Conservative Refocus

Barry Secrest

As we celebrate this Christmas season there are a growing number of individuals and families who will be mournfully unable to do so. Lives have been ripped away from families for what would amount to any number of essentially motiveless reasons by what most would consider deranged gunmen.

However, when looked at pragmatically at these instances of gun violence, at some point, one simply has to begin to wonder what precisely is going on, but certainly not regarding the question of guns and America's 2nd amendment rights.

The questions should be sourced directly toward the reasoning behind the Obama Regime's "Fast and Furious" scandal in which the US government walked nearly 2,000 military style weapons into Mexico.

The question as to the "whys" has never been meaningfully answered. In fact, there was no practical methodology for tracking these weapons. However some have indicated that the Fast and Furious operation was a false flag mission designed to build anti-gun sentiment in the US.

From the impetus of Fast and Furious, we have seemed to be experiencing repeated gun-play mayhem events in a number of admittedly bizarre instances in which each of the shooters, mentally deranged as they were, have come from similar socio-economic backgrounds down to their age and their race.

Now we hear of two firefighters being shot and killed while responding to a fire that has been indicated as a Trap in upstate New York, with several others being wounded.

Over-Kill would appear to be the operative word in this collection of shooting incidents, each of which, being truly bizarre in their own right.... but when taken altogether?

Something seems severely amiss.

All in all, with all of the anti-gun rhetoric we have been hearing of  late as a result of these attacks, perhaps we should visit with one of America's closest allies, Great Britian, in order to see how they have fared with a overall gun ban in this youtube clip:

England Warns America: Don't let them take your guns

A 40% increase in gun crimes since the ban was instituted only a few years hence? Sounds just a bit like Americans are being mislead with regard to anti-gun laws.

Below is the initial news reporting clip of the latest weird instance of gun mayhem as reported by anti-gun activist news organization CNN, which took place on Christmas Eve:

(CNN) -- At least two firefighters were shot and killed at the scene of a fire that engulfed multiple houses in upstate New York on Monday, police said. Doctors treated two other firefighters for gunshot wounds, police in Webster, New York, told reporters.

Authorities believe one or more shooters took aim at the firefighters after they left their vehicles, Police Chief Gerald Pickering said. For hours, the gunfire stopped firefighters from working to extinguish the flames and forced police SWAT teams to evacuate homes in the area.

Firefighters first arrived before 6 a.m., said Rob Boutillier, Webster's fire marshal. By 9 a.m., flames had engulfed three houses and a vehicle, he said.

The shooting comes amid a renewed debate over gun control in the United States after a gunman killed 26 people at a Connecticut elementary school earlier this month.

President Barack Obama has set a January deadline for "concrete proposals" to deal with gun violence.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, has said she will introduce legislation to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. The White House has said that the president supports that effort.

Speaking to reporters on Friday, the National Rifle Association's president called for more guns in the wake of the mass shooting, proposing putting an armed guard in every U.S. school in order to protect children.

On Sunday, NRA President Wayne LaPierre told NBC's "Meet the Press" that he would not express support for any new gun restrictions, saying most gun laws on the books are currently rarely enforced.

So what gives? However it's not only the repeated instances of bizarre gun-play that points to the possibility of a shadow operation being perpetrated by groups unknown. There is another confirmed false-flag operation being perpetrated upon the American people, and this time, it's a quantifiable effort easily confirmed as being from our body politic.

In this case, it's the war against those within America's job creating group, ostensibly referred to as the wealthy. The President and his devotees, while promising fairness and equitable treatment for all, have over the last four years, turned their Left-Wing impetus against what Marxists refer to as the Bourgeoisie or the Business Class in an effort to supply America with a euphemistic villain.

 

"Majority of Rich Want Themselves Taxed More: Poll"

NBC News has indicated, in a story released on Christmas day,  a set of findings that we believe show that there is far more at play than the wealthy wishing to be taxed more and try to provide some answers in the form of refuting the CNBC article findings, indicated below:

CNBC: House Republicans are opposing tax increases on anyone - whether it's Americans making $250,000 or $1 million or more a year.

Indeed, this is true; however, the reasons for this are myriad and cannot be broken down into just a few sound-bites or slogans.

We can point to two predominant reasons for the Republican stance. The first points to the fact that unless the politicians essentially double all taxes for everyone, including business, thereby confiscating more than 80% of an individual's income in some cases, there is no viable way that the US can cover its tremendous spending deficit of about $ 1.5 trillion per year.

