Monday, February 27, 2012

War on Wealth III | National Debt Review

* Great Debt Spikes in American History: 1792 to 2014 *

By: Larry Walker, Jr. -

By the end of 2012, the national debt per citizen will reach $52,222 for every man, woman, and child in the United States of America. But even more sobering and significant is the fact that the national debt per U.S. taxpayer will reach $144,539 for each and every American taxpayer. So while Mr. Obama portends to be fighting wealth disparity, what he has accomplished in all his efforts has only made every American citizen poorer.

The public debt of the United States can be traced back as far as the American Revolution. In 1776, a committee of ten founders took charge of what would become the U.S. Treasury, and they helped secure funding for the war through "loan certificates" (equivalent to bonds) with which they borrowed money from France and the Netherlands. This committee morphed over the next decade into the Department of Finance. Robert Morris, a wealthy merchant and Congressman was chosen to lead the new Department of Finance in 1782. On January 1, 1783, the public debt of the new United States totaled $43 million.

By 1792 the public debt had climbed to $80 million. The debt ratio, as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (Debt-to-GDP), stood at just 34.6% in 1792. However, as of February 26, 2012, the gross public debt of the United States now totals $15.4 trillion, and the Debt-to-GDP ratio equals more than 100%. Of all the wars America has fought, none has been more costly than Obama’s War on Wealth. So what is the War on Wealth? How costly is this campaign compared to other wars? And when will it end?

The War on Wealth

The War on Wealth (2009 – Present) is a political, philosophical, and mostly rhetorical war launched within the United States in 2009, by the Progressive Party leader, and part-time President of the United States, Barack Obama. The war is in essence a Second Civil War, except this time there are no slaves to free, and no States to Unite. The war was instead launched to pit poor Americans against middle class Americans, and both groups against wealthy Americans, its main theme being “fairness”. Some of its top tenets include the following:

  1. The rich must pay the same effective income tax rate as the poor and middle class. Another way of stating this would be simply, “There should be a flat tax levied on everyone based on gross income.” But in the War on Wealth, this is not the goal. What Obama really means is that the rich should pay a higher percentage of taxes, while 50% of working Americans pay none.

  2. The unemployed must be paid government benefits for up to three years or longer, at the expense of the federal government. The main problem with this theory is that it’s not the federal government that pays, but instead small business employers and working taxpayers have to pick up the tab. For example, under the 2011 Federal Unemployment Credit Reduction Rule, a $21 per employee tax was levied on employers in most states, while Michigan employers paid the highest rate at $63 per employee, the funds being used to pay for the last unemployment extension. I didn’t at all appreciate having to pay $21 for each active employee, to cover the unemployed who never worked for my company, especially since Georgia had already chosen to charge my company the maximum rate for State unemployment taxes. Of course, an even bigger problem with this theory is that every extension of unemployment benefits directly increases the duration of unemployment.

  3. The federal government must provide health insurance benefits for everyone. Once again, the main problem with this is that it’s not the federal government that pays, but rather it's those who (if they are lucky) are barely able to afford to take care of their own health care needs, who are now being asked to pay even more to help those who can’t afford to pay for their own care. I can’t afford health insurance right now, because it costs too much. But I don’t want you to pay for my care; I want the government to get out of the market and increase free-market competition so that I will be able to afford it. For the time being, I am paying the cost of my own health care needs without insurance.

  4. The government must ensure that everyone who works hard should do well enough to raise a family, own a home, send their kids to college and put a little away for retirement. What’s wrong with this tenet? Well, first of all, how does one define the term “hard work”? Did a high school drop-out who works at McDonald’s work as hard to reach his or her goal as a PhD? Is everyone who has a job considered a “hard worker”? Based on my own work experience, I know that not everyone who works does so at the same level of responsibility, complexity or productivity. If all work were created equal, then when I was a low level accounting manager, I should have been paid just as much as the Comptroller and CFO, right? And when I was a mail clerk at a top accounting firm back in the 1980’s, I should have been paid just as much as the senior accountants and all the partners, right? Nonsense.

    And then, who’s to say that everyone wants to raise a family, own a home, or even has kids to send to college? I chose to get married and raise a step-son and three children of my own, but my next door neighbor has never been married and doesn’t have children. I later got divorced from my first wife and then chose to remarry and to help raise another three step-children in addition to my three kids. And I’m sorry to tell you this, but I’m afraid there are no shortcuts. Every individual is responsible for figuring out such matters on their own, just like my family, and our forefathers before us.

    My suggestion for anyone who wants to raise a family, own a home, and send their kids off to college, is that you take all of this into consideration while planning your future. And if you fail to plan, or if your plan fails, then don’t look to me or anyone else to bail you out, because we have our own lives to contend with. Our lives haven’t exactly been a piece of cake, but rather about making choices and then taking personal responsibility for our actions, the good, the bad, and the ugly.

How much has the War on Wealth cost?

Thus far, the War on Wealth has added another $6.4 Trillion (USD) to the national debt, which is more than any other debt spike in U.S. history. Yet this record level of borrowing and spending has delivered next to nothing in terms of results. Thus far, the war has sent our nation’s Debt-to-GDP ratio soaring from 69.9% at the end of 2008, to 104.8% in 2012. In fact, the last (and only) time that the United States’ debt-to-GDP ratio exceeded 100% was during World War II. But it only took 4 years to win the Second World War, while the War on Wealth has no end in sight.

The War on Wealth won’t end until the government runs out of other people’s money. But once that happens, it will also spell the end of the United States of America. However, thankfully the War on Wealth appears to be backfiring. Recently, the focus has shifted from a feeling of guilt for failing to help the poor and needy, to most Americans, even many on the left, now inquiring as to where the $6.4 trillion, which Mr. Obama has borrowed, was spent. Where’s the money? That’s what Americans want to know.

What Obama’s grand achievement has amounted to is a $20,329 increase in the per capita share of the national debt for every man woman and child in America, and even worse, an increase of $56,266 for every U.S. taxpayer. Has your personal income increased by $20,329, over the last four years (for each person in your household)? Probably not, but irrespective of whether it did, as a U.S. taxpayer, your share of future income taxes just went up by $56,266 courtesy of Obama’s War on Wealth.

Barack Obama will have borrowed and spent $6.4 trillion during his 4 year presidency, which is more than any other president in U.S. History. He has borrowed and spent more than was required to fight any war America has fought in her great history, and many times more than was spent even during the Great Depression. Yet nothing has changed, no victory has been won, and no American is better off than they were 4 years ago. So just how bad is Obama’s deficit spending from a historical perspective? Let’s go back in time and compare.

