The Daily Planet

IMPACT OF 70 MILLION ADDED LEGAL IMMIGRANTS IN 24 YEARS

2011-06-27T08:43:00.003-05:00

By Frosty Wooldridge
June 27, 2011
NewsWithViews.com

Last week, I spoke at a Tea Party gathering in Cheyenne, Wyoming at the invitation of popular radio talk show host Dave Chaffin at KGAB 650 AM. Every Monday at 7:00 a.m., we discuss the accelerating consequences of the legal and illegal immigration invasion of America.

On Saturday, I spoke on the RePatriot Radio station WNJC 1360 AM, (archived) with Rita Bonilla and Alice Navoa both Hispanic-Americans from California and Arizona that see the face and language of American changing toward Spanish dominance. They also see the welfare rolls swelling, schools failing, hospitals overwhelmed and prison populations exploding.

When I began reciting the numbers to them, they gasped at the speed of America’s language, ethnic makeup and culture radically and forever being devolved into a third world country like Mexico.

Anyone can see it in the devolvement of our schools via academic dumbing down of curriculums. Parents can see it in the utter chaos of multi-lingual classrooms where no learning is taking place. Anyone can see it in the dropout/flunkout rates as high as 76 percent in immigrant-laden cities like Detroit, Michigan. Anyone can see it in the shoplifting of $35 million daily from our stores across America by the poor. We can see it in the illiteracy rates now at 42 million Americans who cannot read, write or perform simple mathematical equations. Crime rates reflect it with 2.3 million prisoners. We can see it in the inability of our Congress to pass anything meaningful to resurrect this economy but instead—continue costly and immoral wars, deficits, trade imbalances, scandals and joblessness, 13.4 million American children living in poverty and unemployment of 15 million Americans.

Just like Congress along with the past five presidents, the legal immigration invasion continues without a whisper.

According to the Pew Center, Fogel/Martin Study and U.S. Census Bureau, the United States, at the current immigration rate, will add 70 million legal immigrants by 2035. By 2050, that number will approach 100 million legal immigrants from third world countries with third world cultures—cultures of poverty. Your guess for illegal immigrants will be about 800,000 to 1.1 million annually—so that number will be horrific as we allow a sub-class to develop within our country.

While I have seen what is coming from my world travels and I have written thousands of columns in the past 35 years as to our impending overload—no national leader will raise a finger, speak a word, stand up or speak out. I’m dumbfounded at how inept, apathetic and ignorant our Congress and president remain to think we will survive this Human Katrina invading our civilization.

I can’t beg enough people to see Roy Beck’s simple five and 10 minute videos of what our kids face:

In a five minute astoundingly simple yet brilliant video, “Immigration, Poverty, and Gum Balls”, Roy Beck, director of www.numbersusa.org, graphically illustrates the impact of overpopulation. Take five minutes to see for yourself.

“Immigration by the numbers—off the chart” by Roy Beck

This 10 minute demonstration shows Americans the results of unending mass immigration on the quality of life and sustainability for future generations: in a word “Mind boggling!”

On David Muir on ABC News Sunday night, he said the face of the nation will be permanently changed from white to a non-white “majority-minority” within 39 years.

As I sat there, he never mentioned a single point about the consequences of adding 138 million people to this country with our environmental, water, resource and energy predicaments ALREADY beyond solving in 2011. It won’t matter whether we are a black, white or brown nation if we can’t water, feed and warm ourselves. I am beginning to comprehend that the media and our elites live in denial or are just plain stupid or refuse to educate our citizens for some arcane reason. CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS, Charlie Rose, Bill Moyers, Bill O’Reilly, David Gregory, Bob Shieffer, Matt Lauer, Scott Pelley, Diane Sawyer and Brian Williams are either brain dead as to what we face—or they celebrate the disintegration of our civilization. I’ve written every one of them a half dozen times asking them to interview 35 of the top experts in the world on what we face. Not a single response in 10 years!

What we’re doing to ourselves defies my intelligence. Millions of my readers have circulated my column about the “Tragedy of Detroit” published in News With Views in October of 2009 along with vivid pictures. Detroit constitutes a symptom. You’re encouraged to circulate this column with the five and ten minute video around to every American alive.

Why? If we don’t stop mass immigration by reducing it to less than 100,000 annually, our kids will curse us for our arrogance, stupidity and utter disregard for their futures. Without any action from us, 39 years will pass and this monster immigration equation will visit utter calamity upon our children. I can see it as clearly as I saw it in other third world countries. The future is already here in China, India, Mexico and Bangladesh. The future is already here in Detroit, LA, Miami, Houston, New York and Chicago. It will only grow worse.

And, like the Titanic, we continue steaming for the same fate at full speed. I’m appalled at the apathy of the Main Stream Media and the utter disconnect of the American people as to what they bequeath their children.

I am not optimistic about our future as a civilization as the water, energy, resource and immigration equations begin to play out with that 138 million added people within 39 years. That moment will be here in a blink.

Listen to Frosty Wooldridge on Wednesdays as he interviews top national leaders on his radio show "Connecting the Dots" at www.themicroeffect.com at 6:00 PM Mountain Time. Adjust tuning in to your time zone.

Frosty Wooldridge possesses a unique view of the world, cultures and families in that he has bicycled around the globe 100,000 miles, on six continents and six times across the United States in the past 30 years. His published books include: "HANDBOOK FOR TOURING BICYCLISTS" ; “STRIKE THREE! TAKE YOUR BASE”; “IMMIGRATION’S UNARMED INVASION: DEADLY CONSEQUENCES”; “MOTORCYCLE ADVENTURE TO ALASKA: INTO THE WIND—A TEEN NOVEL”; “BICYCLING AROUND THE WORLD: TIRE TRACKS FOR YOUR IMAGINATION”; “AN EXTREME ENCOUNTER: ANTARCTICA.” His next book: “TILTING THE STATUE OF LIBERTY INTO A SWAMP.” He lives in Denver, Colorado.

His latest book. ‘IMMIGRATION’S UNARMED INVASION—DEADLY CONSEQUENCES.’

Website: www.FrostyWooldridge.com

E:Mail: frostyw@juno.com

In Honor of Fallen Patriots

2011-05-26T11:55:00.009-05:00

They Gave Their Fortunes and Lives for Our Liberty

"Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends." --John 15:12-14

For Those Who Fought For Freedom, Freedom Has A Flavor The Protected Will Never Know!

Memorial Day was first observed as Decoration Day to commemorate those who died in the War Between the States. It is a day set aside in deference to American Patriots who pledged and delivered their lives to Support and Defend the Rule of Law enshrined in our Constitution.

Since our nation's founding, more than one million American Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen have paid the ultimate price in defense of our nation, and it is their final sacrifice that we honor with solemn reverence.

Our Founders clearly understood that the burden of sustaining Liberty would be calculated in human sacrifice. As John Adams noted, "I am well aware of the toil and blood and treasure that it will cost to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States." So, on this last Monday in May, millions of American Patriots will honor the service and sacrifice of these uniformed Patriots by participating in respectful commemorations across the nation.

Who were these brave souls?

On 12 May 1962, Gen. Douglas MacArthur addressed the cadets at the U.S. Military Academy, offering this description: "Their story is known to all of you. It is the story of the American man at arms. My estimate of him was formed on the battlefields many, many years ago and has never changed. I regarded him then, as I regard him now, as one of the world's noblest figures -- not only as one of the finest military characters, but also as one of the most stainless. His name and fame are the birthright of every American citizen. In his youth and strength, his love and loyalty, he gave all that mortality can give. He needs no eulogy from me, or from any other man. He has written his own history and written it in red on his enemy's breast."

Gen. MacArthur continued: "In twenty campaigns, on a hundred battlefields, around a thousand campfires, I have witnessed that enduring fortitude, that patriotic self-abnegation and that invincible determination which have carved his statue in the hearts of his people. From one end of the world to the other, he has drained deep the chalice of courage. As I listened to those songs in memory's eye, I could see those staggering columns of the First World War, bending under soggy packs on many a weary march, from dripping dusk to drizzling dawn, slogging ankle deep through mire of shell-pocked roads; to form grimly for the attack, blue-lipped, covered with sludge and mud, chilled by the wind and rain, driving home to their objective, and for many, to the judgment seat of God. I do not know the dignity of their birth, but I do know the glory of their death. They died unquestioning, uncomplaining, with faith in their hearts, and on their lips the hope that we would go on to victory. Always for them: duty, honor, country. Always their blood, and sweat, and tears, as they saw the way and the light."

