacity to procure some kind of valid ID in order to vote. Not even college students. They add that there isn’t enough fraud anyway, so the law is meaningless and is nothing more than an attack on the disenfranchised. Apparently, college students fall into that category. Yet they ferociously fight to keep such laws from being implemented.

What has the JD really riled now is that Texas has added photo ID as an addendum to their law. Everything is in place that would/should set this Justice Department in action. So why haven’t they acted?

It’s just my theory, but like a voter ID law, it makes sense. Obama has conceded Texas to the Republicans in November, and he isn’t wasting resources battling a law in a state he can’t win. For now anyway. As the illegal alien tide turns in Texas, the left may very well challenge this law, and as we know, just the mere challenge at least temporarily blocks it.

Not at this time though. There are enough real Americans in Texas that the Obama regime won’t put up a fight. My guess is that most states have enough real Americans and could shove when Obama pushes.

The fact that Texas has yet to be sued for this law by Eric Holder & Co. is a silver lining in the black cloud of social justice enveloping the country. Their fight is far from over though, and it will take more than Texas to ensure at least a semblance of a legitimate election in this country. Fortunately, voter ID laws have been introduced in 34 states. That’s because when America votes, we the majority want to make sure that it really is America that is voting.

We already know what the gold standard is for RINO’s. John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Swarzenegger before he left the California governor’s mansion in disgrace. These RINO’s are easily spotted, although hard to get rid of. There are others though that claim to carry the torch of conservatism, all the while seeking to destroy the concept. Some of them made it to CPAC, and to add insult to injury, were guest speakers.

We had John Boehner at the podium. Obama’s golfing buddy not only kicked the debt can down the road, but now we hear rumors that he’s looking to derail Darrell Issa’s Fast and Furious hearings. If that’s true, Boehner should be removed from not only the speakership, but from office all together. Even if it isn’t true, his inability to stand up to the likes of Harry Reid cries out for a replacement.

Then we had Grover Norquist, a slimy lobbyist dhimmi that parades as a conservative. How this guy hasn’t landed himself in prison is anybody’s guess. Between his Islamist terror conspirator pals to Jack Abramhoff, Norquist is suspect at best, and a dangerous operative at worst. Who is he operating for? Good question. But we can only go by his associations, and I’ve already given you an idea who they are. The guy is well worth checking out before you fall for his no tax pledge front.

Then there was Carly Fiorina, failed ex-Hewlett Packard CEO, who later became a failed Republican candidate for senate in California. That didn’t stop the GOP from giving her a promotion for her failures. She is now vice chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC). That’s right, it is now her job to make sure the Republicans win the senate in November. She is the first non-senator to have the position. What kind of candidates she’ll be helping out is anybody’s guess. Keep in mind where she stands on some issues though. She’s for a guest worker program that will allow as many people as possible to flood the country. She said that as late as 2010 while pandering to a Latino crowd during her senate campaign. She’s on record supporting Arizona’s SB 1070, but at the same time wants the above-mentioned guest worker program, as well as supporting the DREAM Act, which in every incarnation that came down the pike was full of holes illegal aliens could exploit. Even in her CPAC speech, she said that in America it doesn’t matter where you came from, just where you’re going. In the context of her open borders stance, that seemingly benign statement takes on a more sinister tone.

Let’s not forget that she was on the global warming bandwagon before jumping off. Same with cap and trade. She was also an advisor to the McCain campaign, and we know how that turned out.

Most of CPAC was common sense conservatism though. Why that doesn’t translate to the real world is another question. How often do you hear those things discussed in Washington? Not until the tea party revolt in 2010 did we start to hear what is discussed at CPAC conferences. Allen West was there. So was Paul Ryan, as well as John Bolton, who is as legitimate a presidential candidate as anyboy still in the race. So we saw the good and the bad there. But there was a little ugly as well.

Apparently, there were some union goons that were paid to protest CPAC. What they were protesting wasn’t clear, as CPAC is just a coming together of ideas, not necessarily a roadmap, but I guess the evicted occupiers needed somewhere to go. Ugly. Almost as ugly as Rick Santorum accusing Mitt Romney supporters of stuffing the straw poll ballot box. I thought Rick was above that…

Overall, a pretty good show, from what I caught on C-Span, but I had to point out those things. Nothing is perfect, but I like to keep going in that direction though, all the while knowing I’ll never arrive. It looks like CPAC is doing the same, ditching their outreach to Muslims, and apparently taking care of their money issues. Issues they were indeed.