The War of 1812

The War of 1812, also known as the Anglo-American War (1812 – 1815), was a military conflict fought between the forces of the United States of America and those of the British Empire. America declared war in 1812 for several reasons, including trade restrictions due to Britain's ongoing war with France, the impressment of American merchant sailors into the Royal Navy, British support of American Indian tribes against American expansion, and outrage over insults to national honor after humiliations on the high seas.

From a Debt-to-GDP Ratio of 5.8% in 1812, the ratio peaked at 16.2% in 1817 before subsiding, ultimately reaching a trough of 0.0% in 1835. During this period, the national debt increased from $50 million in 1812, to $120 million by 1817, but was subsequently wiped out entirely by 1835. In fact, the national debt was negligible from 1834 through1842, totaling between $0 to less than $10.0 million, an amazing feat considering that there was no income tax during the era.

The Civil War

The American Civil War (1861–1865) was a civil war fought in the United States of America. In response to the election of Abraham Lincoln as President of the United States, 11 southern slave states declared their secession from the United States and formed the Confederate States of America ("the Confederacy"); the other 25 states supported the federal government ("the Union"). After four years of warfare, mostly within the Southern states, the Confederacy surrendered and slavery was outlawed everywhere in the nation.

From 1.9% in 1861, the Debt-to-GDP ratio peaked at 32.9% in 1869 before subsiding. It would ultimately reach a trough of 7.3% in 1916. During the era, the national debt increased from $90 million in 1861, to $2.6 billion in 1869, and would ultimately reach $3.6 billion by 1916. Although the national debt had increased by 1916, the Debt-to-GDP ratio was lower due to a surge in GDP following the war. What’s interesting to note is that although a temporary income tax was imposed to pay for the war, it only existed between the years of 1862 and 1872. In fact, no income tax was imposed on American citizens from the founding of the nation until 1862, and no income tax existed between the years 1873 and 1912.

World War I

World War I (1914 – 1918) was a major war centered in Europe that began on July 28, 1914 and lasted until November 11, 1918. It involved all the world's great powers, which were assembled in two opposing alliances: the Allies (based on the Triple Entente of the United Kingdom, France and Russia) and the Central Powers (originally centered around the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy). These alliances both reorganized (Italy fought for the Allies), and expanded as more nations entered the war. Ultimately more than 70 million military personnel, including 60 million Europeans, were mobilized in one of the largest wars in history. More than 9 million combatants were killed, largely because of great technological advances in firepower without corresponding advances in mobility. It was the sixth deadliest conflict in world history, subsequently paving the way for various political changes such as revolutions in the nations involved.

In January 1917, Germany resumed unrestricted submarine warfare. The German Foreign Minister, in the Zimmermann Telegram, told Mexico that U.S. entry was likely once unrestricted submarine warfare began, and invited Mexico to join the war as Germany's ally against the United States. In return, the Germans would send Mexico money and help it recover the territories of Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona that Mexico had lost during the Mexican-American War 70 years earlier. Wilson released the Zimmerman note to the public, and Americans saw it as a cause for war.

President Wilson spoke before Congress, announcing the break in official relations with Germany on February 3, 1917. After the sinking of seven U.S. merchant ships by submarines and the publication of the Zimmerman telegram, Wilson called for war on Germany, which the U.S. Congress declared on April 6, 1917.

From 7.2% in 1916, our Debt-to-GDP ratio peaked at 32.6% in 1921 before subsiding. The debt would ultimately reach a trough of 16.3% of GDP in 1929. During the era, the national debt increased from $3.6 billion in 1916 to $23.9 billion by 1921, before resting at $16.9 billion in 1929. The national debt actually declined between 1921 and 1929 along with the debt ratio. The primary reason for this phenomenon was that GDP soared after implementation of the Mellon Tax Bill, which lowered the top personal income tax rate from 73% in 1919 to just 25.0% from 1925 through 1931.

The Great Depression

The Great Depression, although not a war, was a severe worldwide economic depression in the decade preceding World War II. The timing of the Great Depression varied across nations, but in most countries it started in about 1929 and lasted until the late 1930’s or early 1940’s. It was the longest, most widespread, and deepest depression of the 20th century.

The Great Depression is commonly used as an example of how far the world's economy can decline. The depression originated in the U.S., starting with the fall in stock prices that began around September 4, 1929 and became worldwide news with the stock market crash of October 29, 1929 (known as Black Tuesday). From there, it quickly spread to almost every country in the world.

The Great Depression had devastating effects in virtually every country, rich and poor. Personal income, tax revenue, profits and prices dropped, while international trade plunged by more than 50%. Unemployment in the U.S. rose to 25% and in some countries rose as high as 33%. Some economies started to recover by the mid-1930’s. But in many countries, the negative effects of the Great Depression lasted until the start of World War II.

From 16.3% in 1929, the Debt-to-GDP ratio peaked at 50.0% in 1940 before subsiding. The debt would ultimately reach a trough of 45.4% of GDP in 1941. During the era, the national debt increased from $16.9 billion in 1929 to $50.7 billion by 1940, before resting at $57.5 billion in 1941. Although the national debt continued to increase from 1940 to 1941, Debt-to-GDP declined from 50.0% to 45.4% due to an increase in GDP related to the pre-war buildup.

World War II

World War II was a global conflict that was underway by 1939 and ended in 1945. It involved most of the world's nations—including all of the great powers—eventually forming two opposing military alliances: the Allies and the Axis. It was the most widespread war in history, with more than 100 million military personnel mobilized. In a state of "total war", the major participants placed their entire economic, industrial, and scientific capabilities at the service of the war effort, erasing the distinction between civilian and military resources.

Marked by significant events involving the mass death of civilians, including the Holocaust and the only use of nuclear weapons in warfare, it is the deadliest conflict in human history, resulting in 50 million to over 70 million fatalities. The United States didn’t formally enter the war until the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

From 45.4% in 1941, the Debt-to-GDP ratio peaked at 121.9% in 1946 before subsiding. The debt would ultimately reach a trough of 31.8% of GDP in 1981. During the era, the national debt increased from $57.5 billion in 1941 to $270.9 billion by 1946, before resting at $994.8 billion in 1981. Although the national debt increased almost 4-fold from 1946 to 1981, growing from $270.9 billion to $994.8 billion, the Debt-to-GDP ratio declined from 121.9% to 31.8%. The decline in the debt ratio was due to an increase in GDP following the war. In fact, over this period, GDP increased 14-fold – growing from $222.2 billion in 1946 to $3.1 trillion by 1981.

