ARE WE HEADED TOWARD THE CONSTITUTION OR THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO? THIS BREAKDOWN TELLS YOU

The Communist Manifesto

Considered the playbook, the framework, the founding document of Communism, it is argued that no other political volume has altered the course of history more than Karl Marx and Friedrich Engel’s tiny yet effective blueprint for the proletariat.

Commissioned by the Communist League, Marx and Engels laid out their analysis of capitalism and class struggle while supposedly offering economic and socio-political “solutions” rooted in what they called science. While every instance of Communism attempted around the globe has since failed abysmally and without exception, proponents still cry that Marx’s inviolable political and economic theories were simply “improperly executed” and thus, if true to the Manifesto, Marxism is, in itself, “perfect.” A little known fact, however, is that these champions’ premise is based on a flawed narrative, as Karl Marx in fact falsified much of the data he used to support his untenable political and economic system. Of Marx’s flagrant disregard for the facts, British philosopher Anthony Flew wrote:

…the first and only volume of Das Kapital to be published in the lifetime of Marx was, in his own words, to demonstrate that “In proportion as capital accumulates, the lot of the labourer must grow worse. Accumulation of wealth at one pole is at the same time accumulation of misery, agony of toil, slavery, ignorance, brutality, mental degradation at the opposite pole.” But by 1867, when that volume was first published, Marx had known for 15 or more years that this thesis was false.

Flew continued that Marx’s response was “merely to suppress the falsifying data.” This was manifested in the first edition of Das Kapital where “various available British statistics—about the reliability of which there was no question—were given up to 1865 or 1866, whereas those for the movement of wages stop at 1850.” In Kapital’s second edition, however, according to Flew, all subsequent runs were “brought up to date, while that of wage movements still stops at 1850.”While clearly not a “man of science,” nor one who held facts in high regard, generations of leftists take the words of Karl Marx as absolute truth, and indeed, the gospel. Below are the tenets they seek to live by, as mapped out in his “magnum opus.” So where are we?

1. Abolition of private property

The first plank of Communism is the abolishment of private property. America is certainly here in terms of eminent domain, where the state has the ability to expropriate private property “for the public good.” Per the Fifth Amendment, the government must fairly compensate a citizen in return, but lines tend to blur when the government is given the authority to assess what is “fair and just” in the first place. Regardless of whether the final sum is one agreeable to the private citizen, the property will still be confiscated with or without the owner’s consent.

Typically, land or property acquired through eminent domain is used to house public works that are intended to benefit the community such as public utilities, freeways, libraries and schools. It is a slippery slope, however.  After the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kelo v. City of New London, the scope of eminent domain was expanded outside its traditional boundaries to include revitalizing “depressed areas.” In other words, in the spirit of gentrification or regeneration, a citizen’s private property can be seized by the government to build a sports complex, or even a shopping mall if the state deems it a public good.

Another example of government encroachment on citizens’ private property is evident in the far-reach of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE) that buy mortgages on the secondary market.  If a citizen’s mortgage is held by one of these government-backed giants, Uncle Sam is entirely “too close to home.”

Interconnected is property tax. Simply, if one is subject to property tax, then the land or property being taxed doesn’t actually belong to the “owner.” Fall behind on these payments and the government will  seize a citizen’s home, business or land, regardless of whether his or her mortgage is paid in full.

Homes are not the only area subject to government encroachment, however. In fact, Uncle Sam owns roughly 650 million acres of land across the 50 states — with its highest ownership stake (85%) in Nevada.  The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) also has the authority to seize private property during “emergency” situations.

2. Heavy progressive income tax

This particular tenet needs no introduction, nor example. America now holds the world record for highest corporate tax rate, surpassing even Japan. This is a crucial plank of the Manifesto, as it ensures that nary a high income earner will remain standing and everyone may subsist in equal mediocrity or (worse).

Ironically, Communists bang on incessantly about “equality” when in fact a flat-tax is arguably the fairest system of all and one that would, by design, ensure “from each according to his abilities, toeach according to his needs.” If a 10% flat tax were implemented, then 10% of a $5,000 income would amount to far less than 10% of a $500,000 income. Thus, those who make more money, still pay more. Alas, that is certainly not the way Marx would have portrayed it. Nor is it the way the current administration seems to see it given the president’s renewed push to instate ”The Buffett Rule,” which seeks to raise the income tax rate on high income earners — including small business owners — even higher than it is now.

Regardless, whether one is subject to a flat or a progressive tax system, a foreboding and omnipotent force looms dangerously over the American ether: The IRS. Fail to pay your “fair share,” and you will soon learn of the government’s ultimate power — to freeze your bank accounts, seize your property, penalize and, in some instances even imprison you. There is perhaps no greater example of a Marxist economic policy in action than this.

3. Abolition to all rights of inheritance

One of the many stark contradictions found in the Manifesto is outlined in this particular pillar. What was most ironic about Marx’s desire to abolish inheritance was that, if he had his way, citizens would not own anything of value to bequeath upon death in the first place. Nonetheless, his odd and arguably redundant tenet has worked its way into the American landscape via the estate tax — and its very alias, the “death tax.”  This alone should raise eyebrows, if not outright suspicion of government’s dubious motives.

First, many argue the estate tax is unconstitutional because it creates a direct tax that is not disbursed to the states for collection. But the more obvious discrepancy is that it allows the government to tax individuals twice, as the items that find their way into one’s estate — be they a car, house, land, jewelry or other valuable possessions — have already been subject to either sales or property tax once before. The Federal government’s carte blanche to double-dip is spurred further by Democrats’ renewed push to resurrect and expand what the Wall Street Journal dubs President Obama’s “night of living death tax.”

With the staggering rate applied to estates worth over $5 million, citizens may soon wonder why it is worth the bother to spend a lifetime building a personal or business empire to pass down to their children and grandchildren at all. By the second generation, there would be nothing left.

4. Confiscation of property of all emigrants & rebels

This Manifesto pillar is perhaps best laid out in the recent string of government crackdowns on “homegrown militias.” Those who have paid careful attention to Janet Napolitano know that one of Homeland Security’s preoccupations of late has been the “rise” of “homegrown militias.” With this in mind, the department is likely honing in on anyone considered an “opposition group,” be they merely survivalists or those with a more militant bent.