We’ll see if the conference sparks some conservative fire, but after three-plus years of Barack Obama, if you don’t have the fire now, you aren’t likely get a spark by November.

The Obama regime is so entangled with Wall Street that it’s hard to tell them apart sometimes. Tim Geithner will tell you, as well as the Citi Bank hack Jack Lew that is now his chief of staff. There are many other nameless Wall Street types that troll the administration. But at the prayer breakfast, Obama professed to believe that you should love thy neighbor as thyself. Indeed, he has done just that. So while he lectures Wall Street in front of the rest of us, the conversation is very different behind the scenes. I don’t care that Obama surrounds himself with Wall Street; he should stop pretending that he doesn’t.

That was just for starters. He moved on to taxes, specifically for the wealthy, which so far, has been a fuzzy line with this regime. He took a parable from the Gospel of Luke out of context for this one. Unwittingly, Obama used a line from the parable that should be applied to him. It is a parable about the consequences of abusing authority that has been bestowed upon you. It has nothing to do with money, or the rich paying their fair share.

He even defended his foreign policy, once again perverting a passage from the bible to do so.

Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute

This is the guy that championed the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, even now routing new aid to the regime. He installed al-Qaeda in Libya, who’s atrocities are being ignored by the msm. At the same time he stands by and does nothing about Syria. Maybe it’s better if he doesn’t do anything. He does nothing about Iran, even when the opposition begged for some kind of support a few years back. Barry didn’t want to interfere in an internal country’s affairs. Unless it was Egypt of Libya of course.

It was a brazen perversion of the bible in order to further his unpopular agenda. As unpopular as it is though, he could still win in November. That speaks more to the Republicans than to him. This should have been the easiest road Republicans ever had to the White House. The people were fired up in 2010, there was a bloodbath in congress, and all the Repubicans had to do is grab the brass ring. Instead, we got Newt and Mitt, who are making this a down to the wire drama.

You can add blasphemy to the list of Obama gaffes, and still he might win in November.

Literally hours after offering amnesty to illegal aliens that served in the military, Newt took his open borders stance one step further on Wednesday. In an interview with Jorge reconquista Ramos of Univision, Gingrich proposed that after the military amnesty, that there should be a guest worker program to let everyone else stay. And I mean everyone.

“With most of them? I would urge them to get a guest-worker permit,” he said, calling for a substantial rewrite of immigration laws that would cancel existing penalties and instead let illegal immigrants stay.

The real Newt Gingrich couldn’t hide forever. He’s been open borders his entire career, so the get tough rhetoric in regards to securing the border never held water with those that know him. And I know him. So here’s how Newt will deal with immigration. For those that have been here a number of years-those identity stealers that managed to stay under the radar, they get to stay. If they join the military-presuming they actually speak English and would understand critical orders on the battlefield-they can stay. And for anybody that doesn’t fall into either of those categories, he proposes a guest worker program. That covers everyone, and under a Gingrich presidency, no illegal alien will have to leave. They can stay, have families-become part of the community, and eventually fall into one of the aforementioned amnesty groups.

Does Newt know something we don’t? Is he trying to siphon the illegal alien voter block being assembled by Obama’s ACORN goons? Don’t put it past him. The very fact that Gingrich’s immigration policy is undiscernable from Barack Obama’s should be cause for alarm to even the most ardent Gingrich supporter.

Newt’s sob story about the illegal alien that has been sucking up resources in the United States for 25 years apparently isn’t hurting his campaign. If you recall, during a debate he said that an identity stealing criminal that managed to not get deported for decades should be able to stay in the United States, along with the family that he created while here. On Monday, he took it a step further.

Newt Gingrich has his own version of the DREAM Act. If an illegal alien is willing to serve the country in uniform, Newt Gingrich would grant them citizenship. I’ve postulated before that the dramatic increase and pandering to illegal aliens was an effort to literally import an army that will be able to stand up to China in the years ahead. It’s not a matter of if, it’s when, and when that day comes, America is likely to be full of retired baby boomers and hurting for military personnel. Enter the illegal alien. With the numbers of illegal youth pouring into this country and the corresponding birth rates, they will have the manpower to face down a million man Chinese army in the coming decades. It’s just a theory that would be panned by many I’m sure, because most people aren’t thinking decades ahead. You can be sure an empire like the United States thinks decades into the future.