[It’s notable that top personal income tax rates were increased from 25% in 1931 to as high as 94% in 1944 -1945, but were later reduced to just 70% from 1965 through 1981 by John F. Kennedy’s, Tax Reduction Act of 1964. Thus it was the post-war boom coupled with tax cuts which caused GDP to surge, leading to a decline in the Debt-to-GDP ratio.]

The Cold War

The Cold War (approx. 1945-1991) was a continuing state of political and military tension between the powers of the Western world, led by the United States and its NATO allies, and the communist world, led by the Soviet Union, its satellite states and allies. This began after the success of their temporary wartime alliance against Nazi Germany, leaving the USSR and the US as two superpowers with profound economic and political differences.

The Soviet Union created the Eastern Bloc with the eastern European countries it occupied, maintaining these as satellite states. The post-war recovery of Western Europe was facilitated by the United States' Marshall Plan, while the Soviet Union, wary of the conditions attached, declined and set up COMECON with its Eastern allies. The United States forged NATO, a military alliance using containment of communism as a main strategy through the Truman Doctrine, in 1949, while the Soviet bloc formed the Warsaw Pact in 1955. Some countries aligned with either of the two powers, whilst others chose to remain neutral with the Non-Aligned Movement.

In the 1980s, the United States increased diplomatic, military, and economic pressures on the Soviet Union, at a time when the nation was already suffering economic stagnation. In the late 1980s, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev introduced the liberalizing reforms of perestroika ("reconstruction", "reorganization", 1987) and glasnost ("openness", ca. 1985). This opened the country and its satellite states to a mostly peaceful wave of revolutions which culminated in the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, leaving the United States as the dominant military power.

From 32.8% in 1981, the Debt-to-GDP ratio peaked at 66.1% in 1996 before subsiding. The debt would ultimately reach a trough of 56.4% of GDP in 2001. During the era, the national debt increased from $994.8 billion in 1981 to $5.2 trillion by 1996, before resting at $5.8 trillion in 2001. Although the national debt increased from $5.2 trillion in 1996 to $5.8 trillion in 2001, the Debt-to-GDP ratio declined from 66.1% to 56.4%. The decline in the Debt-to-GDP ratio was primarily due to a rise in GDP, which had grown from $3.1 trillion in 1981 to $10.2 trillion by 2001. The growth in GDP was primarily due to Ronald Reagan's Tax Reform Act of 1986.

The War on Terror

The War on Terror, also known as the Global War on Terror or the War on Terrorism (2002 to January 20, 2009), is a term commonly applied to an international military campaign led by the United States and the United Kingdom with the support of other NATO as well as non-NATO countries. Originally, the campaign was waged against al-Qaeda and other militant organizations with the purpose of eliminating them.

The origins of al-Qaeda as a network inspiring terrorism around the world and training operatives can be traced to the Soviet war in Afghanistan (December 1979 – February 1989). In May 1996 the group World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders (WIFJAJC), sponsored by Osama bin Laden and later reformed as al-Qaeda, started forming a large base of operations in Afghanistan, where the Islamist extremist regime of the Taliban had seized power that same year. In February 1998, Osama bin Laden signed a fatwa, as the head of al-Qaeda, declaring war on the West and Israel, later in May of that same year al-Qaeda released a video declaring war on the US and the West.

Following the bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, US President Bill Clinton launched Operation Infinite Reach, a bombing campaign in Sudan and Afghanistan against targets the US asserted were associated with WIFJAJC, although others have questioned whether a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan was used as a chemical warfare plant. The plant produced much of the region's anti-malarial drugs and around 50% of Sudan's pharmaceutical needs. The strikes failed to kill any leaders of WIFJAJC or the Taliban.

It was the 2000 millennium attack plots, including an attempted bombing of Los Angeles International Airport, the bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000, followed by the September 11, 2001 attacks, which led to a declaration of war. The War on Terror officially ended on January 20, 2009, when it was reduced to an Overseas Contingency Operation, and with commencement of the War on Wealth.

From 56.4% in 2001, the Debt-to-GDP ratio peaked at 69.9% in 2008. During the era, the national debt increased from $5.7 trillion in 2001 to $9.9 trillion by 2008. The debt has since skyrocketed as a result of the new War on Wealth. Although the gross public debt increased by $4.2 trillion, from 2001 through 2008, expanding from $5.7 to $9.9 trillion, it has subsequently burgeoned by another $6.4 trillion in half the time, since the commencement of the War on Wealth. From 2009 through 2012, the federal debt will have ballooned from $9.9 trillion to $16.3 trillion. The debt will ultimately reach a peak of 104.8% of GDP by the end of 2012, and is expected to increase to 107.8% by the year 2014.

Summary of Federal Borrowing

  • War of 1812 – Increase in Federal Debt: $70 million

  • American Civil War of 1861 – Increase in Federal Debt: $2.5 billion

  • World War I – Increase in Federal Debt: $20.3 billion

  • The Great Depression – Increase in Federal Debt: $33.8 billion

  • World War II – Increase in Federal Debt: $213.4 billion

  • Cold War – Increase in Federal Debt: $4.8 trillion

  • War on Terror – Increase in Federal Debt: $4.2 trillion

  • War on Wealth – Increase in Federal Debt (to date): $6.4 trillion

Conclusion

What is significant about all of these great debt spikes in American history is that it took 189 years (1793 to 1981) for the national debt to reach $994.7 billion, an average increase of $5.2 billion per year. From there on it took just 20 years (1982 to 2001) for the debt to rise by another $4.8 trillion, an average increase of $238.7 billion per year. Subsequent to that, it took a mere 7 years (2002 to 2008) for the debt to grow by another $4.2 trillion, an average increase of $602.3 billion per year. Compared with the former eras, the federal debt has surged by another $6.4 trillion just since January of 2009, which amounts to an average increase of $1.6 trillion per year.

With federal borrowing now completely out of control, one can only wonder who’s really benefiting from the War on Wealth, and when it will come to an end. What Obama’s grand achievement has amounted to is a $20,329 increase in the per capita share of the national debt for every man woman and child in America, and even worse, an increase of $56,266 for every U.S. taxpayer. Has your personal income increased by $20,329, over the last four years (for each person in your household)? Probably not, but irrespective of whether it did, as a U.S. taxpayer, your share of future income taxes just went up by $56,266 courtesy of Obama’s War on Wealth.