In the current era, too many of our countrymen have no understanding of, or appreciation for duty, honor, and country. They are swooned by media outlets luring them to Memorial Day "sales" that glorify the commercial exploitation now attendant to every national day of recognition. Indeed, while divisions of America's Armed Forces around the world are standing in harm's way against formidable Jihadi adversaries, many Americans will be too preoccupied with beer, barbecue and baseball to pause and recognize the priceless burden borne by generations of uniformed Patriots, that they may be so preoccupied.

To a great extent, Memorial Day has been sold out, and no more so than by politicians who use the occasion to feign Patriotism for a day (or a moment) while in reality, they are in constant violation of their sacred oaths to our Constitution.

In the last few weeks, I have observed the current commander in chief of our Armed Forces as he has converted Osama's Termination into political fodder for his 2012 campaign. For a man who has shown so much contempt for our uniformed Patriots, he has wasted no time taking credit for their successes.

Is he fit for command?

Unlike political advancement, which in most cases is attained by duplicity and deception, moving up the ranks in our Armed Services is based largely on performance evaluations. Each service branch has its own assessment forms for officers and NCOs. The Army has Officer Evaluation Reports, the Air Force has Officer Performance Reports, and the Navy and Marine Corps have Fitness Reports (FITREPs), all in order to evaluate proficiency and character as prerequisites for advancement.

The Army evaluates loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity and personal courage. Let there be no doubt that if the current CINC were subject to the same appraisal as an Army or Marine Corps E-5 (sergeant), he would be judged severely under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Indeed, he would likely be court-martialed for dereliction of duty and dishonorably discharged. No CINC in our nation's history has been less fit to serve in that capacity than Barack Hussein Obama.

Obama's malfeasance notwithstanding, there is still great promise for Liberty and the security of that promise resides, first and foremost, within the ranks of our uniformed Patriots, our countrymen who have volunteered years of their young lives and have publicly declared their dedication to the ideals of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. It is fitting therefore that we honor their service accordingly.

On Memorial Day of 1982, President Ronald Reagan offered these words in honor of Patriots interred at Arlington National Cemetery: "I have no illusions about what little I can add now to the silent testimony of those who gave their lives willingly for their country. Words are even more feeble on this Memorial Day, for the sight before us is that of a strong and good nation that stands in silence and remembers those who were loved and who, in return, loved their countrymen enough to die for them. Yet, we must try to honor them not for their sakes alone, but for our own. And if words cannot repay the debt we owe these men, surely with our actions we must strive to keep faith with them and with the vision that led them to battle and to final sacrifice."

He continued, "Our first obligation to them and ourselves is plain enough: The United States and the freedom for which it stands, the freedom for which they died, must endure and prosper. Their lives remind us that freedom is not bought cheaply. It has a cost; it imposes a burden. And just as they whom we commemorate were willing to sacrifice, so too must we -- in a less final, less heroic way -- be willing to give of ourselves. It is this, beyond the controversy and the congressional debate, beyond the blizzard of budget numbers and the complexity of modern weapons systems, that motivates us in our search for security and peace. ... The willingness of some to give their lives so that others might live never fails to evoke in us a sense of wonder and mystery. One gets that feeling here on this hallowed ground, and I have known that same poignant feeling as I looked out across the rows of white crosses and Stars of David in Europe, in the Philippines, and the military cemeteries here in our own land. Each one marks the resting place of an American hero and, in my lifetime, the heroes of World War I, the Doughboys, the GI's of World War II or Korea or Vietnam. They span several generations of young Americans, all different and yet all alike, like the markers above their resting places, all alike in a truly meaningful way."

President Reagan concluded, "As we honor their memory today, let us pledge that their lives, their sacrifices, their valor shall be justified and remembered for as long as God gives life to this nation. ... I can't claim to know the words of all the national anthems in the world, but I don't know of any other that ends with a question and a challenge as ours does: 'O! say does that star-spangled banner yet wave, O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?' That is what we must all ask."

Indeed we must.

For the fallen, we are certain of that which is noted on all Marine Corps Honorable Discharge orders: "Fideli Certa Merces" -- to the faithful there is certain reward.

To the beneficiaries of the legacy of Liberty that they defended with their lives, I humbly ask that each of you observe Memorial Day with reverence.

You can help to prepare for Memorial Day by placing flags at headstones in your local military cemetery (generally the Saturday prior to Memorial Day). Take a moment and read about the Tomb of the Unknowns. In honor of American Patriots who have died in defense of our great nation, lower your flag to half-staff from sunrise to 1200 on Monday. (Read more about proper etiquette and protocol.) Join us by setting aside a time of silence for remembrance and prayer. Offer a personal word of gratitude and comfort to surviving family members you know who are grieving for a beloved warrior fallen in battle.

On this and every day, please pray for our Patriot Armed Forces now standing in harm's way around the world in defense of our Liberty, and for the families awaiting their safe return.

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

WE WILL NEVER FORGET!

UNDERSTANDING AMERICA'S FINANCIAL CRISES PART III

2011-05-24T13:09:00.005-05:00

By Michael S. Coffman, Ph.D. and Kristie Pelletier

May 24, 2011
NewsWithViews.com

Collapsing the Global Economy & Demagoguing Solutions

Globalists have been actively working for decades to create a single financial system and currency for the world. But first, they had to create economic chaos in order for the citizens of various nations, especially the United States, to be willing to abandon their national currencies. Has that day arrived?

Like falling dominos, the states within the European Union (EU) are failing financially, one by one. The economies of Greece, Ireland, and Portugal have already been bailed out by the EU and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Spain is teetering on the edge. Because of its size, analysts have concluded that Spain is too big to be saved by outside intervention. Spain’s failure would cause an unstoppable domino effect; first within the EU, then the U.S. and the world.

At the same time that Europe has been facing financial disaster, the spending policies of Presidents G.W. Bush and Obama have more than doubled the U.S. national debt from $5.7 trillion in 2000 to $14.3 trillion in mid-2011. Why? Interest on the National Debt is expected to top $430 billion for 2011. State unfunded liabilities for public sector pension plans could reach $3 trillion. Social Security, Medicare and Prescription Drug unfunded liabilities total $113.6 trillion by April 2011. It is simply unsustainable.

In the two and a half years he has been in office, Obama has racked up a deficit that nearly equals the combined debt created by all the presidents up to G.W. Bush. His initial 2012 budget continues piling up debt at rates that will double the debt to $26 trillion in 10 years. Along with this debt, the Federal Reserve (Fed) is printing trillions of dollars out of thin air (QE1 & QE2). This is not only irresponsible, it is insanely irresponsible.

The great concern is that this will result in high inflation, perhaps even hyperinflation. It is already happening. We are being told that the rate of inflation only is only 2.5 percent. Yet, every day as we walk into the supermarket or gas station we get hit again with skyrocketing prices. If you think something is wrong, it is. The way of calculating the inflation rate, or Consumer Price Index, was changed in 1980 and again in 1990. It no longer includes such mundane things as food or gasoline prices.

If the rate of inflation was calculated like it was before 1980, it would be a whopping 10.2 percent! That means anything less than a 10.2 percent raise in wages is a pay cut—except the average person doesn’t know it. Social Security recipients will lose 10.2 percent of their benefits this year because they got no cost of living adjustment at all. The U.S. dollar is being devalued before our eyes, yet it is being obscured by smoke and mirrors. At least a part of the skyrocketing gas prices is due to the devaluing of the dollar because of inflation.

The trillions of dollars printed out of thin air by the Fed in QE1 and QE2 were supposed to make money available to businesses and the mortgage market. They failed. However, they did cause the stock market to soar and the banks receiving this cheap money reaped record profits from investments, many of them overseas. Once again the banks profit at the citizen’s expense. On the positive side, if it could be labeled positive, because the money didn’t get into the hands of citizen’s, the potential hyperinflation it could have caused did not happen—yet. Economist and consultant John Williams warns it could happen at any time, however.

