Milton Wolf

My latest in the Washington Times: The 1-percenter who doesn’t pay his ‘fair share’ - President Obama

2013-04-17T07:00:00.000-05:00

The multimillionaire Barack Obama paid lower taxes than Warren Buffett's secretary.

[Photo by: Charles Dharapak ** FILE ** President Obama pauses as he speaks about his proposed 2014 budget as he stands with acting budget director Jeff Zients in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington on April 10, 2013. (Associated Press)]

The 1-percenter who doesn’t pay his ‘fair share’ - President Obama
He takes tax breaks he wants to take away from the rest of us

Resolved: No American citizen shall be required to pay federal income taxes at a rate higher than the country’s millionaire president pays.

Let’s call it the Alternative Maximum Fairness Tax: Calculate your current tax rate, compare it to the president’s and pay the lower of the two.

The White House admitted in a Friday afternoon news dump, of course that President Obama paid only an 18.4 percent effective federal income tax rate on his adjusted gross income last year of $608,611. The highest income-tax rate last year was 35 percent (and has now increased to 39.6 percent, thanks to the fiscal cliff tax hike). Once again, the president piously demanded that “the wealthiest Americans should pay their fair share” and yet, in the very same paragraph, the multimillionaire president admitted to paying less than half the standard rate for his income bracket.

If that weren’t enough hypocrisy, Mr. Obama once again called for the so-called “Buffett Rule” of raising taxes on high earners at the same time that he admitted to breaking the rule by paying lower taxes than Warren Buffett’s secretary. This president then had the audacity to claim that he believes in “protecting families making under $250,000 from seeing their taxes go up.” I suppose the operative word there is “seeing.” President Obama is clearly fine with hiking your taxes so long as you don’t see it happen. That’s why he cleverly hid 20 separate tax hikes on families making under $250,000 inside Obamacare.

Swing by The Washington Times to read it all. And, as always, thanks for sharing it with your 5,000 closest friends on Facebook, Twitter and everywhere else the cool kids hang out.

My Washington Times latest: Shaking the moss off the GOP

2013-04-03T06:30:00.002-06:00

Shaking the moss off the GOP
It’s time for the party to clean house

Would you invest in a company with a string of failures as sweeping as the GOP establishment’s? Mitt Romney, John McCain, Bob Dole: All products of the establishment and all failed candidates who opened the doors to the Obama and Clinton eras.

Even when establishment candidates do manage to win office -- George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush -- it’s a stretch to call their presidencies successful. The only undeniably successful Republican president of the modern era -- Ronald Reagan -- reached the White House by overcoming the opposition of the GOP establishment. And now the Gipper is considered to be among the greatest presidents in American history.

This pattern continues in the Senate. Today’s Republican superstars were yesterday’s GOP primary enemies: Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio. Now the Republican establishment hopes you’ll forget that they opposed these men just as they did Ronald Reagan.

...

Entering the 2014 elections, there are 13 Republican senators who face re-election. Their average tenure in Washington is more than 18 years. In that time, federal spending has nearly doubled, and our national debt has tripled. They’ve proven themselves uninterested or incapable of addressing this economic and moral deficit of stealing from our children.

...

It’s time to clean house.

We need more Ted Cruzes and Mike Lees, more Rand Pauls and Marco Rubios, and we can’t just sit around waiting for the GOP establishment to deliver. They haven’t and they won’t. It’s time to take a page out of Sarah Palin’s playbook. It’s time to take on the establishment. For the sake of our party and the republic, it’s time to lock and load.

Swing by The Washington Times to read it all and be sure to check out The Real Conservatives National Committee mentioned in the column. It's time for courage. It's time to clean house.

As always, thank you for sharing it with 5,000 of your closest friends on Facebook, Twitter and everywhere else the cool kids are hanging out these days.

Sarah Palin: Loaded for Bear

2013-03-27T19:00:00.000-06:00

Ask yourself, do you trust the GOP establishment to choose your leaders? Do you trust them to choose your candidates for the 2014 elections?

