Jack's Double-D strategy - Defund and Disobey - requires positive actions to make it a reality. Here is one simple, safe, costless, and effective step that you can personally take every day: Pay cash for all small business transactions. This empowers the recipient to decide for himself whether the Federalies deserve any part of that cash income. This is a zero-cost zero-risk strategy for the payor. When you pay cash to a small business, you empower them to decide for themselves whether to fund the cancer that is devouring America. This won't work when you purchase from a big business or a chain; if you purchase a case of paper at Staples, their income will be reported whether you pay by credit card, debit card, check, or cash. The situation is entirely different when you are dealing with a small business. When you purchase a dinner at an independent small business restaurant, pay cash, both for the tip and for the meal. If you pay via plastic or check, there will be a paper trail that will require the wise owner to report the income. If you pay cash, you empower the owner (and the waitress) to defund and disobey.

The long-term outlook for the stock market is not good, and here is why. For the past 100 years, there has been an inverse relationship between changes in the size of government and the growth or decline in the stock market.  The accompanying chart clearly shows the inverse relationship between the direction of the size of government and stock market performance. The Stock Market and Government Spending Time Period Change in Government Spending as Percentage Share of GDP Stock Market Percentage Change in Real Dollars 1910-1919 +21.6 points -53% 1919-1929 -20.5 points +206% 1929-1945 +44.2 points -48% 1945-1953 -26.8 points +30% 1953-1965 -4.6 points +180% 1965-1982 +6.5 points -55% 1982-2000 -4.6 points +579% 2000-2009 +9.7 points -66%

It evidently didn't matter to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab that Barack Hussein Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, is trying to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, and has sucked up shamelessly to the Islamist regime in Iran. Mr. Abdulmutallab, 23, is the Nigerian who on Christmas Day boarded Northwest Air Lines flight 253 with a sophisticated bomb built into his underwear.  That Mr. Abdulmutallab wound up doing more harm to liberal shibboleths than to the 278 passengers is due to a faulty detonator, and prompt heroic action by Dutch tourist Jasper Schuringa rather than to any action taken by the U.S. government. But that didn't prevent Janet Napolitano, the comically inept secretary of Homeland Security, from responding to the incident by imposing new restrictions on travelers.  Had they been in effect at the time, these restrictions would have done nothing to frustrate Mr. Abdulmutallab's plans, but could have subjected Mr. Schuringa, who did frustrate Mr. Abdulmutallab's plans, to criminal prosecution. The reason for such perversity is that we have a government far more concerned with not hurting the feelings of Moslems that with protecting Americans from Moslem Terrorism.

"I didn't run for office to help out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street," Mr. Obama said on CBS' Sixty Minutes last Sunday (12/13).  But actions speak louder than words.  On Tuesday (12/15), the Obama administration "quietly agreed to forgo billions of dollars in potential tax payments from Citigroup as part of the deal announced this week to wean the company from the massive taxpayer bailout that helped it survive the financial crisis," the Washington Post reported. Thanks to the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), the big banks made substantial profits in the year since the meltdown.  The banks did this not by loaning money to private businesses, but by investing what were essentially interest free loans mostly in government bonds. The banks are "taking free money from the government (taxpayers) and lending it back to the government (taxpayers) at a phenomenal markup of three full percentage points," said Henry Blodget of the Business Insider.  "And they're taking almost no risk, to boot!"  Despite his denials, Mr. Obama is deep in bed with his fat cat cronies on Wall Street.

Assume you are a scientist and have been given a major financial grant to prove that the mythical unicorn really did exist. You know that as long as you can demonstrate some progress in showing the unicorn might have existed, your financial grant will be renewed each year, provided some other scientist does not come out with substantial evidence that the unicorn could not have existed. Under such conditions, you would have a very strong incentive to disregard much of the evidence that the unicorn could not have existed and each year provide only the data that could demonstrate that the unicorn might have existed. You also would have a very strong incentive to attack any scientist who raised serious questions or provided evidence that the unicorn could not have existed. You even might go so far as to refer to them with the disparaging term "unicorn deniers."