Some may recall the Michigan militia, or ”Hutaree,” as they are known — a group of anti-government “rebels” who were allegedly engaged in preparations for a potential future clash with federal agencies. The defendants were accused of conspiring to overthrow the U.S. government, a planned assassination of a police officer, and an ambush of that officer’s funeral with explosives in order to incite an uprising against the Federal government. While the anticipated attack never actually occurred, this did not stop the Feds, under the blessing of Attorney General Eric Holder, from raiding the Hutaree’s various outposts, confiscating its members’ arms and waging an all-out legal battle against the group.

At the end of March, 2012, presiding U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts dismissed the most serious of the charges against the Hutaree, leveling a staggering blow to the Fed. She said the members’ hatred of government did not amount to a conspiracy to overthrow it.

It remains unclear whether the Hutaree were indeed poised to be the aggressors of a violent assault or if they were simply anti-big-government, “good ol’ boy“ survivalists preparing to ”defend themselves” against a perceived government threat. But the Federal agencies’ indictment of the group perhaps reveals how government will deal with homegrown “threats” — be they real or perceived — moving forward.

Another key element, and one that warrants mention due to its relevance in modern day America, is the confiscation of citizens’ weapons. Those who have felt their Second Amendment rights slowly whittle away understand that disarming the public is a crucial step vital to ensuring the state’s grip over its citizenry.  In fact, one of the first tasks performed by the then-fledgling Soviet state was the confiscation of citizens’ private arms — even hunting rifles. By stripping people of the ability to defend themselves, the authoritarian state could reign over the vulnerable Russian populace. Many Americans consider this a highly plausible reality given increasingly stringent gun laws and regulations spread across all 50-states.

It should also be noted that IRS liens, levies and seizures are all means by which the Federal government can confiscate a “rebel” entity’s assets — one instance being the recent IRS “shakedown” of Tea Party members.  And, in terms of “emigrants,” taxing the off-shore income and assets of American citizens, or causing Americans to give up their U.S. citizenship and flee to foreign lands to avoid abusive U.S. taxes, is yet another means by which the Fed’s confiscatory, overreaching tentacles are changing the American landscape.  Statistics point out a rising trend…

5. Centralization and monopolization of credit by means of a national bank 

Created by Congress in 1913, the Federal Reserve is, for all intents and purposes, America‘s national bank charged with setting the monetary policy that controls the nation’s economic stability. The Federal Reserve holds the power to guide interest rates, thus controlling inflation. The effects of this agency’s actions are felt in measurable ways by everyday Americans, every day. From the interest rate accrued to mortgages and other lines of credit to determining the value of one’s home, it is both the seen and unforeseen reach of this institution that sets the tone for Americans’ financial security.

On the grander scale, the Federal Reserve has the more sinister power of devaluing U.S. currency, and thus the value of goods, services and property, via “quantitative easing,” or, as it is affectionately dubbed, printing money.

“One of the fundamental problems with the U.S. economy right now is the Federal Reserve thinks the answer to all our economic problems is printing money,” said the Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Moore. “We haven’t created new jobs from all of this printing of money, but what we have produced is inflation in prices.”

6. Centralized control of communication & transportation

a) Transportation

The ways in which the Federal government controls America’s communication and transportation systems are almost too vast to count, but a few shining examples stand out. In terms of transportation, the Interstate Highway System, the Federal Aviation Authority and the Department of Transportation are of course the most obvious government bureaucracies controlling the country’s means of transport. Less-obvious, perhaps, is Amtrak, a government owned corporation and essentially the only passenger rail carrier in the country. Indeed the railroad industry’s metamorphosis from a private enterprise to a nationalized entity perhaps tells the greatest tale of the insidious ways in which the Federal government appropriates what it wants, when it wants.

The once flourishing U.S. rail industry’s day in the sun was eclipsed when the Fed introduced a “rate-setting” scheme by which rail carriers were forced to adopt. The  result was a decrease in profits, decrease in rail system growth, decrease in investments and an increase in labor costs. Not surprisingly, this had the reverse effect than that intended by the Fed when it first set rail carrier rates.. Inevitably, a battered Amtrak gave way to government take-over. The obvious lesson here is that if it can happen to Amtrak there is no reason to think it couldn’t just as easily happen to a commercial air carrier, for example, or any other privately held mode of transportation.

As mentioned above, air traffic, ground traffic and maritime traffic via the nation’s port authorities are all overseen and subject to take-over by the government should FEMA deem a state of emergency.

b) Communication

Presently, when it comes to communication, conservatives argue that nothing screams of Marxism louder than the Federal Communications Commission and Obama’s appointment of its “Chief Diversity Officer,” Frank Lloyd.

One of the administration’s many “czars,” Lloyd was a senior fellow at the progressive think tank, Center for American Progress, where he authored a June 2007 report titled, ”The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio.” The content may point to Lloyd’s intentions when it comes to silencing voices of opposition, and many conservatives believe that Obama’s “Diversity Czar” intends to revive the Fairness Doctrine.

For those unfamiliar, the Fairness Doctrine, adopted in 1949, obligated broadcasters to provide opposing points of view on issues of national importance regardless of actual market demand for the content. Media Research Center’s Setton Motley said, if reinstated, caps would be placed on local and national ownership of commercial radio stations; local accountability over licensing would be ensured; and those not in compliance would be subject to paying a fee to support public broadcasting. As it stands, the FCC already levies heavy regulations on broadcasters and monitors all communication aired across radio and television waves.

Looking forward, another impending threat can be found in the current struggle for control over the Internet. Currently, the World Wide Web is controlled by the U.S. government via the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and its subsidiary, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). Both are under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

There has been a growing push, however, for America to relinquish its control in the name of a world “without borders,“ or ”one world government.” Countries like China and Russia, in particular, have vied for control, doggedly pursuing the United Nations for assistance in breaking the U.S. stronghold.

If the U.N.’s International Telecommunication Union (ITU), along with its nearly 200 member state allies were to take control of the levers, cyber security and data privacy would be subject to international control.