My Washington Times latest: Happy birthday, Obamacare

2013-03-22T14:23:00.003-06:00

[Illustration by Greg Groesch for The Washington Times]

Happy birthday, Obamacare
The health care law’s lies stand exposed

Imagine a world where politicians were forced to tell the truth and forced to put their money where their mouths are. Don’t laugh. What if we simply included politicians’ promises about the laws they propose right into the laws themselves? These would serve as measurable conditions for the law’s survival. If the promises prove to be empty, the law would automatically expire.

Now imagine applying this standard to the most consequential law of our lifetimes: Obamacare. The president’s health care takeover annexed one-sixth of the U.S. economy under direct government control, which, in turn, threatens the other five-sixths. You can’t escape it. Now, three years since Obamacare was signed into law, it has become simply undeniable that it was based on deception.

Swing by The Washington Times to read the worst of the Obamacare lies: Happy birthday, Obamacare. And as always, thanks for sharing it on Facebook, Twitter and everywhere else the cool kids hang out these days.

These lies beg an obvious question: If Obamacare is so great, why did the Democrats feel the need to lie so much about it?

Daily Caller: Facebook fraud and the war hero

2013-03-21T12:41:00.000-06:00

America needs more patriots like my cousin, U.S. Army staff sergeant, combat veteran and Bronze Star recipient Erik Wolf. Unfortunately, that’s not what an impostor had in mind when he created dozens of fraudulent versions of the war hero on Facebook in an attempt to defraud unsuspecting Americans eager to serve the troops who serve us.

Numerous phony Facebook accounts using photographs of Erik and his wife Annie have popped up, each with variations of his name. First came “Wolf Erik.” Then “Benjamin Wolf,” “Mark Wolf,” “Collins Wolf,” and so many others, each with an elaborate but fictional biography centered on the same disturbing theme: his wife is dead.

Here's just one of the creepy fake pages:

This stolen photo is of the real Erik and Annie and they are just fine. Their real concern is for the potential financial victims of this scam. They've even taken to posting "proof-of-life" photos on their real Facebook pages.

Go to The Daily Caller to read the full disturbing details and how a heroic couple like Erik and Annie deal with it: Facebook fraud and the war hero. And thanks for sharing it on Facebook, Twitter and everywhere else the cool kids hang out these days.

Democrats want a 'Department of Peacebuilding.' Here's a better idea...

2013-02-27T08:43:00.000-06:00

Face, meet palm.

We live in a bizarre time. We call tax hikes 'revenues.' We call spending hikes 'investments.' And we call war 'peacekeeping.' It's no wonder we fail at all of them: we don't even know what they are.

Democrats on the Hill today are proposing the creation of a 'Department of Peacebuilding' because, evidently, our government is not currently wasting enough of your money or wasting enough time pursuing feel-good goals that can't possibly be achieved.

Just try to imagine what these 'peacebuilding' forces will look like. Ask the worldwide rape victims of the United Nations 'Peacekeepers' what they think.

If you want peace, I have a better idea.

Let's rename the Department of Defense back to it's previous name, The Department of War, and let's get back to the business of winning them for a change. Instead of sending troops all over the globe under the slippery context of defense -- or worse yet, peace -- let's return to the Department of War mindset when we actually won wars -- unambiguously, unmistakably and unapologetically won wars.

It's a sobering decision to go to war, or at least it should be. It's a last resort option, like open-heart surgery, but sometimes it is necessary. When we hide behind euphemisms like peacekeeping or peacebuilding or even defense, we fool ourselves into protracted and seemingly inextricable conflicts. Our enemies declare war on us but we refuse to declare war on them. In the end, this is worse than war itself.

Want peace? Then decide wisely, decide soberly when the dangers before us warrant war and then officially declare it and unambiguously win it. Want peace? Then forget the hippies; call in the Department of War.

Barack Obama's good laugh at his own voters

2013-02-16T13:48:00.000-06:00

So Facebook is the latest company with close ties to Barack Obama to get a multibillion-dollar tax break. You'll recall that General Electric's CEO and head of Obama's "Jobs Council," Jeffrey Immelt, managed to get a sweetheart tax deal for his corporation too. In 2010, GE earned over $14 billion and paid nothing in federal taxes. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Not a penny.

