I don’t often join my fellow bloggers in blogging about a specific topic. There have been worthy topics before, but that generally isn’t my style, for two reasons. I prefer writing about topics and issues that pique my interest and that I can write about on my own. Also, I usually have time for only one post each day. I will break from that routine today and write about an individual I am just learning about and who is the ultimate bully, Brett Kimberlin. You may not know who he is and information about him is hard to find, even on the Internet. What I hope to do, along with many other bloggers, is to show you exactly who this man is and why we believe he needs to be exposed.

Brett Kimberlin first came on the scene of public life in 1978, when he was accused of being the Speedway Bomber. It all started with a murder that he didn’t commit, but that authorities speculated he was trying to cover up. I’ll let The Indianapolis Star take up the narrative.

When police began looking for a motive in the Scyphers slaying, they found there’d been a recent family clash. Julia Scyphers’ daughter, Sandra Barton, had become involved with a man who seemed to Mrs. Scyphers to be inordinately close to one of Barton’s young daughters. Mrs. Scyphers told friends she was so concerned that she’d arranged for both of her granddaughters to come live with her. Whether or not Mrs. Scyphers’ fears were correct (no charges were ever filed to that effect), this incident led investigators to start looking at Brett C. Kimberlin.

He was in his mid 20s, slight of build and boyish looking. He ran a vegetarian restaurant in Broad Ripple which had been featured in The Indianapolis Star two years earlier. Sandra Barton worked for him there. He also had a felony record and local narcotics police suspected the restaurant might be a front for another source of income — marijuana smuggling.

As the bombs went off during the week of Sept. 1-6, each one provided police with evidence. They found bits of the timer, including one big enough to identify the specific brand. Only one local store sold that particular timer. Police showed the store clerks several photos and one of them picked out Brett Kimberlin.

Meanwhile at a different store, a Westside print shop, the proprietor was becoming suspicious of customer who wanted to reproduce military drivers licenses. The shop owner called the U.S. Army and when the customer came back, on Sept. 20, an Army investigator was there too. The customer was wearing a security guard’s uniform with Department of Defense insignia. It was Brett Kimberlin.

This break in the investigation led to the eventual arrest of Brett Kimberlin and his conviction on drug charges, impersonation of a Department of Defense employee, and finally, in 1981, on setting the Speedway bombs. His prison sentence was 4, 12, and 50 years respectively.  Why the man isn’t still in prison is beyond me, but such is the correctional system in this country. It should also be noted that he has refused to pay the $1.6 million judgement awarded to one of the victims of his bombs. This was true, even though he came into some money because of a book deal. This refusal led to the revoking of his parole, for a time.

There is one thing the prison system taught Brett Kimberlin how to do. In prison, he learned how to file a lawsuit and he has filed over 100 of them. He has even filed lawsuits against some of his victims. Stop and think about this for a moment. Brett Kimberlin is a convicted domestic terrorism. He set bombs with the malicious purpose of killing and maiming people, all for his own reasons. These were people he didn’t even know. They happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Even though he was convicted, he is walking free today. There is something very wrong with this picture.

Fast forward to 2012 and we will find more suspicious activity from Brett Kimberlin. There is the case of the blogger called Aaron Worthing, who has lost his job, all because of the bully that is Brett Kimberlin. It would take far more time and space that I have here to give you the details, but I would urge you to take the time to read the series of post Aaron Worthing has put together, laying out his story and the interaction between him and Kimberlin. I believe you will be amazed, as am I, that this bully is able to act on his evil intent, with impunity.

If that isn’t enough for you, let us move on to the story of Robert Stacy McCain. Blogging at The Other McCain, RSM has done his best to expose Brett Kimberlin for the lying felon he is. For his efforts, he and his family have had to move out of his house, due to the threats sent his way by Kimberlin.Isn’t it strange how liars and bullies abhor having their activities exposed for all the world to see?

There is one last part of the Brett Kimberlin saga I want to share with my readers. Brett Kimberlin is now the director of a non-profit group based in Bethesda, Maryland, called Justice Through Music. The most interesting thing about this non-profit is who is on the list of its donors. The Other McCain wrote about this list and is one reason he is in hiding. The list reads like a Who’s Who of leftists and liberals. Barbra Streisand and Heinz Family Foundation, to name a couple. The latter is the foundation of the wife of Senator John Kerry.

Am I the only one who sees a resemblance between Brett Kimberlin and Bill Ayers? They both liked to blow up things and people, both are unrepentant of their crimes, and both have fans in the liberal crowd. I can’t help but wonder why liberals are so attracted to criminals such as Brett Kimberlin and Bill Ayers.

Since the beginnings of the Tea Party revolution, the liberals have accused us of being disorderly, rude, vicious, etc. Many on the left have said they have worried that violence would ensue from the gatherings of normal Americans who were concerned about their country. Once again, we see the liberals are guilty of the very charges they have directed at conservatives.

Some may wonder why I would write about Brett Kimberlin. I’m sure he hasn’t a clue who this small time blogger from Oklahoma is. The answer is simple. There is very little in this world I despise more than a bully and Brett Kimberlin is just such a man. He is a felon, convicted of heinous crimes against his fellow citizens, who had done him no harm. In my own small fashion, this is my way of spitting in the face of the bully and standing with my friends around the blogsphere. I’m doing my best to have their back.

You can read more about the lies and bullying of Brett Kimberlin at the following sites.

Conservative Hideout

The Lonely Conservative here and here and here.