Any tax increase is a mere panacea covering the true problem.  The second reason for avoiding a tax increase on the wealthy is simply due to the fact that the wealthy constitute the chief purveyors of job creation in the US. Shifting their income from the private sector to the government will only complicate America's still dismal job-creating efforts

CNBC: But a new survey shows that they might be opposing the very people they claim to protect.

American Express Publishing and The Harrison Group found that 67 percent of the top one percent of American earners support higher income taxes. Their support has grown since the election. This summer, 62 percent of them supported higher taxes. 

Some might say the rich are hoping to tax people richer - or poorer -- than themselves. The top one percent consists of people making more than $450,000 a year. But the survey clearly shows most One Percenters favor taxing themselves. More than half say that they support taxing those making $500,000 or more. That's up from 51 percent in the second quarter.

So, in essence, the rich to include Buffet, want more income confiscated by their government even while they take great pains to advantage every single loophole available?

Sorry, but this beyond difficult to believe; which would lead us to wonder exactly what sort of wording American Express utilized while conducting this poll.

Secondly, American Express is not exactly known for its polling prowess as also being a government bailed out entity that switched to becoming a so-called bank during the meltdown.

Also, the last time we checked, the Harris group offers reparation to each of its pollees in the form of product kickback purchase points for taking the poll in the first place.

Not exactly what could be referred to as 'scientific methodology'-- kind of like global warming...

Nevermind the fact that Buffett is even now embroiled in a difficult tax fight with the US government over a disagreement in how much his main business owes in taxes.

Believe me, Buffett is not fighting the US Government in an heroic effort to pay more taxes....quite the contrary, which leads us to wonder at the vast amount of hypocrisy on display from Buffett.

CNBC: "There is an absolute willingness for the vast majority of the One Percent to take a tax increase," said Jim Taylor, Vice Chairman Harrison Group. "What the Republicans think is not necessarily what their constituents think."

Oh, Really Jim?

But then why do these people, who are apparently climbing all over each other in an effort to pay more taxes to the hungry government spending beast, also feel that they are unfairly carrying far too much burden, as indicated below?

CNBC: Granted, the one percent is not happy about paying higher taxes. The American Express/Harrison poll shows that 64 percent say they carry an "unfair tax burden in the amount of money I pay in taxes." This number is higher for Republicans and lower for Democrats.

(Read more: Super-Rich: Tax Us When We're Dead)

Aha! Now we're getting at the true feelings of those who will seemingly be required to pay even more.

CNBC: Nearly three quarters of them are "extremely or very concerned about their taxes going up." Other recent surveys show that the wealthy support higher taxes as part of a balanced solution to the government debt problem that includes spending cuts.

In essence, there appears to be an extreme dichotomy at play as we move deeper into the story and away from the misleading headline.

CNBC: Still, a majority support for tax increases on themselves, presumably for the sake of the broader economy. Taylor said that for many of the wealthy, the possible reduction in asset values stemming from problems in Washington far outweigh the potential reduction in their income.

Increasing taxes "for the sake of a broader economy?"

How does the shifting of private equity into the government's exhausted coffers result in a broader economy, for heaven's sake? The writer here, now efforts to tie up his article in an attractive little package with an archer's bow rather than the expected ribbon bow.

In essence, believing that an additional $85 billlion dollars a year in taxation will somehow miraculously prove to be the magic elixir that America needs to fix everything.

The politicos on the left, to include the media, can keep chasing that bunny down the rabbit-hole of fantasy; however, as stated many times before, the Left is made up largely of poor marksmen who can never quite seem to hit the target, especially when it comes to the actual answers for America's economic turn-around.

The point, we will soon come to see, being that putting a radical Liberal in charge of government finances is about as logical as putting an avowed pacifist in charge of a nation's defense forces.

A recipe for chaos when the ultimate disaster occurs.....

However, each of these instances largely constitutes a False Flag operation being perpetrated upon the American from two very divergent sources. The first one means to eventually wipe out America's 2nd amendment, the second to eventually prioritize the government over America's free market economy and individualism.

These two stories, in fact, could be related in ways that many of us simply cannot imagine, yet the simple fact remains that the redistribution of wealth from private to government sector will do nothing to improve America's productive capacity.

To borrow from Charles Dickens :

The Fiscal Cliff is certainly "more about gravy than grave".....