And these are just the tax breaks. The multibillion-dollar slush fund -- of your money -- directed to Barack's friends and political donors in his Big Green Boondoggle is even worse.

But I'm sure King Barack the Magnanimous cares deeply about little ol' you and not just his billionaire political buddies.

"Republican politicians are missing from the debate"

2013-02-11T08:19:00.003-06:00

Since the election, the president has rolled over feckless Republicans with tax hikes, the fiscal cliff, the debt ceiling and is poised to roll them on immigration, but there have been two major victories for freedom: the gun rights debate and the NRLB court ruling. What do these two victories have in common? Elected Republicans have been more or less absent from both of them.

Coincidence?

In this Forbes' piece, NRA Winning the Influence Battle Over Gun Control, Bruce Rogers analyzed the national debate over gun control, not on its merits, but on who is influencing it. Who is engaging the conversation -- stakeholders, he calls them -- and who is most effective. Not surprisingly, among the gun control proponents, President Obama is the most influential voice. And among gun rights proponents?

Republican politicians are missing from the debate. The debate is an influence battle between President Barack Obama’s Democrats and Wayne LaPierre’s NRA. Of the top 25 stakeholders in the debate, there is only 1 prominent Republican politician (Chris Christie – who is pro-gun control). Barack Obama leads the pro-gun control voice with a net influence score of 268. LaPierre leads the anti-gun control side with a net influence score of 240.

In the case of the National Labor Relations Board the Washington D.C. Court of Appeals ruled that Barack Obama violated the Constitution, specifically Article 1 Section 5, by claiming for himself the power to declare when the Senate was in recess when the Senate itself declared it was in session. This transparent attempt to bypass Congress and make recess appointments was a naked power grab.

Left unchecked, this is the road to tyranny. So who had the courage to fight against President Obama's unconstitutional power grab? Mitch McConnell, top Republican in the Senate? Don't laugh, but Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader? Any Republican constitutionalist anywhere? No. It was Noel Canning -- a Pepsi bottler whose company was harmed by Obama's NRLB -- with help from the imitable Mark Levin's Landmark Legal Foundation.

This lawsuit was never about the nation's soft drink supply; it was about the sacred principle of Separation of Powers.

"If Congress won't act, I will."

Barack Obama has spoken this phrase numerous times to thunderous applause but consider it closely. With those words, Barack Obama considers himself, not a public servant or a president whose powers are limited by a Constitution or by the people, but he considers himself a supreme ruler. And with these words, Barack Obama considers you, not a citizen, but his subject. His desires will overrule those of the people's duly elected representatives.

It boggles my mind that elected Republicans can remain so silent as our republic shows signs of crumbling. Is it fear? Denial? At least Chris Christie, as wrong as he is on your inherent right to defend yourself, at least has fire in his belly. History is unfolding before our eyes that will forever define our America. Is it too much to ask that our elected Republicans at least put up a fight for freedom?

[crickets chirping]

America before the Great Wussification: Liberals' heads to explode in 3... 2... 1...

2013-02-02T12:59:00.000-06:00

In the days before "Everybody gets a trophy just for showing up" kumbaya carnivals when schools didn't go into full-panic lock-down at the mere sight of a toy Nerf gun...

I want one!

Genius Obama supporter: Amend Constitution to allow c-section babies to run for president

2013-01-30T22:47:00.000-06:00

My first inclination was that this was so overwhelming stupid (and funny) that it has to be a parody. But here's a link to the Carteret County News-Times. Face, meet palm.

via Weasel Zippers

Classic Tom & Jerry clip: Equal parts guns, smoking and violence

2013-01-29T20:23:00.001-06:00

WARNING: If you were raised on Captain Planet or if your school ever went on full-panic lock down for a toy Nerf gun, you may find this offensive...

But it sure beats today's wussified cartoons.

Guess-who-said-it game: 'Nothing's going to stop me! Not even deaths!'

2013-01-28T08:12:00.001-06:00

Here's how one prominent politician recently described his plans for energy production:

"There are going to be screw-ups. There are going to be bankruptcies. There'll be indictments and there'll be deaths. But we're going to keep going - and nothing's going to stop me."

So guess who said it. Was it...