Lee Stranahan

Zilla of the Resistance

Camp of the Saints

I can’t think of a better way to describe the federal government than to call it irresponsible. What else can you call it when it is in the condition it is in? In the first two sentences of this post, I have referred to the federal government as it, but that choice of pronoun isn’t really accurate. They, or them would be better choices, as the federal government is made up of individuals from all across our country. Maybe a better way of describing the federal government would be to call the people who comprise it irresponsible. How else can they be described, when those people refuse to take the actions necessary to end the slide we are on?

Take a look at some of the top political stories of the day. The Washington Times and Fox News both have stories about the report issued by the CBO yesterday. That report tells us what some of the consequences of the debate that is being enjoined about taxes, budget deficits, and spending cuts. Positions are being staked out by both sides. Lines are being drawn in the sand. John Boehner announced last week that no increase in the debt ceiling would be allowed, unless it was accompanied matching spending cuts. Harry Reid has had his own “never say never” moment, in which he let it be known that erasing cuts in defense spending would not be allowed, unless the Republicans allowed tax increases for the wealthy and corporations. Same song as last year, and the year before, and the year before, just a different verse.

Remember the great compromise that was reached last year. Actually, it wasn’t as much of a compromise, as it was a fallback position when nothing else would work. The Republicans let themselves be maneuvered into a position that forced their hand on cutting spending. The debt ceiling would be increased in increments, while automatic spending cuts would be put into effect, across the board. These spending cuts included cuts in defense spending. All the while, taxes remained high, with the Democrats wanting to raise them even higher. All the while, the fiscal can was being kicked further down the road, and closer to the fiscal cliff we all know may not be too far around the corner.

Here at Political Realities, I am in favor of lowering taxes. I will always err on the side of allowing Americans, both individuals and corporations, to keep more of their hard-earned money. When Americans have more money to spend, they usually spend, or possibly invest it. The last time I checked, spending money is what drives our economy. It makes the world go round and for that reason, I am in favor of making the Bush tax cuts permanent.

I am also a believer that being fiscally conservative doesn’t mean we need to cut domestic spending, while ignoring the monster in the closet that is defense spending. It certainly isn’t the only culprit, but to claim we shouldn’t be cutting spending in that department is to ignore the obvious. There is a part of our military establishment that doesn’t want this to happen, as it probably benefits some of their friends, but I can see no other way.

The reason we had the compromise of last resort last year is simple. Neither side was willing to budge far from their base positions.

The Democrats want greater spending and will always come down on that side of debate over fiscal policy. To fund that greater spending, they need higher and higher taxes. Even when they say they are willing to cut spending, those cuts never materialize. In the process, they ignore the fact that they are driving business to close, or leave the country, to escape such high taxation. Wealthy individuals or successful corporations need not apply.

The Republicans claim they want to lower spending, although most of them aren’t acting in a fashion that would convince me they are really serious. They also want to lower taxes, which I wholeheartedly agree with, but these lower taxes always seem to turn into an end-of-year political fight. If they are really serious about lowering taxes, why don’t they fight to fundamentally change the tax code and make lower taxes the norm, instead of the exception?

This is just in Congress. Must I go on to mention how President Barack Obama continues to divide our country by sponsoring class warfare? His war on the wealthy is second only to his war on companies who supply us with the energy that drives our country and our economy.

The fiscal condition of our country is not good. For the members of our government to think we can continue our current path is irresponsible and foolish, yet I suspect this can is about to get a few more dents. If the people we elect are acting irresponsible and refuse to do the right thing for our country, what does that tell us about ourselves? After all, we are the people casting the votes. We are the people who keep sending politicians to Washington who only perpetuate the existing irresponsibility. If we expect the members of our government to act in a responsible manner, then we are the people who must make that happen by our votes. To do anything less is the most irresponsible action of all.

My two-part piece on Mitt Romney last week unsurprisingly ruffled some feathers (see here and here). I knew that would be the case, but pressed on anyway. Today I want to explain why those of us in Governor Johnson’s camp not only support his campaign, but are doing so with a passion unmatched by either of the Big Two presidential supporters.

First, many people have written off Governor Gary Johnson’s campaign. One commenter said it was more likely that the Dodo bird would return from extinction than a Johnson victory in November. While that’s a serious exaggeration, no one in the Johnson camp—including me—has ever said that a Johnson victory is likely; we have merely said it is possible, especially given that the Big Two have given us a choice between Jimmy Carter and Alf Landon[1] at a crucial time in our nation’s history.

We know what Obama will do if reelected. The guy has been a disaster, although as a libertarian I’m not as troubled by some of his policies as conservatives (e.g., ending DADT).

The question then becomes what happens with a Romney administration? As I explained last week I have very low expectations, and there’s no need for me to go through all that again. Long story short, the country ends up in the ditch either way.

But, as another commenter predicted, if Romney turns out as bad as I expect there will be a total bloodletting for the GOP. Given that the GOP-controlled House has attempted to do very little to control spending—and on Friday voted for more spending increases—and has diluted the already-timid Ryan Plan to nothing, I think a bloodletting is exactly what I expect in 2014, especially since Romney has said he is proud of the fact that he works well with Democrats. That should lend comfort to conservatives—a Republican president who wants to get chummy with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and John Kerry.

(This is in strong contrast to Governor Johnson, who did not “get along” with the state legislature as Governor, and has no intention of “getting along” with Congress; His expertise is in making legislators do the right thing, and vetoing them when they do not.)

So, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that I’m right about Romney. If so, you can expect two things to happen—Democrats will retake control of Congress in 2014, and the Tea Party will abandon the GOP en masse. And frankly, those are my expectations.