On the other hand, this could just be Newt looking at the cheap labor demographics change, and he’s just taking advantage. He’ll be long gone by the time America turns into a third world cesspool. Newt claims he’ll get tough on the border now, but his words this very campaign say something very different. So far, he’s give two separate scenarios where he would give amnesty. Can you articulate his position on securing the border and making sure illegal aliens will not take the jobs that Americans actually will do? He has no border plan, and wants to outsource E-Verify to Visa. Of course, if Newt was president, illegal aliens just might come out of the shadows, because amnesty and all the benefits of being an American citizen would await them.

It’s the same story with Newt, the same one he’s been telling for years. Just get here, and you’re in. Whoever you are, Newt will find a category in which to give you amnesty. And what about the families of these individuals? Newt already said he didn’t want to break up families. And if they happen to have had at least one child in the United States, they aren’t going anywhere anyway.

Yet Newt surges in the polls. Are those polls accurate? They seemed to be in South Carolina. Are Mitt, Rick and Ron so bad that only Newt is fit to face Obama? I would take any of those three over Newt in a heartbeat. I don’t think Obama feels the same way, which is why I questioned the poll numbers. If it was Obama/Gingrich, Obama would have another four years. He would be their dream opponent, considering the massive baggage he carries around. It would be a nightmare for the rest of us-unless of course, you happen to be an illegal alien…

As the results pour in, it looks like Newt Gingrich will take the South Carolina primary in fairly easy fashion. After being left for dead just a few weeks ago in Iowa, Gingrich has pulled a disturbingly McCanian type comeback to take South Carolina and extend this nomination battle to at least one more state. But do the people really like Newt, or is there some other factor? If the exit polls are any indicator, there is definitely another factor.

According to an exit poll conducted by FOX, South Carolina voters feel Newt Gingrich is the man that can defeat Barack Obama. I looked at a few other exit polls, and they’re pretty similar. Sure, Newt would tear Barry apart in a debate, but of course, we know Newt would never get a chance. At least not the Lincoln-Douglas type debates he’s seeking. But, knowing that Obama can’t string together two sentences without a teleprompter, all Newt would likely need is a few conventional debates to make mince meat of Obama. As I understand it, that’s all anyone will get, two debates. And if some kind of crisis should develop between now and November, they may not even get that. In the meantime, all the garbage that Gingrich has collected over the years would be on full display, day after day, after day, after day…

Not that South Carolina voters are unaware of not only the baggage Gingrich has amassed, but the dirty way he does business even now. Of course, they think Romney is even dirtier, maybe going back to Iowa, but then, what do you actually need to make up about Newt Gingrich? The super pac that has Newt’s fingerprints all over it puts out more lies than truth. Looks like it paid off. That’s not the worst of it though.

If South Carolinians didn’t seem dazed and confused enough by giving Gingrich a victory, consider the fact that 90% of Gingrich voters either strongly or somewhat support the tea party movement. Strange, considering Gingrich slammed the tea party and considers it a threat to the good old boys network of current Republican failures. And Newt’s recent fails are well documented. Paul Ryan could tell you. Newt thinks his common sense entitlement restructuring plan is social engineering.. Doug Hoffman could tell you too. Newt supported a raging Democrat masquerading as a Republican in New York. He even asked Rick Santorum to bow out, even when Santorum had Iowa under his belt at the time and Newt had nothing. But the voters think Newt is the guy.

Luckily, with the volatility of this primary, past trends are out the window. I don’t think South Carolina will have a bearing on who the eventual nominee will be, although…voters wanted Gingrich because they think he can win, not necessarily because they like him. That’s something Mitt Romney doesn’t have in his corner. As for Santorum and Paul? They just don’t have the support. They just wouldn’t beat Obama. I don’t think that’s necessarily true, especially in the case of Santorum. Look, conservatives are going to line up behind whoever gets the nomination, and if the exit polls are correct, most people don’t have a big problem with Santorum. He might be more morally conservative than people are comfortable with, but as a candidate, as a man, at least he’s not disliked, which is not the case with either Gingrich or Romney.

It’s realistically down to those two though. Funny, the two that draw the most opposition are also the frontrunners. I don’t think Gingrich can win. His record would be on full display in a general election, and the Obama campaign would make sure a real debate would never happen. Romney is so wishy-washy that he just wouldn’t draw the enthusiasm, although I can’t imagine anyone being undecided between Romney and Obama. I don’t think Romney would break anything. I don’t think he would fix anything to any degree, but at least we wouldn’t have to worry about him transforming the country. If whoever the candidate was just focused on undoing the damage Obama has wrought, that would be good enough for me. That’s all I can expect from a politician.