While even in the land of the free no information received or transmitted over the Internet escapes the prying eyes of Big Brother, it goes without saying America’s First Amendment rights still ensure a far more liberated information superhighway than the one that would exist under the reins of a dubious global body formed by the U.N. and led by China and Russia. Meanwhile, the entire global economy hangs in the balance.

7. Government ownership of factories 

In terms of government owned factories, few could ever forget “Government Motors.” After nearly $53 billion in bailout funds over the course of two administrations, the U.S. government now owns a controlling stake in GM, raising the obvious question of how government can fairly regulate its own business.  While GM asked the government to intervene, and while Amtrak was instead a victim of a federally-engineered scheme, both are examples of how government assumes control of private enterprise. Typically, it is the American taxpayer who fails to reap the dividends and becomes the victim of these machinations.

8. Equal liability of all to labor

The first thought which springs to mind when reading the Manifesto’s tenet on equal labor is the overriding presence of labor unions within the U.S. workforce. While labor unions in and of themselves are not nationalized organizing bodies, they have enjoyed a long and harmonious relationship with government, particularly through the progressive policies and lawmakers that prop up their various agendas. In fact, there may be no brighter an illustration of socialism manifested than the collective organizing body of America’s labor unions. Although subject to regulation and oversight by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), unions still overwhelmingly support Democratic candidates, thus a cycle of quid pro quo is perpetuated.

Another example of government control in the workplace emerges via the Labor Department’s Affirmative Action policies. By mandating that employers meet a staff-quota comprised of women, minorities and people with disabilities, private business is being forced to relinquish its ability to hire on the basis of merit, thus failing to deliver excellence and best practices. While many women, minorities and those with disabilities do indeed possess the skill sets needed to succeed in a specific job, it should, critics argue, be left to private enterprise to determine which candidate is best suited for the task at hand.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), a government owned corporation, has been hailed a prime example of true socialism in America. It is the country’s largest public power company, with a generating capacity of 31,658 megawatts. Its 17,000 miles of transmission lines deliver power through 158 locally owned distributors to 8.5 million residents of the Tennessee Valley. While even Republicans, for the most part, consider TVA to be a success, its case is considered unique in that the government model has never been able to be successfully duplicated along any other State waterway.

Agricultural subsidies are another prime example of this Manifesto plank in motion. An extensive analysis conducted by the CATO Institute determined that, when it comes to corporate welfare no one has reaped a greater windfall, or hurt taxpayers more than the “supermarket to the world,” Archer Daniels. An excerpt from the report reads:

ADM and its chairman Dwayne Andreas have lavishly fertilized both political parties with millions of dollars in handouts and in return have reaped billion-dollar windfalls from taxpayers and consumers. Thanks to federal protection of the domestic sugar industry, ethanol subsidies, subsidized grain exports, and various other programs, ADM has cost the American economy billions of dollars since 1980 and has indirectly cost Americans tens of billions of dollars in higher prices and higher taxes over that same period. At least 43 percent of ADM’s annual profits are from products heavily subsidized or protected by the American government. Moreover, every $1 of profits earned by ADM’s corn sweetener operation costs consumers $10, and every $1 of profits earned by its ethanol operation costs taxpayers $30

Aside from being incongruent with the free market, the nation’s agricultural subsidies cost tax payers tens of billions of dollars each year and typically only benefit larger farming outfits.

On the flip side, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is placing greater and greater restrictions on business in the form of cap and trade and in mandating the purchase of carbon credits.

10. Free education for all children in government controlled schools

What can be said of America’s beleaguered public education system could fill volumes, yet one needn’t look far to pluck one or two prime examples as proof that there are indeed no “free lunches.”

The Blaze recently uncovered a series of reports revealing what happens when a bureaucrat decides that the school district, along with its unionized faculty members, know better about a child’s needs than his or her parents do. Whether the control comes via mandating  a child’s school lunch box contents, or altering the Pledge of Allegiance to omit the phrase “one nation under God,” or subjecting students to inadequate instruction from a teacher solely on the basis of that teacher’s tenure – a teacher who cannot be fired or replaced — the public school system is, arguably, setting up generations for failure.

Free medicine…the 11th tenet?  

While not addressed specifically in the 10 tenets of the Communist Manifesto, national health care is perhaps — at least in modern day America — “the key to the empire.” It is why the fate of Obamacare is of utmost importance to the left. If passed, it sets precedent by establishing the “new normal” in government authority over private citizens. Legal experts and pundits alike have consistently argued the unconstitutionality of the health care bill, underscoring its significance as a “gateway” to other forms of government intrusion.

The bill’s unconstitutionality is irrelevant to those who, while claiming to champion the founding document, appear to be working to dismantle it.

Some balk at the use of the word “Communism,” dismissing its invocation as hyperbole. Yet when dissecting actual policies, laws, regulations and bureaucratic government approaches which Americans are increasingly subjected to, and weighing them against the 10  progressive “rules to live by,” the facts scream loudly and clearly in the face of those who deny the ever-creeping onset of Socialism. Marx’s Communist “utopia” is only one evolutionary stage away from reality.

Washington Times KUHNER: Obama’s disastrous war Only victory president wants to win is his own on Election Day

President Obama has lost Afghanistan. The war is turning into a catastrophic defeat - one that will be worse than Vietnam. It is time to bring the troops home, and end this national nightmare.

Recently, the Taliban launched a major spring offensive. Insurgents targeted Kabul and three other cities. They were rebuffed by allied troops and the Afghan army. But the Taliban were able to infiltrate security zones that were supposed to be impenetrable. Their coordinated attacks were a military failure. Diplomatically and psychologically, however, they were devastating. For months, American commanders have claimed that the Taliban are in retreat, and that Afghans are successfully building up their police and security forces. Mr. Obama vowed “the tide of war is receding.”

This is false. Afghanistan has become a protracted military quagmire. It is the longest war in U.S. history. America is being bled white. Nearly 2,000 U.S. soldiers have been killed with thousands more maimed and crippled. The war has cost close to $500 billion - and counting. We have come to be reviled in large parts of that country, seen as an invading army. Most Americans no longer support the war. Why should they? Al Qaeda has been smashed. Osama bin Laden is dead. The country is fracturing along tribal lines. The government in Kabul is weak, venal and corrupt. President Hamid Karzai is an ingrate, who routinely chastises U.S. forces and urges the quickest withdrawal possible.