So where will the Tea Party regroup? Forming a political party and gaining ballot access is a slow, expensive process. The GOP would fight a newly formed party just as much as they fight the Libertarian Party. The Republican Party establishment loathes political freedom and will stop at nothing to keep a new party off the ballot, including passing legislation they know is unconstitutional just to keep a new party’s ballot access tied up in court. (Trust me on that point; the Libertarian Party of Ohio has defeated the Ohio GOP 4 times in the last 10 years on that very issue. Unsurprisingly, Republicans have no issue with wasting taxpayer money fighting court battles they know they will lose.)

The natural place for the Tea Party to land is with the Libertarian Party, which is why this election cycle is so important for Governor Johnson’s campaign. We know that the path to victory is a narrow one in which a lot of things need to fall into place. (One of them is for the media to have some dirt on Romney they can smear him with; if his past isn’t spotless you know the liberal media will blow even the smallest indiscretion way out of proportion.) But Governor Johnson has borrowed a line from Ron Paul and calls himself a “messenger,” and the message is freedom.

Thus, Johnson is “in it to win it,” but he knows, and those of us working on his campaign know, that getting the message out is absolutely critical not only for 2012, but 2014 and beyond. That is why we are so enthusiastic about his campaign. This is particularly true because the younger generation generally is not interested in conservatism, particularly when it comes to social issues.

The message of freedom has great appeal. Individual liberty. Economic freedom. Fiscal responsibility. Sound money. Sane foreign policy.[2] The message is resonating in many quarters, and we are helping ensure that the message lives on, and keeping it alive for when the time comes.

So you see that Governor Johnson’s campaign really does matter, and it matters a great deal. America is ripe for political revolution,[3] and the Libertarian Party is ready to deliver it. And if Romney wins and the Republicans fall on their collective face as I expect, you will be thankful the I have stuck my neck out and stood up for Governor Johnson during this campaign (even if I’ve taken a lot of heat for doing so), because I’m helping set the table for the future.

The message of liberty will carry the day—eventually—and probably sooner than you think. 2014, perhaps?

This article is also published at The Country Thinker.

Here’s a thought that should terrify those of us looking to remove Barack Obama from the White House in November. It is looking like the lock he had on reelection isn’t so great at the moment. This is partially due to his inept record on the economy, as well as his many missteps in this campaign. Many of his efforts to change the subject from the economy have backfired and have had the opposite effect. There are some who have speculated that he would not allow Joe Biden to run for Vice-President this time around. There is good reason for that speculation. There are also those who strongly believe President Obama will choose Hillary Clinton to replace Biden. If that is what he has up his sleeve, we should all be worried.

As I was browsing through some of my normal reading this morning, I came across an article on The Washington Times. Joseph Curl firmly believes the plans are already in the works to replace Joe Biden with Hillary Clinton, and he gives some good reasons for this belief. The President is clearly in trouble. Part of this is because how he is losing his advantage with women. In one poll, Mitt Romney leads Obama 46% to 44%. Obama’s team is aware they can not win this election without the support of women.

Enter Hillary. As Secretary of State, she has visited 165 countries, racking up 750,000 miles in the air, according to the State Department. She also happened to win 18 million votes in the 2008 primaries. Last month, her favorable rating hit an all-time high of 65 percent, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll — just 27 percent viewed her unfavorably. Contrast that with Mr. Biden, whose favorable rating was 41 percent, with a whopping 44 percent unfavorable, according to a Fox News poll last week.

Think this will not happen, or is completely unfeasible? I am afraid, literally, that it is feasible and will happen. Stop and think for a moment. Hillary Clinton is very popular with women. She did capture a lot of votes in the 2008 primary. About 18 million votes, if I recall correctly. Many of these voters are still chomping at the bit, wanting to see her run in 2016. More than a few wanted her to challenge Obama in the primary. What will happen if Obama dumps Biden and brings Hillary Clinton on board, preferably with the right timing? (Joseph Curl thinks it will be right before or at the Democratic National Convention.) I’ll tell you what will happen, women will coalesce behind an Obama/Clinton ticket. We may think Obama can be defeated and we may be right, but that defeat will be very hard to accomplish, if he brings Hillary Clinton on board as his Vice-President.

Unintended Consequences of Government Regulation

I can’t begin to count the times in recent years when it has been clear how true that statement is. Matt Ross, of Conservative Hideout, has brought it up, time after time. Often times, our government has passed a law or regulation, targeted at a specific problem, only to use that legislation for a purpose completely unrelated to its original purpose. That’s where the unintended consequences of government regulation come into play. What this happens, citizens of this country, who are otherwise completely innocent, are usually the targets. Many times, it is also a business that feels the flame of these unintended consequences. I can think of no better example than the music industry, in general, and Gibson Guitar, in particular.

I have written before about Gibson Guitar and their fight with the Obama administration. You can read those posts here and here. This time, I want to focus more on how this all came to pass. The first culprit was The Lacey Act, passed all the way back in 1900. This bill was enacted to protect certain species of birds who had the misfortune of having feathers that looked really good on a woman’s hat. Throughout the years, it has been used to protect other wildlife from being sold for bounty. One would think this would be a good purpose in life, as we don’t want to kill off all the wildlife, just to make a couple of dollars.

Remember those unintended consequences of government regulation that I mentioned above. Here is where they come in. Fast forward to 2008 and the amendment that was added to The Lacey Act by Senator Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn and Senator Ron Wyden, D-Wash. This amendment was added to protect American companies who use forest products. I’ll let Fox News pick up the story.

