Oofdah!

Unintended consequences of Obama’s last dying gasp — taking down the Democrat Party.

He may or may not succeed at taking down America, but he will certainly succeed at taking down the Democrat Party.

Just look at what he will try to accomplish at all costs with the lame duck Senate (details from Dick Morris):

• The Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST)
• International Criminal Court
• Small-arms control
• Outer Space Code of Conduct
• Rights of the Child

The Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) has been signed, and the Obama administration — with the aid of RINO Sen. Richard Lugar (Ind.) — will push for its ratification as soon as Lugar’s primary in Indiana is over this year. LOST requires that the United States pay an international body half of its royalties from offshore drilling. The body would then distribute the funds as it sees fit to whichever nations it chooses. The United States would only have one vote out of 160 regarding where the money goes. LOST will also oblige us to hand over our offshore drilling technology to any nation that wants it … for free.

International Criminal Court — Secretary Clinton has reversed George W. Bush’s policy and entered into negotiations over U.S. participation in the court. Specifically, the leftists who are sponsoring the court wish to create a new crime of “aggression,” which is essentially going to war without the approval of the United Nations. If we submit to the court’s jurisdiction, our presidents and Cabinet officials could be prosecuted criminally for going to war without U.N. approval. This would, of course, give Russia and China a veto over our military actions. Clinton says she will stop our military’s hands from being tied, but we all must realize that once we accept the International Criminal Court, we go down a slippery slope. The court could even prosecute Americans who have been cleared by our own judicial system.

Small-arms control — Clinton is about to negotiate on a global ban on export of small arms. It would only apply to private citizens but, of course, most small-arms deals come not from individuals or private firms but from governments, specifically those of the United States, Russia, China and Israel. The treaty would require each nation to adopt measures to stop exportation of small arms. It is easy to see how this could be a backdoor way to require national registration of all guns and to assert federal regulation over firearms. It would also require the registration of all ammunition to track its source once a gun is fired. The Second Amendment be damned!

Outer Space Code of Conduct — Under the guise of stopping debris from accumulating in outer space, the European Union has enlisted Clinton in negotiations over a code of conduct. The code would prohibit activities that are likely to generate debris in outer space — space littering. The code might inhibit or prohibit the United States from deploying anti-missile missiles on platforms in space, denying us the key weapon we need to counter Iranian, Chinese and North Korean missile threats. European leftists reacted angrily when G.W. Bush opted out of the ABM treaty banning defensive weapons. Now they seek to reimpose it under the guise of a code of conduct.

Rights of the Child — Even more fanciful is a treaty Clinton plans to negotiate setting forth a code of rights for children, to be administered by a 14-member court set up for the purpose. The draft treaty obliges rich nations to provide funds for shelter, food, clothing and education for children in poor nations. This provision could create grounds to litigate to challenge the level of foreign aid we give as inadequate to meet our treaty obligations. Already, leftists in the United Kingdom are using the treaty to attack welfare cuts by the Cameron government.

Please note that once an international treaty is ratified, it has the force of a Constitutional Amendment, and can only be changed by another Constitutional Amendment, or by all parties to the treaty (say 160 nations) agreeing to the change.

These five treaties are more proof that Obama’s Hope and Change means the elimination of the sovereignty of our country, to try to level the playing field and share in the misery of the world. Anti-big-government and anti-One World Government supporters must rise up to defeat these measures, even if it does take a Constitutional Amendment.

When the American people are educated to true nature of these treaties and the liberal agenda behind it, it will be likely that instead the sleeping giant will awake and consume whole the Democrat Party.

All Democrats listen up! Is that what you want?

The liberals have made up fake wars: war on women, war on poor, war on elderly, etc. All fake, and everybody knows it. But Obama has some real wars:

Obama has the following wars going at all times:

• war on business (make it hard in every conceivable way to be successful)
• war on jobs (by killing business, kill jobs)
• war on economy (wasteful spending everywhere that sucks up all the resources)
• war on energy (no drilling, no pipeline, no permits, carbon emissions)
• war on American exceptionalism (yes, every country thinks it is exceptional, but only in America does the government derive its powers from the people, and not the other way around)
• war on good character (with the liberal Alinsky-ites, any dirty trick is allowed; conservatives play fair)
• real war on the poor (set up a permanent class structure of dependence that you can’t get out of)
• war on free speech (shout down or intimidate anyone who disagrees)

The Putin snub should make Obama happy — because it means his policies are working.

Obama’s policies are obviously to turn the US into a second-rate power. Nearly everything he does is oriented towards knocking America down. Whether it is groveling before other heads of state, supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and other enemies, belittling and embarrassing our friends, or destroying the US economy, it is all part of his grand strategy to knock us down.

Even worse are the recent treaties of surrender and destruction: the Law of the Sea, the International Criminal Court, Small Arms Control, Outer Space Code of Conduct, and Rights of the Child. Each of these surrenders more of what we have always known as the American identity. I will be writing more on these in an upcoming post.

So the Putin snub is just the beginning of something we need to get used to, as long as those policies of the Obama administration are allowed to move forward.

I love it that many environmentalists are in fact opposed to evolution. They, like the creationists, tend to think that whatever species exist now, they all must remain. No extinctions allowed! But this also implies that they implicitly believe without thinking about it that no new species should be created.

But evolution requires continual adaptation and thus a continual process of species rising or fading in prominence.

Global cultural changes are part of the overall major changes the earth has never been exempt from, whether ice age, flood, meteor strike, or human migration and commerce.

