We’ve heard it for years, but Obama and his administration have taken class warfare to new heights. Flip through the cable news stations and you will see Warren Buffet’s secretary or hear the phrase “not paying their fair share.” Obama used his recent State of the Union Address to call out those obscenely wealthy Americans that highlight our economic inequality. He stated:

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, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.

So Obama has proposed a resolution: the “Buffett Rule.” Millionaires and billionaires, as he says, should have a 30% effective income tax rate. Millionaires should not pay less in taxes than their secretaries (insert image of a white-haired elderly man wearing thick glasses on his perfectly rounded head).

But is a higher tax rate a resolution? A resolution, after all, solves a problem. Will economic disparity cease to exist if the wealthy pay a larger portion of their income to the government? Hardly. This is why the “Buffett Rule” is a perfect example of liberalistic communication: avoid the truth at all costs by deflecting the argument.

Here we are, all of us, in our homes, at our jobs, on the local news, over a beer, debating whether the 1% really do need that much money. They can afford to pay a little more, say some. But half of Americans pay nothing, others say. Romney only paid 15% tax rate in 2010, some complain. But his tax rate reflects capital gains, not income taxes, others reply.

And so on. Meanwhile, Obama continues, traveling swing state by swing state, rousing the crowd with tales of fat cats and down-and-outs who reflect an unjust capitalistic system. Why, he bemoans, aren’t THEY paying their fair share?

Clever. But liberals usually are.

Conservatives don’t need dexterous speech when we have principles. Here is what I have been (mentally) shouting at the television (well, mostly mentally): the debate is not whether the rich are paying their fair share, the argument is what amount of income the government should receive. The reasons are obvious, when you think it through:

1. The government cannot create wealth, they can only take it out of the economy.
2. Once wealth is out of the economy, it cannot return.
3. The government has never managed anything efficiently or profitably (post office, solar-powered companies, social security, Medicare/Medicaid, public education).
4. Taxes have only ever increased, and our debt has only ever increased.
5. Government spending has only ever increased, and economic disparity still exists.
6. Who determines what is fair? And for that matter, fair share of what?
7. Who determines who is wealthy and who is not?

And the granddaddy of them all: even if the government taxed the wealthiest 10% of Americans at 100% (thus taking away their entire income), we would not come close to paying off our nation’s debt. The Wall Street Journal calculated:

Consider the Internal Revenue Service’s income tax statistics for 2008, the latest year for which data are available. The top 1% of taxpayers—those with salaries, dividends and capital gains roughly above about $380,000—paid 38% of taxes. But assume that tax policy confiscated all the taxable income of all the “millionaires and billionaires” Mr. Obama singled out. That yields merely about $938 billion, which is sand on the beach amid the $4 trillion White House budget, a $1.65 trillion deficit, and spending at 25% as a share of the economy, a post-World War II record.

Say we take it up to the top 10%, or everyone with income over $114,000, including joint filers. That’s five times Mr. Obama’s 2% promise. The IRS data are broken down at $100,000, yet taxing all income above that level throws up only $3.4 trillion. And remember, the top 10% already pay 69% of all total income taxes, while the top 5% pay more than all of the other 95%.

In addition, our economy would be in real pain if the wealthiest 10% had no money to invest or spend. We are a trickle-down economy, as much as some people hate that truth.

Conservatives have a big job. We need to re-educate people to think with logic and by principle. Government should only receive funding to cover its intended—and limited—purposes: to protect Americans from foreign and domestic “invaders,” punish those who break the laws, and promote the liberty of the individual and institutions (family, church, and the marketplace).

(And “promote” does not mean the creation or funding of programs. Promote simply means to speak highly of.)

Next time someone begins a discussion with the merits of what equates fair taxation, start at the beginning. What funding should the government receive? Or better yet, what is the role of government?

Dry, I know. But without an understanding of the original purpose of government, anything goes. We’ve witnessed enough decisions by this administration to know…anything has gone. Trillions, in fact.

Customer Shoots at Robber During Store Stickup

Jesse Garza of the Journal Sentinel
Jan. 30, 2012

Milwaukee police late Monday were investigating whether a 20-year-old man who showed up at a hospital with a gunshot wound is the same man who tried to rob an Aldi store and was shot at by a customer.

A man with a shotgun entered the store at N. 76th St. and W. Villard Ave. about 7 p.m., according to a news release from Milwaukee police.

According to the release, as the man began to rob the store a customer fired shots at him, and the man fled empty-handed.

No customers or employees were injured during the incident, and police were questioning a man who went to the hospital with a gunshot wound to determine if his injury was connected to the attempted robbery, according to
the release.
-------------
This story makes me giddy. It has all aspects of a perfect fairytale, although the fate of the heroic customer who shot the robber has yet to be determined.