American timber companies were being unfairly undercut by foreign sources of wood, many of which were illegally logged. Environmental groups also supported the amendment for curbing illegal logging in rainforests by imposing criminal penalties for trading in endangered species of wood.

It was that same amendment that led federal agents to raid the factories of Gibson Guitars in 2009 and again in 2011 – raids in which substantial quantities of musical instrument-grade wood were seized.

It should be noted that charges have yet to be filed against Gibson, despite repeated requests for the government to either follow through on the case, or return the confiscated wood. To date, the government has done neither.

The raids against Gibson Guitar, and the seizure of their legally obtained wood, have raised great concerns about this being political payback. Given the past actions of the Obama administration, that is very likely the truth. However, there is another side to all of this that needs to be considered. It is more unintended consequences of government regulation.

Just suppose, you have a musical instrument that uses some of the wood in question. What do you think will happen if you are traveling abroad and have to check your instrument back into the United States, when you arrive home? How do you think those unintended consequences will come into play if you don’t have the proper paperwork, detailing when and where your instrument was made? Those are exactly the concerns being voiced by some musicians, professional and otherwise, and rightly so.

Before you try to explain this away by saying the government would never do something like that, let me propose a scenario for you. Considering the recent actions of the TSA, what will happen if you arrive back in the United States, carrying your instrument, and run afoul of an overzealous customs agent? Don’t think that can happen? If the TSA can grope young children, in the name of keeping us all safe from terrorists, do you think a customs agent will hesitate to confiscate your instrument, if they suspect it is on the list of banned woods?

After being questioned by lawmakers, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Fish and Wildlife Service have sent a letter ensuring musicians they would not be thus targeted. Of course, these are the same government agencies who conducted the raids on Gibson Guitar, so who knows how willing they are to follow through and make sure something like this doesn’t happen. Senators Alexander and Wyden have said they will be sending letters to the government agencies, detailing how their amendment was never meant to be used to target musical instruments containing wood harvested before 2008.

Even more troubling is how Alexander and Wyden plan to ease problems and concerns, if they should arise. They would prefer to reduce the confusion and paperwork through administrative regulation. Failing that, they have said they would “fix” the amendment by amending it. Why is it that so many of our political leaders seem to think the only way to fix a problem is to regulate it. If that fails, then they want to amend the regulation. Amendment after amendment, regulation on top of regulation, unintended consequences piling up, and people wonder why we have so many laws on the books. Maybe we should try a new and novel approach. Let’s get rid of some of the laws and regulations and see how that works.

This is a guest post from John Bascom, the author of Caine’s Pestilence.

Caine’s Pestilence is a novel of drama, tragedy, triumph, and satire set in a future America firmly in the hands of the ultraliberals. This is one of its lessons…

Lesson #3: Why Bernie Madoff and Barack Obama are doppelgangers.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary: dop·pel·gäng·er – noun – 1: counterpart of a living person 2: a. double b. alter ego

Bernard Madoff convicted felon and Federal inmate

Bernard L. Madoff stands as one of the most evil and iconic con men in history. He swindled trusting investors out of more than $65 billion over decades with a carefully orchestrated Ponzi scheme. Himself a Jew and the grandson of poor Jewish immigrants, many of his victims were Jewish religious and charitable organizations. He reeled in his prey—which included his closest friends—by creating the illusion of integrity, success and shared altruistic values. His pitch was that Wall Street was stacked against the average investor, and he would be their inside champion assuring his investors a good deal on an uneven playing field. Bernie was found guilty of eleven federal felonies mostly involving fraud and perjury and sentenced to 150 years in prison, where he resides today.

Caine’s Pestilence is a political novel set in a fictional dysfunctional future America ruled by the ultraliberals. It is a cautionary story grounded in fact. Madoff does not appear in the novel. But many of the tactics employed by the ruling liberals do, and are strangely similar to Madoff’s—singling out shadowy and unsympathetic villains as the source of the problems, promising impossible rewards for turning one’s future and freedom over to the establishment and, as with any Ponzi scheme, only delivering disappointment and disaster in the end . So what do doppelgangers and Caine’s Pestilence and Bernie Madoff have to do with Barack Obama?

Barack Obama 44th President

Barack H. Obama’s ascent to office and his hold on power bear an eerie resemblance to the tactics of Madoff. President Obama’s message to every-day Americans is they are members of a distinct underclass, a disenfranchised and potentially doomed “middle-class.” Of course, the citizens he so characterizes constitute the majority of voters. His rhetoric contrasts—or divides—the middle class with respect to his version of the upper class, which he calls collectively and derisively “Wall Street bankers and hedge fund managers.” They are the “business fat cats,” the “wealthy and well-connected.” He singles out for shame the legions of “millionaires and billionaires” who are the “wealthiest1%” that won’t pay their “fair share.” Of course most of these managers, professionals or other successful people are just ordinary citizens who worked hard, applied their talents, obeyed the law and are enjoying the fruits of their efforts. Many if not most came from humble roots. And both individually and collectively, they shoulder a disproportionately large share of the tax bill. But the unmistakable point of his rhetoric is to cast them as evil and powerful boogeymen from which the average person needs protection.

