April 21, 2015

America is in a Progressive Chokehold

15393977094_82b1786e83_qMy article as originally published in   American Thinker:

To allege that NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio was fully responsible for the chokehold death of Eric Garner would be absurd.  Nearly as asinine, though, given the available evidence in the case, was de Blasio’s unbelievably divisive red-herring declaring that “centuries of racism” were somehow at the root of Garner’s untimely death.  Now, it appears the race-baiting propaganda of de Blasio, Obama, Holder and Sharpton, has finally come to bear fruit given the recent execution of two NYC police officers.

Comrade de Blasio likes to scold America regarding human rights yet embraces an ideology that places people — regardless of race or gender — in an unyielding big-government chokehold.  This “progressive” ideology leads to an equally wretched existence for all but the politically connected at its lesser extreme and is responsible for the murder of over one-hundred-million innocent men, women and children (and “centuries” were not required in doing so) at its most.

It’s well noted that Garner was being arrested for his participation in a black market that exists solely because of sky-high cigarette taxes.  There can certainly be harsh consequences that one must live — and sometimes die — with for resisting arrest as Garner clearly chose to do.  But when government gets to the point where every minute detail of a citizen’s life is micro-managed by “expert” planners, hungry for more power and tax revenue, it eventually becomes nearly impossible to not be in violation of some vague or inane statute.  As this over criminalization that degrades liberty becomes more systemic, a greater number of people will end up in tangles with police (who are human and make mistakes) and the result will be a greatly increased chance for something to go terribly wrong.

Frédéric Bastiat warned against these types of legal bastardization in his timeless essay, The Law, written more than one and one half centuries ago.

It is not true that the mission of the law is to regulate our consciences, our ideas, our will, our education, our sentiments, our works, our exchanges, our gifts, our enjoyments. Its mission is to prevent the rights of one from interfering with those of another, in any one of these things.

Increases in the impossible task of central planning assure that things will go terribly wrong thus requiring government and its cronies to create scapegoats to mask-over the inevitable failures. Today, the scapegoat for the failures of the “progressive” welfare state is so-called “racist” cops.  Tomorrow it will be what ever the big-government complex, including its protectors in the mainstream media, need it to be in order to further the “progressive” cause.

Unfortunately, today, Americans can now end up in potential harm’s way just for opening a lemonade stand without a permit; feeding the homeless; making Gibson Guitars out of unauthorized wood; collecting rainwater on one’s own property or as in the case of Eric Garner — selling “loosie” cigarettes.  It is amazing that those who decry police encounters gone awry think the solution is even more government, which as a consequence will result in increased police encounters.

No, de Blasio certainly didn’t kill Eric Garner, but he, President Obama and the bulk of the Democratic Party clearly support the “progressive” government chokehold on liberty that bears some responsibility in Garner’s death.  And the sideshow of anti-police rhetoric turned violent shows they’re willing to mask the failures of “progress” by any means necessary.

Big-brother likes to play really, really rough, so unless this “progressive” chokehold on liberty is released, Americans may as well get used to gasping for air.


Torture or Education?

My article as originally published in American Thinker:

The release of the Senate CIA “torture report” has certainly prompted some mixed reactions, mostly divided along party lines.  The mainstream media have expressed moral outrage – outrage – over the contents of the report, while the conservative media has rightfully questioned the timing of the release, the numerous holes in the report, and the validity of describing as “torture” the methods used by the CIA.  Add to mix the hypocrisy of the MSM ignoring Obama’s dead-by-drone policy that has blown many terrorists and innocents into chunks.

As to whether the interrogation methods employed by the CIA constitute actual “torture,” a Human Events article from 2007 (since we’re dredging up the past) written under a pseudonym by a retired naval aviator (yes, a slight pro-Navy bias is detectable) may help provide some context:

Based on lessons learned from survivors of the brutal North Korean and North Vietnam torture of US military prisoners of war, the Department of Defense ordered all branches of the services to implement comprehensive Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (S.E.R.E.) training programs. Every member of Congress should be extremely well versed on the military S.E.R.E. programs since they have had direct oversight and funding of these programs for over 40 years. [snip]

What actually happens in S.E.R.E. in the field? Classes of 40 or more “students” are put through beach and water (swimming) survival techniques, similar to the TV show “Survivor” but without the rewards challenges. The class is then moved to a remote location to survive and evade prior to entering the US Navy run POW camp.