By the end of 2012, the national debt per citizen will reach $52,222 for every man, woman, and child in the United States. But even more sobering and significant is the fact that the national debt per taxpayer will reach $144,539 for each and every American taxpayer. So while Obama portends to be fighting wealth disparity, what he has accomplished in all his efforts has only made every American citizen poorer.

Well, we have a choice, we can either wait for the next recession, or the next genuine war, either of which will surely bankrupt our nation, or we can end the War on Wealth once and for all, in November of 2012, by simply voting Obama out. It’s time to stop playing games and time to get serious about America’s future.

Related:

War on Wealth | Obama Visits Master Lock

War on Wealth, Part II | Keeping Our Foot on the Gas

Monday, February 20, 2012

War on Wealth, Part II | Keeping Our Foot on the Gas

* Pieces of the Keystone XL pipeline await construction in South Dakota. Via: North Platte Post *

By: Larry Walker, Jr. -

When Mr. Obama visited the padlock maker Master Lock in Milwaukee, on February 15, 2012, he drew the following conclusions. He said, “Manufacturing is coming back. Companies are starting to bring jobs back. The economy is getting stronger. The recovery is speeding up. We’re moving in the right direction. And now we have to do everything in our power to keep our foot on the gas.” So in keeping with my fact based approach, I have to ask, Are Mr. Obama’s claims reasonable? Let’s run down the list.

"Manufacturing is coming back. Companies are starting to bring jobs back."

First of all, in my last post, War on Wealth | Obama Visits Master Lock, I pointed out that the United States has lost more than 6.0 million manufacturing jobs since 1990, and almost 1.0 million of those have been lost since Obama’s inauguration (see chart above). That’s hardly indicative of a manufacturing boom. And since Master Lock only brought back an alleged 100 jobs from China, that’s hardly proof of companies bringing jobs back. It would have been more accurate to state, although less of a reason to re-elect Mr. Obama, that one U.S. company brought back 100 jobs from China.

"The economy is getting stronger. The recovery is speeding up."

Next, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, GDP declined at an annual rate of (3.5%) in 2009, increased at an annual rate of 3.0% in 2010, and then slowed to an annual rate of just 1.7% in 2011 (as of 1/27/2012). So since our economy declined from an annual growth rate of 3.0% in 2010, to an annual growth rate of just 1.7% in 2011, does this mean the economy is getting stronger? Not in my book. So instead of backing Obama’s claim, that the recovery is speeding up, the facts show that the recovery is actually slowing down (see chart above).

"We’re moving in the right direction."

Are we moving in the right direction? Well, in terms of deficit spending, the government is borrowing at the highest rate of GDP since World War II, as shown in the chart (above). The national debt as a percentage of GDP has skyrocketed from 69.9% in 2008 to 104.8% in 2012, and is projected to reach 107.8% by 2014. The last time our debt-to-GDP ratio surpassed 100% was in 1945, when the federal debt climbed to 116.6% of GDP, peaking at 121.9% in 1946.

We know where the money was spent during the Second World War, but where’s the $5 trillion Obama borrowed and spent? For God’s sake, we could have cured cancer, or built a colony on the Moon with that kind of dough.

In terms of the near record debt-to-GDP ratio, coupled with the continuing loss of manufacturing jobs and the year-over-year decline in GDP, I conclude that the United States is moving in the wrong direction.

"And now we have to do everything in our power to keep our foot on the gas."

Wait a minute; did Mr. Obama dare mention the word gasoline in his delusional tirade? When I first heard this, I wondered for a minute whether he really meant to say, ‘And now we have to do everything in our power to keep our boot on the neck of U.S. oil and gas producers.’

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), gasoline prices have risen from an average price of $1.61 in the week ending December 29, 2008, to $3.52 through the week ending February 13, 2012 (see chart above).

So since gasoline prices have risen by 118.6% under the Obama Administration, perhaps we should be doing everything in our power to remove the federal government’s dead cold foot from the gas pedal. Gasoline prices are expected to rise further, to $4.50 per gallon by this summer, which may give Mr. Obama a temporary victory in his War on Wealth, but fortunately for America, his chance of re-election will simultaneously run out of gas.

To the contrary, instead of being a time to continue recklessly forward, our foot glued to the accelerator, now is the time for America to pull over to the pits for refuelling, new tires, repairs, mechanical adjustments, and a driver change. The replacement of Mr. Obama with a truly Conservative POTUS is imminent. And just so you don’t get the wrong idea, no, I’m not suggesting as a substitute the severely moderate Mitt Romney. [But I'll back Mr. Romney in a heartbeat over another four years of Obama.]

References:

- A Crude Hit to the Recovery

- 18 Statistics That Prove That the Economy Has Not Improved Since Barack Obama Became President

Related:

- War on Wealth | Obama Visits Master Lock

- Manipulation 201: Playing With Unemployment

- Drill Here, Drill Now | Facebook Petition

Thursday, February 16, 2012

War on Wealth | Obama Visits Master Lock

By: Larry Walker, Jr.

Mr. Obama visited the padlock maker Master Lock in Milwaukee, Wisconsin on Wednesday, but wasn't joined by Republican Gov. Scott Walker, who greeted the president upon arrival, but canceled his escort duties. Hey, so he was already sick to his stomach, and hanging out with Obama would have surely made matters worse.

During the event, after taking full credit for the whopping 100 jobs that Master Lock has brought back to Wisconsin from China, one of Obama’s many fabrications for the day, he added, “For the first time since 1990, American manufacturers are creating new jobs.”

However, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), there were 17,881,000 manufacturing jobs in the United States at the beginning of 1990, and only 17,395,000 by the end of that year (as seasonally adjusted). And by the end of the year 2000, the number had declined to 17,178,000 (shown graphically above).

Following the decline through to the end of the year 2008, the number of manufacturing jobs had fallen all the way to 12,849,000. In fact, by January of 2012, the latest statistics available prior to Obama’s speech, the BLS reported that the number of manufacturing jobs had fallen to just 11,862,000, which is almost one million fewer than when Obama first implemented his vision for America. So Obama is still delusional. What else is new?

Obama then continued with his own brand of manufacturing; the truth that is. He said, “It’s time to stop rewarding companies that ship jobs overseas and start rewarding companies that are creating jobs right here in the United States of America.”