(A) An evil Republican whose hellbent lust for profits compels him to lay the Keystone oil pipeline even if it destroys the environment.

or

(B) A peace-loving Democrat whose benevolent quest for wholesomeness inspires him to force taxpayers to fund solar power plants so we can save Mother Earth and sing kumbaya.

Your moonbeam answer here.

You really have to admire the Democrats' raw determination, if nothing else. Nothing will stop them. Not bankruptcies. Not indictments. Not even deaths. And certainly not the inconvenient fact that so-called "green" energy is a boondoggle that simultaneously demonizes traditional energy suppliers while depending on them to pay their bills.

Now ask yourself this: Why aren’t the Republicans ever as determined to defend our liberties as the Democrats are to destroy them?

Death Panel update: Let fat smokers die or just tax and shame them?

2013-01-26T14:47:00.000-06:00

I find this so deeply disturbing and outright offensive that I can hardly contain myself.

The mainstream media asks this question in all seriousness:

Faced with the high cost of caring for smokers and overeaters, experts say society must grapple with a blunt question: Instead of trying to penalize them and change their ways, why not just let these health sinners die?

...

...some studies even suggest that because smokers and obese people die sooner, they may actually cost society less than healthy people who live much longer and develop chronic conditions like Alzheimer's disease.

Ghoulish. A Death Panel by in other name.

Government health care death panels are nothing new. Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit reminds us that In Great Britain – 57,000 Patients a Year Die Without Being Told Life-Saving Treatments Have Been Stopped. This is the so-called Liverpool Care Pathway. And remember that Barack Obama appointed a man to head Medicare who says he's simply "romantic" about this British system.

Among the hidden surprises in ObamaCare is a provision that allows health insurance companies to hike premiums by 50 percent on smokers, or nearly $5,100 for a 60-year-old who lights up. No such provision currently exists for obesity.

The debate over public smoking is a fair one. Your right to light up does not trump my right to breathe smoke-free air. Fine. We can certainly find ways to accommodate both. But obesity is another matter altogether. There's no such thing as secondhand fat. You harm no one but yourself by putting on extra weight (which makes Nurse Bloomberg's ban on the Big Gulp in New York City particularly offensive).

In America, we all have the right to pursue happiness, unless your happiness is derived from things that offend the delicate sensibilities of your government rulers.

Our government betters tell us that obesity does indeed harm others because they are forced to pay for the increased health care costs. John Nolte of Breitbart very astutely notes that liberals don't really care about costs:

...nothing else that explodes the cost of anything ever bothers the Left. If the Left was truly concerned with the cost of health care, they never would've pushed ObamaCare. If the Left was truly concerned with the deficit, they would've voted Obama out of office in a landslide.

No, if you'll notice, the only time the media and Left wring their hands over expense and cost is when that hand-wringing can be manipulated into an excuse to control other people's lives.

This is precisely why the Left wants you to believe that the government should provide you with "free" health care. Once you're on their hook, there's nothing you do -- not a single darn thing -- that they can't claim affects your health care costs. Do you smoke? Drink? Bike? Skydive? Eat Cheetos? Drive a fast car? Spend time at your computer? These all affect your health care costs, no?

Health care is the Holy Grail of the Left because it becomes their license to tax, regulate or outright ban anything you could possibly ever do.

Government health care is about control. It's about the power to determine who shall live and who shall die. And right now, if you are obese or if you smoke, your benevolent government is trying to determine if you're worth keeping around. Or maybe they'll just tax you and shame you into submission.

Fat smokers today. They'll sort out the rest of us later.

What Newt should have said to Piers Morgan

2013-01-25T19:07:00.000-06:00

Professor Jacobson links this video of Newt Gingrich debating Piers Morgan on gun control:

Newt, as usual, is formidable. As just one high point (of many), the former Speaker starts right out of the gates during the intro pleasantries. After suffering through a lead-in video of Dianne Feinstein describing a shooting victim, Newt landed his first blow by asking Piers how many lead-in videos he has aired that featured would-be victims whose lives were saved by a gun. Piers' dumbfounded expression is priceless.