Once captured, these “students” were hooded, with their hands bound; fully interrogated; and then finally brought to the POW camp:

Arriving at the POW Camp I was kept hooded and placed in a small box, 2 feet wide, 3 feet long and maybe 3 feet high. I was left the fetal position, sitting on my butt, stripped nearly naked (just week old BVD’s) and left sealed with your defecation can inside your box. Heat, cold, isolation, no communications, and constant noise, music, propaganda, coupled with verbal abuse by your captors is the norm, 24/7.

Almost makes club Gitmo sound like paradise, but it gets worse:

Then it was time for the dreaded waterboard.  What I didn’t know then, but I do now, is that as in all interrogations, both for real world hostile terrorists (non-uniformed combatants) and in S.E.R.E. a highly trained group of doctors, psychologists, interrogators, and strap-in and strap-out rescue teams are always present. My first experience on the “waterboard” was to be laying on my back, on a board with my body at a 30 degree slope, feet in the air, head down, face-up. The straps are all-confining, with the only movement of your body that of the ability to move your head. Slowly water is poured in your face, up your nose, and some in your mouth. The questions from interrogators and amounts of water increase with each unsuccessful response. Soon they have your complete attention as you begin to believe you are going to drown.

And if a “student” POW escapes and is subsequently recaptured?

This time we went right to the water hose in the face, and a wet towel held tightly on my forehead so that I could not move my head. I had embarrassed my captors and they would now show me that they had total control. The most agonizing and frightful moments are when the wet towel is placed over your nose and mouth and the water hose is placed directly over your mouth. Holding your breath, bucking at the straps, straining to remain conscious, you believe with all your heart that, that, you are going to die. [snip]

S.E.R.E. training is not pleasant, but it is critical to properly prepare our most endangered combat forces for the reality of enemy capture. Was I “tortured” by the US military? No. Was I trained in an effort to protect my life and the lives of other American fighting men? Yes! Freedom is not Free, nor does it come without sacrifice. Every good American understands this basic principle of our country and prays for the young men and women who have sacrificed and are out on the front lines protecting us today.

The author writes that there may have been as many as 40,000 of these students who were “tortured” over the years in the SERE program.  He also specifically mentions one pilot who wasn’t given the opportunity to utilize his SERE training:

Lt Tom “Stout” McGuinness of the VF-21 “Freelancers” went through S.E.R.E. training during my tenure. But when it came down to the crisis moment, his “interrogators” did not give him the waterboard. They merely went into the cockpit of American Airlines Flight 11, slashed Tom’s throat, and flew the first aircraft into the North Tower of World Trade Center on 9/11.

I must admit that facing the kind of training our soldiers had to endure in the SERE program sounds horrendous and may explain why I chose a different path in life.  But I am forever thankful for those who willingly volunteer to rigorously train and bravely serve in order to protect the United States of America.  Perhaps individuals who don’t care to receive the same type of education that many of our elite U.S. military forces once received should think twice before willingly becoming terrorists


Throwing American Foster Kids Under the Obama Bus

Immigrant Sign 2My article as originally published in American Thinker:    

Breitbart recently reported that the federal government is offering (through a Southern California charity) up to $6,000.00 per month (tax free) to house illegal immigrant children.  This should come as no surprise to those who recognize that the rainbow hovering over President Obama’s Utopia contains nothing but a full spectrum of stupidity and a pot of gold at the end in D.C.  Given this latest revelation in Obama’s growing immigration crisis, any adoption agencies currently struggling with the daunting task of placing American foster kids into good homes may wish to take heed of these developments. offers some additional details: called Crittenton FFA, which is located in Orange County and provides services for Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, and found that for those willing to a take in a child under the age of 16, you can receive up to $854.00 tax free per month. For those taking in a child over 16, the total is $1,008.00 per month in reimbursement. If you have a 5 bedroom house and can take in as many as 6 children, you can receive reimbursement of up to $6,054.00 per month tax free.

Perhaps not by tomorrow, but like everything else this administration touches, you can bet your bottom dollar that if expanded, this policy will eventually be met with undesirable consequences.  According to, there are currently 104,000 American kids waiting to be placed into homes.  So how will flooding the foster system with illegal immigrant children and offering a high monthly stipend to house them alter the chances of all these American children finding homes?