 

Facebook Group

Our hearts, thoughts and prayers, from the Conservative Refocus family, go out very sadly to the family members of the Sandy Hook Disaster.  Mere words can neither repair nor express what those families must be going through during this Christmas season.

Godspeed to all in great hope for the measured blessings of time and healing.

Conservative Refocus

By Barry Secrest

Why is it that an impending tax increase, which the Democrats have always sought, and which the Republicans have never wanted, has suddenly become anathema to the Liberals of America?

We have heard nothing but grumbling and bellicose whining, from the Liberals, ever since the Bush tax-cuts were passed into law on a bi-partisan basis back in the early 2000's.  In fact, over 10 years of incessant whining and gnashing of teeth have ensued since Bush sought and Conservatives wholeheartedly approved a massive stimulus in the form of tax-cuts in the post 9/11 economic landscape, which immediately occurred in the wake of the paralyzing terrorist attacks on America.

So,  if the tax cuts were so bad for America back then to the Democrats, and have been utterly ghastly for America up to the present day according to those same Democrats, then why are Obama, the Media and virtually every Left-Wing politico on the planet now calling the looming rate expiration "The Fiscal Cliff ?"

If, by using the left's latest imprimatur, that raising taxes only on the middle-class is horrible for America, then why is it that raising taxes on what the Left-Wing describes as "The Wealthy," equally as integral in order to improve the economy? It makes absolutely no sense on the face of it, based upon all that we know and everything that we have seen from the radical Left. The Left's premise that a tax increase targeting the wealthy to the tune of approximately $ 85 billion dollars will somehow improve either debt or deficit is an idea well beyond laughable when compared to a $16 trillion dollar debt.

Meanwhile the squishy Republicans have placed tail between leg while offering  all sorts of ritual Mandrake root supplications to the mighty El Magnifico for his divine approval. From "revenues on the table" to the latest, "increased taxation on millionaires," Boehner has sought wildly for a sacrifice to throw into the pyre of Obama's Republican burnt offerings.

So, will these sacrificial gifts finally work to the Anointed One's appeasement?

Or, more likely, is this yet another bait and switch game being expertly played by Obama and the Democrats? The actual facts that are in play at present, speak to the simple truth that only in America, could a sitting Liberal President:

-Intentionally blow-off  the passage of a US budget for three years in a row

-While spending $ 1.5 trillion more than the government earns each year

-Then blame the opposition party for potentially driving the nation over a fiscal cliff

-Due to that same party, the Republicans,  insistence on putting an end to the spending madness

-By cutting the AA spending spree, while that same chief executive  insists on now increasing taxes

-In order to cover his own insane spending which actually caused all of the chaos in the first place.

All of this, even while that same nation's media cheers the extraordinarily irresponsible chief executive on, as a hero for our time, while simultaneously denigrating the opposition party as being "rigidly ideological" for trying to tame this reckless fiscal train wreck in which we are all reluctant forced-paying passengers.

However, in that same vein, and as it regards America's increasingly helpless plight, the seminal questions for these interesting times in which we as Conservatives live, should be as follows:

1) Did the German engineer on the Hindenburg, who originally asserted that "using extremely flammable hydrogen as a buoyant was probably not a very good idea" feel satisfied when the ship burst into flames all around him?

No, or a reluctant Yes, dependent upon arrogant content of character...but in order to flesh out the argument a bit further, how about this one?

2) Did the ship designer who criticized the owner of the Titanic for removing over half of the safety boats because of deck clutter, feel any satisfaction as he gulped his last bit of air in any icy sea just before drowning?

No, once again or a qualified yes just before the reported euphoria, which frankly shouldn't count, occurs?  And then there's this one to complete the idea in full:

3) Did the Japanese Imperial army General who lauded his Emperor's giddy excitement at declaring war on America, feel any regret when a nuclear bomb was detonated almost directly over the base he commanded?

Maybe?  Or was it just extreme terror he felt?

I, personally, have often wondered that if we were to continue this economic idiocy now being perpetrated; how many Left-of Center people, to include Moderates, will look back on these particular times and feel a certain regret at how they were guilted or perhaps coached into authoring the demise of their own standard of living, not to mention that of their children and grandchildren? Or will it come on so slowly that only a few will be able to recount the actual events as they occurred? Think --2008 Financial Meltdown-- for the post-mortem point.