Now, successful people are fully capable of fending for themselves. Why should anyone care if rich people are being vilified for political advantage? Simply because it is ordinary Americans who are being hurt by the tactic, not the most successful ones. This rhetoric—coming from the President of the United States no less—teaches us that the American dream is a sham. The fix is on. It doesn’t pay to try and be successful, to pull yourself up by the bootstraps. After all, if we lack the advantages we see others enjoying, why…it has nothing to do with our efforts. Nothing to do with our investment in our own education, with our training, skill, ingenuity or work ethic. It’s the fault of others—the evil 1%, the work of sleazy corporations and their bigwigs. It’s not up to us to try harder, but up to the government to reign in the villains creating all our problems and solve them for us. In short, the liberal rhetoric sucks hope from the populace and discourages initiative. It vilifies success, subsidizes failure and seeks to create a culture of blame and resentment that is inconsistent with America’s past or promise of continued greatness in the future. The charade of punitive government regulation and punishing new tax proposals that accompany these characterizations only serve to dampen business investment, activity and job creation. The very themes developed in Caine’s Pestilence.

The liberals’ tactics of fear and dependency are reinforced by promises of rewards that, as with Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, will never be delivered in the end. Like government administered “affordable healthcare,” where the reality already is higher costs and reduced services—due, according of course to Obama, to the evil “insurance executives” with their “greed, fraud and abuse.” Never due to the wasteful, costly giveaways and takeaways in the bill. Obama’s answer to unemployment is not private sector job creation, but rather ever-extended unemployment benefits combined with ineffective federal make-work and social engineering boondoggles like loans to the now failed Solyndra, the ridiculous “energy from algae” proposition or the pork-filled, deficit ballooning “stimulus” package.

It is troubling enough that Obama’s promises are a fraud on the citizenry. But worse yet, as with Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, they can only lead to ruin. Obama’s magic lantern show of counterproductive “fixes” comes with a huge price tag. These costly and futile programs have swelled the deficit and added mightily to the national debt. We only need look at Spain and Greece, with unemployment in each of those countries well above 20%, to appreciate the consequences. Fueled by a nanny-state culture, they are grappling with huge national debts that cannot be refinanced, the prospect of expulsion from important international trade alliances (the euro and European Union), worsening recession and growing unemployment. There are riots in the streets in both countries that make our Wall Street “occupiers” look like choirboys. And their key metrics of annual deficits and national debt as percentages of GNP are not much different from our own. With Obama’s policies, can the US be far behind? His only solution—taxing the rich—by anyone’s estimate would not even begin to meaningfully cut our deficits and debt, and may actually produce the opposite effect.

And so we are left with a chilling comparison: Madoff sucked in his most trusting if naïve constituents with scare tactics and promises of unrealistic rewards. He positioned himself as a counter force to powerful Wall Street insiders. Obama, for his part, has sought to divide Americans into antagonistic “classes” and convince the majority of us we are in the powerless middle class whose problems are due to exploitation by the upper class. He likewise has positioned himself as a counter force.

Madoff promised unrealistic returns and covered his tracks by luring more and more unsuspecting clients to temporarily if futilely perpetuate his fraud. With each failure of his programs, with each new set of economic setbacks, Obama sucks us in with more and more feel-good, deficit swelling petty giveaways to cover his tracks. Each new tranche, we are assured, will be the medicine to turn things around.

Madoff was only stopped when an obscure analyst did the math and realized the promises were impossible. And Obama? How far do his deficits, his spending on useless programs, the scare tactics, our economic malaise have to go before the majority of Americans come to the same conclusion?

Madoff’s goal was certainly wealth, power, privilege and prestige he undoubtedly believed would not be his without perpetrating fraud. He was willing to take the shot for greatness in his day regardless of the risk later. And Obama? I’d like to believe he is simply an indoctrinated ultraliberal and actually believes his preposterous drivel. He is, after all, our president. But can his vitriolic rhetoric, war on energy companies, job-killing pipeline decisions, political hit lists and the like all be just misguided liberal exuberance? Few have ever accused him of being stupid, after all. I can reach no other conclusion but that, like Madoff, he is willing to throw our vulnerable majority under the bus down the road for his own aggrandizement now. If a reader has a better explanation, I’d love to hear it.

Madoff now sits in a federal penitentiary, by all accounts a model prisoner. And his doppelganger, Barack H. Obama, well…he’s running for reelection. If he’s successful, in four years he’ll be home free. And the rest of us…?

In Caine’s Pestilence the central character—John Caine—accidently creates a substance that allows ordinary people to see the fraud of the liberal promise. The terrified liberals branded it a “pestilence.” But what can we do today about Madoff’s doppelganger? About the ultraliberal, destructive policies of President Obama. Maybe, like Caine, we can shine a bright light on Obama’s Ponzi scheme. And in so doing, “spread the pestilence” of truth and reason on the fraud of the liberal agenda.

John Bascom is the author of Caine’s Pestilence, a novel of political commentary, satire and intrigue. Holding degrees in economics and finance, he has been a senior banking executive and president of a small business.

I wrote this morning about Tax Reform in Oklahoma. I bemoaned the fact that Republicans finally have control of the State Legislature, and the Governor’s office, and still can’t seem to come together to pass meaningful tax reform for the citizens of our great state. Governor Mary Fallin had introduced her plan and behold, the Republicans in the State Senate caved to special interests and stood in her way. Governor Fallin has said all along that she would work to get the best deal she could get for Oklahomans and it seems she has done just that. I just received a press release from the Governor’s office, detailing the agreement that has been worked out.

OKLAHOMA CITY — Governor Mary Fallin and leaders in both the House and Senate today introduced a joint plan for income tax cuts and tax code simplification. The proposal lowers the top income tax rate from 5.25 percent to 4.8 percent in Fiscal Year 2013 and includes a one-time additional tax cut tied to a revenue growth trigger in FY 2015. If state revenue grows by at least 5 percent in that year, the income tax rate would be reduced further to 4.5 percent.

