Mario Loyola is director of the Center for Tenth Amendment Studies at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. This morning he writes…

The entire practice of federal grants to state governments ought to be abolished. As the Supreme Court warned in U.S. v. Butler (1936), the federal taxing and spending power has a great potential to “become the instrument for total subversion of the governmental powers reserved to the individual states.” The Medicaid provisions of Obamacare are a perfect example, as Professor Richard Epstein and I argued in one of our amicus briefs for the Supreme Court. Until the practice is abolished, “donor” states — the victims of rent-seeking by transient majorities in Congress and their control of committee chairmanships — have no choice but to fight for every dollar that their residents are losing to other states.

Read it all over at NRO’s The Corner.

Certainly, few if any corporations actually pay the full 35 percent rate, but it does not matter. I read the current average was something like 12 percent. If the average rate for corporations goes up, that’s not a tax cut. What matters here is the president is trying to claim he’s going to reduce the corporate tax burden to stimulate the economy. But it’s all smoke and mirrors if corporations actually end up paying more in tax and their are fewer companies to collect from. From the New York Times this morning.

President Obama will ask Congress to scrub the corporate tax code of dozens of loopholes and subsidies to reduce the top rate to 28 percent, down from 35 percent, while giving preferences to manufacturers that would set their maximum effective rate at 25 percent, a senior administration official said on Tuesday.

I guess “manufactures” will be the winners for this round of tax policy. Sounds good does it not? On to the next paragraph, with my emphasis in bold.

Mr. Obama also would establish a minimum tax on multinational corporations’ foreign earnings, the official said, to discourage “accounting games to shift profits abroad” or actual relocation of production overseas.

That would be a tax hike on corporations, and it’s not just a tax hike, it’s a completely new tax. I got a kick out of this…

[T]he administration and Congress would have a political and mathematical challenge in eliminating or reducing tax breaks enough to lower corporate rates as they propose to do without adding to deficits. Underscoring the difficulty, just two popular tax breaks — for accelerated depreciation of businesses’ capital investments and write-offs of research and experimentation costs — account for the bulk of the revenue the government foregoes to benefit corporations.

My emphasis added. You see, it’s the government’s money, they have the power to let you keep it.

As I read the above, I want to make it clear I think a reduction in tax rates can and does increase the revenue to the government. But federal revenue is not our current problem, spending is what is out of control and our economy is anemic with high unemployment and high energy costs.

We need to get people back to work, and increasing the revenue collected from corporations will not encourage them to expand, hire and invest. We need to get more people and companies working, not increase the tax burden on those who are working now.

In other words…

1. Drastically reduce the role of the federal government in our lives and dramatically cut the federal budget. (I’m talking cuts much more than $1 trillion in cuts.) Then…
2. Lower the overall tax burden to companies and people to dramatically increase the participation rate. Companies should want to do business not only with America, but in America.
3. Keep cutting federal spending and lower federal taxes accordingly.
4. Increase tax rates at the state and local level – if necessary - to fund public programs and projects with zero involvement from the federal government.

This is what we get when the federal government gets involved with every detail of our lives. All they need is for the door to be cracked open; the door is now wide open. Any funding provided by the federal government has quickly led to outright mandates on any organization that gets a dime from a federal agency.

And it doesn’t stop at school. Your home mortgage may be backed by the federal government. The federal government bailed out banks, bailed out auto manufactures, and has outright funded private business with grants and federally subsidized loans. The federal government is fully vested in health care and health care insurance. Soon, the only place you’ll be able to get a student loan is from the government. What will they mandate of you?

I see no end in site to the migration to central planning. The states and the people have given up nearly all of their liberty in exchange for federal funding, a.k.a. Obama’s Stash. From the New York Times.