President Obama and his tax and spend progressives are hell-bent on keep up the spending spree. Obama’s original 2012 budget kept his bloated federal spending at about $3.7 trillion, the same as 2011. Although he claimed he was doing all he could to reign in the deficit, the 2011-2012 budgets were 23 percent higher than the last Bush budget of $3.0 trillion in 2008. Amazingly, Obama’s budget did not touch entitlement spending at all—something that must be done if there is any hope of reducing the huge deficit.

Not to worry, however. Obama claimed the 2012 deficit would be only $1.1 trillion compared to the $1.65 trillion deficit in 2011. As with all of his rosy projections, Obama accomplishes this amazing feat of deficit reduction by smoke and mirrors. He claims that all of his stimulus efforts will finally trigger the long-awaited economic recovery by building into the budget huge revenue increases resulting from a booming economy. Reality, however, suggests just the opposite; a stagnate or plummeting economy accompanied by high inflation, perhaps hyperinflation.

Possible Solutions Demagogued

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) introduced the Republican’s House budget blueprint on April 5 which called for drastic changes in government spending—including entitlements. Unlike the smoke and mirrors in the Obama budget, Ryan’s budget had real cuts that would carve out between $4 and $5 trillion over the next 10 years. Ryan called the blueprint a starting point for bipartisan negotiations.

Rather than making a counter offer, however, progressive Democrats immediately demagogued the Ryan blueprint with the politics of fear. They have used this strategy successfully for decades. Obama proclaimed the Ryan plan would “end Medicare as we know it” and would “leave millions of seniors, poor children and Americans with disabilities without the care they need.” Nancy Pelosi blasted the Ryan plan “as a path to poverty.”

It was obvious Obama deliberately did not address entitlement programs so the progressive Democrats could attack the Republican plan when their plan came out with solutions to the entitlement third rail. Obama was more concerned with winning politically than he was with finding solutions to the crisis gripping America. That is becoming the norm for this administration and progressives in general.

In spite of their well-laid plans to ambush the Republicans, their fear tactics fell flat. Progressives were shocked. The American people seem to be aware that something had to be done and, as usual, Obama was avoiding the hard decisions that had to be made. The progressive’s time-tested strategy of fear was in danger of back-firing.

Obama quickly came out with a second budget that he claimed was “more balanced” than Ryan’s and would reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over a 12 year period. As explained in Part II of this series, the Obama budget is deliberately vague and gives only token lip service to reducing spending and the debt. The only specifics given in the budget are cutting military spending and raising taxes on the rich—the usual class warfare strategy of progressives. Obama’s budget would somehow reduce entitlements, but he provides no specific ways of doing it.

As with the original 2012 budget, fuzzy math was used to reach the $4 trillion cut over 12 years. A ten year forecast is the standard for all budgets and when the 12 year projection is reduced to 10 years and realistic assumptions are used, the $4 trillion drops to $2.5 trillion.

Obama’s so-called revised 2012 budget announcement was more of a campaign speech trashing the Ryan blueprint than a serious effort to create a budget that reduces the deficit spending. The speech was so bad that Rep. Allen West (FL-R) called Obama’s crude behavior as having a “Third world dictator-like arrogance.” West then characterized Obama as “a community organizer is nothing but a low-level socialist agitator.” Because of vicious politically correct attacks on anyone who would dare challenge Obama, only West, an African American having a distinguished military career, could ever successfully expose Obama as the “Emperor Who has No clothes.”

This irresponsible political gamesmanship did not go unnoticed by Standard and Poors (S&P), one of the major bond rating firms in the world. S&P reacted to the Obama budget by downgrading the U.S. rating from AAA to AAA/A-1+. As explained in Part II, the S&P warned the U.S. that “there is at least a one-in-three likelihood that we could lower our long-term rating on the U.S. within two years.”

That’s a warning shot over the bow of the U.S. If the U.S. does not take meaningful action to get its deficits under control and reverse the process, the U.S. could lose its AAA rating. Such a downgrading would mean much higher interest rates on the National Debt, greatly exacerbating the deficit problem. Amazingly, the White House was nonchalant, casually saying that negotiations were underway that will solve the problem.

Obama’s disconnect from reality and bulldog focus on partisan politics has become a hallmark of Obama’s tenure and has dismayed analysts. By vilifying Ryan and the Republican’s Obama has laid down the gauntlet of bitter partisan politics that will be almost impossible to overcome and find common ground in finding a way to bring down the deficit.

This seeming indifference by Obama to the very real threat of utter financial collapse of the U.S. economy has astonished analysts. A collapse of the U.S. dollar will almost certainly come if the U.S. continues down the road Obama has set for the nation. The collapse will be far greater than the Great Depression.

Obama is either totally blinded by the Keynesian economic model[a] that calls for ever-increasing government intervention to solve economic woes, or he is deliberately taking the U.S. to the brink of economic ruin to justify the implementation of a global monetary system.

There is no question that Obama has been using the Keynesian economic model[a] to justify the deficit expenditure of trillions of dollars to “stimulate” the way out of the U.S.’s deep recession. The little recovery that has occurred to date has occurred in spite of, rather than as a result of Obama’s massive spending plans. The 1970s “stagflation” is returning with a vengeance, with high unemployment, high inflation and sluggish economic activity.

President Obama seems to be proving to the world that he is an ideologue that will continue to drive the nation into the ground in spite of all the warning signs we are sliding into the boneyard of past failed nations. He as much as confirmed that in an April 18 Town Hall meeting in which he admitted, my “vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America.” In other words, changing the nation to full-blown socialism is more important than the looming budget crisis.

Obama’s reference to the social compact is code to progressives that refers to 18th century Jean Jacques Rousseau and his Social Contract. Rousseau’s Social Contract or Compact calls for an all-powerful central government that provides everything to its people. Rousseau’s ideology is what has led to socialism, Marxism and even fascism. It is the ideology that has already driven the European nations to the brink of the abyss, some of which have already fallen over the edge.

Obama’s obsession with turning America into a failed socialist state should be of great concern to every American. America is facing it greatest threat in its history. Collapse may be imminent. We are assured it is not, but the facts say otherwise. Obama in particular and the progressive agenda in general has taken America to the edge of a very dark abyss. Is it because progressives are blinded by their ideology, or is there something far more sinister at work? More on that in Part IV.

Either way, at least part of the answer is the same. The election of constitutionally focused candidates is critical in 2012 and beyond. Each of us has a choice. We can continue to demand more and more from government, which will increase the size of government and bankrupt us, or we elect constitutionally literate candidates who will shrink the size of government, the deficit and finally, the debt. It will involve sacrifice and probably some pain. The alternative, however, is the total collapse of America as we have known it. Part IV discusses how this is being done.

Click here for part -----; 1, 2,

Footnote:

[a] Keynesian economics is based on the ideas of 20th century English economist John Maynard Keynes. Keynesian economics argues that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes and therefore advocates active policy responses by government, including large monetary infusions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government to stabilize output over the business cycle. It has dominated Western (including the United States) economic activity since the Great Depression. It caused the stagflation of the 1970s which was broken by economist Milton Friedman during the Reagan years by applying free market principles.

Michael Coffman. Rescuing a Broken America, (Morgan James Publishing, New York), 2010. P 67

Dr. Coffman is President of Environmental Perspectives Incorporated (epi-us.com) and CEO of Sovereignty International (sovereignty.net) in Bangor Maine. He has had over 30 years of university teaching, research and consulting experience in forestry and environmental sciences. He produced the acclaimed DVD Global Warming or Global Governance (warmingdvd.com). His newest book, Rescuing a Broken America (rescuingamericabook.com) is receiving wide acclaim. He can be reached at 207-945-9878.

E-Mail: mcoffman@epi-us.com

Website: DiscerningToday.org

UNDERSTANDING AMERICA'S FINANCIAL CRISES PART II

2011-05-17T19:06:00.006-05:00

By Michael S. Coffman, Ph.D. and Kristie Pelletier

May 7, 2011
NewsWithViews.com

Economics for Dummies 102—International Implications and Politics

Europe’s Economy is falling like dominos. The Obama administration is following the same destructive socialist expansion of government using smoke and mirrors to convince us that it is the right way to go. It is clear that Obama is sacrificing America for political gain. We have to choose now who to follow.

