by  Lance Thompson

My switch from analog to digital photography occurred last summer, and my new computer came with Photoshop, so all this instant photo retouching is a revelation.  Now, instead of waiting for photo processing, the results are immediate.  Retouching can be done in the camera.  Manipulation of the photos is a breeze on the computer.  I can combine elements, erase them, even draw and annotate.  The power is intoxicating.  Reality is mine to shape and distort as I choose. 

Of course, with absolute power comes the temptation to go too far.  Not content with removing red-eye or simplifying distracting backgrounds or improving lighting, my tampering crossed the line of good judgment.  I intensified colors to neon brightness, multiplied waterfalls with reckless abandon, dramatized historical photos with modern special effects.  It was a disaster.

But the makers of Photoshop, in their wisdom, included an insurance policy.  It is a function called “Undo,” and it allows the user to erase all the ill-advised modifications he has made when his good sense catches up with him. 

Similarly, the president’s first legislative initiatives, the stimulus and spending bills, which send the national debt to Marianas Trench-like depths, afforded Democrats the same kind of sudden unlimited power.  The president was selling crisis to the public, Pelosi and Reid weren’t letting anyone read the bills, and there was an opportunity for every Democrat to have his legislative wishes granted.  Cost was not a factor–rub Obama’s magic lamp and your fondest earmark will become reality.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the stimulus and the omnibus spending bills had “Undo” buttons?  A hundred million to ACORN, the organization that creates votes out of thin air and will soon be helping to tabulate the Census.  UNDO.  Insuring honey bees and farm raised fish for another $150 million.  UNDO.  $850 million to bail out Amtrak.  UNDO.   Nine thousand earmarks from Democrats and Republicans. UNDO.

As the nation plunges into record-breaking debt, with the only response from the White House and Congress being to spend more, Americans are beginning to see the onrushing train at the end of the tunnel.  Obama’s own nominee for commerce secretary, New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg, compared Obama’s economic plan to that of a banana republic, and called the level of debt that will result “unsustainable.”  Many Americans who supported and voted for Obama may be wishing there was an UNDO button on their ballots.

In fact, there is.  There’s an UNDO function coming in Election 2.010.  The UNDO button won’t apply to Obama–he’s not due for an update until 2012.  But every member of the House and one third of the Senate will be up for re-election in 2010.  It’s not as easy as voting Republican instead of Democrat.  Several courageous Democrats in the House voted against the stimulus bill, and three imbecile Republicans in the Senate voted for it.  So you’ll all have to do your own research.

If the Senator or congressman who represents you voted for trillions of dollars in spending, and is sending you the bill, your choice is clear.  UNDO to others as they have tried to UNDO our economy.  It’s as simple as the push of a button.

by Lance Thompson

Over the weekend, the Obama administration has changed the National Economic Threat Level Red (describe economy as a crisis bordering on a catastrophe) to Green “the economy is sound–what, me worry?”  This, despite the fact that during the presidential campaign, Obama ridiculed opponent John McCain for making the same confident statement about America’s finances, and that was long before everyone’s 401K got the Obama meltdown discount.  But, even though our houses and retirement funds are worth less, our jobs are gone or disappearing, and the federal government continues to spend money faster than they can print it, I’m willing to take Obama at his word that the economy is not a crisis.

Now, to address this troubled economy, which is fundamentally strong and not in a crisis, Obama has spent all the money we have and quite a bit of money that doesn’t exist.  He spent this money as directed by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, on all manner of liberal wish-list projects and earmarks, under the guise of “emergency stimulus.”  Okay, let’s assume that all that deficit spending will eventually revive the economy at some point in our grandchildren’s future.

The rest of the world does not stand still, and crises arise on unpredictable and inconvenient schedules all their own.  It is not certain what the next crisis will be, but it is undeniable that there will be one.

In international relations, where state gifts from this administration range from 25 bargain bin DVD’s to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown to Hillary Clinton’s presentation of a panic button to the Russian government, events are unpredictable.  Pakistan may collapse and the nation’s eighty-odd nukes would be in the hands of–well, who knows?  China, with a resurgent space program, has harassed our ships on the high seas and tested anti-satellite weapons.  The Chinese know that there is unlikely to be another American administration less likely to interfere in an invasion of Taiwan.  Russia has ridiculed our groveling offer to cancel missile defense in Eastern Europe in exchange for their cessation of military and nuclear aid to Iran.  And Iran’s dual space- and nuclear programs are transparently complementary as foundations for nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles.  All of these, and many more, are possible international crises.