Or, will the media revisionists among us somehow continue to incrementally win out? One supposes, as each to his own, that a large number of Americans may sooner, rather than later, be experiencing those same feelings as those insinuated in the questions directly above, for better or for worse. However, it's almost funny to now observe the "garden variety Congressional Republican's" typical response to Obama's latest radical escapade which is called "the fiscal cliff" or "Cliffmas."

But then again, it's often even funnier to hear the even more troubled counter-responses to that first troubled response, of "we're willing to put revenue on the table"  from either wing of the political spectrum. The main thematic to remember in all of this, whether you be either a true Conservative or a fiscal Conservative or even an accountant,  is that once again and with regard to the Obama Regime, The Eeyore Paradigm authored over 18 months ago, on this site, still rules:

The Eeyore Paradigm

The attainment of measurable disappointment must be accompanied by at least some semblance of surpassing expectation.

The cacophony of oratory extremes, once everyone absorbed what the President initially had to say to kick-off the fiscal madness,  immediately began to emerge in reaction to the President's opus prime on Fiscal inflexibility concerning the raising of taxes on a minority of the wealthy, but also as it was conjoined with his oppositions' response. So, what is Obama's extraordinarily unpragmatic '' plan to take care of both the debt and the fiscal cliff on which America now teeters?

Let's look at Obama's original proposal as delivered through Treasury secretary Timothy Geitner:

-$ 1.6 Trillion in tax increases over the next ten years

Note: That's about $160 billion per year overt en years, which is a now stale Obama/Liberal trick to make a cut or an increase sound good at first, but in reality, it means nothing in the long run. With a current spending level of $3.7 trillion annually, this is less than nothing, but it's also certainly not a cut, which should tell you everything that you need to know about the "fixes" which are sure not to follow.

This amount was actually $ 800 billion immediately prior to the election, by the way.

-$ 50 billion in immediate stimulus spending

Note: Ostensibly for infrastructure; been there done that, and the President has already admitted his earlier mistake of thinking that shovel-ready jobs are anywhere one lobs a stick.

Maybe Obama forgot or, more likely, he thought we forgot....

-Unemployment tax relief continuance of 5.65% versus 7.65%

Note: Indeed, so one of the fixes for a social security plan which is going broke is to further impair it with more cuts...that should work..."not"

-Deferral of looming Medicare physician reimbursements

Note: Right, defer the payments for care until Obamacare is fully in force, then the original deferral becomes law. Has anyone successfully tied this, at least in part, to the reasons for our health insurance premiums continually increasing?

And then there's the Obamanomic piece de résistance" :

-Elimination of congressional voting to increase the government's debt limit

Note: Thereby giving El Magnifico free rein to spend all that he wants whenever he wants? Oh, Congress should easily go along with that one, assuming they just want to become completely neutered, or under Boehner's leadership, is the term congressionally neutered simply an oxymoron?

- No specific spending cuts

Which appears to be the summary point in all of this protracted nonsense.

The Summary Response from the political peanut gallery

A miasma of distressed clucking ensued and has persevered, on both sides, which could most closely be approximated to the sound of the world's largest chicken coup being penetrated by a massive pack of hungry wolves . The din, becoming so terribly deafening, that one could hardly focus on anything of actual import.

But maybe that was the point.

It's not that these issues we are faced with are not so terribly dire, we have, in fact as Conservatives, been preaching this for over three long years now, and it's slowly working. Albeit, far more slowly than we originally had hoped, in the Right-Wing media. This particular fact can be observed in the final vote tally for Obama in 2012 as compared to 2008:

Obama 2012: 62.6 million

Obama 2008: 66.9 million

Better, but just not quite good enough....

At some point, one simply has to begin to wonder what those of us in America can do to get those others of us in America  to see things for what they really are instead of what the media and the President tells them that it is. Or is that even remotely possible?

The simple fact is and always has been that the President will continue to follow his increasingly becoming obvious Cloward-Piven agenda, while the Republicans hesitantly follow along, without truly seeing nor understanding what it is that Obama's actually up to, right up and until the point that it's far too late.

A Transformational Refresher

The Cloward-Piven Agenda, which this site and a number of others have been pushing as an answer to the myriad questions surrounding Obama's strategory, is one so unthinkable and so utterly remarkable that many simply cannot put their arms around the fact that a sitting US President would dare to undertake its penultimate climax.

So, what is it again?

It's very simple in theory, and as we have seen over the past four years, not that hard to undertake as long as the chief instigator has a Congress of willing apparatchiks as the means toward an end, literally.

