Saturday, February 23, 2013

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

The United Oligarchy of America

Oligarchy (ol·i·gar·chy) - Small governing group: a small group of people who together govern a nation or control an organization, often for their own purposes. 

German sociologist Robert Michels*believed that any political system eventually evolves into an oligarchy. He called this the iron law of oligarchy. According to this school of thought, many modern democracies should be considered as oligarchies. In these systems, actual differences between viable political rivals are small, the oligarchic elite impose strict limits on what constitutes an acceptable and respectable political position, and politicians' careers depend heavily on unelected economic and media elites. Thus the popular phrase: there is only one political party, the incumbent party. 

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is where America is today. There’s not a dime’s bit of difference between the two parties in Washington. We either remove them or we say goodbye to America. 

I think we’re screwed since America said “yes” to the status quo in the last election. I challenge anyone to show me where I’m wrong. 

Gone fishin’…when I’m not desperately gathering as many tangible assets as I can afford to buy.

*Robert Michels (9 January 1876, Cologne, Germany – 3 May 1936, Rome, Italy) was a German sociologist who wrote on the political behavior of intellectual elites and contributed to elite theory. He is best known for his book Political Parties, published in 1911, which contains a description of the "iron law of oligarchy." He was a student of Max Weber, a friend and disciple of Werner Sombart and Achille Loria. Politically, he moved from the Social Democratic Party of Germany to the Italian Socialist Party, adhering to the Italian revolutionary syndicalist wing and later to Italian Fascism, which he saw as a more democratic form of socialism. His ideas provided the basis of moderation theory which delineates the processes through which radical political groups are incorporated into the existing political system.



Saturday, February 16, 2013

Guns: The Reality

Exposing Washington’s Dishonest Budget Math

December 5, 2012 by Dan Mitchell 

I’ve repeatedly tried to expose pervasive fiscal dishonesty in Washington.
In these John Stossel and Judge Napolitano interviews, for instance, I explain that the crooks in DC have created a system that allows them to claim they’re cutting the budget when the burden of government spending actually is rising.
This sleazy system is designed in part to deceive the American people, and the current squabbling over the fiscal cliff is a good example. The President claims he has a “balanced approach” that involves budget cuts, but look at the second chart at this link and you will see that he’s really proposing bigger government.
This dishonest approach also was used by the President’s Fiscal Commission and last year’s crummy debt limit deal was based on this form of fiscal prevarication.

WSJ Baseline Con

Here are some key excerpts from a Wall Street Journal editorial exposing this scam.
…President Obama and John Boehner are playing by the dysfunctional Beltway rules. The rules work if you like bigger government, but Republicans need a new strategy, which starts by exposing the rigged game of “baseline budgeting.” …numbers have no real meaning because they are conjured in the wilderness of mirrors that is the federal budget process. Since 1974, Capitol Hill’s “baseline” has automatically increased spending every year according to Congressional Budget Office projections, which means before anyone has submitted a budget or cast a single vote. Tax and spending changes are then measured off that inflated baseline, not in absolute terms. …Democrats designed this system to make it easier to defend annual spending increases and to portray any reduction in the baseline as a spending “cut.” Chris Wallace called Timothy Geithner on this “gimmick” on “Fox News Sunday” this week, only to have the Treasury Secretary insist it’s real. …in the current debate the GOP is putting itself at a major disadvantage by negotiating off the phony baseline. …If Republicans really want to slow the growth in spending, they need to stop playing by Beltway rules and start explaining to America why Mr. Obama keeps saying he’s cutting spending even as spending and deficits keep going up and up and up.
You probably won’t be surprised to learn that other nations rely on this crooked system, most notably the United Kingdom, which supposedly is imposing “savage” cuts even though government spending keeps rising (and they fooled Paul Krugman, though he seems to make a habit of misreading foreign fiscal and economic data).
But let’s return to the American fiscal situation. Republicans almost certainly will lose the battle over the fiscal cliff because they meekly are playing cards with a rigged deck controlled by the other side.
They should expose this scam by using nominal numbers and looking at year-over-year changes in both taxes and spending. I did that last year and showed how simple it is to balance the budget in a short period of time.
They key thing to understand is that (barring a recession) tax revenues rise every year. Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office projects that tax revenue will climb by an average of more than 6 percent annually over the next 10 years – even if the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are made permanent.
So all that’s really needed to bring red ink under control is a modest bit of spending restraint. This video is from 2010, but the analysis is still completely relevant today.