Readers know I have enormous respect for Newt Gingrich and for Professor Jacobson. And it seems the professor feels Newt won the debate hands down but I'm not so sure. I'm quite sure the gun controllers would say Piers won the debate and I suspect that the mushy middle would agree them. And that is not a win for conservatives.

Here's what Piers did: First he got Newt to agree (at least effectively) that the 1930's ban on fully-automatic rifles was a good thing because those guns are so dangerous. At that point, Piers needed only to convince his viewers that semi-automatic rifles are also dangerous and, with that, he wins the argument that the government can and should ban them.

We conservatives and libertarians need to handle this better.

It appears Newt must have missed my recent post: How to crush Democrats' dumbest (but pervasive) gun control argument. I discussed banning citizens from owning nuclear weapons but it applies equally as well to fully-automatic machine guns.

Here's my simple rule:

Law-abiding, free people should have the right to arm themselves with whatever weapons their government would use against them.

As I said before:

If the world is sufficiently dangerous that the police require semi-automatic rifles with large-capacity magazines, then do not the free citizens who are sovereign over the police and who also live in the same dangerous world deserve to similarly protect themselves from it? In fact, are not the citizens -- not the police -- always the first ones who are forced to face those dangers?

But there's more. By law, the police can only use weapons for defensive purposes. So if the police bear a weapon it MUST be, by definition, a defensive weapon. In fact, this is how we can finally distinguish defensive weapons from assault weapons.

I've been asked: Well, what about tear gas or water cannons for crowd control? Personally, there are times that I'd love to have a water cannon, but that's another matter. If extenuating circumstances demand that police take extraordinary measures and bear unconventional weapons, then it should only be under judicial warrant.

This is not a difficult concept. It's frustrating to watch liberals score points (and undoubtedly win over voters) with this argument that should be conservatives' and libertarians' to win.

Empty gun stores shelves, empty words and memories of ObamaCare

2013-01-25T08:43:00.000-06:00

There's something happening here.

This is not some Christmas buying frenzy for a Nintendo Wii or the latest Furby. There is a run on firearms and ammunition and its scope is beyond what the world has ever witnessed. In the last two months, American citizens have purchased enough guns to outfit the entire Chinese and Indian armies, combined.

Membership in the NRA grew by a quarter million in one month. (Join here.)

President Obama and the Democrats may mouth the words that they respect the Second Amendment of our Constitution. They may even say that they respect our entire Constitution but they say a lot of things and Americans just aren't buying it. The Democrats are hellbent on limiting the Second Amendment and citizens are responding with their feet and their wallets. With every gun and every box of ammunition Americans buy, they are declaring that they simply do not trust President Obama's commitment to our Constitution.

Here's my local Cabela's store last night:

What does this have to do with ObamaCare?

Americans just witnessed the Democrats force the president's government health care takeover into law despite the unmistakable and unwavering fact that the majority of citizens opposed it. And what Democrats can't force through Congress, they simply force through executive order and avalanches of new bureaucratic regulations.

The Democrats' lust for power would be restrained only by our Constitution which, of course, strictly limits what our government can impose upon We The People, but only if we can back it up. Meanwhile, our rulers have declared how much water your toilet can flush and what light bulbs you are permitted to buy. They see no limits to their power.

Our right to own and bear arms, and if necessary, fire them with great precision and quantity, is the last line of defense against tyranny. The Second Amendment is the nearest guarantor we have of all of our other rights including our most fundamental of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

I urge all responsible, law-abiding Americans to purchase firearms and ammunition and to learn how to use them safely and effectively. And wisely.

So I came across this on Facebook today

2013-01-24T11:56:00.001-06:00

It seems Milton is a mayor in Brazil. Or an alderman running for mayor. Or something. My Portuguese skills are limited to Google Translate.

I came across this simply by searching my name on Facebook. I've heard of poseurs creating a phony Facebook account under your name and even using your profile picture. They then send friend requests to all your unsuspecting friends who are likely to accept. From there they can very easily create problems for you.

I don't know if this is more folklore than fact but it's easy enough to check. And who knows, you might find something interesting.