Naturally, the crisis may be of another kind.  Hurricane season is coming up.  Has anyone noticed a dearth of beachfront housing, commercial property or industry?  We are just as vulnerable to another Katrina as ever.  Volcanoes are restive in Alaska and Yellowstone has been rumbling of late.  California hasn’t had a big quake in over a decade–they’re seismically due, as is the New Madrid fault in the Mississippi Valley which breaks loose at much longer intervals.  We’ve had some near-misses from asteroids lately, the latest of which came as something of an astronomical surprise.  Don’t forget regular disasters like blizzards in the northeast, droughts in the Southwest, floods all over the flatlands.  And judging from the impeccable science that backs up the global warming alarmists, another ice age must be imminent.

Crises come in all varieties.  We could have a viral pandemic that would overtax our health care system.  The drug wars of Mexico, which really are on the scale of an actual war, could explode across the border at any moment.  More terrorist strikes are undeniably being planned.  Many have been prevented or interdicted over the last eight years by a vigilance which has been systematically relaxed since Obama took office.  And, of course, a real financial crisis could occur at any time–the FDIC could fail, homeowners could stop paying their mortgages to qualify for mortgage assistance, mass layoffs could follow tax hikes on businesses and corporations, China and Japan could call in their debts or even stop raising the limits on our credit cards.

I raise these possibilities not merely to increase readers’ gray hair quotients, but because they all have one common trait.  The responses or solutions to each of these crises will be very expensive.  Whether it’s sending a military force to war in the Western Pacific, rebuilding a devastated city or region, or treating millions of stricken Americans, the federal government will be called upon to act quickly, and spend vastly.

But the financial crisis, which has now been disavowed by the administration and Democrats in Congress who used it to pass their profligate spending bills, has already spent all the money.  If what they say is true (try not to snicker at that), then the economy is sound, there is no crises, and we spent a couple of trillion dollars because we panicked.

Much like the response to the boy who cried wolf, the vast economic resources of the nation were called out, record-breaking debt was incurred, and private corporations were taken over by government agencies, all to meet a false alarm.  After two months of Obama, the coffers are empty and the debt is overwhelming.  This administration has made certain that we literally can’t afford another crisis.

Which makes one wonder what we will do when one occurs.

by Lance Thompson

For decades, Democrats instinctively have responded to every GOP call for tax relief as “tax cuts for the wealthy.”  This charge has been tremendously successful in keeping our progressive tax system in place.  Under this system, the more you earn, the greater percentage of those earnings are taken by the government.  Thus, in 2006, the top 10% of taxpayers paid 70% of the nation’s tax bill, while the bottom half of taxpayers paid 3%.  And forty percent of Americans with incomes too low to trigger taxation paid nothing at all. 

This progressive tax system does not collect more from higher earners simply because they make more.  They pay more because the rate at which they are taxed increases with their earnings.  The tax cuts of presidents Reagan and Bush, though successful in stimulating the economy and increasing tax revenue (yes, lower taxes increase revenue) only reduced the top tax rates, but did not alter the basic system which penalizes success.

Some have called for a flat tax–a system in which all citizens pay the same percentage of earnings to the government.  Wealthy people would still pay more because they make more, but the percentage would be the same for all.  This inherently fair system is predictably condemned by liberals as “tax cuts for the wealthy.” 

Instead of retreating from this class warfare nonsense, conservatives should instead embrace the liberal accusation of “tax cuts for the wealthy.”  They should embrace it, support it, encourage it and enact it.  Tax cuts for the wealthy is a recipe for economic success.

A fundamental principle of economics is that governments tax what they want less of and subsidize what they want more of.  Undeniable human nature ensures that this principle applies universally. 

The government has a legitimate interest in its citizens being successful.  Americans making more money, starting and building businesses, creating jobs, investing and making profits all contribute to the economic vitality of our country.  Jobs are created, money is spent, industries prosper, and tax revenues rise.  Yet our current system taxes wealth and success and subsidizes poverty and failure.

Why not reward positive economic behavior rather than punish it?  Why not replace the progressive tax system with a regressive one?  Imagine a system in which tax rates were reduced as earnings increased, the opposite of what we have now.  At whatever income level taxation begins, that would be the maximum rate.  As income grows, the tax rate would gradually decrease, but never reach zero.

What would be the result of this revolutionary idea?  The vast entrepreneurial spirit and resourcefulness of Americans would be tapped as it never has before.  Work harder, make more money, build your business, expand your investments and profits, and the government will reward you with a lower tax rate!  The greatest minds in the country would be turned  to developing higher levels of financial achievement.  And revenues would grow proportionally.

Another benefit of a regressive tax schedule would be to reverse the natural inclination of the wealthy to shelter or divert their income.  Imagine the world if you could achieve a lower tax rate by making more money.  Taxpayers would be bending every effort to report every penny of income.  During an audit, the IRS representative would require proof that the taxpayer actually generated as much income as he was claiming.  People would happily report and document every instance of money earned, no matter how small. 