The joint proposal represents a tax cut of over $218 million to Oklahomans when fully implemented in FY 2014, and would cut taxes by an additional $121.4 million in FY 2015 should the growth trigger be reached. Lost revenue is partially offset by tax reforms totaling $117 million when fully implemented in FY 2014. These reforms include the elimination of 33 tax credits, the elimination of certain deductions and the elimination of the personal exemption for single filers making over $35,000 and joint filers making over $70,000 (see attached one pager for new details).

The new plan also simplifies the tax code by dropping the total number of tax brackets from seven to three. New rates will be set at 1 percent, 3.3 percent and 4.8 percent.

“This proposal represents a significant income tax cut and an important step forward for Oklahoma,” Fallin said. “Our plan is a responsible proposal that will go hand in hand with a budget that protects and supports all core functions of government. It also delivers a substantial tax cut that will allow Oklahomans to keep more of their hard-earned money while improving the environment for job recruitment and job retention in the state. I applaud both House and Senate leaders for coming together on this issue and giving the people of Oklahoma some well-deserved tax relief.”

House Speaker Kris Steele also spoke in support of the plan.

“Collections through April of this year are now $350 million higher than originally expected,” said Steele. “Oklahoma is growing. We have a choice to either spend all that money on more government, or give it back to the hardworking people of Oklahoma. We choose the latter. An income tax cut is not only the smart thing to do for Oklahoma’s economy, it’s the right thing to do for our citizens.”

Senate Pro Tem Brian Bingman said the tax cut would help small business owners while protecting core government services.

“Today’s tentative agreement gives the people of Oklahoma a real and meaningful tax cut,” said Bingman.  “Senate Republicans have always believed lowering the tax burden is an important part of creating jobs and economic freedom in Oklahoma.  And today, we’ve taken an important step forward that shows the people of Oklahoma they can count on us to keep our word.  This plan will help more of our private sector citizens and small business owners be the innovators, entrepreneurs, and drivers of our state economy—all while protecting important core government services like teaching in the classroom.”

As you can see, this plan isn’t as bold as the plan originally proposed by Governor Fallin, but it’s a start and a move in the right direction. I can’t figure out why they insist on taxing the lowest income bracket at 1%, but maybe we can phase that out in the future. I would be interested in seeing what you have to say about the new plan. That goes for all of my readers, but especially those of you who live in Oklahoma.

UPDATE: Here is the breakdown of the tax brackets.

In case you didn’t know it, there is a battle going on in Oklahoma. It is a battle over tax reform and amazingly, it is between Republicans and Republicans, not Republicans and Democrats. Make no mistake, the Democrats don’t like the idea of simplifying the tax code in Oklahoma, but they aren’t in a position to stand in the way of Governor Mary Fallin’s plans. The Republicans in the State Senate are and that is exactly what they are doing. I have to wonder why they are acting like Democrats and insisting the tax cuts be “paid for” before they are implemented.

The best way to get a sense of what Governor Fallin plans to do with tax reform is to compare the current tax code with what it will look like under her plan.

As you can see, there is a world of difference between the current tax code and the tax code Governor Fallin wants Oklahoma to use. I’ll ask the obvious question; what’s there not to like in this plan. Governor Fallin meant what she said when she said she wanted to simplify the tax code in Oklahoma. Her plan would do this. At the same time, it would completely remove the income tax burden, as small as it may seem, from the families in Oklahoma who are making less than $30,000 per year. It is important to note that the Governor also plans to further reduce the income tax over a period of years, based on the tax revenue growth that is expected to come from lowering the income tax. This comes straight from her plan.

After 2013, the governor proposes further reductions by cutting the remaining income tax an additional quarter point in every year where the state of Oklahoma hits a revenue growth trigger of 5%; eventually eliminating the income tax for every Oklahoman. Governor Fallin’s income tax plan is a bold, responsible and pro-­‐economic growth measure that will lead to greater prosperity for all Oklahomans for decades to come.

The plan being pushed by Governor Fallin has already passed the Oklahoma State House, but the State Senate has decided to produce their own plan. As it stands now, it seems there is very little chance of real tax reform in Oklahoma. At least, not during the current legislative session. We can speculate all we want about why the debate on this issue is unfolding this way, but speculation really isn’t necessary. Governor Mary Fallin ran on a platform of tax reform in our state and she is trying to live up to that promise. Standing in her way are the few Democrats we still have left in the State Legislature, and the Republicans in the State Senate, who seem to be bowing to the lobbyists for special interest groups.

To illustrate that point, let’s take a look at an editorial from The Wall Street Journal, originally published on May 15, 2012.

A cavalcade of lobbyists, including local Chambers of Commerce, teachers unions and welfare groups are fighting the tax cut. The Tulsa and Oklahoma City Chambers are pleading for corporate welfare that benefits politically connected large corporations, rather than rate cuts for all businesses.

Last week economists on the public payroll from the University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State came out against the tax cut. Cynthia Rogers of OU said that the evidence on whether income-tax cuts help the economy is “inconclusive.” Maybe in the faculty lounge. But Okahomans can see the jobs bonanza across the border in Texas, which pays its bills with a sales tax.

The professors also fret that Oklahoma won’t be able to balance its budget with an income-tax phaseout, but that’s what opponents also said when former Governors Republican Frank Keating and then Democrat Brad Henry cut the rate to 5.25% from 7%. Tax revenues kept rising.