For the answer, just contrast the above advertised rates for illegal kids with the 2013/14 statewide foster rates for American children in California.  By housing a child 0-4, a household will be reimbursed $657.00 per month, and for children over fifteen, the rate jumps to $820.00 per month.  Those who house six older children would be reimbursed $4,920.00 per month.  So choosing to house American children instead of illegal immigrants would result in $1,134.00 of lost potential income – or, to put it another way, the monthly payments for two very nice automobiles. 

Just as misguided rent control laws result in housing shortages followed by higher rents and minimum wage laws cause surpluses of unskilled workers followed by higher unemployment rates, the laws of economics will find equilibrium here as well.  By doing this, the Obama administration is giving illegal “dreamers” the upper hand over deserving American children who are dreaming of being placed into loving homes. 

The Obama administration’s latest “solution” to an illegal immigrant crisis it created merely throws American foster kids under the Obama bus.  Unfortunately, it’s becoming crystal-clear that the underside of Obama’s bus still has room for millions more.




A Model Town for ‘Gun Safety’

Chicago photoMy article as originally published in American Thinker:   

Michael Bloomberg’s group “Everytown for Gun Safety” recently released a map claiming there have been 74 school shootings in the U.S. since the horrifying Sandy Hook shooting in 2012.  The map was widely (and without hesitation) displayed by newsrooms all across America.  The only problem is the map turns out to be a fraud and has been thoroughly debunked:

The saga of the fraudulent map of “school shootings” pumped out by Michael Bloomberg’s “Everytown for Gun Safety” group is fascinating, especially given how quickly the fraud was exposed and destroyed.  This group was caught in a lie, pure and simple… and the lie went down so hard that CNN got in on the act.

Let’s forget about “Everytown” for a moment and instead focus on just one town – Chicago.  Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, yet in 2012 it had the distinct honor of being named the murder capital of the United States.  In Chicago, one needn’t ask, If a gun spontaneously goes off in a forest, is within five miles of a school and no one is around to get shot, can the data still be used in an Everytown map?  There’s just no need go back two years and torture data to make it look like there were 74 school shootings – that same number can be achieved by going back less than two months (April 19th through June 15th), where there were 74 actual homicides (not just manufactured school shootings) using a gun within the city, as chronicled by a Chicago Tribune-owned website that keeps track of such data.

I’ve taken the liberty of creating a similar map utilizing this appalling data from Chicago (do take the time to zoom-in and read the names of the victims): 


By blatantly fabricating data and making false promises of safety while attempting to restrict the rights of those who obey the law, all the while ignoring the root cause of violence from those who fail to obey any laws, Bloomberg’s “Everytown for Gun Safety” does a tremendous disservice to the families of the 74 names highlighted on the above map, as well as to all freedom-loving Americans. 

Chicago’s gun woes are no surprise to anyone who has taken the time to read the work of John Lott, including his excellent book More Guns, Less Crime.  And speaking of less crime, as bad as things still are, after recently being forced to issue concealed carry permits, Chicago saw its murder rate drop significantly, according to first-quarter statistics.

Like Detroit, Chicago has lived under Democrat rule for many decades and as such is a wonderful Petri dish for all things progressive.  Detroit is the end-stage result of such progressive policy, and Chicago is clearly on a similar path.  This highly toxic mix of strict gun control laws combined with long-term Democrat control of the city has turned out to be a very deadly combination.

Bloomberg naming his group “Everytown” may be truly fitting, because if the group does reach its goals, every town may eventually look strikingly similar to Chicago and Detroit.

When will daily ObamaCare body count reporting begin?

My article as originally published in American Thinker:   

Even before the last tidbits of silver and gold confetti could be swept away following New Year’s Eve celebrations, Americans were already starting off the year with fresh ObamaCare surprises.  Some of the new “enrollees” in President Obama’s signature law are showing up at hospitals in parts of the U.S. and are being met with confusion as to whether or not they’re actually insured.  Because of this, some are just leaving without needed treatment to avoid the enormous out-of-pocket expenses that would be incurred (which they would most likely pay anyway due to ObamaCare’s high deductibles), as Rick Moran discussed in this AT piece highlighting a Northern Virginia hospital.

And in Chicago, a doctor decided to move forward with a patient’s scheduled surgery not knowing if the costs would be covered by insurance:

Paperwork problems almost delayed suburban Chicago resident Sheri Zajcew’s scheduled surgery Thursday, but Dr. John Venetos decided to operate without a routine go-ahead from the insurance company. That was after Venetos’ office manager spent two hours on hold with the insurer Thursday, trying to get an answer about whether the patient needed prior authorization for the surgery. The office manager finally gave up.