It’s amazing how good things happen when you follow the Golden Rule of fiscal policy.

Exposing the Absurdity of Washington’s Anti-sequester Hysteria

So why is the sequester so bad? Does it slash the budget by 50 percent? Does it shut down departments, programs, and agencies?

Sounds good to me. We need to reduce the burden of government spending, so some genuine budget cuts would be very desirable.

The pro-spending lobbies in Washington certainly are acting as if spending would be “cut to the bone.” As documented by my colleague Tad DeHaven, they’re claiming horrible things will happen.

So what’s the real story? Well, the Congressional Budget Office today released its annual Budget and Economic Outlook, and Tables 1-1 and 1-5 allow us to see the “brutal” impact of the sequester.
As you can see from this chart, the sequester will “cut” spending so much that the budget will grow by “only” $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years.

Sequester 2013

Rather anticlimactic, I admit. No widows dying in snowbanks. No blood flowing in the streets.
So you can let the women and children back in the room. It turns out that all the hyperbole and hysteria about the sequester is based on the dishonest Washington definition of a budget cut—i.e., when spending doesn’t rise as fast as projected in some artificial baseline.

Yes, some parts of the budget are disproportionately impacted, such as defense. But even the defense budget climbs over the 10-year period and the United States will still account for close to 50 percent of global military outlays when the dust settles.

The bottom line is that there’s no reason to worry about the sequester and there’s certainly no reason to go along with Obama’s plan to replace the sequester with a tax-heavy budget deal.

The Sheer Size of Government Must be Reduced

By Martin A. Armstrong, Feb. 2013

Marxism has led to massive growth of Government and thus most countries now employ between 40-50% of the civil work force reducing economic growth. Between 1900 and 1980, government grew by 50%. There has been no restraint whatsoever for government believes they can raise taxes as they desire and people must simply pay. They fail to grasp the idea that they are “public servants” and reduce economic growth – they do not contribute to the wealth of a nation. This is the huge adjustment that we now face. The collapse in government is inevitable, but it is creating internal tension between those who work FOR government and those who are burdened as economic slaves to earn income to pay for this huge herd of unproductive workers.
Economic Security as envisioned internationally must also be reviewed in light of Marxism that has changed the dynamics our entire economy. The sheer size of government MUST be reduced drastically to prevent civil unrest through unfair exploitation of the people, NOT by the “rich” but by government itself.

Sunday, February 10, 2013

Man, Sex, God, and Yale

By Nathan Harden
Editor, The College Fix

NATHAN HARDEN is editor of The College Fix, a higher education news website, and blogs about higher education for National Review Online. A 2009 graduate of Yale, he has written for numerous publications, including National Review, The Weekly Standard, The American Spectator, The New York Post, and The Washington Times. He was a 2011 Robert Novak Fellow at the Phillips Foundation, a 2010 Publius Fellow at the Claremont Institute, and is author of the recent book Sex and God at Yale: Porn, Political Correctness, and a Good Education Gone Bad.

The following is adapted from a speech delivered at Hillsdale College on September 20, 2012.