I have a question for the Republicans in the State Senate. Exactly what do they not understand about how cutting taxes increases tax revenue? They are letting themselves be distracted from the task at hand by listening to the special interest groups. To hear the lobbyists for these groups talk, you would think further reducing the Oklahoma income tax will result in catastrophic financial failure of our state. Nothing could be further from truth. The Wall Street Editorial goes on to detail how state revenues are up 8%, since the beginning of the year. Could it be they want to spend the extra tax revenues, instead of giving back to the citizens of Oklahoma?

Governor Mary Fallin has all but conceded that her version of significant tax reform will not happen this year. Her office is presently in negotiations with the Senate Republicans, trying to cut the rates as much as possible. If you want to stand with her, I suggest you call the State Capitol. The link will take you to a directory of Senators. You can contact them via email or phone. Tell your representative where you stand on this issue and what you expect them to do. Making them feel the heat is one way we can stand up to the special interest groups and accomplish tax reform in Oklahoma.

America's future? With Obama or Romney, yes.

Today I explain Romney’s total lack of comprehension of, and disregard for, the Constitution—the only defense we have against the growth of government.

Yay Gun Control!

At the Libertarian Party National Convention, I spoke with nominee Governor Gary Johnson, and his biggest concern with Romney is in the area of gun control, and with good reason. Yes, the NRA has endorsed him (which has many members livid), but the organization’s rationale is “he won’t be as bad as Obama.” (Have you noticed that’s a recurring theme with this guy?)

Once again, I will let Romney choke on his own words. From his campaign website:

Mitt will enforce the laws already on the books and punish, to the fullest extent of the law, criminals who misuse firearms to commit crimes . . . As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt was proud to support legislation that expanded the rights of gun owners.

Really? Massachusetts is ranked as a “tie” with New York for the state with the toughest gun control laws. He did nothing to support expanded gun rights, and the statement above is, to put it politely, inaccurate.

Anecdotally, I spoke with a Massachusetts delegate at the LP National Convention, and it was Mitt Romney’s gun control policies that drove him out of the Republican Party! Not only does Massachusetts have severe caliber limitations, the Bay State also has gun registration that requires gun owners to register not only which weapons they own, but where the weapons are kept. So if you move a gun from your house to your office, you have 30 days to notify authorities of the move or face felony charges and a permanent loss of the right of gun ownership. These are the kind of laws Romney says are “just right.”

But please read what the Political Guide has to say about Romney and gun control:

Governor Romney has a solid record of pursuing gun control measures to control crime and increase safety. He is vocally supportive of the assault weapons ban, supported a waiting period, and supports registration. While Governor he continued Massachusetts’s history of gun control advocacy.

In 2002, Mitt Romney stated in a debate that he supported the tough gun laws in Massachusetts and that he believed they help protect us and keep us safe. He vowed not to chip away at those laws . . .

. . . He stated that his views did not line up with the NRA.

So, in Mitt Romney’s Constitutional universe, gun registration and other strict controls are perfectly legitimate under the Second Amendment. No wonder Romney scares the heck out of presidential candidate Governor Gary Johnson when it comes to gun control.

Romney, Same Sex Marriage, and the Constitution

Last week President Obama thrust the issue of same sex marriage into the spotlight by coming out in support of same sex marriage. And, as cannot be disputed, the first law to recognize same sex marriage in the U.S. bears Mitt Romney’s signature. (As a libertarian I give both of them some credit for their positions, even though conservatives don’t.)

But what has me disturbed are the Constitutional arguments being bandied about now that this hot-button issue is back in the spotlight. Both Obama and Romney have come out and said it is a states’ rights issue. Last week, Romney said the following:

“I’m not running on marriage and marijuana, those are state issues, right? Aren’t they?” he said.

(I had to titter when it seemed like he was asking reporters for help with Constitutional interpretation, as well as the implication that federal marijuana laws are Unconstitutional!)

If marriage is a states’ rights issue, DOMA is Unconstitutional, and President Obama is justified in ordering the Justice Department to stop defending it!

But consider Romney’s campaign website:

As president, Mitt will not only appoint an Attorney General who will defend the Defense of Marriage Act—a bipartisan law passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton—but he will also champion a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

So is marriage a federal issue or a state issue, Mr. Romney? And if it’s a federal issue, could you please direct me to the relevant clause in Article I that authorizes Congress to interfere in an area that has long been held to be an exclusive area of state jurisdiction?

This is typical Constitutional flip-flopping from Romney, which shows he has no underlying Constitutional principles. You may disagree with presidential candidate Gary Johnson when he says that gun registration and marriage licensing restricted to heterosexual couples are both Unconstitutional, but you will never hear him waver on those positions because they are ingrained in his political being. Romney has no such Constitutional keel, and his flip-flopping on same sex marriage is another in a litany of examples.

Conclusion

Virtually every time Mitt Romney opens his mouth he becomes a more dangerous candidate in my estimation. Mind you that I have just presented a short list of reasons not to vote for him.

I anticipate that federal spending under Romney will be as high or higher than under Obama. We will go off the fiscal cliff with either.

And unless the Supreme Court strikes down the entire law, ObamaCare will be implemented on schedule, with perhaps a few tweaks, regardless of whether Romney or Obama is sworn in next January.

And, as any conservative or libertarian knows, the key to a restrained, responsible government is for it to operate inside the confines of the Constitution. As I have demonstrated, Romney is either clueless about the Constitution or plays it fast and loose (or both). As such, I expect him to be as much of a law breaker as Obama if elected, although Romney will violate a somewhat different subset of Constitutional provisions.

His oath will be to protect and defend the Constitution, although it’s clear he doesn’t know what that means. At least as a law professor Obama admitted that he interprets the grand old document in a contorted manner. With Romney I cannot discern any underlying Constitutional theory, and he seems to “wing it” without regard to the actual text.