Cloward-Piven, a plan put together by a husband-wife team of Communists, is nothing more than a gradual overwhelming of the Capitalist system with welfare and entitlement spending largess, until that particular  financial system under direct assault simply implodes under the weight of far too many funding demands.

Those financial demands would include current problematic areas such as these:

Forced Government Medical Care

The healthcare mandate, which is just now coming into effect under the "Affordable Healthcare Act" more commonly known as Obamacare, passed into law in April of 2011. Even before full implementation, the private sector has begun laying off and limiting employee numbers and hours in order to avoid the onerous mandated demands. "Affordable," as we have seen, has quickly become completely "Unaffordable" as health insurance premiums have increased at at an even faster rate due to a dwindling number of workers and more demands on insurers by the law's edicts.

The cost for Obamacare was recently rescored by the Congressional Budget Office, to a revised amount of over $ 195 Billion per year through 2022, which bears no actual resemblance to its original cost score savings of $ 2,500 per person in lesser premiums, at a savings to the government, according to Obama....

Food Stamps

Since late 2008 the number of Americans on food stamps has effectively doubled, from about 25 million then, to almost 50 million in late 2012. An increase of over 100%, costing the US Government well over $70 billion dollars per year. However, an even more telling fact is how the Obama Regime has been searching virtually every nook and cranny in the US and even Mexico, in order to find new recipients which promises to only strain the US government's ability to pay even further.

The Unemployment Benefits Extension

 

The unemployment benefits so far, have cost the US government over $ 434 billion just over the past four years.  Just the 99 week extension, alone, has cost America over $ 44 billion through 2012.  In 2008, and before, the cost of unemployment benefits was less than half of the current outlay. Congress is even now eyeballing a further extension of these benefits.

Medicaid

The cost of insuring those in or near poverty has bloomed to over $ 276 billion dollars in 2011 and promises to go even higher in 2012. Only one decade hence, the cost in 2011 hovered around $41 billion. The big question? How many individuals truly need this care as opposed to those who are merely gaming the system for a free ride?

Interest on the Debt

Back during the days of fiscal sanity, the US debt cost America only about 15% of our total budget.  Fast forward to today, during the era of Obama's $ 6 trillion dollar debt spending program, and out total budgetary outlay, just on interest alone, totals a whopping 43% of the total budget. This figure by itself should be enough to scare the Bejesus out of most. But not the current crowd in control....

This is why when you here budgetary numbers being thrown about mentioning the saving of a trillion here or $2 trillion there, over a ten year period, throw it out as mere flotsam. Until we begin hearing numbers approaching $5 to$ 10 trillion, over the next decade, then no one within our government is truly serious about ameliorating deepening economic damage to America.

In fact, these are but just a few of the budgetary footnotes of what is now a massively blooming Statist bureacracy seemingly built upon an ideological strategy of over-spending rather than sound fiscal policies of restraint. If Obama's goals are not one of getting the beasts of spending under control, and at no time has the President come forth with any actual plan, then what are his actual aims?

Change We Simply Cannot Believe

The stated aim of Cloward-Piven is one of social engineering which was outwardly contrived to completely rid America of poverty by virtue of an annual salary for each individual American of $ 26,000 per year, and that was back in 1966. However, the engineering of such a plan naturally requires a complete subluxation of the current economic system, before the new one can be put in place.

However, a more basic aim for the installation of such a Socialist system would be one of paralyzing control. In fact, when the state pays most, if not all basic wages, then the economic system is one of simple collectivism or Communism rather than one of its lesser cousins, within the Socialism family of ideologies. Taken one step further, we have all heard the Obama dog whistle or code words which would seem to speak to a mindset predicated away from individual property ownership and individual empowerment and towards simple Statist collectivism. From Change We can Believe In to A Transformation of America, with all of the attacks on profit, business, and Capitalism in between.

 Obama has allowed each of us, who listen very carefully, a glimpse into his ultimate goals for America, as long ago foreseen by Hayek in "The Road To Serfdom":

"We have in effect undertaken to dispense with the forces which produced unforeseen results and to replace the impersonal and anonymous mechanism of the market by collective and ‘conscious’ direction of all social forces to deliberately chosen goals.” Socialism, while presented as a means of assuring equality, does so through “restraint and servitude”, while “democracy seeks equality in liberty”. Planning, because coercive, is an inferior method of regulation, while the competition of a free market is superior “because it is the only method by which our activities can be adjusted to each other without coercive or arbitrary intervention of authority”

If this, indeed, is not Obama's true aim then he should be forthcoming, virtually any day, with a plan for considerable spending cuts in tandem with some revenue increases, so that America can avert what will soon become an absolute financial disaster in a debt completely unserviceable.