In 1951, William F. Buckley, Jr., a graduate of Yale the year before, published his first book, God & Man at Yale. In the preface, he described two ideas that he had brought with him to Yale and that governed his view of the world:
"I had always been taught, and experience had fortified the teachings, that an active faith in God and a rigid adherence to Christian principles are the most powerful influences toward the good life. I also believed, with only a scanty knowledge of economics, that free enterprise and limited government had served this country well and would probably continue to do so in the future."
The body of the book provided evidence that the academic agenda at Yale was openly antagonistic to those two ideas—that Buckley had encountered a teaching and a culture that were hostile to religious faith and that promoted collectivism over free market individualism. Rather than functioning as an open forum for ideas, his book argued, Yale was waging open war upon the faith and principles of its alumni and parents.
Liberal bias at American colleges and universities is something we hear a lot about today. At the time, however, Buckley’s exposé was something new, and it stirred national controversy. The university counterattacked, and Yale trustee Frank Ashburn lambasted Buckley and his book in the pages of Saturday Review magazine.
Whether God & Man at Yale had any effect on Yale’s curriculum is debatable, but its impact on American political history is indisputable. It argued for a connection between the cause of religious faith on the one hand, and the cause of free market economics on the other. In a passage whose precise wording was later acknowledged to have been the work of Buckley’s mentor Willmoore Kendall—a conservative political scientist who was driven out of Yale a few years later—Buckley wrote:
"I consider this battle of educational theory important and worth time and thought even in the context of a world situation that seems to render totally irrelevant any fight except the power struggle against Communism. I myself believe that the duel between Christianity and atheism is the most important in the world. I further believe that the struggle between individualism and collectivism is the same struggle reproduced on another level."
This idea, later promoted as “fusionism” in Buckley’s influential magazine National Review, would become the germ of the Reagan coalition that united social conservatives and free market libertarians—a once-winning coalition that has been lately unraveling.
I graduated from Yale in 2009, fifty-nine years after Buckley. I had a chance to meet him a couple of years before his death, at a small gathering at the home of a professor. Little did I know at the time that I would write a book of my own that would serve, in some ways, as a continuation of his famous critique.
My book—which I entitled Sex and God at Yale—shows that Yale’s liberals are still actively working to refashion American politics and culture. But the devil is in the details, and it’s safe to say that there are things happening at Yale today that Buckley could scarcely have even imagined in 1951. While the Yale of Buckley’s book marginalized or undermined religious faith in the classroom, my book tells of a classmate who was given approval to create an art object out of what she claimed was blood and tissue from self-induced abortions. And while the Yale of Buckley’s book was promoting socialist ideas in its economics department, my book chronicles Yale’s recent employment of a professor who publicly praised terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah.
My, how times have changed!
There is clearly a radical sexual agenda at work at Yale today. Professors and administrators who came of age during the sexual revolution are busily indoctrinating students into a culture of promiscuity. In fact, Yale pioneered the hosting of a campus “Sex Week”—a festival of sleaze, porn, and debauchery, dressed up as sex education. I encountered this tawdry tradition as an undergrad, and my book documents the events of Sex Week, including the screening in classrooms of hard-core pornography and the giving of permission to sex toy manufacturers and porn production companies to market their products to students.
In one classroom, a porn star stripped down to bare breasts, attached pinching and binding devices to herself as a lesson in sadomasochism, and led a student around the room in handcuffs. On other occasions, female students competed in a porn star look-alike contest judged by a male porn producer, and a porn film showing a woman bound and beaten was screened in the context of “instruction” on how students might engage in relationships of their own.
And again, these things happened with the full knowledge and approval of Yale’s senior administrators.
As might be expected, many Yale students were offended by Sex Week, but university officials defended it in the name of “academic freedom”—a sign of how far this noble idea, originally meant to protect the pursuit of truth, has fallen. And the fact that Yale as an institution no longer understands the substantive meaning of academic freedom—which requires the ability to distinguish art from pornography, not to mention right from wrong—is a sign of its enslavement to the ideology of moral relativism, which denies any objective truth (except, of course, for the truth that there is no truth).
Under the dictates of moral relativism, no view is any more valid than any other view, and no book is any greater or more worth reading than any other book. Thus the old idea of a liberal education—that each student would study the greatest books, books organized into a canon based on objective criteria that identify them as valuable—has given way to a hodgepodge of new disciplines—African-American Studies, Latino Studies, Native American Studies, Women’s Studies, Gay and Lesbian Studies—based on the assumption that there is no single way to describe the world that all serious and open-minded students can comprehend.
Indeed, Yale administrators have taken their allegiance to cultural relativism so far that they invited a sworn enemy of America to be a student, admitting Sayed Rahmatulla Hashemi—a former diplomat-at-large for the Taliban—in 2005. Talk about diversity!
Sitting for my final exam in International Relations, I found myself next to Hashemi, whose comrades were fighting and killing my fellow citizens in the mountains of Afghanistan at that very moment. The fact that the Taliban publicly executes homosexuals and infidels, and denies girls and women the right to go to school, gave no pause to the same Yale administrators who pride themselves on their commitment to gay rights, feminism, and academic freedom. In an interview, Hashemi boasted to the New York Times: “I could have ended up in Guantanamo Bay. Instead, I ended up at Yale.”
It’s hard to overlook the paradox:

 By enrolling Hashemi in the name of diversity, Yale abandoned the principle of human rights—the very principle that allows diverse individuals, including those of different faiths, to coexist peacefully.
It was my aim in writing Sex and God at Yale to bring accountability to Yale’s leaders in hopes of reform. Yale has educated three of the last four presidents, and two of the last three justices appointed to the Supreme Court. What kind of leaders will it be supplying in ten years, given its current direction?
Unfortunately, what’s happening at Yale is indicative of what is occurring at colleges and universities across the country. Sex Week, for example, is being replicated at Harvard, Brown, Duke, Northwestern, the University of Illinois, and the University of Wisconsin. Nor would it suffice to demand an end to Sex Weeks on America’s college campuses. Those events are, after all, only symptoms of a deeper emptiness in modern academia. Our universities have lost touch with the purpose of liberal arts education, the pursuit of truth. In abandoning that mission—indeed, by denying its possibility—our institutions of higher learning are afflicted to the core.
The political freedom that makes a liberal arts education possible requires an ongoing and active defense of liberty. Try exercising academic freedom in a place like Tehran or Kabul! Here in the U.S., we take our liberty far too much for granted. To the extent that Yale and schools like it succeed in producing leaders who subscribe to the ideology of moral relativism—and who thus see no moral distinction between America and its enemies—we will likely be disabused of this false sense of security all too soon.

Two Simple Questions

There are two simple questions that gun control advocates don’t want to answer… 
1. If you outlaw guns, will outlaws turn in their guns?
2. If you outlaw guns, will outlaws still be able tog et one if they really want one?

The answers are obvious, so all that gun restrictions do is create shooting galleries for outlaws. 

That is unacceptable. And, of course, every gun control advocate conveniently forgets that the reason for the 2nd Amendment is to protect the citizenry from a tyrannical government. 

Gee, let’s see…who was it that said recently that we need a civilian force as well armed as the military? Oh, that’s right…the same person who is proposing gun control legislation: Barack Obama.
Could that be his reason for proposing gun control legislation?
“A government that does not trust its law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is itself unworthy of trust.” —  James Madison

We Lied...

What difference does it make?
Oh, I don't about to punish the guilty and deter such behavior in the future.

The History of Television News

Liberals are so uninformed about the evolution of television news in America that it borders on hysteria. Here's the actual history of television news in America... 

- For forty long years, all Americans got their news from one of three networks (ABC, NBC, CBS). All of them leaned Left but viewed themselves as Centrist. Nothing could be further from the truth. 

- Then along came cable and CNN. They leaned heavily Left but viewed themselves as leaning Left. Nothing could be further from the truth. 

- Then along came Fox News and millions of Conservative Americans began getting their news from them because they leaned Right.  

- The major networks threw a hissy fit and, because they viewed themselves as Centrist in their delivery of the news, they labeled Fox News as far Right in their news delivery. Nothing could be further from the truth. Fox News was merely to the Right of the major networks, who leaned Left. 

- Then along came MSNBC, who leans heavily Left, but views themselves as "Progressive". They, too joined the "Fox News is a far Right news organization" chorus. Nothing could be further from the truth. 