Mr. Obama said that Afghanistan, unlike the Iraq campaign, was the “necessary war.” It had to be won - at all costs. Hence, he implemented a massive troop surge. The administration believed that more soldiers and a better counter-insurgency strategy was the key to victory. Yet, the policy was doomed to fail for one reason: Nation-building cannot succeed there.

Afghanistan is one of the most primitive and impoverished countries on Earth. It is the graveyard of empires. Imperial Britain, Soviet Russia - they suffered major defeats due to fierce indigenous resistance.Afghanistan’s history is plagued by ceaseless warfare and violent ethnic conflict. To think that this cursed land can be transformed into the Switzerland of South Asia - and to do it sacrificing precious American blood and treasure - is the height of imperial arrogance.

Moreover, Afghanistan has revealed another lesson: Liberalism has made America unable to win a challenging war. Policymakers are obsessed with international opinion and appeasing local sensitivities. The goal of victory has been trumped by multiculturalism. U.S. soldiers have been fighting under strict rules of engagement, enabling theTaliban to hide in civilian-populated areas with impunity. American military leaders regularly apologize - almost grovel - for behavior common in every major war. Four U.S. troops urinated on dead Talibanbodies. Copies of the Koran were inadvertently burned at a U.S. base. The latest scandal involves U.S. soldiers posing for pictures with the body parts of dead suicide bombers. Our leaders do all they can to immediately placate the enemy.

“This is not who we are, and it’s certainly not who we represent when it comes to the great majority of men and women in uniform who are serving there,” said Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta.

Really? Tell that to the “Greatest Generation,” which crushed Nazi Germany and fascist Japan. American forces used flame throwers to smoke out Japanese kamikaze fighters hiding in caves. Many were burned alive; others were severely disfigured. As retired Lt. Col. Ralph Peters has pointed out, many GIs sent Japanese skulls as war gifts to their girlfriends or wives back home. Also, America carpet-bombed Dresden, killing thousands of German civilians. Had we applied today’s rules of engagement to World War II, Hitler and Tojo would never have been defeated.

This begs the question: If Mr. Obama did not have a plan for victory, then why the troop surge? The answer is obvious - and damning: It was a cynical attempt to appear tough on national security. He wanted to protect his right flank from GOP charges that he is too soft in dealing with foreign affairs. In the face of growing anti-war opposition within his own party and the larger public, he cut the troops loose. He ordered the premature withdrawal of the 30,000 surge troops to be completed by this fall - conveniently, just before the election. The 90,000 military personnel still remaining do not have the resources or manpower to pacify the country. They cannot even properly defend themselves from the resurgent Taliban. Mr. Obama has deliberately squandered American lives in a futile effort with no possibility of success. He cannot even bring himself to defend a war - and a surge - that he now bears sole responsibility for. This is not statesmanship, but cowardice.

America’s defeat is inevitable. Unlike Vietnam, the consequences will be more far-reaching and costly. Radical Islam will have triumphed over the “Great Satan,” demonstrating to the Muslim world that America lacks the will and sense of purpose to win a prolonged land war. We will be exposed as a paper tiger. Afghanistan will again become a sanctuary for jihadists; Islamic militants will be even more emboldened across the Middle East and North Africa. It will mark the United States’ long, humiliating retreat from the region - the end of the American superpower. The wars of the past decade have led to imperial overstretch, military exhaustion and national bankruptcy.

The tragic result is that Americans will continue to die for a cause their commander in chief does not believe in and which they cannot win. This is why all of them should be brought home immediately. Mr. Obama’s re-election is not worth dying for.

Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute.

Washington Times KUHNER: Romney’s running mate Paul Ryan has the formula for restoring America’s prosperity

Mitt Romney will be the GOP presidential candidate. Former Sen. Rick Santorum has suspended his campaign, clearing the path forMr. Romney’s inevitable victory at the convention. The ex-Massachusetts governor now faces a pivotal question: Who will be his vice-presidential running mate?

There are numerous possible choices - almost all of them bad. Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels is boring. New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez lacks a national profile. Former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour left office plagued by a pardon scandal. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio is bright, articulate and a Tea Party favorite. Yet, he does not want the job and has said so publicly and repeatedly.

This leaves only three realistic options: Virginia Gov. Robert McDonnellis a staunch fiscal and social conservative. He can also help galvanize evangelical Christians, a key voting bloc Mr. Romney needs in November. Virginia is a key toss-up state. Mr. McDonnell could enable Team Romney to put it in the Republican column. He is competent, talented and principled. He would be a solid choice. But Mr. McDonnelllacks one compelling trait: star power. Mr. Romney so far is failing to catch fire with voters. Mr. Romney is brainy, tenacious and an experienced businessman. The one quality he lacks, however, is charisma. Mr. McDonnell does nothing for him on that crucial front.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has massive charm. His blunt, straight talk and ability to connect with working-class voters has catapulted him to national prominence. He has also rolled back public health care and pension benefits, as well as faced down New Jersey’s powerful labor unions. He has slashed spending and cut taxes. He has shown fiscal responsibility can work even in a deep blue state. Yet, Mr. Christie has one serious drawback: He is not a conservative. Rather, he is a pragmatic moderate, who is socially liberal and wedded to the GOPestablishment. This may be the only kind of Republicanism that can win in the Northeast. For Mr. Romney, however, picking Mr. Christie would be the kiss of death. It would permanently alienate conservatives, many of whom remain skeptical about the GOP standard-bearer’s ideological convictions.

There is one man who can help Mr. Romney win in November: Rep. Paul Ryan. The Wisconsin Republican has emerged as a potent political force. As chairman of the House Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan has become the de facto leader of the anti-Obama opposition. His budget plans have been routinely vilified by President Obama. Mr. Ryan is a principled fiscal hawk. He is a policy wonk who possesses an excellent grasp of budgetary issues. He is highly intelligent, articulate and telegenic. Wisconsin is a pivotal swing state. It is not blue or red, but purple - a real toss-up. Mr. Ryan is well known and respected across the Badger State. He could tip it into Republican hands, delivering a major blow to Mr. Obama’s re-election chances. In short, Mr. Ryan would bring policy gravitas, a high-profile personality and geographic clout to the Romney campaign.