However, don't hold your breath; The Eeyore Paradigm continues to rule when it comes to either Obama or America's new party of radical Socialist-Democrats at its core. The Leftists have just engaged the hyper-drive of fairness, social justice, and ultimate poverty if not serfdom, that is most assuredly in America's looming future.

 

Have comments or want to interact? Please visit one of our social media sites and let us know what you think.

  Facebook Group

Google

Conservative Refocus/The Examiner

Barry Secrest

Unlike the Liberal opposition, Conservatives aren't always giddy when proving something or someone wrong, and more often than not the correction, despite reams of evidence, is never admitted to anyway, by the offending party.

However, this week many were stunned to learn that the docile, vegetarian dinosaur we all grew up with, in the form of plastic brontosaurus dolls, never really existed, in the first place. That's right, it was all one very big and very careless mistake, made by research paleontologists who didn't check their collective facts very carefully, in their mad dash for research funding.

The faked brontosaurus was apparently a 130 year-old mistake made by overzealous researchers seeking treasure beyond the dreams of avarice, which never was completely corrected..

Not only that, favorite cartoon character Fred Flintstone, whose entire animated life was seemingly built around bronto-burgers eaten while operating a bronto-crane will also need some massive correctional revisions from poorly advised animators.

"Wilma!!!!"

But how could this have possibly happened, and how did the lie live on even into the 21st century?

The issue that brought the brontosaurus fiction into being a reality of perception only, revolved around what's called "The Great Dinosaur Rush," which took place back in the late 1800's.

Paleontologists, Othniel Charles Marsh and Edward Drinker Cope had tapped into the public's fascination with the Thunder Lizard, to such a degree, that any new find was a means to vault the dino-researchers into the public eye to an almost celebrity status, which was soon accompanied by a profusion of research grants.

As this paradigm increased, one thing led to another and before long, the science of paleontology became a massive competition to see which of these scientists could outdo the other and bring home the dino-bacon. Unfortunately for both, the Bone Wars soon turned into a financial fiasco leading both researchers into eventual ruin.

However, herein was also where the fake brontosaurus came into play. According to a fascinating NPR story on the subject, the faked brontosaurus was a semi-deliberate error brought about when Charles Marsh had found a full-length Apatosaurus skeleton with only the skull missing. But rather than let the find go to waste over one missing but major piece, Marsh decided to plug the skull of another, different dinosaur, onto the fossil.

After that, and only a few years later yet another Apatosaurus skeleton was found, but this one was a complete version, with the skull being obviously different. As a result, the complete Apatosaurus with the proper skull was thought to be a new type of dinosaur and voila, the Brontosaurus was born.

This particular mistake, although eventually recognized as far back in the past as 1903, was not finally put to rest until 1979, when the proper skull was replaced atop the faked Brontosarus skeleton at the Carnegie museum. The scientists, in the shamefully long interim period , were neither very loud nor very quick in correcting the historical record for good, and one should infer, for obvious reasons.

However, now the Brontosaurus was dead again, or not really again, because it had never actually existed in the first place, and so it had never actually been extinct either.

But then there's the other side to this "new fact"--being-- that what was once thought of as certain beyond any reasonable doubt, to include a large number within the scientific community, was simply untrue. Yet, it still became a prevailing part of our culture, in many ways, only to conclude with a century later revelation that it was nothing more than one very big and very all-encompassing mistake. Even worse, a mistake in which many of the public still, to this day, have never heard the truthful side of.

But an even bigger question in all of this?

One wonders when this will also happen to the research bonanza which was once called man-made global warming and has effectively morphed into what we now call the climate change problem.

It too has become a large part of our prevailing culture, despite mounting evidence that points to man-made climate change being nothing more than the sun going through its natural solar cycles.

We have, in fact, already seen where the global warming data was intentionally corrupted back in late 2009.

Unfortunately, that particular bit of corruption has never seemed to make its way into the researchers notes across the world, to include the United Nations. The UN, in fact is still to this day, predicating warming policy built on extraordinary pains to continue the fictional science of man-made global warming. A pop-science which promises to chase fact down the rabbit-hole of fantasy, while simultaneously seeking a treasure, here once again, beyond the dreams of avarice.