Consider this analogy:
Consider the old addage, how can you expect to win if you're not willing to get dirty with the people that are spreading the dirt?

If a basketball opponent is given a free-pass to double-dribbling and traveling, their opponent would inevitably lose if they continued to abide by the traditional rules of the game. So, in this instance both teams enter into a game with a certain understanding of standard rules (laws, signs against concealed carry), one team completely violates the rules (criminals), and the referees (police) have no ability to stop the game (the game is freedom of movement in the overall society, in this case Aldi or wherever a crime occurs).

If the opposing coach realizes that the game is going to be allowed to continue despite massive violations, he will also realize that he must adjust accordingly or he will lose.

If the coach decided to adjust his player's conduct in the game to match the other team, this is the equivalent of getting a concealed carry permit. It simply levels the playing field for all participants involved in the game.

If the coach would continue to tell his players to dribble with the rules and not travel, this demonstrates a righteous commitment to rules and tradition, but also an acceptance of defeat. Its just that during a robbery at Aldi, defeat means dying. And I say fuck dying. I would much rather be judged by a jury of twelve than carried by six of my friends.

In the end, we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A man coming into an Aldi to rob the place with a shotgun has affected that customer's right to continue a living a life absent from the risk posed by the 00 buckshot in the criminal's shotgun.

By entering into that Aldi wielding that weapon with his verbalized intent, the criminal gave up his right to life. By prosecuting the person who shot him for carrying a weapon in an unauthorized area, we would be publicly announcing that the individual's right to life is dead, and that he must rely on the state for his complete protection. Problem is, the state's standard for police response cannot ever counter the immediacy posed by the nature of a robbery or the muzzle velocity of a shotgun.

Perhaps the solution should be to simply boycott Aldi or any other business stupid enough to post signs that keep law abiding concealed carry permit holders from defending Aldi's property, employees, and patrons. On the other hand, property rights (including Aldi's) need to be respected or we are lost as a Nation. The original draft of the Declaration of Independence said each citizen were guaranteed the right to "life, liberty, and property," which of course was later amended.

Regardless, I close with a smile on my face as I reflect on a bad guy being shot, store patrons and employees safe, no money stolen, and hopefully increased future hesitation by Milwaukee thugs who think they can rule with violence. To them, I say this: game on. Defense wins championships. You have a problem with no pain, no gain? No problem. Let's all play by the same rules. I guaranty I am a better shot.

A GREAT article and a good start to a conversation that will, at some point, rear its head:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203806504577179303330474134.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond

We do have some leaders in America who tell the truth. I heart Allen West. The future looks good when you listen to individuals like him:

http://youtu.be/zZ8A6UFbQoY

No Grass Stains Allowed

Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.), a former Army lieutenant colonel, sends THE WEEKLY STANDARD an email commenting on the Marines' video, and has given them permission to publish it.

Representative West: "I have sat back and assessed the incident with the video of our Marines urinating on Taliban corpses. I do not recall any self-righteous indignation when our Delta snipers Shugart and Gordon had their bodies dragged through Mogadishu. Neither do I recall media outrage and condemnation of our Blackwater security contractors being killed, their bodies burned, and hung from a bridge in Fallujah.

All these over-emotional pundits and armchair quarterbacks need to chill. Does anyone remember the two Soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division who were beheaded and gutted in Iraq?

The Marines were wrong. Give them a maximum punishment under field grade level Article 15 (non-judicial punishment), place a General Officer level letter of reprimand in their personnel file, and have them in full dress uniform stand before their Battalion, each personally apologize to God, Country, and Corps videotaped and conclude by singing the full US Marine Corps Hymn without a teleprompter.

As for everyone else, unless you have been shot at by the Taliban, shut your mouth, war is hell."

We cannot expect to win a war without getting dirty with the people spreading the dirt, the same as a little kid soccer team cannot expect to play a game without a single kid receiving a grass stain. To be sure, all the soccer parents in America understand the latter, but how many of them understand the former?

I read several news articles in the last week to get caught up on what’s going on “over there.” Are American troops really out of Iraq? What is happening in Afghanistan? And what bitter diatribe is Ahmadinejad now spewing towards America?

Well, I remember a few stories. Stories that I didn’t read last week.

An Iraqi mother who sends her child out in the middle of the street, only to detonate a bomb hidden under the child’s shirt because American troops are coming down the road. Terrorists who behead a Shiite family—mother, father, and all six of their children. A father who hides behind his teenage daughter when a fight breaks out in his home between terrorists and troops. Religious radicals who torture and murder a 4-month old baby because of his parent’s religion.

