EDITORIAL: The Civil War of 2016 - Washington Times

EDITORIAL: The Civil War of 2016 - Washington Times

Will the Left and Right Attack Paul Ryan for His Support of Ayn Rand? : Political Outcast

Will the Left and Right Attack Paul Ryan for His Support of Ayn Rand? : Political Outcast

NASA Sees Red: Are Missions to the Red Planet Worth the Money?

NASA Sees Red: Are Missions to the Red Planet Worth the Money?

Who Owns You?

The Declaration of Independence is often overlooked in the heated rhetoric of the this election season. The words in the declaration were not chosen lightly. The founders worked diligently to make one point clear. The owner of one's person is the person themselves. That distinction was not trivial but the foundation of our political system. It declared that the person and all his labor belonged to him. Not the government. This idea was born out of writings and experiments dating back to the 1500's. This country has slide into a culture of believing the government knows best and can be relied upon to solve all of societies problems. This is simply not true; in a historical context and a current events context. History is strewn with examples of failures and out right despotism with power vested in government.

Did the United States (by the way a Republic of States) become the most powerful nation in the world because of the government? No, it became so because of the industry, risk taking and resoluteness of its citizenry. A society that was unbound by a central government and free from and free to do whatever it chose to do to accomplish success. Has it been a perfect journey? No, but successful no doubt.

Free people that can make individual choices and be self accountable and responsible have demonstrated through out history to be the most successful. Any form of confiscatory central government has always failed.

The choice for U.S. citizen facing them is do you want to own yourself and be accountable for your success and failures or do you want to be owned through confiscatory measures by a central government that by design makes choices for you in the name of fairness, equality and the general welfare?

For me, the choice is clear. A limited central government with limited powers is for me. I want to own myself and be free to choose my own path in life; not one chosen by some distant power that cannot make decisions for millions. It may be disastrous or successful; I will be accountable and survive one way or another.

When you give up choice, your money and your ability to be accountable for self, you are owned by another. Does this sound absolutist? It should, because it is. The best example I can give to anyone is when we were children living in our parents house. I don't want nor do I need for the government to be my parents

The Right Lane

The most honest three and a half minutes of television, EVER... Watch

~~~~~~~

Economy Creates 163,000 New Jobs but Rate Rises to 8.3%

The U.S. economy closed out an otherwise weak second quarter by creating more jobs than expected, with 163,000 new positions added, but the unemployment rate rose to 8.3 percent.  Markets reacted positively to the announcement, with stock futures indicating gains at the Wall Street open. Economists had been expecting 100,000 new jobs.  As the country struggles to gain growth traction, the unemployment rate held above 8 percent for the 41st consecutive month, according to the latest report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

~~~~~~

'Real' Unemployment Rate Shows Far More Jobless

While the national unemployment rate paints a grim picture, a look at individual states and their so-called real jobless rates becomes even more troubling.  The government's most widely publicized unemployment rate measures only those who are out of a job and currently looking for work. It does not count discouraged potential employees who have quit looking, nor those who are underemployed — wanting to work full-time but forced to work part-time. For that count, the government releases a separate number called the "U-6," which provides a more complete tally of how many people really are out of work. The numbers in some cases are startling. Consider: Nevada's U-6 rate is 22.1 percent, up from just 7.6 percent in 2007. Economically troubled California has a 20.3 percent real rate, while Rhode Island is at 18.3 percent, more than double its 8.3 percent rate in 2007. Those numbers compare especially unfavorably to the national rate, high in itself at 14.9 percent though off its record peak of 17.2 percent in October 2009.

~~~~~~

Harry Reid Accuses Romney of Federal Crime on Senate Floor, Offers Zero Evidence

Let’s get you up to speed on this idiotic flap: As you’re already aware, Mitt Romney has declined to publicly release more than two years of tax returns. He’s not legally obligated to do so; nor are Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid, neither of whom have chosen to live up to the levels of “transparency” they’re demanding of Romney. Frustrated by the Republican presidential candidate’s refusal — and clearly unperturbed by his own hypocrisy — Reid began circulating a totally unsubstantiated rumor this week, suggesting that Mitt Romney is a tax evader. From yesterday:

“His poor father must be so embarrassed about his son,” Reid said, in reference to George Romney’s standard-setting decision to turn over 12 years of tax returns when he ran for president in the late 1960s. Saying he had “no problem with somebody being really, really wealthy,” Reid sat up in his chair a bit before stirring the pot further. A month or so ago, he said, a person who had invested with Bain Capital called his office. Harry, he didn’t pay any taxes for 10 years,” Reid recounted the person as saying. He didn’t pay taxes for 10 years! Now, do I know that that’s true? Well, I’m not certain,” said Reid. “But obviously he can’t release those tax returns. How would it look?

Romney to Harry Reid on tax claims: Put up or shut up

“This reminds me of the McCarthy hearings back in the 1950s,” Eric Fehrnstrom said on Fox News. “And it was another son from Massachusetts, Joseph Welch, who finally asked the question that should be asked of Harry Reid, which is, ‘Have you no sense of decency, sir?’ Is there nothing that you won’t do in the name of dirty politics? I think it’s just shameful.”…“I’m telling you, authoritatively, speaking on behalf of the governor, that those charges are untrue,” said Fehrnstrom, a longtime Romney aide. “They’re baseless.”