Indeed, as with the fictional Brontosaurus and, as it all turns out, those imaginary attacks that both we and our blood-thirsty offspring arranged by siccing our hungry plastic T-Rex's onto unsuspecting Brontosauri,' were even more illusory than we thought; but it was still both fun and fulfilling on some level.

And so will it probably be with man-made climate change, or whatever they decide to call it in the next decade. We should expect that the researchers will ultimately feel in much the same way as we did over our plastic brontosauri, after finding out the actual truth.

It was both fun and fulfilling on some level, them saving the world and all that, and we saving our plastic brontosaurus with an unexpected Triceratops, double-team attack, on the big, mean, T-Rex.

Here's to hoping, however, that this very extensive exercise in scientific over-reaching doesn't go on for 130 years as well....but there is one big downside to our learning the truth.

Just think of all the cataclysmic weather disaster movies we might miss out on......

The Examiner/Conservative Refocus

By Barry Secrest

Despite Gallup's poll showing a massive surge of both unemployed and underemployed US workers yesterday, only thirty days after the 2012 main election, the Democrats have massively intensified their attack on both the private sector and its champions, the Republican Party.

The Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has joined in with the class warfare coalition by both supporting and furthering President Obama's unstated commitment to keeping the US deficit and spending levels as high as bureaucratically possible.

In a post, with a petition-like area to add a signature and an email address, the meme has viraled out heavily into the social media networks, while garnering over 57,000 likes in Facebook alone.

The headline of the post, while urging Liberals to stand with Obama, reads as follows:

Tell Boehner: Don't Hold the Middle Class Hostage

Unfortunately for the GOP, while many 'low information' Democrats erroneously believe that increasing the tax rates on small business owners and others who make over $ 250,000 is taxing the wealthy, the establishment Republican's have been unable to clearly articulate an effective opposition message.

 

We have added this catchy little tune to the article in great hopes that Boehner will, while crucifying the ones that got him into his position, at least stop crying , or at least consider trying out an anti-aromatase inhibitor

House Speaker John Boehner, meanwhile, has continued to wage internecine warfare against the Conservative base of his party by purging certain of the more fiscally inclined members out of leadership positions. Boehner, in fact, appears to be deferentially retreating from Obama even while cannibalizing his party's membership, according to victimized Conservative members.

The body of the DCCC petition posting states the following:

Add your name if you agree with President Obama that the rich should pay their fair share.

Republicans continue to stand behind Grover Norquist’s pledge against making the wealthiest few pay more so we can pay down the debt, protect tax cuts for the middle class and avoid the fiscal cliff.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi made it clear that “higher income people have to pay their fair share.” No other option is a real solution.

Help us reach 500,000 strong supporting President Obama's plan to end Bush tax cuts for the rich.

The essence of the Republican messaging problem, which has consistently failed at countering what is a clearly misleading campaign by the Democrats, has formerly tried to join the question of raising taxes by placing 'revenue on the table' rather than proffering a more effective opposition message of substantially reducing a conceptually insane level of spending, virtually impossible to overcome by tax increases.

Despite Obama's continuing campaign emphasis, the simple fact remains that incrementally increasing revenue levels will do nothing to repair the heavy damage already done to America's bond rating, which fell to a AA status in 2011.

The tax increase on the supposed wealthy, that Obama has demanded, would ostensibly result in a revenue increase of only about $ 85 billion dollars per year, which is enough to run the entire US government for only about 8.5 days at the current spending level of $ 10 billion per day.

The problem, however, only worsens when we realize that $ 4 billion of the $ 10 billion spent by government daily is borrowed money and is further an unsustainable level of spending for any government to undertake permanently.

Obama has so far been successful at convincing about half of all Americans and most of the media, that the Republicans are blocking tax relief measures for the middle-class by their insistence on cutting taxes for the rich. However, the certain truth is that the Republicans simply want all of the tax cut extensions to go forward rather than focusing punishment on a specific minority of selected taxpayers, most of those being job creators.

Assuming the government fails to reach an agreement before the new year, tax levels will increase across the board for nearly every single America and a series of sequestration cuts will come into play, automatically lowering spending levels while raising revenue, which is referred to as the fiscal cliff crisis that has dominated the media since the 2012 election.