For the past year we have been watching Europe’s economy unravel. It started in Greece as its debt got out of control. They were forced to make drastic cuts in their budget in order to get bailouts from the European Union (EU) and the Bank of International Settlements (BIS). Riots ensued as unions demanded their salaries and benefits not be cut.

The crisis soon spread to Ireland and then Portugal. Again, budgets had to be slashed resulting in more riots and discontent. Although England and other European nations are not in immediate trouble, they see the handwriting on the wall and are beginning to make needed cuts before their budgets have to be slashed. That has precipitated angry protests from unions which do not want to give up their cushy benefits.

The situation in America is rapidly becoming eerily similar to the dire circumstances that caused Greece, Ireland and Portugal to go belly up forced them to seek international bailouts.[1]

In the past decade Greece, Ireland and Portugal borrowed heavily to fund their exorbitant socialist programs. In the fall of 2009, investors began to lose confidence in Greece’s government’s ability to rectify its economic problems and its ability to come good on its debts. That culminated in April of 2010 with requests to the world for a bailout.[2]

Ireland and Portugal were not far behind. Last week a scathing report of the causes of the collapse in Ireland hit the news. The analysis was done by Peter Nyberg, a former International Monetary Fund economist. He provided hard evidence that the Irish banking collapse was caused by bankers taking risks on a "almost unbelievable" scale, which was ignored by a complicit public, and a lack of adequate regulation. The report, commissioned by former finance minister Brian Lenihan, goes on to further blame the breakdown on “the unhindered expansion of the property bubble financed by banks using wholesale market funding.”

Nyberg concludes, "It appears now, with hindsight, to be almost unbelievable that intelligent professionals appear not have been aware of the size of the risk they were taking." There was, he says, an "inability and unwillingness to remember basic principles of banking" that providing credit is not a sale, "it is the acquisition of a risky asset.” he also forcefully blames the Irish people; "large parts of Irish society were willing to let the good times roll."[3] The similarities between Ireland and the U.S. are chilling.

Two key factors that have kept us from ending up like these decimated European nations has been our status as the largest economy in the world. The second is our dollar’s status as the world’s currency. However, the dollars reserve status may not be long for the world. There are rumblings that the dollar will soon have to compete with the Euro and the Yuen for its position as the world’s reserve currency. There are even efforts to dump all currencies for a single global currency.[4] For decades, the world has done business in dollars. The dollars’ power in this role has helped secure our economic position.[5] That is changing and as will be explained in Part 3, there are forces at work seeking to actively and intentionally undermine the dollar to end its reign.

The confidence of investors is critical to a nations’ economy as we have seen in the collapses in Europe. Credit ratings can have a significant effect on confidence. A top rating is incredibly important to obtaining the lowest interest rate possible. Confidence in the stability of the U.S. economy is critical in retaining our status as the world’s reserve currency.

There are several credit rating agencies. Standard & Poor’s, around since 1860, is one of the Big Three. Moody's Investor Service and Fitch Ratings are two more. In a release last week, S&P reported that it has downgraded the U.S. credit rating saying,

Because the U.S. has, relative to its 'AAA' peers, what we consider to be very large budget deficits and rising government indebtedness and the path to addressing these is not clear to us, we have revised our outlook on the long-term rating to negative from stable.”

The S & P announcement goes on to say, that they, “believe there is at least a one-in-three likelihood that we could lower our long-term rating on the U.S. within two years,"[6] Moody’s has also stated that they will possibly lower the U.S.credit rating in the next two years if we don’t reverse the expansion of our debt saying, “if there are not offsetting measures to reverse the deterioration in negative fundamentals.”[7]

The real danger is that the loss of an AAA rating would immediately cause the interest rates the U.S. pays to our debt holders would increase. Nobody knows how much the interest rate would increase, but we already will pay an estimated $431 billion in 2011,[8] or $5.5 trillion over the next ten years. If Interest rates went up by just 1 percent, it would increase our ten year interest payments to $6.8 trillion.[9] That’s roughly a $130 billion or 30 percent increase to the annual budget which further exacerbates the deficit and national debt woes.

The deterioration of the American economy is the result of the rapidly expanding federal government that is transforming the U.S. from a free market economy to a socialist economy similar to what is devastating Europe today. A stunning new USA Today report reveals that a record 18.3 percent of all personal income in America now comes from federal payments like Social Security, Medicare and food stamps. That’s up from 12.5 percent in 2000, most of it in the past two and a half years. Conversely, a record low of only 51 percent of all personal income comes from wages in the private sector.[10]

In other words, work for pay no longer dominates the source of income. But this also has another affect. As the total income from wages declines, so do the income tax revenues to the federal government, making it harder and harder to ever balance the budget as fewer workers pay for government programs.

This also has real world consequences. As the U.S. economy flounders China is set to surpass the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of America. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has forecast that the Chinese economy will expand from $11.2 trillion this year to $19 trillion in 2016, while the size of the U.S. economy will rise from $15.2 trillion to $18.8 trillion.

That means that the U.S. economy will no longer be the world’s largest.

According to this IMF prognosis, the candidate who wins the U.S. Presidency in the next election will be the final executive office holder in our country to preside over the world’s largest economy.[11] Imagine a world where China, a country that rigidly and sometimes violently and lethally enforces laws to control every aspect of the lives of its people, is the most powerful economy. It won’t be good.

Two Diametrically Opposed Solutions

There are two opposing camps divining a solution to these astronomical problems. One says keep spending and dumping into entitlement programs and making the government bigger and bigger. The other says cut spending, cut taxes, and cut the size of government. They can’t both be right.

Paul Ryan, Congressman from Wisconsin proposed a blueprint to begin solving the issues. The Ryan plan reduces federal spending by $6 trillion over 10 years – from the current 24 percent of GDP to the historical post-World War II average of about 20 percent.[12] Among its key provisions, it provides a flat tax to eliminate all the loopholes currently used by the rich to avoid taxes. Provides a standard deduction of $39,000 (for a family of four). Replaces the corporate income tax—currently the second highest in the industrialized world—with a business consumption tax of 8.5%.

For entitlements Ryan’s blueprint provides a “means” test for eligibility to receive benefits, creates a voucher system for Medicare, and preserves the existing Social Security program for those 55 or older.[13] Ryan never said it was a final plan, but was a starting point. Conservative critics say it doesn’t do enough. Of course the other camp says spend spend spend, no “Ryan” for us. That is the camp that gave us the health care law last year that was supposed to reduce the federal deficit. However, when all the eggs were counted and the fuzzy math removed, Obamacare will actually cost us over $2 trillion according to the CBO (Congressional Budget Office).[14]

Obama used the same fuzzy math to calculate his $4 trillion cut to the deficit in the next 12 years. When the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget analyzed Obama’s math, they found the savings were only about $2.5 trillion.[15] Worse, the Obama plan does not address entitlement programs in a meaningful way. There is no way the deficit/debt crisis can be resolved unless entitlements are addressed.

The fact that Obama and other progressives demagogued Ryan’s plan because he did address entitlements is a clear indication that Obama did not touch entitlements solely because he is using it (once again) as a political club to bash Republicans by throwing fear into seniors and other recipients of entitlements. He as much as proved that in an April 18 Town Hall meeting in which he said, my “vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America.”[16] In other words, changing the nation to full-blown socialism is more important than the looming budget crisis.

Obama’s plan to tax the rich is a red herring as well. Not only does the top 5 percent of income earners pay over 60 percent of all income taxes, the Heritage Foundation analyzed how much taxing the rich at pre-Bush rates would raise in revenue. It would raise only $700 billion in ten years out of the $9 trillion Obama’s budget adds in debt over the same period.[17] The only conceivable reason he is doing it is to wage class warfare to get the support of those on the bottom half of the income range, who only pay about 3 percent of all income taxes.

The U.S. business climate has been drastically undermined by over-regulation. Many businesses have been taxed to the point of being incapable of doing business here, or buried so deep in regulations and taxes that they have gone out of business altogether. The cost of regulations is not trivial. Annual regulatory compliance costs hit a whopping $1.75 trillion in 2008.[18] That is a “hidden tax” of over 50 percent of the entire 2010 budget! It exceeds all 2008 corporate pretax profits of $1.36 trillion. Worse, businesses had to wade through 81,405 pages of new and proposed regulations in the Federal Register in 2010, 24,914 pages of which were final rules.