So was it a reward that caused Master Lock to bring an entire 100 jobs back from China to Wisconsin? Did the company’s actions have anything remotely to do with Obama’s tax and regulatory policies? Obviously not, since Obama has yet to do anything to encourage such behavior. What has he done other than threaten companies with higher income taxes, Obamacare taxes, and more regulations? Not much to speak of, other than bailing out big banks and the GSE’s, and subsidizing the auto industry and the soon to be bankrupt Green Energy sector.

He rambled on, “Manufacturing is coming back. Companies are starting to bring jobs back. The economy is getting stronger. The recovery is speeding up. We’re moving in the right direction. And now we have to do everything in our power to keep our foot on the gas... And the last thing we can afford to do is go back to the same policies that got us into this mess.” YeeHa!

Man, that’s a lot of hoopla over 100 jobs. Studying the chart above, and considering Obama’s pedal to the metal analogy, if manufacturing is coming back, and if this alleged comeback is attributable to his Administration, then it looks like the government just needs to borrow and spend another $10 trillion (or so) and that should be enough get us back to where we left off in 1989. Keep on dreaming Mr. Obama!

Now as far as the policies that got us into this “mess”, I’m not sure which mess he’s referring to. Does he mean the mess we’re in now (i.e. $16 trillion in debt), or the mess that got us into the mess, that got us into the mess we’re in now? Does he mean that the policies of the relatively high tax era were bad, or the two relatively low tax eras which surrounded it? Or does he mean that the free-trade policies implemented in the 1990’s are the problem? I don’t think Obama even knows what he means. Not that anyone really cares what he says anymore.

Most of us are more focused on the $5 trillion the government has borrowed over the last three years, in this massive effort to get us virtually nowhere. What about that Mr. Obama? I think Congress should appoint an independent auditor to determine exactly where all that money went. I mean Obama has squandered a heck of a lot of money, and we have next to nothing to show for it.

Who knew? Maybe our future lies in padlocks. I suppose we’re going to need lots of locks just to keep our stuff safe from this new breed of fair share politicos. And in the meantime, it wouldn’t hurt to place one of those gigantic Master Locks on the U.S. Treasury.

Saturday, February 11, 2012

Is Mitt Romney Severely Conservative?

* Try Moderately Severe, or Severely Moderate!

* By: Larry Walker, Jr. *

Mitt Romney told a gathering of conservative leaders and activists Friday that he is severely conservative, or something. "I was a severely conservative Republican governor," Romney told the audience regarding his time in office, pointing out his support of traditional marriage and abstinence education. Sure Mitt and maybe God resides near a star called Kolob. Hey, I’ll send you a quarter so you can call someone who gives a flip!

Now being far more conservative than Mitt, I’m not so certain that government should even be dabbling in matters of marriage and education. Thus, Mitt’s entire premise, in and of itself, isn’t all that conservative. The often heard proclamation, “Get the government off my back, and out of my way,” is a severely conservative position, while Romney’s idea of conservatism is nothing but a weak watered down sound bite.

Although it may be true that Romney never worked a day in Washington, his signature Massachusetts health care law, or as Rick Santorum coined it, “the stepchild of Obamacare,” made it all the way to the top. Do we really want the guy who invented Obamacare presiding as chief executive over the nation? Lack of tangible experience, and being the inventor of the vilest piece of legislation ever, are precisely why Romney should be written-off.

It’s interesting that the only 2012 Republican candidate mentioned in the Reagan Diaries is Newt Gingrich. There was no mention of a severely conservative Mitt Romney at all. But of course, back then Mitt was busy roaming the earth proclaiming that, “There is no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet of God,” or something.

And what was that idea of young Gingrich that Mitt claims Reagan so disliked, again? Oh yeah, according to pages 123 – 124 of the Reagan Diaries, Newt's idea for addressing the 1984 budget deficit was to "freeze the budget at the 1983 level. Gosh, what a horrible idea! But Mitt is so severely conservative that he’s been bashing Newt over this horrid, 30-year-old, position for month’s now.

Although Romney has publicly proclaimed that he will “repeal Obamacare,” a quick review of the U.S. Constitution failed to locate any passage granting the President of the United States the authority for repealing any law. And even worse, one of Romney’s advisors went on record stating, “We’re not going to do repeal ...” Is telling conservatives that you will do something that you know you won’t, in any way severely conservative?

Romney has also come out recently in support of indexing the minimum wage, to rise automatically to keep pace with inflation. So is allowing the government to fix wages (i.e. price fixing), instead of allowing market forces to control the economy a severely conservative position?

Finally, Romney’s position on illegal immigration is for the government to sit back and rely on self-deportation. Even though Romney’s own grandparents and great-grandparents self-deported from the United States to Mexico, in the 19th Century, it wasn’t like they weren’t being chased by the U.S. Marshal and a host of deputies. Far from being severely conservative, Mitt’s reliance on self-deportation isn’t even mildly conservative, it’s at best lukewarm.

  • Is bashing young Newt’s idea of freezing the federal budget at the 1983 level a severely conservative position?

  • Was advocating for and signing Romneycare into law in some way severely conservative?

  • Is publicly stating he will repeal Obamacare, while privately planning not to repeal it a severely conservative design?

  • Is supporting the indexing of the minimum wage a severely conservative position?

  • Is relying on illegal immigrants to deport themselves somehow severely conservative?

I would say that Mitt Romney is severely something, but it’s not conservative. Maybe he’s severely moderate, or suffering from a moderately severe case of Amnesia, but whatever he's got, I want nothing to do with it.

“I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other!” So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.” ~ Revelation 3:15-17

Related:

Mitt Romney’s Pro-Immigration Rant

Will Mitt Romney Repeal Obamacare?

A Defining Moment

Thursday, February 9, 2012

The Great, Obama Unemployment Rate Scam | LibertyWorks

The Great, Obama Unemployment Rate Scam *

February 9, 2012 | By BoomerJeff *

Political communication in America is largely an effort to influence the perceptions of those who pay little attention to politics by stripping complex concepts and issues down to easily understood statistics and simplistic soundbites. In each of his first 33 months in office President Obama suffered because the easily understood Unemployment Rate remained very high. But over the past four months it fell from 9% to 8.3% and Obama and his media supporters are making the most of it. They tell us the economy has improved so much it is no longer an election issue and the President is no longer at risk of losing.

But it turns out that the Unemployment Rate statistic is misleading. It turns out that another statistic, the “Labor Force Participation Rate” has also declined. [Continued below the chart]

  • The Labor Force is the sum of all persons who have jobs plus all who are officially classified as “unemployed.”