The Obama administration is working on setting nutritional standards for foods that children can buy outside the cafeteria. With students eating 19 percent to 50 percent of their daily food at school, the administration says it wants to ensure that what they eat contributes to good health and smaller waistlines. The proposed rules are expected within the next few weeks. …

Schools say that overly restrictive rules, which could include banning the candy sold for school fund-raisers, risk the loss of substantial revenue that helps pay for sports, music and arts programs.

Steve Gilbert at Sweetness & Light asks…

[H]ow long will it before before it is illegal to sell ‘unhealthy’ snacks within so many thousand feet of a school?

CBS News stated:

Within 24 hours of the announcement Planned Parenthood had raised more $400,000 online, mostly from small donors, according to Tait Sye, a spokesman for the organization.

Additionally, the Fikes Foundation gave Planned Parenthood a $250,000 grant toward starting the Emergency Breast Health Fund, Sye said, in the aftermath of the Komen decision.

And on Thursday afternoon, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced that he would match up to $250,000 donations from his personal wealth.”

And from the Washington Post:

Donors reacting to the Susan G. Komen Foundation’s decision to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood contributed $650,000 in 24 hours, nearly enough to replace last year’s Komen funding, Planned Parenthood executives said Wednesday.

The organization had raised more than $400,000 from more than 6,000 online donors as of Wednesday afternoon, compared with the 100 to 200 donations it receives on an average day, said Tait Sye, a spokesman for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. He said donations were still coming in.

The group also launched a Breast Health Emergency Fund to ensure funding to affiliates that will lose their Komen grants. That fund received a $250,000 gift from the family foundation of Dallas philanthropist Lee Fikes and his wife, Amy.

“People respond powerfully when they see politics interfering with women’s health,” Sye said. “That’s why we’ve seen a tremendous outpouring of support.”

The last paragraph sums it up nicely: there is plenty of financial support for Planned Parenthood out there, and this proves it.

So why do they need government money?  According to most sources, PP receives about $75 million from the government every year.  Wouldn’t the objections to its mission mostly disappear if the public is not forced to fund it?  Clearly, lots of “fat cats” and regular people with open wallets support PP in an “emergency”, so why not let them do it all the time?  Come to think of it, with the possible imposition of Øbamacare in 2013, will we need Planned Parenthood?  Recent events have shown that family planning in the form of contraception will be covered if Øbama has his way, as will mammograms (maybe not every year though), HIV screening etc.   Between mandated coverage provided by insurers, and the “universal” coverage we will be paying for with Øbamacare, won’t PP simply become redundant?

An organization as popular as Planned Parenthood should be allowed to prove that popularity by removing the crutch of government support.  The Komen controversy has convinced me that they can do it.

This is actually a story from September last, but I thought it fit well with how the Obama administration treated the praying protesters at the fence as compared to Occupy DC. How you say? Can you find me a US Attorney representing the Obama administration who have taken any companies with wind farms to court for killing birds?

I really don’t know if they have, but as of September 29, the Wall Street Journal noted – in an opinion piece – they could find no federal prosecutions where the wind industry was hauled into court for violating the 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

[T]his prosecution is all the more remarkable because the wind industry each year kills not 28 birds, or even a few hundred, but some 440,000, according to estimates by the American Bird Conservancy based on Fish and Wildlife Service data. Guess how many legal actions the Obama Administration has brought against wind turbine operators under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act? As far as we can tell, it’s zero.

At the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area Northern California, some 5,000 wind turbines each year kill scores of golden and bald eagles, which are highly protected under federal law. There have been no federal prosecutions, though NextEra Energy Resources has agreed to purchase new turbines that are less likely to harm birds.

The wind industry is even seeking a formal legal waiver to shield it from the type of criminal or civil action that the oil companies now face. According to the September 13 draft of its new “Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines,” the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would give the wind industry “assurances” of law enforcement discretion if it adheres to certain safeguards and then inadvertently kills birds.