A Romney-Ryan ticket would be almost invincible. It would exude the very opposite of Mr. Obama’s presidency - competence, maturity and sound economic fundamentals. The central issue of the election is the weak recovery and anemic economy. Mr. Ryan has become the symbol of fiscal prudence and budget-cutting. He understands the reality of our time: America is on the verge of becoming Greece; an Obama second term will lead to national bankruptcy. No one can make that urgent case more persuasively than Mr. Ryan.

Under Mr. Obama, the national debt is approaching $16 trillion. He has created the most indebted country in history. He has racked up three annual deficits each more than $1.2 trillion. This year the budget deficit is projected to exceed $1.3 trillion. In total, he has accumulated about $5 trillion in debt. These spending and deficit levels are unsustainable. Instead of curbing government expenditures, Mr. Obama plans to add another $10 trillion to the debt over the next decade. This is a guaranteed path to economic collapse.

The Ryan budget provides a coherent, realistic alternative. He proposes to repeal Obamacare, reduce spending, cut the deficit by $3 trillion over the next decade, reform the tax code and revamp the bloated welfare state. His goal is to unleash market-driven growth and modernize entitlements. Mr. Ryan calls for Medicaid to be transformed into a federal block grant (similar to welfare reform), enabling the states to have the flexibility and opportunity to efficiently allocate assistance to the poor. He also wants to bring choice and competition to Medicare through “premium supports” - lucrative government subsidies that would enable seniors to pick from a menu of insurance options. For this, Mr. Obama has labeled him a “Social Darwinist” - one who wants to return America to the Gilded Age.

This is shameless propaganda. Mr. Ryan is not a jungle capitalist, seeking to throw the poor onto the streets. Instead, he is a devout Catholic, who believes in subsidiarity, localism and a basic safety net. Social programs, however, should not be a license to squander taxpayers’ hard-earned money.

Republicans have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to present a governing vision that stands in stark contrast to Mr. Obama’s reactionary socialism - one based on economic revival, smaller government, balanced budgets and averting a debt crisis that threatens our very existence.

The Ryan plan is a hammer that will smash Obamaism. Mr. Romney has rightly embraced it. And there is no better way to prove his commitment than to choose Mr. Ryan as his running mate. ARomney-Ryan ticket is the Democrats’ worst nightmare, and it is our best shot at restoring the American dream.

Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute.

Obama Admits He Is A Muslim...

The Oval ep. 1: The Imperial City

The Shocking Truth About Unemployment In America In One Chart.

The mainstream media is not telling you the truth about unemployment in the United States. The percentage of working age Americans that are employed is not increasing. In March 2010, 58.5 percent of all working age Americans had a job. In March 2012, 58.5 percent of all working age Americans had a job. So if the employment rate is exactly the same as it was two years ago, then how in the world can the Obama administration claim that things have gotten significantly better since then? According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the official unemployment rate in the United States was 9.8 percent in March 2010 and it declined to 8.2 percent in March 2012. So how is this possible if the percentage of working age Americans that have jobs hasn't moved? Well, what they do is they claim that there are millions upon millions of Americans that have "left the labor force". In other words, they claim that there are millions upon millions of unemployed Americans that don't want jobs anymore. Of course that is a total farce, but the mainstream media and most Americans are buying it. They actually believe that the unemployment rate is going down. But the truth is that the unemployment crisis in America has not subsided. In fact, we are pretty much exactly where we were two years ago, and things are about to get a whole lot worse.

If you want to know the shocking truth about unemployment in America, all you need to do is to look at one chart. The chart posted below shows the change in the employment-population ratio over the past few years. What the employment-population ratio measures is the percentage of working age Americans that actually have jobs. As you can see, it fell dramatically during 2008 and 2009, and since then it has been hovering between 58 and 59 percent....

So there has been no employment recovery, and this is very odd because the employment-population ratio always bounces back after a recession.

The chart posted below shows how the employment-population ratio has changed since the late 1940s. The shaded areas represent recessions. Please take note that after every single recession (other than the current one) the employment-population ratio has always bounced back substantially.

During the most recent recession, the employment-population ratio fell farther than it had during any other recession in the post-World War II era.

If these were normal economic times, it would have been reasonable to expect a huge surge in hiring by now.

But we have not seen that.

Instead, the employment rate in the United States has been remarkably flat for more than two years.

So Barack Obama should not even begin to say anything at all about a "recovery" until the employment rate at least breaks the 59 percent barrier.

In the past I have written about how fraudulent the employment statistics put out by the federal government are.

Well, fortunately there are some folks up on Capitol Hill that are starting to take notice of this phenomenon as well. There is a new bill in Congress that wouldchange the way that the unemployment rate is calculated....

A Republican lawmaker is intensifying his push for legislation that would change how the government measures the unemployment rate.

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) intends to press GOP leaders to move his bill to include the number of individuals who gave up looking for work in the percentage of jobless claims.

Of course there is probably not a chance that such a bill would ever get through the Senate, but at least some lawmakers are trying to get people to notice what is going on.

The sad truth of the matter is that the employment crisis in America is still about as bad as it was a couple of years ago.

Do you remember a couple of months ago when Barack Obama spoke with the wife of an unemployed engineer and asked her to send his resume to the White House?

Well, it turns out that the unemployed engineer still doesn't have a job....

More than two months after President Barack Obama asked for Darin Wedel's résumé, the phone is quiet, e-mails are no longer flooding in and the long-sought-after job interviews -- which had begun to be scheduled -- have petered out.

"Not even recruiting companies are calling anymore," said Jennifer Wedel, the Fort Worth mother of two who chatted online this year with Obama about her out-of-work husband.

She says his job search has been hurt by a program to hire skilled foreign workers.

But Barack Obama is doing the same thing on a national level.

He is promising all of us that things are improving and that there will be lots of jobs for everyone soon, but it is all a lie.

The truth is that this period of relative stability that has been purchased byunprecedented levels of government debt will soon give way to even moreeconomic trouble.

One of my readers recently brought to my attention a list of some of the major companies that are currently getting rid of workers....