Evil exists. Evil commits heinous acts not in the name of their country, but in the name of god. And they are willing—happy— to die for their cause. How do you talk to that? You don’t. You kill that.

That’s mean. Whatever.

A very popular bumper sticker has the word “coexist” spelled out in religious symbols. The “C” is the symbol for Islam. The “O” is the symbol for peace. The “X” is the symbol for Judaism, the “T” is the symbol for Christianity, and so on. There is one symbol not included on that bumper sticker: the swastika. Because if it did, the rest of the symbols would be extinct.

But we took care of that in 1945. Evil exists. You don’t negotiate with it. You kill it.

Last week, President Obama proposed defense spending cuts—a 14% reduction in troops, reductions in our nation’s nuclear arsenal and a delay in the Pentagon’s most expensive weapons such as the F-35 stealth jet. The proposal would shrink military spending by $487 billion over the next 10 years, and the Army would shrink from 570,000 to about 490,000 enlisted. Obama spoke about his proposed cuts at the Pentagon, but it doesn’t matter what he said. It never really does. We know enough of Obama and his actions speak louder.

The Wall Street Journal reported on his proposed cuts:

Retired Army Lt. Gen. David Barno of the Center for a New American Security, a centrist think tank that often is aligned with the administration, said the plan "fails to address the elephant in the room: whether this strategy can hold up under the weight of further defense cuts," particularly additional cuts contained in the debt-ceiling agreement Congress reached last year.

The report goes on to say that the proposal would restructure the military to fight one war using air, land and sea forces while still providing resources to another region. Mr. Panetta admits that the cuts are “quite steep.” He went on to say, "The capability, readiness and agility of the force will not be sustained if Congress fails to do its duty and the military is forced to accept far deeper cuts...[t]hat would force us to shed missions and commitments and capabilities that we believe are necessary to protect core U.S. national security interests. And it would result in what we think would be a demoralized and hollow force."

I can’t speak to what level of defense spending we can cut and maintain a strategic, powerful and well-equipped military, capable of protecting American soil and Americans against any possible threat. But here’s my question: what’s the risk if we don’t cut defense spending?

Our economy will not collapse. The Obama administration can do that without the help of the Department of Defense. Terrorists will not sympathize. They are quite possibly more interested in winning elections in unstable Middle Eastern nations. Foreign nations will not like us more. Obama already won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Interestingly, the Heritage Foundation created a chart to show defense spending as a percentage of the total federal budget throughout history. And wouldn’t you know— defense spending has fallen dramatically in the last 65 years. The spending teetered around 70% in 1960 to a historic low in 2010 of 19%.

Obama believes our military can be lean; they can do more with less. Is that true? I doubt it. Is the world any less dangerous than in the past? Maybe. Maybe not. Regardless, this is not the dice I’d like him to throw.

In other news, the Muslim Brotherhood, currently leading the elections in Egypt, has said it will not recognize Israel, but rather, “[i]t is an enemy entity, an exploiting, criminal occupier.” Muslim clerics have also emphasized their goal to achieve an Islamic caliphate with Islamic Sharia laws, hopeful that Egypt will become one of these Arab caliphates.

Elsewhere, Iran’s top naval commander, Habibollah Sayyari, recently said that “[c]losing the Strait of Hormuz for Iran’s armed forces is really easy…or, as Iranians say, it will be easier than drinking a glass of water.” The Strait of Hormuz lies between Iran and United Arab Emirates, and provides a passageway for one third of the world’s seaborne oil shipments. Iran’s First Vice President Mohammed Reza Rahimi threatened to close the strait if Iran faces sanctions for its nuclear ambitions.

Cutting the defense budget is not about helping our economy, trimming fat, spending taxpayer money wisely or any other platitude that rolls nicely off the tongue for a Class A politician. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the government will run a $973 billion deficit in Obama’s 2012 federal budget. Entitlement programs constitute 58% of spending and national defense constitutes 19%. In the past two decades, federal spending grew 10 times faster than median income.

Evil exists. But notice where Obama chooses to cut spending. I’ll leave you with Hugh Hewitt:

How can we propose massive cuts in the number of uniformed military when we are paying for NPR? How can he cut the Marine Corps by 10% when he won't cut the Department of Energy or the Department of Education? Answer: This is Obama's strategy for the world, rooted in a deep, profound suspicion of American exceptionalism and American military power. The president's policies of appeasement of our nation-state enemies and hollowing out of the American military must be the central issue of the fall. The president's failed economic policies are already well-known by voters, but his plans to shrink the U.S. military to these dangerous levels isn't well known but must be made so.