I am not yet convinced that Internet commerce should exempt from sales tax. Here is my comment to some who “blindly” oppose Internet sales tax. There are two “hands:”

(1) on the one hand, if you are simply looking at the taxation of Internet sales in isolation, then you might take the position that any new tax is a tax increase, so let’s stop it now;

(2) on the other hand, I believe that a fair tax which replaces income tax, capital gains tax and estate tax and thus puts taxation upon consumption instead of wealth creation is philosophically sound. And if so, the total tax generated by such a change should be “righteous”.

That is, I propose that the level of such a universal sales tax would be a righteous amount, say 10%. That gives the Federal government a budget of 10% of GDP, assuming that all wealth creation is thus measured at the “final consumer” level. And the total tax would be this righteous amount, no matter the channel taxed.

If such a fair system was put in place, then I don’t see any logical reason why certain sales channels should be except. Sales over the Internet would be no more special than “sales conducted on a boat”, or “sales conducted at a place where speeches are given” or any other arbitrary designation.

If you argue against taxation of Internet sales on the basis of hand (1) only, then I agree. Let’s not raise taxes. But if you grant that hand (2) is a valid approach, then you ought to consider the merits of a special exemption for a channel.

The typical opposing argument to my proposal is similar to what happens when someone proposes “let’s have a lower, flat tax and get rid of all deductions” and somebody else arguing against that because getting rid of deductions is a tax increase, while they ignore the first part of the “lower rate.”

As in the past, I fully expect people to oppose my proposal, because they consider only hand (1) but are unable to understand hand (2). They say “you are proposing increased taxes” and “the camel will get his nose under the tent” and “gives more power to the Feds” and so forth.

So in hopes of avoiding such responses let me say it bluntly: “I AM OPPOSED TO AN INTERNET SALES TAX — UNLESS THE FAIR TAX (defined above) REPLACES ALL INCOME TAX, CAPITAL GAINS TAX, AND ESTATE TAX.

Would not you like to get rid of these unfair taxes at the cost of considering all sales channels equal?

Critique of the liberal in trying to show that Conservatives won’t give credit where it is due: “Can’t you conservatives even name one good thing that President Obama has done?”

Now we have a couple of things:

- he is a good father;
- he has energized the Conservative base as never before possible;
- he has turned the fund-raising advantage to the Republican (see today’s video by Dick Morris).

Here is a great idea for all liberal-minded college students: GPA Redistribution!

The Gutfeld Rule says that if you have a GPA of 3.8% or higher, you must give 8% of your GPA away to others. It makes good sense.

After all, if you took public transportation or traveled on public roads to school, are those grades really yours?

For a great presentation of this new plan, please click on this link.

Some people are taking a strong position against Internet Sales tax. I think that at this time the government should not be allowed to expand taxing authority over Internet sales. However, I have some mixed thoughts about the topic in general.

One viewpoint against Internet sales tax states that the power to tax is the power to destroy. While this may be true, why should it apply to Internet sales any more than non-Internet sales? That is, we are not worried about other sales taxes giving the government the power to destroy non-Internet businesses.

In fact I am thinking that if there is some kind of fair tax (ie, sales tax) that can be used as a replacement for income taxes, estate taxes and more, then it might only work to cover all sales, regardless of channel. Why should one channel get a special break? Giving the special break would be equivalent to saying that mail-order purchases should be exempt also. Why do Internet sales get this special treatment?

Our tax policy is fundamentally flawed. I just heard a Democrat strategist claiming that “most people think their tax burden is fair.” Yeah, when you count all those not paying taxes or even getting a check from the government, you easily get a majority that thinks the system is fair.

Basically, the problem boils down to those who pay no taxes but have the majority power to impose on others the burden of paying for everybody.

How can this be fixed?

I think the only way would be by a new tax system, whether the fair tax or something like that but that operated as follows: everybody has skin in the game and everybody knows exactly what their share is of what we together are paying for every government program.

For example, in a totally pure flat tax, you could compute your share of the total national income, and thus figure out your share of any program.

In a hypothetical specific example, let’s say the total earnings of US citizens was 10 Trillion dollars. Suppose further that the total government budget was 1 Trillion, exactly 10 percent. (Completely hypothetical, remember, to make the numbers easy to see).

Suppose there was a flat tax of 10 percent — every dollar earned would be taxed at 10 percent. If you earned $100,000, then your tax would be $10,000. Not only that, it is immediately apparent that your share of the 1 Trillion is exactly 10 to the minus 8th power, or one-hundreth of one-millionth. Please bear with me!

Then it is also transparent, not totally obscure as it is now, that for every single expenditure of government, whether it be national defense, $200,000 to transplant a shrub, or 131 GSA junkets for Jeff Neely, you and everyone else would know exactly what your share of the cost was. You would know for example that a 1 Trillion bailout would cost you personally $10,000 (assuming fully paid for, not borrowed or inflated). Or that expanding some entitlement or other would be costing me personally $5,000.

I would like to have that information.

The point I am making are not the specifics of my hypothetical example. My point is that this would create a transparent system where everybody could see their share. No more “I want my Obama money” paid for by somebody else.

Listen to the promises of the Campaigner in Chief — are they worth anything?

You can judge for yourself by looking the the Top 10 Obama Failed Promises at http://www.failedpromise.com/.

He fails on them all. Here is the list:

1. One-term proposistion?
2. The 8 Percent Promise
3. Where are the Green Jobs?
4. Cut the Deficit in Half
5. The $4 Trillion Flip-Flop
6. Housing Program Failure
7. Cozy With Lobbyists
8. Rising Health Care Costs
9. Wall Street Hypocrisy
10. What Energy Policy?