The truth is that historically Americans have received Left-leaning news from organizations who view themselves as Centrist, and Fox News merely balanced the scales and gave millions of Conservative-leaning Americans the news from THEIR perspective.  

But people who view themselves as Centrist and "always right" don't even realize that they lean heavily Left, which is why they attack Fox News as "far Right". 

Leftists are dead wrong about Fox News, but in their howls they remind us that they are always certain but never right.

Thursday, February 7, 2013


        Print E-mail
Written by Robert Agostinelli   
Wednesday, 06 February 2013

After Mr. Obama delivered his second inaugural address week before last, it has been dawning on people that his political strategy is that of the Thunderdome in Mel Gibson's Mad Max 3 movie:  "Two men enter, one man leaves."  He is totally win/lose, the total antithesis of win/win.

From Mau-Mau tautology mixed with Marxist ideals inbred from his absent father and a mother enriched in the heresies of the deep left Communism of Frank Marshall Davis, this man has unfurled his true colors.

Unbridled by the need to appear moderate for his next campaign, "the One" has declared war on anything or anyone who would stand in the way of his Progressive radical agenda.

Yes, Saul Alinsky's hand can be seen everywhere along with Chicago thuggery, but there is much more.

The guardian angel of the Progressive school as pronounced by Alinsky is Lucifer - "Rulesfor Radicals" is
dedicated to him -- the first pure rebel from God and his natural laws which abuts our Judeo-Christian ethic and are the predicate to our most sacred documents of individual freedom.

It is here that Mr. Obama has taken league and sword to all that would "stand athwart history" and challenge the warped manifest destiny of his twisted manifesto that has driven every socialist tyrant who has ever challenged freedom.

In this school, intolerance is mandatory for it is the front line of the zeal of rearranged utopia. It is unquestioned, for to do so would expose the fault lines and inherent lie for what it is.

Political Correctness is the pincers head of this intolerance. It shreds our values, questions our origins and speaks of a modernity which is a mere veil for the crooked, indeed evil, root of the radical.

Obama bears witness to this blasphemy --  from the infamous 2010 State of the Union address where he challenged the Supremes with lie and insult, to the latest excuse for an inauguration speech where he inverted our history deeming the Progressive dream of centralization and role of the government to be the parent and protector of the individual.

Under this thesis the individual rather than free is only "liberated" when he is duly tamed, corrected and led by a higher elite all-knowing body.

Hence the difficulty with God, the Constitution, and of course "those Republicans" who are errant pretenders from the wing span of the new order.

Having been raised to respect the opposition and loath to attribute the most extreme intent of the Obamanistas, Republicans sought to seek common ground and "work " with the Executive  They ignored the evidence and rationalized it as a mere product of a left-leaning exaggeration that could be corrected.

They were negotiating with themselves.

From an intentional defrocking of our nation through a foreign policy of surrender and embracing of our enemies to a domestic policy bent on reordering the relationship of the individual and "our" government, we have been bystanders to a game of which no one wanted to dare affirm its existence.

In his first inauguration speech four years ago, he spoke of "reconciliation" with regard to spending and taxes only, outmaneuvering the gullible minority to extract high tax increases while increasing spending.

Within a breath of that victory, he willed that we had no spending or debt problem but a healthcare problem when every fact contradicts the insanity of Obamacare.

He now twists the concepts of legislative spending with our national debt as if both are undeniable and insulated from reproach. It is a lie. Our national debt service will be paid even if the debt ceiling is held. 

The Republicans have one and only one way forward; a fight based on principles and a denial of every crude attempt to usurp our freedom and bankrupt our house.

The clarion call is now. We are out of tomorrows.

Robert F. Agostinelli is co-founder of  The Rhone Group, a private equity firm based in Paris, London, and New York. He is listed among "The World's Billionaires" by Forbes.

Wednesday, February 6, 2013

How Can It Be??