  • The unemployment rate is computed by dividing the number of unemployed by the the labor force.

  • The labor force participation rate is the percentage of all working age adults who are officially counted as “in the labor force.”

Today, there are millions of people who want jobs but don’t qualify as “unemployed” by meeting government criteria and are thus counted as “not in the labor force.” We know this to be true because, as the chart shows, the participation rate has steadily declined for three years. Excluding people from the labor force artificially lowers the unemployment rate.

The chart above shows that the decline in the unemployment rate coincides with a decline in the labor force participation rate. The next chart shows what would have happened to the unemployment rate if the labor force participation rate had not not changed since the beginning of 2009. [Continued below the chart]

The last chart below tracks labor force participation and unemployment during the Reagan Administration. The labor force grew by 9% or 15.5 million people during the Reagan years. Participation grew from 63.9% to 66.1%. This chart is the picture of successful economic policies that increased liberty and decreased taxes and government intervention in the economy. Millions of new people entered the labor force but after the severe Recession Reagan inherited the unemployment rate declined because employers were able to replace all the jobs lost in the recession and hire the millions of people who entered the labor force. Reagan’s unemployment rate was not artificially reduced by excluding millions from of the labor force calculation and he was rewarded with reelection to a second term by the largest Electoral College landslide in American history.

Via: LibertyWorks - The Great, Obama Unemployment Rate Scam

I concur!

Related:

- Labor Force Contraction with Obama

- Manipulation 101: The Real Unemployment Rate

- Manipulation 201: Playing With Unemployment

Monday, February 6, 2012

Mitt Romney's Defining Moment | Indexing the Minimum Wage

Is Mitt Romney a Liberal?

By: Larry Walker, Jr.

As Economist Thomas Sowell relays, in his piece entitled, A Defining Moment, "Mitt Romney has come out in support of indexing the minimum wage law, to have it rise automatically to keep pace with inflation."

But according to Dr. Sowell,

"We have gotten so used to seeing unemployment rates of 30 or 40 percent for black teenage males that it might come as a shock to many people to learn that the unemployment rate for sixteen- and seventeen-year-old black males was just under 10 percent back in 1948. Moreover, it was slightly lower than the unemployment rate for white males of the same age."

You may read the full text at Jewish World Review.

So what happened? Liberals imposed a series of minimum wage laws, virtually assuring today's devastating rates of black teenage unemployment. So is Mitt Romney a Liberal? I can't say for sure, but he's most definitely not a conservative.

That’s right, lie to us Mitt. For we must defeat Obama at all costs – even if that means deceiving and destroying the Conservative movement, in the process. Will a real conservative please stand up and challenge this walking disaster before it’s too late?

Related:

Will Mitt Romney Repeal Obamacare?

Mitt Romney’s Pro-Immigration Rant

Sunday, February 5, 2012

Will Mitt Romney Repeal Obamacare?

* Does a President have that authority?

* By: Larry Walker, Jr. *

In his Nevada victory speech, Mitt Romney once again publicly declared, “I will repeal Obamacare”. How so? Will Willard Mitt Romney single-handedly repeal Obamacare?

Although I am in favor of repealing Obamacare, and replacing it with a free-market solution, the last time I checked the Constitution, I wasn’t able to locate any passage granting the President of the United States the sole authority for repealing any law. Frankly I’m tired of hearing the same old false promise over and over again.

The truth is that in order to repeal or amend any federal legislation, Congress is required to follow the same procedures used in passing any new legislation. In other words, a new bill must be introduced by Congress either repealing or amending the existing law, and then it must pass both Houses of Congress, before being signed by the President.

So although the currently Republican controlled House of Representatives would favor repeal, the Democratic controlled Senate would not. And unless the Republican Party is able to win the presidency, along with a substantial majority in the Senate, while maintaining its present majority in the House; Mitt Romney won’t be repealing anything (i.e. He won’t be signing any repeal legislation.). As far as I’m concerned it’s just words.

What's disheartening is that while Romney has made this bold proclamation publicly, literally hundreds of times, offstage as Ben Domenech notes in his Transom, Mitt Romney’s advisors have now advised him to support not repealing Obamacare. Norm Coleman, an advisor to Romney, went on record saying:

“We’re not going to do repeal. You’re not going to repeal Obamacare… It’s not a total repeal… You will not repeal the act in its entirety, but you will see major changes, particularly if there is a Republican president… You can’t whole-cloth throw it out. But you can substantially change what’s been done.”

Now I took Romney’s ridiculous blurb about fixing any holes in the safety net that exists for the very poor, for whom he is otherwise unconcerned, as a joke. Thanks Mitt, for keeping the very poor out of the way, and in everlasting poverty [sarcasm]! But his ongoing pandering plea to conservatives, that giving him the nomination will somehow empower a president Romney to repeal Obamacare, or any other law, is outright dishonest.

It’s hard to see how Romney’s practice of discrediting Newt Gingrich, alienating hundreds of thousands of Reagan conservatives in the process, can aid in the party’s winning or maintaining substantial majorities in both houses of Congress, let alone winning the presidency. I haven’t heard Romney mention anything about that. All I’ve heard him ramble on lately is what he will do by his lonesome, whether or not it’s reasonably possible, or even constitutional.

But aside from that, in the remote possibility that Republicans were able to win substantial majorities in both Houses along with a Romney presidency, what would a Romney Administration replace Obamacare with? Wouldn’t we just wind up with fifty state-run Romneycare’s?

Talk is cheap. Dishonesty is worthless.

That’s right, lie to us Mitt. For we must defeat Obama at all costs – even if that means deceiving and destroying the Conservative movement, in the process. Will a real conservative please stand up and challenge this walking disaster before it’s too late?

Related: Mitt Romney’s Pro-Immigration Rant

____________________

How is Romney Different from Obama? New Ad from Newt 2012:

Saturday, February 4, 2012

Manipulation 201: Playing With Unemployment

*“Mene, Mene, Tekel u-Pharsin” ~ Book of Daniel, Ch. 5 *

* By: Larry Walker, Jr. *

The writing's on the wall! The massive decline of new entrants to the civilian labor force, which is shown graphically in the chart above, directly impacts the unemployment rate, making the employment situation appear far better than it actually is. If the 9.3 million workers who have effectively dropped out of the labor force, since the end of 2008, were instead of being excluded, counted as unemployed, the real unemployment rate would be 13.0% instead of yesterday’s published rate of 8.3%. Even if only 55.0% of those who have been incontestably and wrongfully removed from the labor force were counted, which would be consistent with the eight-year average prior to Obama, the real unemployment rate would be 10.9%, not 8.3%. Never before in history has there been a more blatant manipulation of official labor statistics.