~~~~~~~~

"Try and fathom the hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured, but not everyone must prove they are a citizen".

~~~~~~

"The virtues of men are of more consequence to society than their abilities; and for this reason, the heart should be cultivated with more assiduity than the head." --Noah Webster, On the Education of Youth in America, 1788

~~~~~~

Catholic Hospitals vs. Obamacare  Written by Gary North on August 3, 2012

Nancy Pelosi, a Catholic, rammed Obamacare through the House of Representatives. Lots of Catholic House members voted for it. The law forces Catholic-run hospitals to provide free contraceptives to every woman who wants them and who is covered under the law. Almost 50 million women are.  In the Senate, the story was repeated.  These people “voted their consciences,” and their consciences were opposed to official Catholic doctrine.  There were no church sanctions brought against these politicians. The bishops honored their consciences, too. Their consciences said, “Don’t bring sanctions. Don’t enforce doctrine.”  This is why Obamacare got through Congress.  Catholic members had the votes to stop it. Instead, they voted for it.

~~~~~~~

Exposed! Obama’s 2nd-Term ‘Marxist’ Jobs Plan

Progressive organizations behind White House policy have crafted specific, second-term plans for President Obama to enact a “living wage” that would force all employers to increase the salaries of the nation’s workers to meet “basic needs” such as housing, food, utilities, transportation, health care and recreation. Such a “living wage” was previously attempted in over 80 U.S. cities, many times to disastrous affect. The progressive groups, already instrumental in influencing Obama’s first-term economic agenda, also call for Obama and Congress to enact a government mandate to force businesses to provide 12 weeks of paid benefits to employees who need time off to care for a new child, a sick family member or their own illness. These schemes, and many more, are documented in the soon-to-be-released book “Fool Me Twice: Obama’s Shocking Plans for the Next Four Years Exposed.” The book by New York Times bestselling authors Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott uncovers the template for Obama’s next four years – the actual, extensive plans created by Obama’s own top advisers and progressive strategists.

~~~~~~~~

Has Any of This Administration's Policies NOT Killed Jobs Lately?

Congress has headed off for its long vacation-and-campaign season, fleeing Washington as the unemployment rate rises. According to the Labor Department's July jobs report, the unemployment rate ticked up to 8.3 percent, 12.8 million Americans are out of work, and 5.2 million have been out of work for at least a half a year. According to one survey, the country added a surprising 163,000 jobs in July, while according to a second Labor Department survey, employment fell by 195,000—raising questions about whether the more positive figure is all that reliable, given that the economy slowed significantly to a 1.5 percent annualized growth rate in the second quarter and appears to be slowing further.  The question isn't what has slowed the economy—it's really what Obama Administration policy hasn't slowed the economy? The policies of the last few years has been unequivocal job killers.

~~~~~~

How Will We Be Affected by Obamacare’s Anti-Religious Freedom Mandate?

Yesterday, on the eve of its religious-liberty-crushing mandate taking effect, President Obama’s Health and Human Services Department (HHS) made an outrageous claim:

The Obama administration will continue to work with all employers to give them the flexibility and resources they need to implement the health care law in a way that protects women’s health while making common-sense accommodations for values like religious liberty. 

Religious liberty is a fundamental right guaranteed under the First Amendment of the Constitution, not a mere “value” whose worth is subject to devaluation by any given Administration’s policy. Regrettably, devaluation of this first principle is exactly what we’ve seen from the Obama Administration, which after a year of such lip service to religious liberty has held firmly to its original mandate despite widespread, intense, and ecumenical outcry against it.  HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’s latest promise rings hollow and adds insult to the grievous injury that HHS is already doing to Americans who believe that religious liberty is not something that stops when one leaves a house of worship. The anti-conscience HHS mandate is now in effect.

