Saturday, February 23, 2013
The fix is in and has been for a long time but nobody cares...
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Saturday, February 16, 2013
December 5, 2012 by Dan Mitchell
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, February 10, 2013
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.
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.
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.
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
Thursday, February 7, 2013
|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
Heaviest Snowfall in a Century Hits Moscow
The science is settled. LOL!
The science is NOT settled.
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
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.”
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
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."
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.
IT'S THE NEW 'AMERICAN WAY'.....
For all of the "do-gooder's" who voted for Obama to help the "less fortunate" .... CHEERS ..... they are now the "most fortunate!"