Deductions would be eschewed, as they would reduce one’s qualifying income.  Hundreds of pages of loopholes and exceptions in the tax code could be excised, as detrimental to one’s qualification for a lower tax rate.  Again, this would cause revenues to skyrocket.

A one-time tax amnesty at the inception of this program would allow people to declare all previously undeclared income, and the lines at H&R Block would be out the door and down the street with people trying to qualify for a lower tax bracket.  The IRS would have to put on extra staff just to keep up with revenue flooding to federal coffers.

The regressive tax system would stimulate our economy by endorsing and rewarding those who contribute most to the nation’s financial health.  As the system currently stands, some of our brightest and most productive individuals spend great portions of their time and money figuring out ways to avoid the higher tax brackets.  Imagine if all that effort was spent trying to reach the higher tax brackets–the economic output of the nation would increase exponentially.

An added wrinkle would be that only money made in the United States would count toward one’s income.  There would be a mad rush back to American soil as offshore businesses, banks and investments flocked home.  Again, the boost to our economy would be monumental.

Liberal readers will be outraged that such a system could be contemplated.  They will complain that such a tax system unfairly places higher burdens upon the poor.  But do not the poor place higher burdens on society as a whole, with social, educational and medical programs designed to serve their needs?  None of those programs has resulted in fewer poor people.  Quite the contrary, by subsidizing poverty as we have since the advent of LBJ’s Great Society, we have only seen poverty grow, year after year.

Clearly, the answer is to offer an economic incentive to escape poverty.  The regressive tax system does that.  Make more, pay less.  What greater inducement to get an education, work hard, be responsible, and pursue success can there be?

So next time a liberal dismisses tax relief as “tax cuts for the wealthy,” welcome the characterization and embrace the concept.  It’s the kindest cut of all.

by  Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon

The words “subversive” and “subversion” once were used only to describe enemy combatants at the time of military conflict.  Today those same words have been labeled inflammatory – not behind an iron curtain but right here in the United States of America.

In the third month of the year 2009 A.D., the time has finally come to call a spade a spade.  For those on the left who inflame discourse by automatically reading malevolent racist meanings into that phrase, STOP NOW!  America-loving Americans have finally been pushed over the edge, and frankly no longer care anymore what you – the ultra-liberals and the two-timing RINOs amongst you -- consider is bigoted.  Are you listening, Eric Holder?

You have pushed us over the edge … by political correctness (which, in and of itself, is an insult to the American free spirit), by taxation and more taxation to come, and by our Constitutional rights and freedoms being mangled and distorted in order to fit the liberal agenda.

The “Sleeping Giant” awoke when Pearl Harbor was bombed -- and again after our country was attacked on September 11, 2001.  The same giant, this time in the form of conservatives and clear-thinking Democrats, is rising up to confront and revolt against the subversions of our federal government.

For clarification, when we say “clear-thinking Democrats” we do not include the ultra-liberal waterbearers who soaked Barack Hussein Obama with unadulterated praise and elected him on their tidal wave of adulation.  We’re talking about American citizens who joined the Democratic Party believing it would make a difference in creating a better, safer, stronger U.S.A., but discovered they’ve been shanghaied to pre-Stalinist Russia.

Book after best-selling book (albeit by conservative authors) have been clarifying with facts and figures (Kryptonite to the left) what has been unraveling in this country.  We have the Right (the “Good”) stripping away the camouflage of the Left (the “Bad”), and endeavoring to educate the “Stupid” – a feat now thankfully hampered by the self-inflicted collapse of the once great metropolitan dailies, and the sinking ratings of liberal cable news networks.

And in case you weren’t listening, fiscal conservatives were not happy with President Bush either.  He lost his base of support because of his unchecked Democratic-like spending.  We did indeed need change, but not in the present form of throwing good money after bad. One need only look to the engagement of the Cloward-Piven Strategy (manufactured by the left), to clearly understand what has occurred in the United States over the last 43 years:  Leftist academics have dealt irreparable societal damage.

Adding insult to injury is the fact these academics continue to poison the knowledge wells from which we drink – and they’re being paid to do it, courtesy of the American taxpayer.

Explaining how we got here (even with hard facts and indisputable figures) is never enough for the left.  They don’t get the truth from the prolific liars in the mainstream media and refuse to entertain exceptions to their point of view.  Those that actually take the time to read conservative articles do so by inhabiting right-wing blogs like resident cockroaches, commenting with wild abandon from sheer ignorance.  Put simply, those who can, write – and those who can’t, rant.

There have been the decades of liberal out-on-the-street and in-your-face protests, which are as common and tiresome as illegal immigrants banging on our cars demanding work when we drive onto a Home Depot parking lot.  The reason you don’t see loud and obnoxious conservative activists in melees with police or who are being thrown out of congressional meetings is they don’t exist.  Okay, okay, we concede there are a few, like the wing-nut extremists who protest in front of abortion clinics.  Shameful! How dare anyone fight for the life of an unborn human being!