Heaviest Snowfall in a Century Hits Moscow

05 February 2013 | Issue 5062

The science is settled. LOL!

That’s right, this is what the global warming alarmist do in the reverse anytime there is any weather related event which supports their contention that the globe is warming. They point to the weather event that supports their contention and cry “Global Warming!” Here’s what I say to those know-it-all geniuses: Prove it! All they ever say is “the science is settled”, but they never talk about the science. For my money, it’s time they prove their contention because if these Chicken Little lunatics get their way, the cost of living will go through the roof for everyone on this spinning planet. And for what? Absolutely nothing.

 The science is NOT settled.

Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Why is government stockpiling guns, ammo?

By Joseph Farrah

Is the U.S. government getting ready for a war we don’t know about?

And, if that’s why Washington is stockpiling massive amounts of ammunition (hollow points, by the way), why is Homeland Security doing the buying instead of the Defense Department?
I have some theories.

Many of you will remember a story I broke a long time ago – about presidential candidate Barack Obama’s little-noticed announcement that, if elected in 2008, he wanted to create a “civilian national security force” as big, as strong and as well-funded as the Defense Department.

Here’s what he actually said at a campaign stop in Colorado July 2, 2008: “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

Click here to see video of Obama's comments

Could what we see happening now in the Department of Homeland Security be the beginning of Obama’s dream and our constitutional nightmare?
We’ve learned more about Obama’s vision since then. Maybe it’s time for a review:
  • He made the campaign promise to build this $439 billion domestic army, but all references to the initiative were inexplicably deleted from the copy of his speech posted on his website while others mysteriously disappeared from transcripts of the speech distributed by the campaign. That was strange – and ominous.
  • At the time, I had never heard anyone use the phrase “civilian national security force” before. But I did a little homework and found out where it originated. It was first proposed by then Bush administration Defense Secretary Robert Gates. On that basis alone, I accurately predicted that, if elected, Obama would name Gates as his own defense secretary. Needless to say, when that appointment came to pass, no media outlet bothered to interview me about my foresight.
  • Still during the campaign of 2008, I suggested that what Obama had in mind might be something very sinister indeed – perhaps “some kind of domestic Big Brother program.”
We never heard another mention of Obama’s “civilian national security force” again. Not in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 or 2012.

But that brings us up to 2013 and the highly unusual stockpiling of firearms and ammo by Homeland Security – firearms and ammo that Obama would like to deny to ordinary citizens who are not members of his domestic army.

Well, I hate to say it, but I may have predicted this, too.

In a Halloween column last fall, I stated that, if re-elected, Obama would “declare a full-scale war on his domestic opposition.”

I wasn’t joking. I was deadly serious – so serious, in fact, that I did something I pledged I would never do: Vote for Mitt Romney. It was a matter of self-defense and self-preservation. I said then that a second term of Obama might mean we would never see another free and fair election in America.

(I’m not even sure we saw one in 2012.) I suggested due process would go the way of the horse and buggy. I said I expected Obama would move to shut down or destroy all independent media. I even speculated that his biggest critics would eventually be rounded up in the name of national security.

Think about it.

Why does the civilian Department of Homeland Security need billions of rounds of ammunition?

This is the agency that is responsible for policing the border. But it doesn’t.

This is the agency that is responsible for catching terrorists. But it doesn’t.

So why does Homeland Security need so many weapons and enough hollow-point rounds to plug every American six times?

Maybe this is the “civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the Defense Department.

These words – “civilian national security force” – have haunted me ever since I first read them.

Obama has never explained what he meant.

He’s never been called to account for that remark.

Doesn’t this sound like police-state talk to you?

The U.S. Army alone has nearly 500,000 troops. That doesn’t count reserves or National Guard. In 2007, the U.S. defense budget was $439 billion. No one knows what the budget is today because Congress stopped passing budgets when Obama took office.

Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? Is this part of his second-term agenda?

He has also set up, as I have reported, a new homeland security bureaucracy to operate under his own direction.