If you view the lay of the land as I do, it is completely rational not to vote for Romney, the threats and cajoling of partisan Republicans notwithstanding. If you choose to pull the lever for him in November I will not call you irrational, a crybaby, or any of the other platitudes being slung about by Romney supporters. But, I think you will regret your decision.

Perhaps now you can understand that Governor Johnson is not kidding when he says that he would rather die than vote for Obama or Romney. He and many of his supporters like me agree that the country dies if either is elected.

When he told the story of his NPR interview to a group of supporters at the LP National Convention, I chimed in that I didn’t have his strength, and would have to vote for Obama if my life depended on voting for one of the two Big Party candidates.

When asked why, I said the answer was simple:

Obama can only get 4 more years.

To which another supporter replied:

Better the enemy you know than the enemy you don’t.

Touché.

This article is also published at The Country Thinker.

UPDATE

The Johnson campaign just released its first two video ads. The first sends a chill down my spine. I know many of you think it’s crazy to vote Libertarian this election cycle, but both of these state in pretty clear language why I think the opposite is true!

What’s that old saying? When the cat is away, the mice will play. That’s how I feel about the last couple of days. I had to deal with some technical issues with the blog and was unable to read a lot of news or the blogs I normally visit every day. My humble apologies for that. At any rate, what do I see when I start trying to catch up with the news? An announcement from Ron Paul that he will not be vying for votes in the states who have yet to hold their primaries in the GOP race. Wow, talk about a shock!

I actually think it’s funny, in a strange kind of way. For months, we have seen Ron Paul, at best, marginalized by the media. At it’s worst, it has been a complete ignoring of the man from Texas. At one point, he was doing well in the polls, but you couldn’t tell it from the media reports. Now that he has made his announcement, the media is all over it. Kind of odd that they would apply so much coverage to a man who they tried to ignore. I mean this not as sour grapes, but a simple statement of fact. Regardless of your feelings about the man, it can not be argued that the media treated him fairly.

If you care to visit the different websites that focus on Ron Paul, you will find no end of supporters who are upset about this decision. They wanted to see their candidate fight all the way to the convention in Tampa. They may disagree with me on this, but I’m not so sure that isn’t what he is still trying to do. At some point, decisions have to be made about the direction and future of a political campaign. Like it or not, those decisions may have to be based upon financial concerns. That is part of what I see happening here.

One other item of interest to consider is the email sent out by the Ron Paul campaign to his supporters and interested parties. I’ll quote part of it here, taken from The Daily Paul.

We will head to Tampa with a solid group of delegates. Several hundred will be bound to Dr. Paul, and several hundred more, although bound to Governor Romney or other candidates, will be Ron Paul supporters.

Unfortunately, barring something very unforeseen, our delegate total will not be strong enough to win the nomination. Governor Romney is now within 200 delegates of securing the party’s nod. However, our delegates can still make a major impact at the National Convention and beyond.

All delegates will be able to vote on party rules and allow us to shape the process for future liberty candidates.

We are in an excellent position to make sure the Republican Party adds solid liberty issues to the GOP Platform, which our delegates will be directly positioned to approve. Our campaign is presently working to get several items up for consideration, including monetary policy reform, prohibitions on indefinite detention, and Internet freedom.

Finally, by sending a large, respectful, and professional delegation to Tampa, we will show the party and the country that not only is our movement growing and here to stay, but that the future belongs to us.

The emphasis in this quote is mine and I added it for one reason. I believe it is telling of one of the reasons Ron Paul has made this decision. Here is another quote, this time from Politico, that explains this further.

But those close to the 76-year-old say he’s become worried about a series of chaotic state GOP conventions in recent weeks that threaten to undermine the long-term viability of the movement he’s spent decades building.

For those of you who have always though Ron Paul is just a cantankerous old codger who was borderline crazy, think again. All along, this has been about more than just winning the GOP nomination and possibly, the presidency. It has always been about a movement towards restoring our liberties and freedoms that have been taken away. I believe Ron Paul just proved that with this decision. In spite of how some of his supporters have acted, Ron Paul is more about restoring liberty than he is about winning the White House.

I mean no disrespect to anyone who has supported Ron Paul, or anyone who continues to do so, but reading the comments on the articles I have linked to gives me pause. I understand many people have put a lot of money, time, and effort into the Ron Paul campaign, but is this decision a good reason to question the candidates integrity? Just because he sees the writing on the wall and is acting accordingly, is that a reason to act like children?

Some supporters have went so far as to suggest Jesse Benton be fired. They have accused him of betraying the campaign and the movement by sending out the email in question. They despise the fact that he admitted Mitt Romney was a scant 200 delegates away from locking up the nomination. Many of them still refuse to accept the delegate count reported by the media.

Let me point out the obvious here. Do the supporters of Ron Paul really believe Benton would send out an email such as this, without the approval of his boss? Seriously, why would he do that? This has nothing to do with betrayal or backdoor deals. It does have something to do with Ron Paul desiring to move the campaign for liberty forward. Yes, he wants his supporters to gain control of the Republican Party, from the ground up, but causing trouble at state conventions isn’t helping that cause. If they haven’t fared so well at the state conventions, do his supporters really believe they will do better at the GOP National Convention in Tampa? Ron Paul doesn’t seem to think so and he is working to make sure he, and his supporters, have their proper place at the convention.

My suggestion to all supporters of Ron Paul is simple. Let’s sit back and see what he does. We may not see our man in the White House, or in the Vice-President slot, but we may be surprised at how well his strategy of influencing the GOP platform works.