Ford will be laying off 1,200 assembly line workers later on this month.

Pittsburgh-based paint and coating manufacturer PPG has announced that it will be laying off 2,000 workers.

J.C. Penney recently laid off 600 workers and has plans to lay off another 300 workers in July.

Lockheed Martin has announced that it will be laying off hundreds of workers.

Dow Chemical has announced that hundreds of workers are going to be laid off.

Yahoo has formally announced that it will be getting rid of about 2,000 workers.

Sony has announced plans to eliminate 10,000 jobs globally.

Even Oprah Winfrey is laying off workers. Oprah is reducing the size of the staff at the OWN network by 20 percent.

Meanwhile, our economy continues to bleed jobs at an astounding pace. At a time when American workers desperately need jobs, millions of them continue to be sent overseas.

In fact, even some jobs that you would think would be impossible to outsource are being given to foreigners. Just recently, ABC News did a major report on all of the roads and bridges all over the United States that are being built by Chinese companies. If you have not seen that report yet, you can view it online right here.

If you go into a Wal-Mart or a dollar store and you start turning over products you will find that huge numbers of them are made in China and that very few of them are made in the United States. China is absolutely dominating us on the global economic stage. Last year our trade deficit with China was the largest trade deficit that one nation has had with another nation in the history of the world. Yet we continue to pursue the exact same trade policies year after year.

So how is the American economy ever supposed to recover if we continue to play to lose?

As a nation we spend far more than we make, we consume far more than we produce and our federal government implements thousands of new business-crippling regulations every single year.

If you still have a good job, you should treasure it and you should try to hold on to it for as long as you can. Soon the next major economic downturn will be upon us and millions more Americans will lose their jobs and their homes.

Things did not have to turn out this way, but we made horribly bad decisions for decades and now the consequences are catching up with us.

You better get ready.

A Unique Perspective & Analysis of Global Events

Click on the title above to read the entire report:

THE PRICE:

After Mr. Obama was elected, it started to become obvious what those changes were that he had talked about. In other words, we began to understand the price we were going to have to pay for the promises he made. As it is often stated, the devil is in the details...well we are now beginning to get a full glimpse of some of those details. (For some this is a “I told you so” list.)

THE PRICE WE WILL PAY for the promises of hope and change:

* INCREASED ABORTION & INFANTICIDE.

-Not only will federal and state funds be increased to fund and promote abortions in the US, but the Federal government will pay for increased abortion programs throughout the world. In his first 3 days of office, OBAMA has already proposed rules that would allow not only the heinous practice of partial birth abortion, but would also allow Infantacide... allowing the parents and/or doctors the right to terminate the life of a new born baby up to one week (or possibly longer) after its birth. Additionally, the day after taking office, the FDA pushed forward the approval of Embryonic stem cell experimentation fulfilling the promise of Obama when he said, “I strongly support expanding research on stem cells," as reported by ABC News. "As president, I will lift the current administration's ban on federal funding of research on embryonic stem cell lines."

* ENCOURAGEMENT/TEACHING OF HOMOSEXUALITY & IMMORALITY

- All laws, state and local, that would inhibit the practice and teaching or restriction of any sexual practice, including homosexuality, lesbianism and any other expression of sexuality, (such as beastiality, polygamy, pornography, ) are in the process of being repealed. As part of this, they have outlined that freedom of sexual expression, including classes and encouragement of homosexuality, lesbianism, and other practices would be mandated to be taught through all public schools at all age levels. It also appears that legislation is to be introduced that would make any speaking out against these practices to be considered a speech hate crime and punishable by fines and imprisonment.

* THE SUPPRESSION OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION

-Specifically, the rights of the practice of religion are to take a subordinate place under other rights...such as the right of Homosexuals to practice their homosexuality. In other words, people and organizations (including Churchs) could be forced to accept into their organizations and extend their services to homosexuals, even though their religion or church opposes such immoral behavior. Homosexual marriages would be accepted and made legal in all states. Under these new guidelines, Catholic Bishops, Pastors and other religious leaders could be forced to accept and even perform marriages between homosexual and lesbian couples. (Note: this was what the fight was about in California over proposition 8. Obama and his team are proposing that once this law is overturned by the California Supreme Court and sustained by the US Supreme Court, then they would issue federal rulings to override all state and local laws concerning this issue.)

* THE DISSOLUTION OF THE TRADITIONAL CHRISTIAN FAMILY UNIT

- As anyone can see from the above policies being enacted by OBAMA, they all spell disaster for the traditional family unit that this country was built upon and has formed its foundation for over 200 years. That of a Christian family consisting of a mother and father teaching their children the lessons of honesty, integrity, hard work, responsibility, and morality. Such a family group has no place in the world view of OBAMA and his administration and supporters.

* INCREASED GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION/SCANDALS

- Before even taking office, OBAMA and his appointees have been embroiled in numerous scandals concerning corruption. In just one example (among several) the involvement of his personal staff, and possibly himself in the selling of his former Senate seat for cash or other reward. After extensively denying that he and his staff had had any contact with Blagojevich (reminiscent of Bill Clinton’s “I did not have sex with that woman” statements), it was revealed just a week later that it was a total lie, that Obama did have personal contact, and that his staff had had extensive contact with Blagojevich.

The icing on this cake (so far) is the example of his appointee for Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, the person who would be in charge of the IRS and the US tax code, overseeing the funneling of money to the world, the overseeing of fiscal policy, etc. Soon after Obama announced his choice of Geithner as his Treasury Secretary it was discovered that not only had Geithner lied on his own personal income taxes, and failed to pay his personal income taxes, but he even stole the money he was specifically given to pay them.

Geithner fails on all marks concerning, trust, integrity, honesty, capability, responsibility, judgement... and yet, instead of being charged with felonies such as tax fraud and embezzlement, and incarcerated as anyone else would be....he has been approved and will be sworn in as part of the OBAMA leadership team for this country.

* FULL SOCIALISM

- The very insane socialistic economic policies that got us into this mess, are to be increased about ten fold. Tax and spend will take on a new meaning as the proposed spending by OBAMA exceeds the expenditures of World War I, World War II, the Vietnam War, the Korean War, the Gulf War, the Iraq war, all disaster expenditures for things like Katrina, Hugo and others, all welfare programs since 1930, farm assistance, etc. COMBINED.