Rand Paul to Hillary: 'I would have relieved you of your post' [VIDEO]

2013-01-23T11:46:00.000-06:00

“Had I been president at the time and I had found that you had not read the cables from Benghazi, you had not read the cables from Ambassador Stevens,” he went on, “I would have relieved you of your post.”

via Daily Caller

What Phil Mickelson SHOULD have said

2013-01-22T23:39:00.000-06:00

Somebody got to Phil Mickelson.

After completing Sunday's Humana Challenge in La Quinta, Mickelson was quoted as saying he might move, or even consider retirement, because of increased taxes he said had pushed his tax rate to "62, 63%."

"It's been an interesting off-season," Mickelson, a lifelong San Diego-area resident, said. "And I'm going to have to make some drastic changes."

Several golfers, including Tiger Woods, have moved to Florida because it has no state income tax.

But suddenly...

"I'm like many Americans who are trying to understand the new tax laws," Mickelson's statement read in part. "I certainly don't have a definitive plan at this time, but like everyone else I want to make decisions that are best for my future and my family. Finances and taxes are a personal matter and I should not have made my opinions on them public. I apologize to those I have upset or insulted and assure you I intend to not let it happen again."

So let's get this straight. A beloved law-abiding free American who brings joy to millions and seems never to have bothered anyone evidently forgot that he lives in Obamerica. He's done well for himself but he should remember that he didn't build that. How dare he "upset" and "insult" people by so selfishly expressing concern that his government stands ready to confiscate, err, tax away, 63% of his income.

Read that again: 63 percent of one American's income.

Here's what Phil Mickelson should have said:

America continues to amaze me. I still marvel that people pay me so much money for hitting a little white ball around a golf course. It's not that I don't work hard at my craft. I do. I take nothing for granted and work my tail off every day to get better, just like millions of Americans do at their crafts. And it's not like I didn't take risks. When so many people told me I should get a 'real' job, I held fast to my dream, no matter how unlikely it was, just like so many entrepreneurs in America have done who have made our lives immeasurably better. And yet I still marvel at it all.

But maybe it's not so hard to understand. I earned $60 million dollars last year and not a single one of those dollars did I steal from anyone. Not a single one of those dollars did I weasel out of a corrupt system because I bribed -- I mean, contributed to -- some politician to pass a law that favors me. Not a single one of those dollars did I simply tax away from someone because I could.

Every single dollar that came my way was voluntarily given to to me. And people are not idiots. They don't just give away their hard-earned dollars for nothing. Every dollar they gave me was in return for something that was worth more to them than a dollar, or they wouldn't have given it up. Like I said, I marvel at the opportunities in America. Who would have thought so many people would find so much joy in watching a guy hit a ball with stick? But they do and so I will do my best to do everything I can to be worthy of them. Isn't that the American way?

It breaks my heart that America is abandoning the American way of keeping government small so that individuals can become as big as their dreams. And it breaks my heart that my home state, the state I love, is chasing away so many hard-working people and wonderful businesses with their outrageously high taxes. It's nothing less than a tragedy that the fastest growing population in America is former Californians and the fastest growing industry is former California businesses.

What's worse, unless we change our ways, unless we stop all of America from adopting the failing California Blue model, I fear we will no longer be talking about former Californians so much as former Americans.

Krauthammer on Obama: The era of Big Government is just getting warmed up

2013-01-21T18:50:00.002-06:00

During his 1981 inaugural speech, President Ronald Reagan famously declared that government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem. “Today’s inaugural address was a rebuke to that entire idea,” Krauthammer said. “This speech today was an ode to big government. It was a hymn to big government.”

The conservative columnist added that the speech was Obama’s way of declaring that he intends to defend the achievements of liberalism — such as Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid — while expanding liberalism’s agenda for climate change, gun control, immigration, and gay rights. “He outlined the liberal agenda, the big government agenda in the future,” Krauthammer said.

The analyst then lamented that the speech avoided “any mention of the economy, the deficits, what outsiders would say is the great challenge of our time headed to over a cliff, a real cliff of debt into a sort of a Greek future.

“Obama had zero interest in that,” Krauthammer added, “and this was a declaration that his interest is to restore us to the liberal ascendency.””

Of course not. Under liberalism, there is no future, so why bother worrying about it?