Venetos, a Chicago digestive system specialist, described “tremendous uncertainty and anxiety” among patients calling his office recently. Some thought they’d signed up for coverage but hadn’t received insurance cards yet. Others had insurance policies that were canceled and weren’t sure if their coverage had been reinstated after Gov. Pat Quinn decided to allow one-year extensions of canceled plans.

Venetos said he has decided to take a risk and provide care for these patients, at least until there’s less confusion about coverage.

So what exactly will happen once tens of millions of Americans start losing their employer-sponsored health plans due to ObamaCare, thus adding even more confusion to a once-working system?  This is serious stuff, and if it continues, people will start dying in sizable numbers.

Just imagine if this disaster known as ObamaCare were instead BushCare under the previous administration.  Rest assured, if people were to begin dying due to these same disastrous policies under George W. Bush, Americans would be reminded daily of the body count, just as they were during the Iraq War when he was commander and chief.  Of course, not only would we be hearing about the daily BushCare body counts (along with his dwindling poll numbers); we would also be glued to the TV watching simultaneous impeachment hearings.

Don’t hold your breath while waiting for the mainstream media to provide any real tally of future ObamaCare-caused carnage.

By the end of 2014, perhaps Americans will be singing “Auld Lang Syne” while reminiscing about what once was the greatest health care system in the world


A Few ObamaCare Questions for the President

Obama3My article as originally published in American Thinker:           

Hey  Mr. President — if ObamaCare (ironically named the “Affordable” Care Act) is  such a wonderful thing for the American people, why aren’t they treating it like  the perquisite you claim it to be?

I  ask this because you’ve been out there claiming that Republicans are willing to “harm” the American  people by defunding ObamaCare and are trying to do so only to “stick it” to you.  (Why do you always think everything is about you?) Also, your ally, Debbie  Wasserman Schultz, is saying that once Americans really start experiencing it  (the “Affordable” Care Act), they just won’t want to let it  go.

But  the American people are starting to experience ObamaCare and they surely just  want to regain the freedom to “let it go.” Due to this law’s costly  burdens, thousands are being laid off, having their work weeks  reduced to less than 30 hours or are being thrown out of their current health plans. And for the privilege  of all of this, Americans will be stuck paying much more than before this monstrosity was  enacted.

And  how do the politically-connected Americans you surround yourself with feel about  ObamaCare? Surely if your health care law  is so beneficial, those with the most political capital must be running to the front of the line to cut in front of everyone  else and climb on  board?

To  the contrary, your friends in high places are asking for (more like demanding)  protection from ObamaCare. You’ve exempted Congress and most of its staff from this law. You’ve given  thousands of waivers to a select few. Even some of your biggest  supporters, the labor unions, now realize how harmful this law is to its members  and are demanding special treatment — I’m sure they’ll get it even though they  haven’t as of yet.

So  let me see if I’ve got all this straight: you say that the Republicans in  Congress are trying to “harm” the American people by attempting to legally  exempt everyone from this law that they didn’t want in the first place. So does  this mean that you are intentionally “harming” or attempting to “harm” Congress,  unions and all of your favorite crony donors by illegally giving them exemptions  from ObamaCare? I didn’t think so.

So,  Mr. President, If ObamaCare is the panacea that you and your administration  claim it to be, I have one more question. If you had a son, would his health  plan look like ObamaCare?


Some Clown

My article as originally published in American Thinker:

Some  clown heads an administration plagued by numerous scandals including: IRSgate, Benghazigate, Fast and  Furiousgate, Pressgate and Pigfordgate to name just a few.

Some  clown claims the above mentioned are nothing but “phony  scandals.”

Some  clown fails to comprehend that raising the minimum wage would be a disaster.

Some clown claims the United States needs to be “fundamentally  transformed.”

Some  clown continues to do an end run around the Constitution in order to protect a chosen few from the  harmful effects of ObamaCare.

Some  clown’s economic policy is (predictably) failing.

Some  clown has overseen the lowest labor participation rate since  1979.

Some  clown has been charge while food stamp usage has reached an all time high, all  while the USDA attempts to recruit even more users into the system.

Some  clown continues to get a free pass from the mainstream media.

I  could go on and on because this clown’s resume contains even more  highlights.
Unfortunately, this happens to be this particular clown’s  first non-theoretical rodeo.

