To our president, it means that 1% should carry 40% of the income tax burden while 40% pay nothing. He insists it is common sense that the successful among us pay more.

His position, if adopted by the NFL would mean that the New England Patriots would only be allowed three downs to advance the ball ten yards because they are so more successful than other teams at making first downs, while their opponents should be given five downs to make sure both teams are fairly treated.

On the issue of fairness, it is interesting that while castigating Romney for not paying his fair share to the government, the President only gave 1% of his income to charity, the VP only $369, but greedy Romney gave 10%, over $2.1 M to charity in 2010.

Of course, you understand that people truly paying their fair share to the government wouldn’t have anything left to give to charities.

Currently, the president is polling under 50% against any Republican challenger including the infamous “generic” Republican. Ordinarily that would mean an incumbent president is in trouble. Add to that concerns over the national debt and a stubbornly high unemployment rate and all but the most diehard partisans predict his defeat in November.

But, there is a strange cloud on the horizon. If the Supreme Court as most observers predict, throws out Obamacare as unconstitutional, removing a significant cost concern inhibiting hiring, and as a result, the business community begins creating jobs at a brisk pace from August through October, Obama’s chances of reelection brighten considerably.

What a conundrum for small government conservatives. We must cheer for the defeat of Obamacare and a brisk economic recovery, but how ironic that overturning Obama’s most important first term legislative accomplishment could lead to his reelection?

It is certainly possible that the defeat of Obama’s most significant success could be the springboard to his second term.

Thousands annually gather in DC on Jan 23rd to mourn the holocaust unleashed when the Supreme Court decided unborn children were not protected by the constitution. Since the decision in 1973, nearly 60 million babies have been killed. To put that number in perspective, we’ve killed more innocent humans than Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and the Rwandan genocide combined!

President Obama celebrated Roe vs. Wade saying the anniversary offered a chance to recognize our efforts to ensure our daughters have the same rights, freedoms and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.”

Celebration is what is expected from a man who voted in the Illinois Senate to deny medical care to infants who accidentally survived their mothers’ attempt to kill them.

We should be proud as a nation, our abortion laws are gender neutral. Abortion in America destroys the dreams of baby girls and baby boys at equally alarming rates.

Gingrich’s use of Juan Williams’ first name in answering a question in a recent debate was cited as a racist putdown, although Newt has consistently responded to all the moderators by their first name.

When Romney personally paid the power bill for a poor black lady at one of his rallies, it was racial stereotyping, but if he had refused her plea, he’d have been called heartless and if she had been a jobless veteran he would have been applauded.

An app that lets your phone route you around high crime areas has been called racist because most of the high crime areas are in our inner cities. You’re obviously racist if you want to avoid driving your family through high risk areas of DC!

Encouraging the development of a work ethic in early adolescence is racist code for lazy black teens.

If these represent the current standard, we have no hope of any reasoned debate.

If you missed it, you weren’t alone. He had the smallest listening audience of his presidency; his ratings were comparable to President Bush’s ratings. Even if you missed it, you’ve heard plenty of commentaries on it from both the left—they loved it, and the right—they hated it.

Some final thoughts on what might have been a couple of inconsistencies in his proposals:

• He is going to help small businesses by doubling the cost on any return on their investors’ capitol gains. He may be onto something there, a tax policy certain to loosen up investment money and should really help bring all that offshore money pouring back into the country.
• He vowed we would not return to the days of reckless lending practices that led to unaffordable debt and collapsed the housing market. I guess he means we can’t keep asking China to underwrite our reckless national debt.

But, any focus on such inconsistencies surely must be racially motivated.

There’s been a lot of rhetoric lately about how venture capitalists raid companies, extract their profit, then leave them bankrupt and their employees without jobs.

History confirms that unscrupulous practices have been documented, but what human endeavor is free of corruption…except the government, of course?

Venture capitalism is the life blood of a free market. People risk their capital to invest in startup companies or ones with potential that are struggling. In the private sector most of the investors and the companies flourish, but some fail costing investors and workers alike.

But, do you think government is better than the free markets?

Before you answer, consider the auto industry takeover engineered by Obama: how many thousands lost their jobs in that sweet deal for the unions?

Or, how about Solyndra? The government lost ½ billion taxpayer dollars on that venture, and there are plenty more Solyndra stories coming.

Venture capitalists pursue profit, the government payback to cronies. Which is the better model?

The case involved a teacher at a Christian school. After taking significant medical leave to deal with a physical issue, when the teacher returned to the school, she was not rehired.

She sued the school for depriving her of her civil right to her job. She wanted not only her job back, but was asking for significant damages as well. Surprisingly, two lower courts upheld her claim to reinstatement and damages.

The Supreme Court overturned the lower courts saying that the First Amendment protection of religious freedom meant that religious organizations had an incontrovertible right to hire whoever they deemed best equipped to advance their religious beliefs without state intervention.

By a nearly unheard of 9-0 vote, the courts affirmed the right of faith based organizations to hire and fire whoever they choose based on the institution’s religious beliefs without fear of legal ramifications.

Your first inclination is to endorse the term. After all, who’s against justice. Before you embrace the concept, you should know that social justice is a centerpiece in the theology of victim hood, seeking to promote equal outcomes rather than equal opportunity and seeking to get even rather than to get ahead.

When our founders stated, “All men are created equal”, their intent was that government treat no individual better than any other, that all citizens must be treated equally under the law. The government was not empowered to take from some and give to others.

They understood that would mean a disparity of outcomes—some will excel by God given talent, some by a strong work ethic, and some by the chance of birth—but it was the intent of the founders to design a government to ensure equal opportunity for all, an unheard of concept, and thus began a great human experiment in freedom.

Social justice is a cancer to free markets and productive people.

Word is he’s about to make another such appointment. Jack Lew, current head of the Office of Management and Budget is being move to White House Chief of Staff.

Heather Higginbottom appears to be the president’s choice to follow Lew at OMB.

She was a keynote speaker at the Boston Democratic Socialist Party of America who has stated, “Our goal is to abolish private ownership as a means of production.” Translated, that means their desire is to have all means of production in America under the direct control of the government.

I don’t know Higginbottom’s position on the government takeover of all means of production in the country, as Hugo Chavez has in Venezuela, but I doubt she was invited to be a rebuttal speaker to their avowed goals.

Congress might want to hear her views before confirming her to such an influential post.

The report card is in on the work the Congress accomplished this past year, and it is really good news. Congress passed fewer bills in 2011 than in any year since the 1940’s. I say that is good news because if Congress isn’t passing new laws, then our freedoms are not in jeopardy. When Congress is really busy sticking their collective noses into our private lives, then our liberty is at risk.

So, what’s the bad news? The Washington bureaucrats have been busier than ever writing new regulations to make our lives more difficult (and more expensive).

During the Obama administration, DC bureaus and agencies have written more than 150 new regulations annually costing Americans more than $150 billion dollars each year—that is three times the average of the Clinton and Bush years.

With this administration, is it any wonder a large majority of Americans believe the greatest threat to our freedom is our federal government.