Republicans and conservative-minded Democrats are busy working at our jobs, providing for our families and our communities.  We’re building companies that employ people, and we pay the bulk of this country’s taxes and we mind our own business. But those days may be over, because revolution is in the air, and don’t you just love the smell of “rebellion” in the morning?

We are being forced to rebel because Obama has fogged up his followers’ senses – with endless campaign rhetoric, and it has now seeped into the fabric of this country like radioactive waste leeching into our drinking wells.  The White House and the U.S. Congress have become hangouts for the ham-fisted and the desperate, where they’re all banging into each other like billiard balls on an uneven surface. And this administration’s pathological hunger for absolute power only serves to repudiate Obama’s hollow promises of hope and change.

Neither Obama nor the Democrat-controlled Congress has even once mentioned the phrases “family unity” or “American honor.”  By ignoring the nucleus conventions on which our country was built, they have proven that none of them possesses any sense of responsibility for the offices they hold.

Obama thinks he has things under control (the way Neville Chamberlain thought he had Hitler under control).  He gave back to England the bust of Winston Churchill (which had been given to the White House as a gesture of solidarity after 9/11) and in so doing, revealed an arrogance that threatens to cut all ties with one of our most trusted allies in favor of dialogue with the enemy.

Americans of every stripe are saying “Enough is enough,” and we will rise up, including all of you who voted that Democrat to the presidency.  It will happen, and it will be launched on the words of Patrick Henry’s American Revolution fervor of “Give me liberty or give me death.”

by  Lance Thompson

A recent controversy the media have embraced, rather than examining the wisdom of spending more money than America has ever had, was sparked by commentator Rush Limbaugh when he dared to say that he hoped that President Obama failed to remake the economy and the government.  Liberals gasped at this, likening it to high treason.

Some Republicans on the Sunday shows have been quick to disavow Limbaugh’s statement as well.  House Republican Whip Eric Cantor said “no one wants this president to fail.”  Congressman Mike Pence echoed the sentiment.  Congressional Republicans participated in Obama’s Fiscal Summit on 23 February, engaging in “break-out sessions” and reporting their “findings.”  They acted as if the responsible Republican “no” votes on the stimulus package were in need of an apology, and that nothing would be worse than being labeled “partisan.”

For all those Republicans whose convictions lead them to go along to get along, I have a solution.  And it is certain to be respected by the Left, because the Left came up with it.

While the outcome of the war in Iraq was still in doubt, the Democrats did everything they could to bring about defeat for the United States.  Democrats in Congress called the war criminal, immoral, and unwinnable.  Democrats introduced various resolutions to end the war, pull out the troops, and cut off funding.  Of course, Democrats were smart enough to know that these actions, while solidifying their support among liberals, was not going over well with the families of our troops.  Thus, they came up with a bumper sticker to plaster over their shameful actions:  “We support the troops, but not the war.”  This, they thought, allowed them to have it both ways.

This solution can easily be adopted by Republicans who can’t bring themselves openly to defy the president.  All they have to say is, “I support the president, but not his policies.”  Painless, isn’t it?  Let’s all try it, shall we?

I support the president, but not his Politburo of a cabinet.  I don’t support the collection of tax cheats, terrorist sympathizers, baby killers (if Governor Sebelius is confirmed as HHS Secretary) that the president has appointed to his administration to carry out his socialist agenda.

I support the president, but not his spendaholic stimulus bills, bailout bills, redistribution of income and tax hikes on anyone who actually works for a living.  I don’t support his plunging the nation into a bottomless pit of debt and sticking responsible Americans with the tab.

I support the president, but not his Secretary of State’s nuzzling of Red China, subsidies for Hamas to rebuild Gaza into a terrorist base, and abandoning former Soviet Republics to the increasingly belligerent Russia.

I support the president, but not his outsourcing of executive policy to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, so they can rush legislation through Congress without letting most members of the legislative branch even read it. 

I support the president, but not his plan to nationalize health care and give a bureaucrat authority over my own medical needs.

Wasn’t that easy?  Republicans who still want to be invited to interviews on the MSM, chic Washington parties, and The View, can embrace this two-faced construction.  They can gush over Obama’s diction, his wife’s taste in clothing, his lavish entertaining.  But they can still oppose the policies that are remaking the nation in the socialist image.

Speaking for myself, I don’t support the president or his policies, and I doubt that any future conservative leaders do either.  Those who like to play both sides will not earn, nor do they deserve, the support of conservative voters.  Our future leaders will be those who are not afraid to state their principles and live by them.

Of course, if the president decides to reverse course, cut taxes, beef up the military, get rid of the criminals in his own administration, reduce spending, and stop giving the money of working people to non-working people, I’ll gladly support him and his policies.  But I’m not holding my breath.