So does anyone  really give a rat’s behind what the skin color of the above mentioned clown is?

Meanwhile,  a rodeo clown has been banned for life for carrying on the comedic tradition of having a little bit of fun (even if in bad taste)  at the expense of a certain president.


Trayvon Could Have Been Me Too, Mr. President

My article as originally published in American Thinker:

In  what appears to me as an attempt to keep the IRS and other Administration scandals out of the  headlines, President Obama once again commented on the Zimmerman case and went a step further this  time by saying: “Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago.” In one sense  the President is correct and I suppose Trayvon could have been me as well — 27  years ago. No, I’m not a black American, but since there’s no evidence that the Trayvon case had anything to do with race,  why is it that President Obama and the usual suspects continue to bring it up as  if it did? The reason I say Trayvon could have been me is because I was  seventeen once and truth be told, sometimes seventeen-year-olds make really,  really stupid decisions. And sometimes those decisions are met with dire  consequences.

Last  week was the 27th anniversary of my 17th birthday. Back then a few close friends  and I had decided to celebrate my 17th by going cruising in the  urban-assault-vehicle (Mom’s tan station wagon) for the evening. That act alone  had the propensity for trouble but to make matters worse, we made the foolish  decision to bring along some water balloons for the ride.

After  a few laughs, the fun came to a grinding halt when one of my friends tossed a  water balloon at the town’s well known Pizza Peddler truck. Unfortunately, the  driver had the window down and found no humor in the event. A long high-speed  chase ensued across town, through a forty-acre field and ultimately ended with us backed into the end of a  residential cul-de-sac. After a few moments of headlights facing one another it  was clear the other driver wasn’t going to get out and face a car load of young  men so I decided to slowly drive around the truck. A quick notation of our  license plate number could have ended the event right there for the pizza truck  driver, but his ego wouldn’t allow that and he instead chose to deliberately ram  his truck into our car. Frightened, I stepped on the gas to get away and when  bumpers locked, his truck spun around and flipped over.

A  series of bad decisions on the part of all involved ended in disaster, yet  remarkably no one was hurt or killed in this event. The police decided that all  shared some blame and no charges were filed. These kinds of events unfold every  day in America and sadly, sometimes the end result is serious injury or  death.

The  encounter between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman is one such story that  sadly ended in tragedy. A neighborhood watchman, doing his job, saw someone he  thought looked suspicious, reported it, followed the individual, was ultimately  attacked and then defended his life. Was getting out of the  car the best decision Zimmerman could have made? Perhaps not, but he  broke no laws in doing so. Attacking Zimmerman was a terrible (and illegal)  decision and evidence that Trayvon wasn’t the innocent boy portrayed by the  media.

Obama  also said: “If Trayvon Martin was of his age and armed, could he have stood his  ground on that sidewalk?” But this was not a stand-your-ground case. This was  instead a pound-his-head-into-the-ground case and if Trayvon were being attacked  in the same manner as Zimmerman was, Trayvon would have every right to defend his life  in the same way Zimmerman did. After all, doesn’t concrete being used in this way qualify as a deadly weapon?

Attorney  General Eric Holder said the Martin case forced him to have “the talk” with his 15-year-old son, again fanning racial  flames by implying that Trayvon’s death was somehow about race. It would have  been just as logical for Holder to talk with his son about child molesters in  this case but doing so clearly wouldn’t serve his political objectives. One  would hope that an Attorney General of the United States would use the  opportunity of an event such as this to talk with his son about the consequences  of one’s actions and emphasize that if you try to inflict a “whoop ass” on someone, they not only have the legal right to  defend themselves but you just might get your “ass” killed during the  process.

The  mainstream media and a host of politicians have tried to exploit the Trayvon  Martin tragedy as being about racism and guns, but in the end it’s just another  story about youthful bad decisions gone awry. Trayvon Martin was a troubled  young man who certainly didn’t deserve to die but as young men often do, he  ended up making a terrible decision that cost him his life. America can do  without the postscript of political opportunism.


World’s First Nanoassault Rifle (Updated)

ar15My article as originally published in American Thinker:

The crafting of imaginary weaponry by children out of various objects is a phenomenon that has been occurring worldwide for many centuries. The traditional stick or finger has always been one of the more popular “weapons” of choice, but today’s high-tech child is much more imaginative, bringing about such dangerous treats as the Pop-Tart assault weapon. Unfortunately though, in today’s PC world, it appears to no longer be acceptable for kids to have a little fun and act like — you know — kids.

