Did you know that President Obama is responsible for the loss of more U.S. jobs than any other person?

Did you know that Sen. John F. Kerry and his wife are three to four times as rich as Mitt and Ann Romney, according to the New York Times, yet paid a lower tax rate than the Romneys in 2003, the year before Mr. Kerry ran for president?

Do you know how to lower your tax rate? Do you know how abysmally ignorant and hyprocritical Democrats are on tax regulations?  Read on.

John Kerry’s 1971 screed against America, The New Soldier, written when he was the leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War and testifying in Congress that his “band of brothers” (as he calls them now) were war criminals, is available in its entirety online at http://johnkerrythenewsoldier.blogspot.com/.

You can download and read the whole book for free. Also free are three chapters of John O’Niells bestseller, Unfit for Command. If you know anyone wavering on Kerry, send them the link.

New evidence coming to light in the British National Archives and the Bodleian Library at Oxford University may soon change our entire view of the Anglo-American slave trade, and the roots of institutional plantation slavery in the Americas.

With luck it will help to vindicate the fathers of "classical liberal" government and the free market in the 17th and 18th centuries, falsely accused until now of abetting - or promoting - the great crime of race-based African slavery.

For academic orthodoxy holds that John Locke (1632-1704) and the great Whig thinkers of the Glorious Revolution of 1688 helped to design and foster the economic system of hereditary slavery that shaped Atlantic capitalism for a century and a half.

From that it is but a step to dismiss the moral claims of classical liberalism as so much humbug, to write off all the talk of justice, natural rights, inviolable contracts and government by consent as the self-interested catechism of oppressors. As Samuel Johnson said acidly: "How is it we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?"

Except that this established version of events is not true. It is a near complete inversion of what happened, and this matters in all kinds of ways since the debate over slavery refuses to subside.

Should we start with Headline of the Year?  "Hillary ‘I dodged sniper fire' Clinton Near Death after Supersecret Crash Landing in Iran," brought to you by the überwackos at Lyndon Larouche's EU Times nutball website.

It's astonishing that Drudge would carry this drivel as if it were a real news story.  The EU Times is an Internet hoax site that dreams up the most goofball conspiracy theories out of thin air for the fun of it or to gain attention to their pathetically fragile egos.  They are maxed-out looney tunes.

So welcome to 2013.  The craziness this year has in store for us has only just begun.  Yet the real craziness - lethally dangerous craziness - comes not from Internet weirdos but from Washington DC.  So lethal that the HFR is now a staunch advocate of gun-control.

Do you have any idea how many federal departments and agencies have agents that carry guns?  Even the Post Office has these armed fascist thugs called OIG (Office of the Inspector General) Special Agents breaking and entering people's homes tracking down "mail fraud" - which could be any email you've ever sent.

Gun control for federal agents is what's needed, not gun control for law-abiding citizens.  The literally crazy problem is, there's no such thing as a law-abiding citizen anymore. The purpose of 98% of the Federal Register is for there to be some law or rule the Federalies can criminalize you with if they want.  We're all criminals now, which is by Washington's design.

Two centuries ago, it was common practice for the doctors to bleed a patient in the belief that it would get rid of the "vapors" that were thought to be causing the illness. As a result, most patients got worse and many died. Much of the world is now suffering from equally incompetent politicos playing economic doctors.

Most of the major democratic countries are headed for a fiscal cliff because they have been increasing government spending at a rate far higher than economic growth for the past several years.

Politicians tend to like bigger government because it gives them more power -- so they have a natural inclination to try to increase taxes rather than cut spending.

As poster children for bad economic policy and for bad tax proposals, I have selected three rich jurisdictions. Despite the vast difference in size of these political entities, the three are exhibiting the same disease -- undisciplined spending. Each of their leaders is prescribing the very same lethal medicine -- tax increases on the most productive and on their capital.

The term “killer ap” is geek-speak for a computer application that blows the doors off any competition. By letting anyone or any company write software programs for Windows rather than keep Windows proprietary to Microsoft, Bill Gates made his product the killer ap that left Apple light years behind. Excel did the same thing for spreadsheet applications.

So when Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform, whispers in Karl Rove’s and George Bush’s ears this week at the convention, let’s hope they recognize a political killer ap when they hear one.

Happy New Year! 

As 2012 staggers off today's stage and into history as the most bewildering year of modern times, and 2013 will be fascism on steroids for America, how is it possible for conservatives to wish their friends a happy new year?

It's not going to be easy, but this final HFR of 2012 will show you how.

The first step in solving problems is not to sugarcoat the problems.  We can play the Glad Game of Pollyanna Whittier, and look for something to be happy about in any situation - but that runs the risk of ending up like the guys in Monty Python's Life Of Brian singing, "Always look on the bright side of life" while being crucified.

It's little wonder there's a headline story this week (12/26), Public Turns Gloomy, Fearful As 2013 Approaches.  That part of "the public" who were idiots enough to vote for Zero will stay gloomy and fearful, as they won't own up to their responsibility of being the cause of what they are gloomy and fearful about.

But we don't have to be gloomy and fearful, and that gives us a distinct advantage over those who are.  Being gloomy and fearful doesn't solve anything.  Most often, it makes things far worse.  The last thing we should fall for is fear-mongering - and be especially wary of it when it comes from our side. 

Take, for example, this article from yesterday's Canada Free Press, December 27, 2012: The Day Freedom Died in America.  This is seriously dumb.  Because some ditzy Dem senator says she's going to drop a bill that has no chance of going anywhere in either the Senate or the House, it's The End?  Nonsense.

DiFi's bill will be strangled in its crib by Red State Dems like Joe Manchin (WV).  It'll never reach the House.  It's an act of grandstanding desperation, made clear by Kurt Schlichter (12/26) in Liberals Panic As They Lose The Gun Narrative.

Additional evidence is the enormous backlash against the Brit anti-gun nut Piers Morgan, and the Journal News in White Plains NY that published the names and location (with Google Maps) of 44,000 gun owners in its area.

Those backlashes are harbingers of 2013.  They are the opportunity 2013 gives us to have a happy new year.  2013 is going to be The Year of the Backlash.

Do you admire what the Olympic athletes have been able to accomplish, and do you think they should be applauded for their outstanding performances?

The good side of humanity is revealed when we praise and reward such people. The bad side of humanity is shown by those who wish to punish success.

Socialists of all stripes, whether they be politicians, tenured professors, unthinking students, bureaucrats in government (including those enjoying tax-free salaries at international organizations, such as the United Nations and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) have a common refrain that they want equality of outcomes in the name of "fairness" (but not for themselves, of course).

In the name of fairness, should we not allow anyone more than 6 feet tall to play basketball? Should we have given medals to all of the Olympic athletes so none of them would feel bad because they did not get medals? After all, they tried. If we did reward them equally, what affect do you think it would have on the future level of performance?