Here's the video from Mediaite:

Mark Levin: 'Fight!'

2013-01-21T15:22:00.000-06:00

Ben Shapiro caught up with The Great One who shared some spot-on (and sobering) thoughts on the day of Barack Obama's second inauguration. Levin cautions conservatives, libertarians and constitutionalists against a third-party movement, at least for now:

The problem is a practical one. If we go third party, I can see the Democrats winning elections for a generation. Given the radicalized character of that party, that would seal our fate, and the fate of our children and grandchildren to, as Reagan put it, 1000 years of darkness. The day may come, perhaps soon, when abandoning the GOP for a new party is the best way to deal with events and stop the rise of tyranny. I think the answer at this moment is for conservatives to retake the Republican Party. Reagan did it, and Reagan was opposed by the Republican establishment every step of the way, including the Bush family.

But he doesn't let Republicans off the hook, not by a long shot:

Right now we have a government with so much power, a government so ubiquitous, a government so cancerous in its growth and so exponential in its expanse, that I cannot conceal my great fear for the future of this country. Trying to figure out how to unravel it all is a very difficult undertaking. I have friends who are conservatives who are very intelligent, I know a number of people who are in public office, and they say, ‘Be positive, if we win the next election, things will be okay.’ But it’s not just about winning the next election. That’s the minimum we need to do. We need to roll back the size of the federal Leviathan or it will surely be our undoing. Republicans have been allergic to this. We need to roll back the debt, even though the last Republican administration contributed mightily to it. The way to start is by cleaning out the old guard in the GOP and installing fresh, bold, articulate, knowledgeable, confident, courageous conservatives. We must find a way to depose the old, decrepit, tired so-called leaders who've used the system to climb to the top, but once at the top demonstrate they don't belong there. We also must find ways to devolve political and economic power back to the states and the individual. It is a fool's errand to believe that the same people who've brought us to the brink are the people who can solve the dire problems they've contributed to. This is a puzzle that must be solved.

Go read Shapiro's entire interview: EXCLUSIVE: MARK LEVIN'S INAUGURAL DAY MESSAGE— FIGHT! As Glenn Reynolds says: Punch back twice as hard!

Answer: Napoleon Dynamite, Manti Te'o and Barack Obama

2013-01-17T07:04:00.000-06:00

Question: Name three guys who invented a phony girlfriend.

How to crush Democrats' dumbest (but pervasive) gun control argument

2013-01-16T12:11:00.000-06:00

Let's be clear. The Second Amendment was not written to protect your right to kill a deer. It was designed to protect your right to defend yourself against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Your right to bear arms is the only guarantor of your other rights to life, liberty, property, speech and all the rest.

The never-let-a-crisis-go-to-waste Left is in assault mode on your Second Amendment rights. These gun grabbers think they're so clever with this line of questioning which (frustratingly) seems to stump the unprepared:

The Framers didn't write the Second Amendment with AR-15's in mind. Where do you stop? Should citizens be allowed to have nuclear weapons?

This is a hanging curve ball just waiting for you to crush it.

First of all, remind Democrats that the Framers didn't write the First Amendment with cable television, Internet communications or even the telegraph in mind. Should we limit the press's freedom of speech to the movable-type printing press which was the primary means of mass communication at the time of the Framers?

More importantly, don't let the nuclear weapon ruse intimidate you. [And for fun, pronounce it /nuke 'yuh ler/ just to show 'em who's boss.] The limits of the Second Amendment is a fair question that deserves an answer. It's simple: Law-abiding, free people should have the right to arm themselves with whatever weapons their government would use against them.

If the world is sufficiently dangerous that the police require semi-automatic rifles with large-capacity magazines, then do not the free citizens who are sovereign over the police and who also live in the same dangerous world deserve to similarly protect themselves from it? In fact, are not the citizens -- not the police -- always the first ones who are forced to face those dangers?

There is no justification for the public servant police to be more heavily armed than the law-abiding public they serve ... unless ... the government's intention is to be more powerful than the people. When the police are the only ones armed, then it is a police state.

Nah, that's crazy talk. The next thing you know, you'll claim that even the Department of Education is arming itself. Oh crap...