I’ve always had a love for science and an extreme dislike (to be politically correct) for political correctness, so my son’s latest science project presented an opportunity to have a little bit of fun tinkering within both arenas.

I still remember back more than twenty years ago when IBM scientist Don Eigler became the first person to manipulate individual atoms and create Big Blue’s logo, using thirty-five Xenon atoms. His work was the inspiration for my son’s latest school science project — the nanoassault rifle.

Due to the sensitive nature of the inanimate object we chose to replicate, the AR-15, I thought it safest to construct it out of a recently discovered, highly toxic and difficult to contain element known as Obamium (doing so only partially caves to political correctness). Thus far, nothing seems to stick to Obamium and no matter what form it takes, it has the miraculous ability to remain stable within the press.

Our AR-15 replica (as highlighted below) was meticulously constructed from 56 individual Obamium atoms and the addition of a spare thirty-round magazine took a total of 18 Obamium atoms to complete. In support of a close friend of my son’s who recently found himself in a little hot water after using the phrase “pocket knife” at school (you would be wise believe this portion of the story), we also decided to construct an open pocket knife, which only set us back an additional 13 Obamium atoms.

Unfortunately we don’t possess the technology to provide a magnified image of the actual final products, so it’s difficult to prove the “deadly” nature of what we actually constructed. But if my son does end up getting in trouble over this, his punishment will hopefully adhere to the proper scale of the project. If so, he should only be looking at a suspension of no more than two or three nanoseconds for his “crimes.”


For those who noticed a lack of bullets in this project, the original plan was to use a rapidly decaying element, Bidenium, for the ammunition but it proved to be much too dense and unstable.  The velocity and direction at which it would just start poppin’ off wasn’t predictable enough for use in this project. 

Republicans Should ‘Raise’ Tax Rates Now

2+2=5My article as originally published in American Thinker:         

It turns out that the Obama Administration is deliberately making these sequestration “cuts” as painful as possible for the American people. And no matter what Bob Woodward says, Obama and the rest of the MSM will continue to blame the sequestration and any subsequent unrelated negative economic news on Republicans. So perhaps Republicans should just throw in the towel and hold a press conference to announce that they are now all in favor of Obama’s “balanced” approach which includes more tax revenue. Please hear me out before throwing the nearest heavy object at your computer screen.

Those who get their “news” from NBC, ABC, CNN, NPR and the rest of the administration’s propaganda wing may think (“feel” would be a better word) that sequestration has brought about actual cuts in government spending. But these so-called “cuts” are nothing more than reductions in the rate of spending growth. If some department was going to receive a 10% increase in spending but will now only get a 3% increase, this is called a 7% “cut” (by axe no less) in Washington-speak. In other words, all this “misery” is being manufactured over the government spending more money than was spent in the previous year but just not quite as much more as was originally anticipated.

By that same token, Republicans should first propose a plan amongst themselves for an across-the-board tax rate cut of 30% but then ultimately settle for just a 15% rate cut. This is where Republicans would need to grow a pair and use the Left’s own tactics against them. Using the very same logic as the Democrats, this plan would then be presented to the American people as a 15% tax rate increase and not a cut at all. If Republicans announced that they would be proposing a tax rate “increase,” with details to follow, they would surely have the full attention of an elated news media.

So how could anyone possibly present this kind of plan with a straight face as it would clearly constitute an actual tax rate cut? The truth is, thanks to the Democrat/media spin machine, much of America already believes the exact equivalent when it comes to these so-called budget “cuts,” so we already know it can be done. The very same people who believe what the Democrats and MSM are telling them about budget “cuts” would also believe the exact same thing about so-called tax “increases” if the Democrat Party and MSM were to suddenly change its tune on taxes. Of course I don’t really expect the Democrats or the MSM to do this.

The whole point of this exercise would be to place fictional budget “cuts” side by side with fictional tax rate “increases” in order to bring attention to the Left’s own demagoguery. If Republicans were really feeling brave they could even point out the enormous spending increases under Obama and the fact that 2013 is projected to yield a record bumper crop of tax revenue for the Treasury, proving that we have a spending problem and not a revenue problem.

And if the Republicans were really, really feeling brave, while they have the media’s attention, they could attempt to articulate the historical fact that real tax rate cuts coupled with real spending restraint (cuts) would create real prosperity for the American people. After all, Democrats do claim that they want more revenue.