GOP candidate for president Newt Gingrich mentioned this legal action – with a few of the facts mixed up – on Fox News Sunday.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzJeCwupaUE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZ-VWJjVoZ8

Act of Valor opens Feb. 24.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnlPgo9TaGo

You see, you can protest along certain sections of the White House exterior fence, but you have to keep moving while protesting. This post isn’t about contraception, abortion or Obamacare … it’s about how the federal government treats people differently. They choose the winners and the losers.

In the meantime, we’ve had the so-called 99 percenters all over the United States illegally camping for months at state and federal parks. At McPherson Square in Washington D.C., it took more than four months for US Park Police officers to evict the occupiers from the park.

I guess the small group gathered to pray at the White House fence didn’t have an agenda the White House approved of, so they were promptly arrested, and released after they paid a $100 fine.

In response to the president’s national health care plan, widely known as ObamaCare, six pro-life marchers were arrested today in front of the White House.

Among those arrested were a Catholic priest, Father Denis Wilde, the Associate Director of Priests for Life; and Presbyterian minister, the Reverend Patrick Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition.

LifeSiteNews.com is reporting that a total of six pro-life protestors were charged and arrested for “disobeying a lawful order,” and eventually released after paying a $100 fine apiece.

I don’t see these guys throwing any bricks like they did at McPherson square.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zASRC7ZE0Q

After they drove the car into the ditch, made it as difficult as possible for us to pull it back, now they want to keys back. No!  You can’t drive. We don’t want to have to go back into the ditch. We just got the car out.

Flash forward almost two years to 2012.  How has Øbama’s “driving” been?  Unemployment is high, the debt has soared, deficit spending is on an rocketing upward, Øbama’s proposed budgets have been ludicrous, the Senate’s mandatory budgets have been nonexistent, two years of budgets from the Republican led House languish in the Senate, never brought to the floor, the Sword of Damocles in the form of Øbamacare hangs over our heads (conveniently poised to take effect after the 2012 elections),  Øbama’s budget directors and economic advisers can’t give a firm figure on the results of any of his so called economic “fixes” or even a date when they are projected to actually fix something, etc., etc.

To use Øbama’s own example, he took the keys, pulled the car out of the ditch, drove the car over a cliff, hired a taxpayer funded crane (no doubt built in China) to haul the wreck back up, and pushed it over again.

No, Mr. Øbama, you do not deserve the keys to the car. You need remedial driving lessons and an alcohol blood test before we even consider letting you look at the keys again. Or economy isn’t your bumper car.  Or is it “demolition derby”?

Back in 2010, the young president followed up with:

After a stormy time, people may be a little sea sick. But right now the waters are calm. There on the horizon we can see our destination. Now is not the time to lose heart. Now is not the time to get complacent. Now is the time to remind ourselves of what America is all about and return Democrats to the House of Representatives.

Maybe we should listen to him (with a little corrective editing):

After a building hurricane, people may be sea sick to the point of vomiting overboard. But right now the waters are swirling down a whirlpool. There on the horizon we can see our destination. Now is not the time to lose heart. Now is not the time to get complacent. Now is the time to remind ourselves of what America is all about and return Republicans to the House of Representatives AND the Senate AND the White House for that matter!

An earlier post on this blog noted that Øbama made this prediction:

I will be held accountable.  I have four years.  If I don’t have this done in three years, this is going to be a one term proposition.

Let’s make Mr. Øbama’s prediction come true.  He’s earned it.

I received what follows from a very good friend.  It is too topical and powerful to keep to myself.

There are basically three things that give us power over our government, our religion, our guns, and our wealth … Ultimately, through such political sleight of hand, the three things that give us our power over our government are rendered powerless — the tyrant’s trifecta.

Read it all. The connection of the three, and the systematic attack is stunning, not to mention scary.

The stealth confiscation of your God given liberties has been underway for some time, says the author. An amazing reminder that freedom requires vigilance and a willingness to fight for your freedoms.