Those focusing all their attention on the number of jobs created in recent months are focusing on the wrong data. Lest we forget, the Bureau of Labor Statistics includes in its definition of the word employed “persons 16 years and over in the civilian non-institutional population who, during the reference week, did any work at all (at least 1 hour) as paid employees.” So for all we know, a huge portion of those 200K and some odd jobs, allegedly created last month, were people hired for one hour, paid with taxpayer subsidized grants or loans, and working to register democratic voters in an effort to guarantee another round of Obamanomics. You laugh!

While we do need to watch out for the above, we really need to focus on the number of persons who have been summarily deleted from the labor force over the past three years. According the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the civilian labor force declined by 802,000 over this period. And even worse, another 8,481,000 new entrants, the majority of whom would normally have entered the labor force, are unaccounted for. So where are they? The Great Recession officially ended in June of 2009, yet 9.3 million Americans have gone missing over the past three years and one month. Thus, the question is, are they really missing, or has someone manipulated the unemployment rate in an effort to improve Obama’s chances for re-election?

The dilemma posed by a declining labor force is that as the civilian non-institutional population continues to grow by approximately 1.0% each year, millions of potential workers are forced out of the market. In other words, if there are not enough jobs for the existing workforce, then there are no jobs at all for the approximately 2 million new entrants who come into the job market each year. The devastating result is that a smaller proportion of the populace is working today, to support a much larger cluster of retirees, the unemployed, and those who are otherwise unaccounted for.

As you can see in the table above, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (Table A-1, not seasonally adjusted), the labor force grew from 142,583,000 at the end of the year 2000, to 154,287,000 by the end of 2008, for an increase of 11,704,000 workers over the eight-year period immediately preceding Obama. As such, the labor force was expanding by an average of 1,463,000 new entrants per year, for the eight years prior to 2009.

But from the beginning of 2009 through the end of 2011, the labor force declined from 154,287,000 to 153,617,000. Thus, after three consecutive years of Obamanomics, the labor force declined by a total of 670,000, for an average loss of 223,333 workers per year. The table has been extended through January of 2012, and as you can see, the labor force continued to decline by another 132,000 in January of 2012, as the number of workers fell from 153,617,000 to 153,485,000. Thus, a total of 802,000 have left the labor force since the end of 2008.

So it may be said that Obamanomics has caused the labor force, which should be expanding each year by a multiple of the increase in civilian non-institutional population, to instead be slashed by a total of 802,000 workers in just 37 month’s. This would be bad enough in and of itself; however if we are to believe the Bureau of Labor Statistics, from a macro view, the real employment situation is far worse.

When Obama’s declining labor force is compared with the growth of the civilian non-institutional population, also shown in the table above, we can see that a total of 9.3 million Americans have effectively been removed from the labor force during the last three years and one month (add together the amounts highlighted in the lower right-hand corner). This is the difference between periodic changes in the civilian non-institutional population (the 3rd column from the left), minus periodic changes in the labor force (the 2nd column from the right). It represents the periodic increase in the civilian working age population, which has been unfortunately added to the ranks of those counted as not in the labor force. And as we pointed out previously, a total of 6.5 million workers were removed in the three year period ending with 2011.

To be specific:

  1. In 2009, the civilian non-institutional population grew by 2,013,000, yet the labor force declined by 145,000, resulting in an increase of 2,158,000 persons counted as not part of the labor force. In other words, 2.1 million workers went missing in action (MIA).

  2. In 2010, the civilian non-institutional population grew by 2,029,000, yet the labor force continued to decline by another 253,000, resulting in an additional 2,282,000 counted as not in the labor force. That’s another 2.3 million MIA’s.

  3. Then in 2011, the civilian non-institutional population again grew, this time by 1,788,000, yet the labor force declined by another 272,000, resulting in 2,060,000 more persons counted as not part of the labor force. This resulted in another 2.1 million MIA’s.

  4. To top things off, in the first month of 2012, the civilian non-institutional population grew by an additional 2,651,000, yet the labor force further declined by 132,000, resulting in an additional 2,783,000 persons counted as not part of the labor force. Although January data is, as always, affected by changes in population controls, nevertheless it is what it is. Thus another 2.8 million Americans went MIA.

In effect, there have been no new entrants to the labor force in the past three years and one month, as 802,000 existing workers have dropped out of the workforce, and all 8,481,000 potential new entrants have fallen by the wayside. In all, that’s a total of 9.3 million workers who have effectively been pushed out of the labor force. For those paying attention, that’s a total of 8,373,000 persons who are not included in yesterday’s official unemployment calculation (9,283,000 less a seasonal adjustment of 910,000).

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the official unemployment rate through January 2012 is 8.3%, as calculated in the table below, where:

[ (A) Total Unemployed / (B) Labor Force = (C) Unemployment Rate ]

However, if we were to add back the 8,373,000 workers who have effectively dropped out of the labor force, during Obama’s reign of misery, the real unemployment rate would be 13.0%, as calculated in the following table.

Even if only 55.0% of those who have been incontestably and wrongfully removed from the labor force were counted, which would be consistent with the eight-year average prior to Obama, the real unemployment rate would be 10.9%, not 8.3%. Eventually the majority of these 9.3 million working age Americans will start looking for work, and if upon entering the labor force, they are unable to find gainful employment, the unemployment rate should begin to rise towards its true rate, which would be between 10.9% and 13.0%, as stated.

Conclusion: In going all the way back to the year 1929, besides the years 2009, 2010, 2011, and potentially 2012, the only other years that the United States has ever suffered annual declines in its civilian labor force were 1943, 1944, 1945, and 1951. And as far as the 6.5 million who dropped out of the labor force entirely, over the past three years (not including 2012), that represents the worst consecutive 36 month period in United States history, also dating back to 1929. Since we are not presently engaged in a World War, with millions being drafted out of the civilian workforce, and with millions being killed in action, isn't this proof positive that the unemployment rate is being manipulated?

Based upon the facts, the Great Recession never really ended, and the unemployment rate has been manipulated. I am 99.9% certain that the Obama Administration is playing with unemployment.

Prerequisites: Manipulation 101: The Real Unemployment Rate

Related: Unemployment Actually Rose in January, Media Screams “Unemployment Rate Declines!” – Is INCREASING Unemployment Something To Brag About?