How can small and medium businesses hope to keep up with this avalanche? The truth is, they can’t. As with over taxation, many businesses go out of business, which results in a “lost opportunity cost.” It is impossible to predict what this cost is, but many analysts believe it is equal to, or greater than the direct cost of $1.75 trillion. If the government was serious about reducing the deficit, reducing unneeded regulations and allow the free market to operate as it should would greatly expand business activity, profits, and therefore tax income on the profits.

The taxes on individuals have also become unbelievably burdensome with a tax on everything. [a] This country has been unique in human history. It has been a place where the circumstances of your birth need not dictate your future. It has been a place where the masses longed to come from nations all over the world to find a better life. It has been the land of the American Dream; the place where ANYONE can become ANYTHING if they are willing to work for it. The bigger the government gets and the more facets of our economy that it controls, the dimmer the American dream will become until it goes completely dark.

[a] What does an overgrown government give us? To name just a few: Accounts Receivable Tax; Building Permit Tax; CDL license Tax; Cigarette Tax; Corporate Income Tax; Dog License Tax; Excise Taxes; Federal Income Tax; Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA); Fishing License Tax; Food License Tax; Fuel Permit Tax; Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon); Gross Receipt Tax; Hunting License Tax; Inheritance Tax; Inventory Tax; IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax); Liquor Tax; Luxury Taxes; Marriage License Tax; Medicare Tax; Personal Property Tax, Property Tax, Real Estate Tax; Service Charge Tax; Social Security Tax; Road Usage Tax; Recreational Vehicle Tax; Sales Tax; School Tax; State Income Tax; State Unemployment Tax (SUTA); Telephone Federal Excise Tax; Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax; Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes; Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax, Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax; Telephone State and Local Tax; Telephone Usage Charge Tax; Utility Taxes; Vehicle License Registration Tax; Vehicle Sales Tax; Watercraft Registration Tax; Well Permit Tax; Workers Compensation Tax.
People do what they want to do. If Washington is not fixing these problems; if they let it become too big to fix, it can only be intentional. It is too obvious from history what will happen to us if things are not changed. It is clear that redistribution of wealth is the goal of progressives in general and this president specifically. When you ask yourself “why?” remember that. We can do what we want to do. If we want change, we need to make it happen. We have free elections. We need to be smarter about our choices of who we vote for.
“Senator” Obama was wrong. The buck doesn’t stop with the Senate. There is accountability and it lies with us. We cannot blame our government because we elect them. It is our responsibility. If we want change, we have to make change ourselves. Make your voice heard in the voting booth. We need to change how we think, how we spend, how we live. Many of our households run the way the government runs, we have planned deficits. We spend way more than we earn and tell ourselves we deserve it, all the while compounding the problem. While our government spends billions a day, not unlike Ireland, we are too quick to look the other way and say, “let the good times roll.” For part one click below.
Click here for part -----; 1 , 3

Footnotes:

1. Robert V. Green, May 14, 2010, U.S. vs. Greece Debt.
2. Rebecca M. Nelson, Coordinator, Paul Belkin, Derek E. Mix, Greece’s Debt Crisis: Overview, Policy Responses, and Implications, Congressional Research Service; (A publication of the Federation of American Scientists)
3. Lisa O'Carroll, Irish banking collapse caused by greed and complicit public – report, guardian.co.uk, April 19, 2011
4. See part 3
5. Barry Eichengreen, Why the Dollar's Reign Is Near an End; Wall Street Journal online, March 2, 2011.
6. Sovereigns Ratings List
7. M. Gongloff, M. Brown, & N. Boschat, S&P, Moody's Warn On U.S. Credit Rating; January 14, 2011.
8. Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding. Treasury Direct, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Public Debt. As of April 27, 2011.
9. Jeanne Sahadi. Interest on National Debt: ‘Skyrocketing” Costs Ahead. CNN Money. February 2, 2011.
10. Dennis Cauchon. Americans Depend More On Federal Aid than Ever. USAToday, April 26, 2011. Also Bill Hemmer and Stuart Varney. More Americans Depending on Government Than Ever Before. FoxNews video, April 26, 2011.
11. Brett Arends, IMF bombshell: Age of America Nears End, April 25, 2011.
12. The path to prosperity
13. An excellent resource: Ron Paul’s Roadmap. The Claremont Institute. April, 2011.
14. Jeffrey Anderson. CBO: Obamacare Would Cost Over $2 Trillion. The Weekly Standard, March 18, 2011.
15. Analyzing the President’s New Budget Framework. Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. April 21, 2011.
16. William O’Reilly. Fox News, The O’Reilly Factor, April 20, 2011.
17. You Can’t Tax the Rich Enough to Close the Deficit. The Foundry, The Heritage Foundation, October 7, 2010.
18. Clyde Wayne Crews Jr. Ten Thousand Commandments. Competitive Enterprise Institute. 2011. P 2.

Michael Coffman. Rescuing a Broken America, (Morgan James Publishing, New York), 2010. P 67
Dr. Coffman is President of Environmental Perspectives Incorporated (epi-us.com) and CEO of Sovereignty International (sovereignty.net) in Bangor Maine. He has had over 30 years of university teaching, research and consulting experience in forestry and environmental sciences. He produced the acclaimed DVD Global Warming or Global Governance (warmingdvd.com). His newest book, Rescuing a Broken America (rescuingamericabook.com) is receiving wide acclaim. He can be reached at 207-945-9878.

E-Mail: mcoffman@epi-us.com
Website: DiscerningToday.org

UNDERSTANDING AMERICA'S FINANCIAL CRISES PART I

2011-05-07T15:28:00.004-05:00

By Michael S. Coffman, Ph.D. and Kristie Pelletier
May 7, 2011
NewsWithViews.com

Economics for Dummies 101

We are on the verge of a major economic catastrophe. It’s not a matter of if, but when it will come; and just how bad will it be. It’s about time you learned the truth. Your future depends on it.

[Author’s note: America is in the mess it is in because most American’s eye’s glaze over when trying to understand the complexity of economics. Because of that, we have allowed our economic system to become incredibly corrupted by those who profit politically or financially from our ignorance. Hence, we have broken our research into four parts, starting with an easy-to-read overview of what has happened to make the whole thing more comprehendible in Parts 1 & 2. By the time you get to Part III and IV you will learn of the century-old agenda to deliberately create this kind of crisis as a means of creating a world government.]

Washington has been up to mischief and we haven’t been paying attention. Most of us just work and pay our taxes. Then we work more to pay the increases in taxes that inevitably come. That is why we are in the state we are in. At the beginning of 2008 most of us said “Fannie and Freddie who? Do I know them?”

America got a wakeup call three years ago. We cannot afford to go back to sleep. It doesn’t take a degree in economics to see that. All it takes is the ability to read, and listen to what is being said. We are witnessing major economic history in the making globally and right here at home.

For the vast majority of us, our eyes glaze over with the complexities of it all; Budget, Deficit, Debt, Credit Ratings, Unfunded Liabilities, T-bills, Notes, The Fed, and the IMF. So many words, philosophies, and methods are bandied about with regard to finances that it can become very difficult to sort it all out. Yet, America is on the brink of utter financial catastrophe and we must take the time to understand what is happening, who is doing it, and how we can fix it. We won’t get a second chance.

First, we need to define some key terms you’ll hear used in the news. If you already know them, good for you. You’re ahead of most Americans. You might want to skip ahead to Part III. A very simplified definition for Budget is a plan for spending money for a specific time frame. Deficit is the gap that occurs between the budget, or plan for spending, and the actual income received during that time frame. Debt basically consists of the accumulation of deficits over time.

Inflation is the increase in the cost of goods and services. You already know that. However, inflation is normally caused by an increase in the supply of money which in turn devalues the dollar; i.e. the value of each dollar falls. Real inflation has been 20 percent the past ten years. That means that the dollar is only worth $.80 today compared to ten years ago. Looking at historical inflation, what cost $1 in 1950 would cost $9 today. Conversely, what costs $1 today would only cost $0.11 in 1950.