-But, that is just the beginning, because full Socialism is not just economic changes, but governmental and societal changes as well. Society will never be the same. In essence we have voted in an administration that has promised to eliminate the old fashioned Republic Constitution based upon a limited government that cannot take away the rights of individuals, and is based upon the adherence to law, and the right of an individual to own and control their own property... to a new Socialistic government where the government can overrule any and all rights of the individual, and that it is not restricted to adherence to law, (in other words it can make or break laws at will), and where the government controls and can even take

* BIGGER RECESSION/DEPRESSION

- Now that OBAMA is in office, he is telling us that he lied to us and that his new changes will actually not help the economy for several years. In fact, he is now telling us that it will get much, much worse before it will get better. Funny, that is what his political opponents said would happen... but we were assured by Obama and his media that such would not be the case. Well, surprise... it is the case. NOW, his critics are stating that his policies will not only NOT help things improve even in a few years, but that his policies will completely collapse the economy.

* THE EFFECTIVE ENACTMENT OF A GUN BAN

- The Obama administration has outlined their plans to first tax ammunition and firearms to the point that few ordinary citizens cannot afford them, and then second to encourage the registration of ammunition and then firearms. In the long term, they are planning to create a new judiciary that will outlaw guns from ordinary citizens, restricting them only for Federally approved militia organizations, such as the Civilian Defense Force that Obama has proposed.

* THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN ‘RE-INSTALLED’

- Obama promised a new, fresh approach by newfaces and new forward thinking people in his administration. Instead, in reality what do we have? We have essentially most of the old Clinton administration, bringing their old baggage back With Hillary in a different room of the West wing of the white house, all we need is Bill back and nothing has changed...except that now there is a Democratic Congress with pretty much super majority to pass everything they wanted to pass before...and much more. The other bad news is that OBAMA is so much more a radical socialist/communist, he makes Hilliary and Bill look conservative by comparison.

Be Proud To Be White..

I have been wondering about why Whites are racists, and no other race is...... Michael Richards makes his point...and whether we like it or not, he is telling the truth. Michael Richards better known as Kramer from TVs Seinfeld does make a good point. This was his defense speech in court after making racial comments in his comedy act. He makes some very interesting points... Someone finally said it. How many are actually paying attention to this? There are African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Arab Americans, etc. And then there are just Americans.. You pass me on the street and sneer in my direction. You call me 'White boy,' 'Cracker,' 'Honkey,' 'Whitey,' 'Caveman'.... And that's OK... You say that whites commit a lot of violence against you.... So why are the ghettos the most dangerous places to live? You have the United Negro College Fund. You have Martin Luther King Day. You have Black History Month. You have Cesar Chavez Day. You have Yom Hashoah. You have Ma'uled Al-Nabi. You have the NAACP. You have BET.... If we had WET (White Entertainment Television), we'd be racists. If we had a White Pride Day, you would call us racists. If we had White History Month, we'd be racists. If we had any organization for only whites to 'advance' OUR lives, we'd be racists. We have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, a Black Chamber of Commerce, and then we just have the plain Chamber of Commerce. Wonder who pays for that?? A white woman could not be in the Miss Black American pageant, but any color can be in the Miss America pageant. If we had a college fund that only gave white students scholarships... You know we'd be racists. There are over 60 openly proclaimed Black Colleges in the US .. Yet if there were 'White colleges', that would be a racist college. In the Million Man March, you believed that you were marching for your race and rights. If we marched for our race and rights, you would call us racists. You are proud to be black, brown, yellow and orange, and you're not afraid to announce it. But when we announce our white pride, you call us racists. You rob us, car jack us, and shoot at us. But, when a white police officer shoots a black gang member or beats up a black drug dealer running from the law and posing a threat to society, you call him a racist. I am proud...... But you call me a racist. Why is it that only whites can be racists?? There is nothing improper about this e-mail.. Let's see which of you are proud enough to send it on. I sadly don't think many will. That's why we have LOST most of OUR RIGHTS in this country. We won't stand up for ourselves! BE PROUD TO BE WHITE AND AMERICAN! It's not a crime YET.... But getting very close! It is estimated that ONLY 5% of those reaching this point in this e-mail, will pass it on. I DID!!

UNEMPLOYMENT MORE LIKE 10.9%...The big March jobs miss — and why the real unemployment rate sure ain’t 8.2%

Swing and a miss. A big miss. A really big miss. U.S. employers added just 120,000 jobs last month, the Labor Department said on Friday. That’s the smallest increase since October. Economists polled by Reuters had expected nonfarm employment to increase by 203,000. And as economist Robert Brusca points out, “The strong amazing run in household jobs came to a crashing halt as employment in that survey fell by 31,000 after rising by 42,000 last month and 847,000 the month before that.”

Then there’s the unemployment rate, which dipped to 8.2% from 8.3% the month before. That extends the longest streak of 8%-plus unemployment since the Great Depression. The U.S. economy hasn’t been below 8% unemployment since Obama took office in January 2009. And back in May 2007, unemployment was just 4.4%. (And keep in mind that average hourly wages are up just 2.1% over past year. But inflation up 2.9% (2.2% core). American workers are losing ground.) As Barclays Capital puts it: “Overall, the report had an undeniably weak tone and will raise doubts about the strength of the labor market. Given that the report reflects only one month of data and some of the underlying cyclical sectors registered payroll gains, we do not view it as conclusively signaling a shift to a lower trend rate of employment growth.”

And here’s how economic consulting firm IHS Global Insights views the report:

March was expected to bring another good jobs report, and it failed miserably. The streak of 200,000-plus monthly payroll gains ended at three. Job gains were almost 100,000 below expectations, the workweek shrank, and the decline in the unemployment rate reflected not more employment, but fewer people looking for work.

The big disappointments were in private services, where retail had a second successive bad month, and temp jobs fell for the first time since last June. Construction jobs fell for the second month in a row, but that is not too surprising – although the weather was exceptionally warm in March, it probably didn’t help construction as much as in January or February.

One disappointing jobs report is not reason to panic, but it will dampen some of the optimism about the strength of the recovery this year.