** Updated on 2/7/2012 & 2/10/2012!

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

Mitt Romney’s Pro-Immigration Rant

* Leading with the chin. *

* By: Larry Walker, Jr. *

Mitt Romney argued haphazardly, in the January 26th GOP Debate, that he is pro-immigrant, because his father was born in Mexico. Ah, so that’s it. He shouted, "Mr. Speaker, I'm not anti-immigrant. My father was born in Mexico...” That little proclamation was worse than his implication that Swiss and Cayman Island bank accounts somehow help create jobs in America. When I heard the former, my first thought was, ‘what does that have to do with being pro-immigrant’? And upon hearing the latter, I laughed out loud.

Was Romney’s father a Mexican immigrant who waited in a long line to cross the U.S. border “legally”? Well, not exactly. I believe Mitt’s grandparents sprinted across the border twice; once as felony fugitives of the United States government, and the second time to escape a band of Mexican marauders. So it sounds more like a matter of self-deportation followed by an act of forced-deportation than anything else.

Frankly, I would have countered Mitt with, “And why don’t you explain to us all exactly how your father came to be born in Mexico, since you chose to go there?”

And what could Mitt say?

I mean, come on! When we think of American immigrants, we think of men and women who journeyed from afar seeking liberty, and a better way of life. But that’s not exactly the story of the Romneys.

Actually, Mitt Romney’s father George was born in a Mormon colony in Chihuahua, Mexico. This may mislead one to the assumption that his parents were down there doing some kind of missionary work when he was born, right? But, that’s not exactly the way it went down. So how did Mitt Romney’s father come to be born in Mexico?

The Romneys wound up in Mexico due to an act of self-deportation from the United States. And although it may be true that the Romneys immigrated from the U.S. to Mexico in the 1800s, fleeing as fugitives and likely forfeiting their rights to U.S. citizenship in the process, it would be false to imply that his father was ever an immigrant to the United States. That is, unless the Romneys actually did forfeit their rights to U.S. citizenship. And you know what that would mean.

The fact is that when Mitt Romney’s great-grandparents fled the U.S. for Mexico in the 1800s, they were actually “felony fugitives” of the United States government. And when they returned to the United States in 1912, they were running for their lives from Mexican Revolutionaries, who also despised the practice of polygamy. One could make the case that the Romneys re-entered the U.S. illegally, more so than that his father was a bona fide legal immigrant.

How Self-Deportation Works

The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was a federal enactment of the United States Congress that was signed into law on July 8, 1862 by President Abraham Lincoln. The act was designed to target the Mormon practice of plural marriage and the property dominance of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Utah Territory.

In 1882 the Edmunds Act, also known as the Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882, was passed by the United States Congress replacing the Morrill Act. This was part of what by then was a 20 year struggle by the US government to curb the LDS practice of plural marriage in Utah Territory and other locations in the American West. Among other things, the law made the practice of polygamy a felony and disenfranchised polygamists. As a result, over a thousand Latter-day Saint men and women were eventually fined and jailed. Some were sent as far away as Michigan to fulfill their terms.

The Edmunds Act not only reinforced the 1862 Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act but also revoked polygamists' right to vote, made them ineligible for jury service, and prohibited them from holding political office. Wow, that’s deep!

The Edmunds Act was later replaced by the Edmunds–Tucker Act of 1887. The new act prohibited the practice of polygamy and punished it with a fine of from $500 to $800 and imprisonment of up to five years. It also dissolved the corporation of the LDS church and directed the confiscation by the federal government of all church properties valued over a limit of $50,000. The act was enforced by the U.S. marshal and a host of deputies.

So to be straight up about it, Mitt Romney’s great-grandparents were polygamous Mormons who fled with their children from the United States to Mexico because of the federal government's opposition to polygamy. Mormon genealogical records, among the most detailed and complete of any religion, show that two of Mitt Romney's great-great grandfathers, Miles Romney and Parley Pratt, had 12 wives each. His grandparents, American born Gaskell Romney and Anna Amelia Pratt, immigrated to Mexico with their polygamous parents as children, were married in 1895 in Mexico, and lived in Colonia Dublán, Galeana, in the Mexican state of Chihuahua, where Mitt’s father George was born on July 8, 1907.

When the Mexican Revolution broke out in 1910, the Mormon colonies were endangered in 1911–1912 by raids from marauders. The Romney family then fled Mexico and returned to the United States in July 1912, leaving their home and almost all of their property behind. Mitt’s father George would later say, "We were the first displaced persons of the 20th century."

Hogwash! The Romneys weren’t displaced, but were rather the first self-deported American citizens of the 19th century, and perhaps the only such in all of U.S. history. That is to say, they self-deported from their native country, after refusing to follow U.S. law for nearly two decades. And then were subsequently run out of Mexico by a group of well armed patriotic Mexicans. So if anything, the Romneys were self-displaced.

Is this why Mitt Romney is so passionate about the idea of self-deportation? I mean after all, out of every other presidential candidate, he would know a little more on this topic than anyone else, and certainly more than he lets on. I would contend that if Mitt Romney is somehow pro-immigrant, it has nothing to do with his legacy, but rather all to do with saying what voters seem to want to hear. But all this voter wants to hear is the truth.

That’s right, lie to us Mitt. For we must defeat Obama at all costs – even if that means deceiving and destroying the Conservative movement in America in the process. Will someone please stand up and challenge this walking disaster before it’s too late? When your opponent leads with the chin, that’s when you go for the jugular. And someone needs to do just that, because it’s starting to smell like 2008 all over again.

I honestly can’t get with Mitt Romney’s background anymore than I could ever get with the current abandoned anchor-POTUS’. If Romney is the best that conservatives can produce, good luck to you all with that. I would rather stake my last dollar on the real deal, even if it means defeat. I don’t know where you stand, but for me it’s principle over politics.

"When a man becomes a citizen of the United States under the Constitution, he cannot cease to be a citizen, except by expatriation for the commission of some crime by which his citizenship shall be forfeited." ~ Sen. Jacob Howard

Also see:

Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romney's Family Tree

-------------------------------------------

FAIR USE NOTICE: "Hope n' Change" Cartoons may be freely reposted for non-profit use without additional permission, but must contain the full header, author's name, and copyright information. Material from "Hope n' Change" Cartoons may not be collected, printed, or sold in any form without specific permission from the author - who may be, for all you know, a bloodsucking parasitic lawyer just aching to file a lawsuit, take your life savings, and leave nothing more than your dried and desiccated carcass like a dead mayfly on a windowsill.