There is no good definition for hyperinflation. It occurs when inflation goes out of control and reaches very high levels; say greater than 25 percent/year. An example is the Weimar Republic (Germany) following World War I. The harsh reparation payments imposed on Germany following the war, in combination with promised increased wages, reduced hours, expanded education and a slew of new social programs (sound familiar?) created the conditions for hyperinflation.

In 1919 the German mark was worth about 3 marks per dollar. In 1921 the German mark had slid to 75 marks per U.S. dollar. By 1922 it was worth 400 marks to the dollar and in 1923 it plunged to 7000 marks per dollar. As bad as that was, it was the “good ‘ol days.” By November of 1923 it took about 4 billion marks per dollar.[1]

Got it? Sure, you say. It’s clear as mud. Ponder on it because it is about to destroy you. In fact, there are many in the world and in our government who hope you never figure it out because they are robbing you blind and blaming your misery on the rich.

Now, the very small percentage of our population who truly understands the intricacies of the global economy will see these simple definitions as Economics for Dummies 101. They will groan and find something else to read. Start with Part III. But if you are the average American who has simply been working and paying your taxes without taking the time and effort it requires to understand and then change what is happening in Washington, you many want to keep reading.

We are in for an economic tsunami unlike anything we have ever experienced in this country before. As the government continues to spend astronomical amounts of money it doesn’t have, purportedly to fix the gargantuan financial crisis the nation faces, they have to finance these expenditures by borrowing money. To do this, the government sells Treasury Securities in four forms; Treasury bills, Treasury notes, Treasury bonds, and Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS). These all have varying lengths of time to maturity and levels of interest paid to the holder.

Historically, budget deficits have been relatively small and the national debt has grown slowly. For decades the deficits and borrowing was constrained by the fact America was on the gold standard. However, when President Nixon took the United States off of the gold standard in the 1970s, politicians saw a bonanza and deficits increased dramatically. When our deficits increased, so did our national debt. There was a brief reprieve in the 1990s to the growing debt as a Republican Congress and President Clinton brought deficits down. However, following 911 and the initiation of the War on Terror, deficits skyrocketed.

Here’s where most people’s eyes glaze over. Force your eyes to focus and your mind to be engaged for a few more moments. The spending policies of Presidents G.W. Bush and Obama have more than doubled the U.S. national debt from $5.7 trillion in 2000 to $14.3 trillion in mid-2011. The deficit is projected to be a whopping $1.65 trillion for 2011 alone. Interest on the National Debt is expected to top $430 billion for 2011.

Today, the debt has risen to an incomprehensible $14.29 trillion dollars. Your share of it is $46,030. Your spouse and child also owe $46,030 each. For a family of four it’s $184,000. Uncle Sam will demand you, your children and your children’s children repay the debt they created. The interest alone is 4 billion a day or over $5,000 a day!

But that’s not the worst of it. Social Security, Medicare and Prescription Drug unfunded liabilities total $113.6 trillion! Liabilities include those legal debts that must be paid in the future. Unfunded liabilities are legal debts in which promised payments are not budgeted and exceed all defined ability to pay them. The U.S. unfunded liabilities equal one million dollars per taxpayer! That money has to be somehow raised in future undefined revenues. It is the single biggest problem we are facing as a nation.

There’s more. State unfunded liabilities for public sector pension plans could reach $3 trillion. Unlike the federal government, these states can’t print more money. They must balance the books or go bankrupt.

But wait, it gets much worse. In the two and a half years he has been in office, President Obama has racked up a deficit that nearly equals the combined debt created by all the presidents up to G.W. Bush. His initial 2012 budget continued piling up debt at rates that will double the debt to $26 trillion in 10 years.

Are you ready to pull your hair out? You should be. But there is still more. Along with this incomprehensible debt, the Federal Reserve (Fed) is printing money out of thin air. It’s called Quantitative Easing 1 and 2 (QE1 & QE2). The U.S. dollar is deliberately being made worthless. High inflation, perhaps even hyperinflation, is inevitable unless drastic actions are taken now. Four years ago economist and business consultant John Williams estimated hyperinflation and the total collapse of the dollar was likely by 2018. However, two and a half years of Obama’s reckless spending along with QE1 and QE2 have pushed that estimate to 2012, or even earlier.

Inflation is already happening. Food and energy prices are soaring. At least part of the soaring gasoline prices is due to the devaluation of the dollar so it takes more dollars to buy a gallon of foreign oil. Yet, the Obama administration is telling Americans the debt is manageable and there is no inflation.

Incredibly, the government now leaves food and commodities (like gas) out of its inflation calculation, drastically lowering reported inflation. By doing so, it gives a completely false
picture of inflation that has real world consequences. Because reported inflation is half of what it actually is, increases in Social Security (SS) cost of living adjustments have also been cut in half. Likewise, SS recipients should have received large increases in benefits the past two years. Instead, they received no increase at all. In the same way, those things that hit you in the pocketbook are also left out of the inflation index. You see prices skyrocket every time you go to the supermarket or gas station, but are told inflation is only 2.5 percent. The reason it doesn’t compute is that the government is inflating its way out of its debt and not telling you! If inflation was calculated as it was before 1980, it would be over 10 percent!

When the numbers start to get that big and complicated something just switches off in the mind of the average person, and it feels kind of like we are dealing with fake money, like a monopoly game. That is exactly what Congress is doing. They are running our country’s finances like they think it is a game of monopoly and they are working with “play” money. The numbers aren’t really real and they don’t really mean anything. It’s not their money anyway so they don’t really care. They are right about one thing, it isn’t their money. It’s ours, our children’s, their children’s, their children’s...

Take a deep breath and let’s break down the numbers to something perhaps more understandable. Take just the $4 trillion owed to foreign nations; that’s $4,706,310,000,000. We are still a young nation, 235 years old. Let’s use that number to break it down. The resulting number is 20,026,851,064. That’s still over 20 billion per year, every year for 235 years. That number is still too big to really wrap your mind around. How about almost 55 million a day, every day, since the Declaration of Independence; Still pretty big; it is over 2.2 Million dollars every hour since John Hancock, signed, well, his John Hancock. The total debt is rapidly approaching FOUR times that amount.

Congress develops its budgets with PLANNED deficits. They actually plan to spend more than they have coming in. Why not? It’s just monopoly money to them and there is so much need they want to fix (including lining their own pockets for many). The deficits planned for this year and next are 1.6 and 1.5 trillion dollars respectively. All of that will pile onto our debt.

The United States government has a legislated debt ceiling, a maximum amount that it is allowed to owe. That number is currently at $14.294 trillion, the nation’s actual debt is rapidly approaching that amount. More than half of that has accumulated in the last decade. There will be a concerted effort in the next several weeks to raise that debt limit. President Obama is leading the charge demanding a hike in the limit with no strings attached. On April 15 he declared, “We will raise the debt limit. We always have. We will do it again.”

As usual, Obama is talking out of both sides of his mouth. The last stand-alone vote on raising the debt limit on which President Obama voted as a Senator was in 2006. Then Senator Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling, saying,

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills... Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren... I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit.

In this same diatribe, he rails against big indebtedness run up by President Bush all the while President Obama himself presides over an increase that added almost as much to the National Debt in his first 19 months than all of the presidents from Washington to Reagan combined. Obama’s criticism of Bush was right, the debt did rise exponentially under President Bush starting at $5.727 trillion and ending with $10.6 trillion in 8 years. The U.S. Treasury Department reported in October, only a year and nine months after he was inaugurated, Obama himself had already added over 3 trillion dollars to the National Debt.

The party a candidate belongs to isn’t nearly as important as the beliefs and actions of that candidate. We need to elect people who will stop mortgaging our futures.

Unsustainable is just not a strong enough word to describe the economic situation we are facing. Disaster is a better word. While the debt continues to soar upwards, Washington likes to make a lot of noise about reducing deficits, while doing nothing of any real substance to actually solve the problem. For the two weeks Congress was at each other’s throats to come up with a measly $38.5 billion cut, $85 billion in deficits were added to our national debt!!! The cuts are a farce. In March alone, deficit spending was $188 billion. That’s $6 billion a day! The total for 2011 is already at $829.4 billion (6 months’ worth). At this rate, the total for 2011 could hit $1.66 trillion.