~~~~~~

Obama Campaign Sues to Restrict Military Voting

On July 17th, the Obama for America Campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and the Ohio Democratic Party filed suit in OH to strike down part of that state's law governing voting by members of the military. Their suit said that part of the law is "arbitrary" with "no discernible rational basis." Currently, Ohio allows the public to vote early in-person up until the Friday before the election. Members of the military are given three extra days to do so. While the Democrats may see this as "arbitrary" and having "no discernible rational basis," I think it is entirely reasonable given the demands on servicemen and women's time and their obligations to their sworn duty. The National Defense Committee reports:

[f]or each of the last three years, the Department of Defense’s Federal Voting Assistance Program has reported to the President and the Congress that the number one reason for military voter disenfranchisement is inadequate time to successfully vote. 

I think it's unconscionable that we as a nation wouldn't make it as easy as possible for members of the military to vote. They arguably have more right to vote than the rest of us, since it is their service and sacrifice that ensures we have the right to vote in the first place. If anyone proposes legislation to combat voter fraud, Democrats will loudly scream that the proposal could "disenfranchise" some voter, somewhere. We must ensure, they argue, that voting is easy and accessible to every single voter. Every voter, that is, except the men and women of our military. Make no mistake, the Democrat lawsuit is intended to disenfranchise some unknown number of military voters. The judge should reject it with prejudice. 

~~~~~~

~~~~~~

Poll Farce: Pew Oversamples Democrats to Boost Obama

On what alternate universe will Democrats enjoy a D +19 turnout advantage over Republicans on election day? Well, that would be Planet Pew:  The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted July 16-26, 2012, among 2,508 adults, including 1,956 registered voters, finds that, in keeping with his favorability advantage, Obama continues to hold a sizable lead over Romney in the election contest. Currently, 51% say they support Obama or lean toward him, while 41% support or lean toward Romney.  Except…. Sample Size:

459 Republicans

813 Democrats

599 Independents

This is nothing more than an act of intentional juicing to keep The Narrative alive that says Obama is winning and that Romney can't get his act together. You see, it works like this…The only way our failed president can win is if Romney is disqualified; if voters don’t see him as an acceptable alternative.

~~~~~~

Republicans grill IRS commissioner on health care

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Republicans on Thursday grilled the head of the Internal Revenue Service on the agency's decision to apply the health care law's tax credits in states that decide not to carry out a key provision of the statute.  Commissioner Douglas Shulman defended the IRS rule that applies the tax credits to federal insurance exchanges, which are the bodies that will be developed to allow those without health insurance to buy it. He testified at a House hearing.  The issue is a new controversy over President Barack Obama's health care law. Several states already have decided not to establish their own insurance exchanges. In those states, federal exchanges would be created.  The credits would help consumers pay for private insurance beginning in 2014. The IRS had to decide whether the credits would be available in the entire country regardless of whether states or the federal government ran the exchanges.  "Congress writes the laws and we interpret them. If you disagree, there's always the courts," Shulman told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.  Overall, Shulman said the tax agency will be ready in 2014 to fulfill its new role of providing tax breaks and incentives to help pay for health insurance. The IRS would impose penalties on some people who don't buy coverage and on some businesses that don't offer it to employees.  During the hearing, Shulman tangled with Rep. Scott DesJarlais, R-Tenn., a physician. DesJarlais accused the IRS of bypassing Congress by trying to expand the subsidies when the law gave the tax agency no authority to do so. "You're trying to twist" the law, he said.  Shulman responded that IRS lawyers "look at the statute and come up with the best interpretation."

#######

How Much Retirement do You Really Need?

What is enough? What is not enough? If you’re considering retiring in the near future, you’ve probably heard or read that you need about 70% of your end salary to live comfortably in retirement. This estimate is frequently repeated … but that doesn’t mean it is true for everyone. It may not be true for you.

You won’t learn how much retirement income you’ll need by reading this article. You’ll want to meet with a qualified retirement planner who can help you plan to estimate your lifestyle needs and short-term and long-term expenses.
That said, there are some factors which affect retirement income needs – and too often, they go unconsidered.
Health: Most of us will face a major health problem at some point in our lives – perhaps even multiple or chronic health problems. We don’t want to think about that reality. But if you’re a new retiree, think for a moment about the costs of prescription medicines, and recurring treatment for chronic ailments. These minor and major costs can really take a bite out of retirement income, even with a great health care plan. While generics have slowed the advance of prescription drug costs to about 1-2% a year recently,¹ one estimate found that a 65-year-old who retired in 2007 would need $215,000 to pay for overall retirement health care costs – up about 7.5% from 2006.²
Heredity: If you come from a family where people frequently live into their 80s and 90s, you may live as long or longer. Imagine retiring at 55 and living to 95 or 100. You would need 40-45 years of steady retirement income.
Portfolio: Many people retire with investment portfolios they haven’t reviewed in years, with asset allocations that may no longer be appropriate. New retirees sometimes carry too much risk in their portfolios, with the result being that the retirement income from their investments fluctuates wildly with the vagaries of the market.  Guaranteeing an income by the use of an income rider on an annuity can help provide safety and reduce personal stress.
Spending Habits: Do you only spend 70% of your salary? Probably not. If you’re like many Americans, you probably spend 90% or 95% of it. Will your spending habits change drastically once you retire? Again, probably not. Most people only change spending habits in response to economic necessity or in pursuit of new financial goals. People don’t want to “live on less” once they have had “more”.
Social Security (or lack thereof): In 2005, SSI represented 39% of a typical 65-year-old retiree’s income. But by 2030, Social Security may only replace 29% of that income, after deductions for Medicare premiums and income taxes. Since 1983, retirees earning more than $25,000 in SSI have had to pay income tax on a portion of their benefits.³ Of course, this is presuming Social Security is still around in 2030.
So will you have enough? When it comes to retirement income, a casual assumption may prove to be woefully inaccurate. Meet with a qualified retirement planner while you are still working to discuss these factors and estimate how much you will really need.
These are the views of Peter Montoya Inc., not the named Representative or Broker/Dealer, and should not be construed as investment advice. Neither the named Representative nor Broker/Dealer gives tax or legal advice. All information is believed to be from reliable sources; however, we make no representation as to its completeness or accuracy. Please consult your Financial Advisor for further information.

Citations.
 ¹ nytimes.com/2007/09/21/business/21generic.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
² marketwatch.com/news/story/health-care-costs-retirement-rise/story.aspx?guid=%7bEF2B6CDA-E176-4747-B528-76AC814051C5%7d&print=true&dist=printTop
³ money.cnn.com/2007/05/14/pf/retirement/nasi__report/index.htm

HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA THE ROAD TO INDEPENDENCE

The principles of liberalism and democracy — the political foundation of the United States — sprang naturally from the process of building a new society on virgin land. Just as naturally, the new nation would see itself as different and exceptional. Europe would view it with apprehension, or hope.

Britain's 13 North American colonies matured during the 1700s. They grew in population, economic strength, and cultural attainment. They were experienced in self-government. Yet it was not until 170 years after the founding of the first permanent settlement at Jamestown, Virginia, that the new United States of America emerged as a nation.

War between Britain and France in the 1750s was fought partly in North America. Britain was victorious and soon initiated policies designed to control and fund its vast empire. These measures imposed greater restraints on the American colonists' way of life.

The Royal Proclamation of 1763 restricted the opening of new lands for settlement. The Sugar Act of 1764 placed taxes on luxury goods, including coffee, silk, and wine, and made it illegal to import rum. The Currency Act of 1764 prohibited the printing of paper money in the colonies. The Quartering Act of 1765 forced colonists to provide food and housing for royal troops. And the Stamp Act of 1765 required the purchase of royal stamps for all legal documents, newspapers, licenses, and leases.

Colonists objected to all these measures, but the Stamp Act sparked the greatest organized resistance. The main issue, in the eyes of a growing number of colonists, was that they were being taxed by a distant legislature in which they could not participate. In October 1765, 27 delegates from nine colonies met in New York to coordinate efforts to get the Stamp Act repealed. They passed resolutions asserting the individual colonies' right to impose their own taxes.