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers. I'm one of you. Be sure to check out...
Worst school massacre in U.S. history: Not a shooting
Watch what happens when a nation bans semi-automatic guns
Why are Democrats so racist?
And my latest Washington Times column: Grappling on the ‘fiscal cliff’

So close: Trillion dollar lunacy, Obama style

2013-01-15T06:58:00.002-06:00

Obama Blinks: No Emperor's New Coin

It looks like the American people have been cheated out of a precious teachable moment. Demonstrating their ability to think two moves ahead, something their Republican opponents seem incapable of, the Democratic leadership has decided to stop dancing around the threat to issue a trillion-dollar coin. The Treasury Department, Saturday, finally issued a flat out denial.

Pity. Daring them to do it would have been the perfect tool to demonstrate that the emperor has no clothes.

Any American who is not terrified of the mess created by the Federal Reserve, the Too-Big-to-Fail banks, Washington’s insatiable spending binge, and the unprecedented money printing intended to keep the illusion alive that this can continue forever is, quite simply, impervious to facts and reason. These are probably the same people who believe there really is a Social Security “lock box” or that every dollar spent by government really creates two dollars in economic growth.

Picture what would have gone through their heads watching the President of the United States, live on TV, ascend the steps of the Federal Reserve bearing a satin pillow with a trillion dollar platinum coin on top. As he deposits the coin, he turns to the cameras and says, “Fear not, fellow Americans. By depositing this mighty coin we have created enough money to pay for all the free stuff we promised you for at least another year.”

Well, it worked for Monty Burns on The Simpsons. But why stop at a mere one or two trillion dollars? I've got a couple of these $100 trillion bills myself. Obama should print them in greenbacks and he could give us all Ferraris.

Overheard at the gun show...

2013-01-13T17:46:00.001-06:00

Today I shopped the RK Gun Show along with about half of Kansas City. A record turnout. No parking for blocks. There's definitely a sense of urgency among gun buyers as reflected by the depleted inventories and prices.

I urge all responsible, law-abiding Americans to buy and learn to be safely proficient with guns. The good guys should always have more firepower than the bad guys. And let's be clear about this: The Second Amendment does not exist so you can shoot a deer but rather so you can protect yourself from all enemies, foreign and domestic. As George Washington said, "A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined..."

As I was leaving the gun show I overheard this exchange between a mother and her young son, perhaps 5 or 6 years old. As they entered the showroom, he could not contain his astonishment upon first seeing the vast collection of firearms:

'But mom, guns are bad.'

'Oh no, guns are not bad. Remember? Your dad uses guns for his Army job.'

This quick exchange spoke volumes and I found it to be quite disturbing. Clearly someone is attempting to indoctrinate this young child in direct contradiction to his parents' beliefs, but who? His government-provided teacher? Government-controlled public access television? His government-coerced pediatrician complying with the federal government's guidelines? Who?

Thomas Sowell recently wrote this outstanding column about the undermining of America, one student at a time: The Role of 'Educators'. They're starting young.

Thank goodness for this young boy's mother. And his father.

My Washington Times latest: Grappling on the ‘fiscal cliff’

2013-01-12T11:33:00.000-06:00

[“The ‘Fiscal Cliff’” (Illustration by Alexander Hunter/The Washington Times)]

Grappling on the ‘fiscal cliff’
Entrenched politicians out of touch with reality

Alternate title: What's the matter with Kansas Senator Pat Roberts?

So the Washington solution to our spending crisis is — drumroll — more spending. Who knew?

Mr. Roberts added insult to injury by calling this $600 billion tax hike “tax relief.” This is what happens when you spend three decades in Washington: Up becomes down, down becomes up and a $600 billion increased tax burden on 77 percent of households becomes “tax relief.” What’s more, Mr. Roberts also claimed he would “now focus on spending cuts.” Sure, and Lindsay Lohan will now focus on sobriety. Why didn’t he focus on the $330 billion in increased spending and just vote no?

...

We’re Kansans. We’re Americans. We want our steaks hot, our beers cold and our politicians — temporary.

Swing by The Washington Times to read it all. And as always, thanks for sharing it on Facebook, Twitter and everywhere else the cool kids hang out.