Even with the optimistic prognosticators claiming that the current recession will end soon, the Obama Administration forecasts federal deficits that average more than $1 trillion annually for the next ten years, amounting to 7 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).[3] America’s GDP in April 2011 is $14.6 trillion. In other words, we owe in debt almost as much as we produce each year. The debt crisis is worsening so fast that economists have trouble keeping up with it. It is now forecast that the debt will exceed the GDP of the U.S. this year! Just last year economists thought it wouldn’t happen until 2020!

In concluding Part 1 of this series on the economy, it is obvious America is in deep trouble, regardless of what the Obama administration or media claim. In Part II the global implications will be explored and what it means to America. Part III the effort to find solutions is actually politics as usual—demagoguery. Part IV will define who is ruining our economy and why they are doing it. In conclusion, there is growing concern that we might see hyperinflation. A real-world example of what this would mean occurred in the Weimar Republic discussed earlier in this article.

This is what happened to one family;

Karl Bonhoeffer, the father of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the humble Christian pastor who stood up to Hitler and died by firing squad for it, had a life insurance policy that paid 100,000 marks at maturity; about $1.2 million in today’s dollars. He faithfully paid his premiums for 50 years. When the policy matured towards the end of 1923and Bonhoeffer cashed it in, the 100,000 marks could buy a bottle of wine and strawberries. By the time he received the money, it would only buy the strawberries.[2]

If we don’t stop the insanity in Washington, this could be our future. It doesn’t have to be. Every American has a responsibility to tell their Representative and Senators in Washington to make deep and meaningful cuts to the 2012 budget. If your Representative or Senator does not make those cuts, he or she must not be reelected in 2012 if they are up for reelection.

Click here for part -----; 2, 3

Footnotes:

1. Eric Metaxas. Bonhoeffer, Pastor Martyr, Prophet, Spy. (Thomas Nelson, New York) 2010. Pp. 43-44.
2. Ibid. p 44.
3. The GDP is the total market value of all final goods and services produced in a country in a given year, equal to total consumer, investment and government spending, plus the value of exports, minus the value of imports. It might be easier to understand the GDP as the total net value of all economic activity in a country. The Per Capita GDP is the GDP divided by the population of a nation. It is a very powerful tool to compare year to year and nation to nation.

Michael Coffman. Rescuing a Broken America, (Morgan James Publishing, New York), 2010. P 67

E-Mail: mcoffman@epi-us.com

Website: DiscerningToday.org

OF SILLINESS AND CARNIVAL BARKERS

2011-05-03T14:42:00.004-05:00

By Lynn Stuter
May 3, 2011
NewsWithViews.com

Some of us heard, some of us read, the sarcastically uttered words of Barack Hussein Obama on Wednesday, April 27, 2011. With so many much more important things on the American agenda, like campaigning, golf and appearing on The Oprah Show, Barack Hussein Obama II pronounced, with great flourish and fanfare, that the issue of his birth certificate was a silly sideshow worthy of carnival barkers.

This sarcastic pronouncement, by Obama, is really nothing more than proof of his unmitigated hatred for America and more importantly, for the United States Constitution. It falls right in line with the unconstitutional gaggle of czars Obama has appointed, on the taxpayer dime, to advise him in matters that heretofore have been the job of cabinet members whose appointments must clear Senate scrutiny.

It also falls right in line with the unconstitutional passage of Obamacare, now being challenged in court with some 28 states as plaintiffs.

But Obama's words, his reference to sideshows, silliness and carnival barkers, was a clear and concise message to those listening, that Obama detests the United States Constitution, and the reason for it: rule of law. In one fell swoop, he pronounced himself quite above it all; quite above having to abide by the same rules as everyone else; quite above the silliness that he considers the United States Constitution to be. Reminiscent of Obama's words shortly after moving into the White House, "I won."

And the news media present lapped it up like a bunch of half-starved, mangy dogs being given audience at the altar of a shiny golden idol!

And when the appearance was finished, and the self-anointed had withdrawn to his leisure, the news organizations present returned to their prospective slum dwellings and dutifully proclaimed that Obama had produced his long-form birth certificate; the White House website complete with a pdf of correspondence that, while it should appear crisp and clear, having been produced on modern computer printers, looks more like it came off an old mimeograph machine.

On closer inspection, many immediately proclaimed the Certificate of Live Birth as a computer assembled document. It was obvious, at first blush, that the print had been superimposed over the "safety paper" background; by whom is not known and certainly not disclosed by the White House. The document carries no seal of authenticity which should be apparent even on a copy. Opened with a graphics illustrator program, the various layers of the document become readily apparent. This is not a certified copy provided by Department of Health, Hawaii.

It would come to light that the "copy" of the Certificate of Live Birth, released to the lamestream press, dutifully put up on their websites without one question asked, in the same fashion they presented the COLB previously, was copied with the COLB and other correspondence used as a backdrop such that those documents bled through onto the claimed Certificate of Live Birth. Since this phenomenon is apparent on the copies put up on all the lamestream media websites, it is obvious that it came from the White House. It is equally obvious that the "safety paper" background was added after the copies provided to the press by the White House were produced.

Given his hatred of Americans and all things America, this was quite obviously a deliberate "in your face" move by Obama and his minions who could then sit back and laugh uproariously at the stupidity of those who bow and scrape at his feet.

The news media proclaimed, to all who would agree, that Obama was born in the United States, as though that were the qualifier to be eligible to the office of president. They screamed it from the roof-tops, blasted it from their news desks, proclaimed it in print. One has to wonder if they are really and truly that stupid.

To be eligible to the office of president, the candidate must be natural born. That means the candidate must be born of two American citizens and born on American soil. Two out of three does not cut it. Obama may be native born but he is not natural born. He admitted it prior to Wednesday, April 27, 2011; the Certificate of Live Birth does not change that.

Beyond the fact that Barack Hussein Obama Sr was a British citizen when Barack Hussein Obama II was born, thus making Obama ineligible to the office of president, there is also the following matters that remain unresolved but that are relevant to the situation:

1. The divorce papers of Lolo and Ann (Dunham) Soetoro list Barack, then over the age of 18, as a dependent of Lolo Soetoro for the purposes of education; further that Lolo Soetoro had not supported his "wife or children" since 1974. Even at this time, step-children would not be listed as dependents of a step-father in divorce proceedings, but adopted children would be. In the Fransiskus Assisi Primary School registration document, Obama is listed as Barry Soetoro, Indonesian citizen. There has been no proof presented that Barry Soetoro had his name legally changed back to Barack Hussein Obama or that he completed the necessary legal work to reclaim native born status. For all anyone knows, Obama is still an Indonesian citizen. And while he may have been born in Hawaii, the document Obama claims is his birth certificate does not reflect his adoption by Lolo Soetoro. Even if Obama were to present legal documents proving he changed his name back to Barack Hussein Obama, such would not change the fact that Lolo Soetoro was acknowledged as his legal father, not Barack Hussein Obama Sr. This makes the birth certificate, as Obama II has presented it, inaccurate and of questionable legal status.

2. The fraudulent use of three social security numbers, issued for the states of Connecticut, Michigan and Ohio, that Barack Hussein Obama II has used over the years. It is of note that Barack Hussein Obama II has not lived in any of these three states.

3. The fraudulent selective service registration documents of Barack Hussein Obama II.

People, do not be led astray by an empty suit with a magician's bag of tricks intended to obfuscate the facts with sleight of hand, aided and abetted by an equally shallow and complicit lamestream press corps that looks every bit the court jester.

Demand Congress investigate all of the questions surrounding Obama's eligibility. If Obama refuses to produce all his records, sealed by him against scrutiny by the American people, with the lamestream media not only complicit but championing the cause of secrecy, then it is incumbent that he vacate the Oval Office and the White House immediately. In the words of Barack Obama, "The only people who don't want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide." Touché.

And counter to Obama's sarcastic portrayal of the United States Constitution as silliness only worthy of a carnival barker sideshow, there is no document more important to your security, your freedom, your liberty, irrespective of what you've been taught by the government schools. The United States Constitution is the reason so many oppressed people have flocked to our shores over the years. Barack Hussein Obama II wants to make the United States the same as the nations from which the oppressed fled – a "democracy" in which governance is based on the opinions, passions and prejudices of those in power; with the rights of property and personal security subject to the unscrupulous, arbitrary and capricious whims of those in power.