There are basically three things that give us power over our government, our religion, our guns, and our wealth.  Religion gives us power because it maintains the notion that our rights are provided by our creator, not a king, elected body, or a document.  The rights that we, as individuals, possess transcend any edict passed by other men, and, thus, they cannot be taken from us by man or government.  It is worth mentioning, here, that while bowing may be customary when meeting heads of state around the world, in America, we bow only in places of worship.

Our guns give us the ability to defend ourselves against errant governmental authorities should such authorities attempt to deprive us of our rights.

And, finally, our wealth makes possible our financial independence from government lest we are tempted to surrender our rights in exchange for sustenance.

With these three things, it would be very difficult for tyranny to establish itself in our nation.  Without these things, however, we become little more than fodder for tyrants.  That is why I worry.

It is no secret that for years there have been those in government who have gone through great pain to eradicate any mention of God or Creator or religion from public policy.  Prayer is disallowed in schools or public buildings, religious displays are banned, even the Pledge of Allegiance has been all but eliminated from national thought.  Recently, President Obama, speaking on two separate occasions, misquoted our Declaration of Independence by stating that we are “endowed with unalienable rights”, omitting the phrase “by our creator”.  Call me crazy, but, I believe that was no accident.  The same President has been telling us for two years that the government will provide the “right to health care”, among other things, thus advancing the notion that rights come not from our Creator, but from the government.  Note the subtlety here, the goal is not to ban religion, but to trivialize it.

On the subject of guns, it has been obvious for decades that many in our government wished the Second Amendment had never been written, and have been working feveriously to whittle away at our right to keep and bear arms wherever and whenever they can (for our own protection, mind you).  Again, we are reminded of the President’s quote while on the campaign trail that we, out of fear and ignorance, desperately cling to our guns and religion.  There he trivializes both the First and Second Amendments in a single sentence.

But what of our wealth?  Sure they can tax us, but they cannot take away what we’ve already been taxed on, and have managed to save, can they?  Well, maybe not directly.  But what if they were to create massive deficits, so massive, in fact, that there would be no way our nation could repay our debtors.  Under such conditions it might become tempting to pay those debts through “monitization”.  Of course, the long term effect of printing money is inflation, or as Reagan put it, the cruelest tax of all.  No, the government may not take our wealth away, but it can make it worth less, or even, worthless.

Ultimately, through such political sleight of hand, the three things that give us our power over our government are rendered powerless — the tyrant’s trifecta.

But, they wouldn’t take advantage of that, would they?

Hum, think about that.

From an opinion piece by John Lott over at Fox News.

David Brock, the founder of Media Matters, had a personal assistant illegally publicly carry a concealed handgun in the District  of Columbia in order “to protect Brock from threats.” Few organizations have declared their opposition to gun ownership or concealed carry laws as strongly as Media Matters.

The group’s opposition to guns has largely been a “scorched earth” approach, demonizing supporters of gun ownership and concealed  handgun laws.

Did we mention that Washington D.C. does not permit concealed carry?

The original story was posted at the Daily Caller on Feb. 12 and includes this tidbit.

Extensive interviews with a number of Brock’s current and former colleagues at Media Matters, as well as with leaders from across the spectrum of Democratic politics, reveal an organization roiled by its leader’s volatile and erratic behavior and struggles with mental illness, and an office where Brock’s executive assistant carried a handgun to public events in order to defend his boss from unseen threats.

And…

By 2010, Brock’s personal assistant, a man named Haydn Price-Morris, was carrying a holstered and concealed Glock handgun when he accompanied Brock to events, including events in Washington, D.C., a city with famously restrictive gun laws. Price-Morris told others he carried the gun to protect Brock from threats.

Late in 2010, other Media Matters employees learned about Price-Morris’s gun, and he was fired due to their objections. No public announcement was made.

According to one source with knowledge of what happened next, Brock was “terrified” that news of the gun would leak. “George Soros and a lot of groups connected to gun control are funding this group, and they wouldn’t be too happy that an employee of Media Matters was carrying a gun, especially when it was illegal in D.C.”