Recall that back in 2009, White House economists Jared Bernstein and Christina Romer used their old-fashioned Keynesian model to predict how the $800 billion stimulus would affect employment. According to their model—as displayed in the above chart, updated—unemployment should be around 5.8% today.

But the true measure of U.S. unemployment is far worse:

1. If the size of the U.S. labor force as a share of the total population was the same as it was when Barack Obama took office—65.7% then vs. 63.8% today down from last month—the U-3 unemployment rate would be 10.9%.

2. But what if you take into the account the aging of the Baby Boomers, which means the labor force participation (LFP) rate should be trending lower. Indeed, it has been doing just that since 2000. Before the Great Recession, the Congressional Budget Office predicted what the LFP would be in 2012, assuming such demographic changes. Using that number, the real unemployment rate would be 10.5%.

3. Of course, the LFP rate usually falls during recessions. Yet even if you discount for that and the aging issue, the real unemployment rate would be 9.4%.

4. Then there’s the broader, U-6 measure of unemployment which includes the discouraged plus part-timers who wish they had full time work. That unemployment rate, perhaps the truest measure of the labor market’s health, is still a sky-high 14.5%.

5. The employment-population ratio dipped to 58.5% vs. 61% in December 2008. An historically low level of the U.S. population is actually working.

6. The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or longer) account for 42.5% of the unemployment. That number is basically stuck. It was the same, for instance, in August 2010 and last December.

Bottom line: The economy is adding jobs but not very quickly, which is to be expected given GDP growth of around 2% or so. A Great Recovery after the Great Recession? More like the Great Stagnation.

WASHINGTON TIMES KUHNER: Obama v. Supreme Court President would weaken the pillars of our republic to get his way

President Obama is undermining the rule of law. On Monday, he openly attacked the Supreme Court. He fears that the high court will overturn Obamacare. It is the president’s signature domestic achievement - the jewel in his socialist crown. To repeal parts or all of it would be a humiliating repudiation. Hence, Mr. Obama is resorting to bullying.

“I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” he said.

Moreover, Mr. Obama argued that nullifying Obamacare would amount to “judicial activism,” whereby “unelected” judges trump the will of legislative representatives. His warning was clear and unequivocal:Supreme Court justices must not rule against his administration. The president fired a shot across the high court’s bow.

His remarks were astonishing - and chilling. It is rare for a president to comment on a case before the Supreme Court renders a decision. Presidents often have fulminated about rulings with which they disagreed (usually in private), but hardly ever while the justices are still deliberating. The reason is simple: to prevent undue influence - political lobbying - on the independent judiciary. This goes to the heart of America’s constitutional structure of separation of powers and checks and balances. Yet Mr. Obama is willing to intimidate the high court, warning that a political price will be paid if they overturn Obamacare. He is behaving like a strongman who believes he can bend the Supreme Court to his will.

Mr. Obama’s comments reflect the panic spreading throughout the liberal establishment. Last week’s oral arguments in front of the high court devastated the constitutional basis of Obamacare, especially its individual mandate that compels almost every American to purchase insurance or else pay a penalty. Conservative justices made the obvious point: If the federal government can force a citizen to purchase health care insurance, then it can mandate almost anything - including eating broccoli. It is state coercion masquerading as social justice, a massive expansion of government intrusion at the expense of basic freedoms and a naked - and unlawful - power grab. No one knows how theSupreme Court will rule. Yet, based on the skeptical tone and line of questioning, the health care overhaul looks to be in deep trouble.

This is why the legal left has engaged in a full-scale effort to demonize the court. Liberal commentators are now portraying conservative justices as Republican-appointed hacks, bent on repealing Obamacare simply for political reasons. Their goal is to paint Supreme Court justices in a potential majority as villains in order to galvanize Democrats for the November election season. Instead of dealing with the merits of the case, liberals - led by the president - want to weaken a pivotal institution of our democracy.

Mr. Obama’s comments are false. It would not be “unprecedented” or “extraordinary” if the Supreme Court overturns Obamacare. For more than 200 years, the high court has struck down countless laws passed by Congress or state legislatures, many of them with much stronger majorities than the Affordable Care Act. The Supreme Court’s role is not to devise health care policy or take into account the political ramifications of its decisions. Rather, it has one overriding purpose: to uphold the Constitution. Nowhere does our founding document give the federal government the authority to impose and regulate a nationalized health care system. This is why Obamacare is illegal and unconstitutional. It deserves to be swept into the ash heap of history.

The legislation also signifies a betrayal of American democracy. Contrary to Mr. Obama’s spin, the Affordable Care Act was jammed through Congress. It passed the House by a narrow vote of 219-212, even though the Democrats had an overwhelming majority of 75 seats. In the Senate, it barely crossed the 60-vote threshold to avoid a filibuster and passed without a single Republican vote. The law was deeply unpopular with the electorate. Obama Democrats desperately rushed it through Congress, abusing parliamentary procedures and bribing key members of the Senate. It is today even less popular with voters. No one - including Mr. Obama - bothered to read the 2,700-page monstrosity before putting it into law. The entire enterprise reeked of contempt for democratic values and constitutional government.

This is not the first time Mr. Obama has sought to intimidate the Supreme Court. In his 2010 State of the Union Address, he publicly scolded the justices sitting before him for their Citizens United decision, which overturned campaign-finance restrictions. The justices were obviously shocked - the president was using the bully pulpit to berate and smear them. His message was a simple one: Toe the administration line or become a political target. This is the kind of behavior common in Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela or Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe. It has no place in America.

Mr. Obama has declared war on the Supreme Court. He is a shameless demagogue who will say and do almost anything to retain his grip on power. Obamacare is his greatest legacy. He has achieved what his liberal predecessors - Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton - could only dream of: universal government-run health care. It marks the culmination of a cradle-to-grave welfare state, implanting European-style social democracy on American soil. Nothing - not the Constitution, the Supreme Court or public opinion - can be allowed to stand in its way. Mr. Obama is waging a scorched-earth campaign in order to achieve his goals. Future historians will condemn him as an arrogant leader who pursued a cynical strategy, assaulting the very pillars of our republic.

Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute.

Chuck Woolery on Term Limits