I think it’s worth recalling here that just over a year ago both houses of Congress unwisely passed the defense reauthorization bill that killed the concept of habeas corpus – legislation that authorized the president to use the U.S. military to arrest and indefinitely detain American citizens without charge or trial.

That legislation would empower a lame-duck Obama to use all of the power of the federal government – constitutional and unconstitutional – to target his political enemies.

If any Republican, conservative, independent journalist, pro-life activist, returning veteran, gun-rights activist, constitutionalist, Bible believer or critic of Obama thinks they will be safe in a second term under this would-be despot, they had better think again – real fast.

The “civilian national security force” is not here to protect any of them. It’s here to destroy the opposition. It’s here to destroy liberty. It’s here to destroy the Constitution.

Sunday, February 3, 2013

The New "American Way"

Recently, our good friend Michael (a local realtor) shared his experience with an Obama supporter he encountered while showing homes to a low income, working family in Pontiac, Michigan. We asked him to write it down so we could share it with you. Here’s his story…
“I thought I'd seen or heard it all. I was showing homes in Pontiac , MI.  one afternoon recently and  showed up at a home at the 4:00 pm time my  appointment was scheduled for. After I woke up the homeowner, she let us in  and then proceeded to tell my buyers and I that she has already entered into a contract to sell the home on a short-sale. (A short-sale is a sale where the banks accepts less money than is owed on the home).
After some chit-chat, she  proceeded to tell us that she and her sister (who also lived in the area) were  buying each other's homes via the short-sale process. I mentioned to her that  I thought relatives could not be involved in those transactions. She smiled  and said "We have two different last names so no one knows the  difference".

She went on to tell us that each  of them owed over 100K on their homes and were in the process of buying each  other's homes for about $10-15K cash. To top it off, they were each receiving  $3,000.00 in government provided  relocation assistance at the closing.

My buyers and I were amazed that she was outright admitting to fraud and yet, she continued. She began to tell us that the best part of their scheme was that because they currently were not working that they (both) are now receiving Section 8 Vouchers.

I said I thought those were for  renters and she said "That's the best part; me and my sister are going to be  renting each other's homes so we don't even have to move, and Obama is going  to give us each $800.00 a month to pay the rent!" She then picked up a picture she had framed of Obama and did a little happy dance around her living room  and while she kissed the picture she was singing "Thank you Obama.... thank  you Obama."
So here is the bottom line. Both of these scammers got at least $80,000.00 in debt forgiven, $3,000.00 in cash for relocation (when in  fact they did not relocate) and to boot, you and I will now be paying (through our taxes) $1,600.00 in rent for each them each and every month....perhaps forever!

Is it any wonder why so many people have decided that all  they have to do is VOTE for the Democrats and they will be taken care of for life at the expense of the taxpayers? I would not be at all surprised if they  are receiving food stamps and whatever other programs are available for anyone who is willing to lie to get assistance.

These women went from working and paying about $900.00 each in mortgage payments to staying home and getting  paid $800.00 each per month to live in the same home they had been living in and all they had to do was lie on a few papers.

This craziness has to stop! I'm sure  this kind of fraud is going on each and every day all across the country and  no one wants to touch the subject of entitlements because they might OFFEND  someone or lose a vote or two.

By the way...she had an almost new SUV  in the driveway, three flat screen TV's and a very nice computer set up in her  living room which was furnished entirely with nice leather furniture.


For all of  the "do-gooder's" who voted for Obama to help the "less fortunate" .... CHEERS  ..... they are now the "most fortunate!"  


Friday, February 1, 2013

The Real Gun Problem

So, let's see...based on these maps, wherever there's a Democrat voting majority there are more restrictions on gun ownership which apparently encourages criminals to break out their guns and start shooting. And wherever there's a Republican majority there are fewer restrictions on gun ownership which apparently discourages criminals from brandishing their weaponry for fear of getting shot by a gun-toting, law-abiding citizen.
I guess you could therefore conclude that gun free zones are nothing more than shooting galleries and the law-abiding citizens are the ducks.