Self-government produced local political leaders, and these were the men who worked together to defeat what they considered to be oppressive acts of Parliament. After they succeeded, their coordinated campaign against Britain ended. During the next several years, however, a small number of radicals tried to keep the controversy alive. Their goal was not accommodation, but independence.

Samuel Adams of Massachusetts was the most effective. He wrote newspaper articles and made speeches appealing to the colonists' democratic instincts. He helped organize committees throughout the colonies that became the basis of a revolutionary movement. By 1773, the movement had attracted colonial traders who were angry with British attempts to regulate the tea trade. In December, a group of men sneaked on to three British ships in Boston harbor and dumped their cargo of tea overboard. This incident, which took place on December 16, 1773, has been seen as helping to spark the American Revolution and is now referred to as The Boston Tea Party

To punish Massachusetts for the vandalism, the British Parliament closed the port of Boston and restricted local authority. The new measures, dubbed the Intolerable Acts, backfired. Rather than isolate one colony, they rallied the others. All the colonies except Georgia sent representatives to Philadelphia in September 1774 to discuss their "present unhappy state." It was the first Continental Congress.

Colonists felt a growing sense of frustration and anger over British encroachment on their rights. Yet by no means was there unanimity of thought on what should be done. Loyalists wanted to remain subjects of the king. Moderates favored compromise to produce a more acceptable relationship with the British government. And revolutionaries wanted complete independence. They began stockpiling weapons and mobilizing forces — waiting for the day when they would have to fight for it.

THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

The American Revolution — its war for independence from Britain — began as a small skirmish between British troops and armed colonists on April 19, 1775.   

The British had set out from Boston, Massachusetts, to seize weapons and ammunition that revolutionary colonists had collected in nearby villages. At Lexington, they met a group of Minutemen, who got that name because they were said to be ready to fight in a minute. The Minutemen intended only a silent protest, and their leader told them not to shoot unless fired on first. The British ordered the Minutemen to disperse, and they complied. As they were withdrawing, someone fired a shot. The British troops attacked the Minutemen with guns and bayonets.

Fighting broke out at other places along the road as the British soldiers in their bright red uniforms made their way back to Boston. More than 250 "redcoats" were killed or wounded. The Americans lost 93 men.

Deadly clashes continued around Boston as colonial representatives hurried to Philadelphia to discuss the situation. A majority voted to go to war against Britain. They agreed to combine colonial militias into a continental army, and they appointed George Washington of Virginia as commander-in-chief. At the same time, however, this Second Continental Congress adopted a peace resolution urging King George III to prevent further hostilities. The king rejected it and on August 23 declared that the American colonies were in rebellion.

Calls for independence intensified in the coming months. Radical political theorist Thomas Paine helped crystallize the argument for separation. In a pamphlet called Common Sense, which sold 100,000 copies, he attacked the idea of a hereditary monarchy. Paine presented two alternatives for America: continued submission under a tyrannical king and outworn system of government, or liberty and happiness as a self-sufficient, independent republic.

The Second Continental Congress appointed a committee, headed by Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, to prepare a document outlining the colonies' grievances against the king and explaining their decision to break away. This Declaration of Independence was adopted on July 4, 1776. The 4th of July has since been celebrated as America's Independence Day.

Liberty Bell, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, an enduring symbol of American freedom. It was first rung on July 8, 1776, to celebrate the adoption of the Declaration of Independence. (Interior Department/National Park Service) 

The Declaration of Independence not only announced the birth of a new nation. It also set forth a philosophy of human freedom that would become a dynamic force throughout the world. It drew upon French and British political ideas, especially those of John Locke in his Second Treatise on Government, reaffirming the belief that political rights are basic human rights and are thus universal.

Declaring independence did not make Americans free.

British forces routed continental troops in New York, from Long Island to New York City. They defeated the Americans at Brandywine, Pennsylvania, and occupied Philadelphia, forcing the Continental Congress to flee. American forces were victorious at Saratoga, New York, and at Trenton and Princeton in New Jersey. Yet George Washington continually struggled to get the men and materials he desperately needed.

Decisive help came in 1778 when France recognized the United States and signed a bilateral defense treaty.  Without the French, the Colonies would not have won their independence.  Support from the French government, however, was based on geopolitical, not ideological, reasons. France wanted to weaken the power of Britain, its long-time adversary.

The fighting that began at Lexington, Massachusetts, continued for eight years across a large portion of the continent. Battles were fought from Montreal, Canada, in the north to Savannah, Georgia, in the south. A huge British army surrendered at Yorktown, Virginia, in 1781, yet the war dragged on with inconclusive results for another two years. 

A peace treaty was finally signed in Paris on April 15, 1783. Our true independence!

The Revolution had a significance far beyond North America. It attracted the attention of Europe's political theorists and strengthened the concept of natural rights throughout the Western world. It attracted notables such as Thaddeus Kosciusko, Friedrich von Steuben, and the Marquis de Lafayette, who joined the revolution and hoped to transfer its liberal ideas to their own countries.

The Treaty of Paris acknowledged the independence, freedom, and sovereignty of the 13 former American colonies, now states. The task of knitting them together into a new nation lay ahead. 

Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence?

Ø  Five were captured by the British as traitors; tortured before they died.

Ø  Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned.

Ø  Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army; another had two sons captured.

Ø  Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War.

They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

Ø  What kind of men were they?

Ø  Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists.

Ø  Eleven were merchants,

Ø  Nine were farmers and large plantation owners

Ø  Men of means, well educated, but they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing
full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.

Ø  Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags.

Ø  Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly.  He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward.

Ø  Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery,  Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Rutt ledge, and Middleton.

Ø  At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson Jr., noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt.

Ø  Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months.

Ø  John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished.

Some of us take these liberties so much for granted, but we shouldn't.