Obama claims he is "bemused" by all this; those Americans who understand the United States Constitution are anything but bemused! They've been anything but bemused since this fraud took up residence in the White House.

Ben Franklin, on the occasion of the adjournment of the Constitutional Convention, when asked what form of government the Founding Fathers had given us, responded, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

Keeping our Constitutional Republic depends on our vigilance in protecting the United States Constitution, the document that requires that our president be a natural born citizen. By Obama's own admission, he is not.

Activist and researcher, Stuter has spent the last fifteen years researching systems theory and systems philosophy with a particular emphasis on education as it pertains to achieving the sustainable global environment. She home schooled two daughters. She has worked with legislators, both state and federal, on issues pertaining to systems governance, the sustainable global environment and education reform. She networks nationwide with other researchers and a growing body of citizens concerned about the transformation of our nation from a Constitutional Republic to a participatory democracy. She has traveled the United States and lived overseas.

Web site: www.learn-usa.com

E-Mail: lmstuter@learn-usa.com

Osama bin Laden killed in US special operation

2011-05-03T09:47:00.003-05:00

DEBKAfile Special Report
May 2, 2011, 7:34 AM (GMT+02:00)

The announcement that al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden had been killed in an American operation in Abbottabad (150 north of Islamabad in Pakistan) was made early Monday, May 2, by US President Barack Obama at the White House. The first lead to his whereabouts had been received in August. Last week, Obama said, he authorized an operation on the ground to go after Bin Laden in Pakistan.

"It was a special operation carried out by a small team of Americans last night," he said.

None were harmed and care was taken not to harm civilians. "After a firefight, bin Laden was killed and the US force took possession of his body."
The US president said he had called the Pakistani president and prime minister overnight about the operation, the most significant event in the long fight on terrorism. He repeated the words of President George W. Bush: the US was not at war against Islam but a mass murderer of Muslims. America must remain vigilant, he said.

Upon hearing the news, jubilant crowds gathered around the White House and other parts of America singing, dancing and shouting USA… USA! Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton published notices of congratulation to their successor and US intelligence and military on the triumphant conclusion of the long pursuit which they initiated.
debkafile's counter-terror experts note that Bin Laden's death while momentous has not terminated the threat of al Qaeda terror, whose main thrust has refocused in recent years on the Middle East and Africa, especially in places like Yemen, Somalia, Algeria and the Sahara.
For years, al Qaeda sources claimed that bin Laden had kept a special strike force ready to go into action in the West on the news of his death or capture. This report was never confirmed by intelligence information.

Washington has meanwhile issued a global alert to US embassies and citizens of enhanced terror potential in revenge for Osama bin Laden's death. Reports are coming out now that in the firefight which ended in his death some of Bin Laden's kin, possibly one of his sons, was killed as well as bodyguards.

Dump his ass in the sea, now shark bait! Hasta La Vista Asswipe!

AMERICAN EDUCATION FAILS BECAUSE IT ISN'T EDUCATION

2011-04-20T16:47:00.006-05:00

by Tom DeWeese
April 20, 2011
NewsWithViews.com

The debate over public education grows more heated. Regularly, reports are released showing that the academic abilities of American students continue to fall when compared to those in other countries.

Twenty years ago the U.S. ranked first in the world in the number of young adults who had high school diplomas and college degrees. Today we rank ninth and seventh, respectively, among industrialized nations. Compared to Europe and Asia, 15-year-olds in the United States are below average in applying math skills to real-life tasks. The United States ranks 18 out of 24 industrialized nations in terms of relative effectiveness of its education system. Knowledge in history, geography, grammar, civics and literature are all in decline in terms of academic understanding and achievement.

To solve the crisis, politicians, community leaders, and the education community all preach the same mantra. Students fail, they tell us, because “expectations haven’t been set high enough.” We need more “accountability,” they say. And every education leader and nearly every politician presents the same “solution” to the education crisis: more money, better pay for teachers, and smaller classroom numbers so the children get enough attention from the teachers.

Consequently, there are two specific categories in which the U.S. excels, compared to the rest of the world. First, the U.S. ranks second in the world in the amount we spend per student per year on education = $11,152. The U.S. is also a leader in having some of the smallest classroom numbers in the world. Yet the slide continues. American students grow more illiterate by the year. How can that be? We’re doing everything the “experts” tell us to do. We’re spending the money. We’re building more and more schools. We’re raising teacher’s pay.

Every American should understand that these three items: higher pay, smaller classrooms and more money for schools are the specific agenda of the National Education Association (NEA). The NEA is not a professional organization for teachers. It is a labor union and its sole job is to get more money into the education system, and more pay for its members. It also seeks to make work easier for its members – smaller classrooms. Clearly the NEA is not about education – it’s about money and a political agenda.

Clearly the nation’s education system is not teaching the children. They can’t read or work math problems without a calculator. They can’t spell, find their own country on a map, name the president of the United States or quote a single founding father. America’s children are becoming just plain dumb.

Yet we have been focusing on a massive national campaign to “fix” the schools for the past two decades or more. Now we have ultra high-tech, carpeted, air-conditioned school buildings with computers and television sets. We have education programs full of new ideas, new methods, and new directions. In the 1990’s we set “national standards,” accountability through “national testing” through Goals 2000. Through that program we declared that every child would come to school “ready to learn,” “no child would be left behind,” and pledged that our kids would be “second to none” in the world. Above all, we’ve spent money, money and more money. The result, American students have fallen further behind, placing 19th out of 21 nations in math, 16th in science, and dead last in physics.

With all the programs and attention on education, how can that be? To coin a well-worn cliché – “it’s the programs, stupid.” More precisely, it’s the federal programs and the education bureaucracy that run them. It is simply a fact that over the past twenty years America’s education system has been completely restructured to deliberately move away from teaching basic academics to a system that focuses on little more than training students for menial jobs. The fact is, the restructured education system has been designed to deliberately dumb-down the children. (Note: the NEA hates that phrase!)

Most Americans find that statement to be astonishing and, in fact, to be beyond belief. Parents don’t want to let go of their child-like faith that the American education system is the best in the world, designed to give their children the academic strength to make them the smartest in the world. Politicians continue to offer old solutions of more money and more federal attention, almost stamping their feet, demanding that kids learn something. Programs are being proposed that call for teacher testing to hold them accountable for producing educated children. More programs call for annual tests to find out if children have learned anything. The nation is in panic. But none of these hysterical responses will improve education – because none of them address the very root of the problem.

The truth is, none of the problems will go away, nor will children learn until both parents and politicians stop trusting the education establishment and start ridding the system of its failed ideas and programs. Parents and politicians must stop believing the propaganda handed down by the education establishment that says teaching a child in the twenty-first century is different and must be more high tech than in days past. It simply isn’t so.

THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM

Today’s education system is driven by money from the federal government and private foundations, both working hand-in-hand with the education establishment headquartered in the federal Department of Education and manned by the National Education Association (NEA). These forces have combined with psychologists, huge textbook publishers, teacher colleges, the healthcare profession, government bureaucrats, big corporations, pharmaceutical companies and social workers to invade local school boards, classrooms and private homes in the name of “fixing” education.

The record shows that each of these entities has benefited from this alliance through enriched coffers and increased political power. In fact, the new education restructuring is working wonders for everyone involved – except for the children and their parents. As a result of this combined invasion force, today’s classroom is a very different place from only a few years ago.

There is simply not enough room on these pages to tell the entire history of education restructuring and transformation. It dates back to the early efforts by psychologists like John Dewey, whose work began to change how teachers were taught to teach in the nation’s teacher colleges. The changes were drastic as education moved away from an age-old system that taught teachers how to motivate students to accept the whole scope of academic information available. Instead the new system explored methods to maneuver students through psychological behavior modification processes. Rather than to instill knowledge, once such a power was established the education process became more of a method to instill specific agendas into the minds of children.

As fantastic as it seems, the entire history of the education restructuring effort is carefully and thoroughly documented in a book called The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America. The book was written by Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt, a former official at the Department of Education in the Reagan Administration. While there in 1981 – 1982, Charlotte found the “mother lode” hidden away at the Department. In short, she found all of the education establishment’s plans for restructuring America’s classrooms. Not only did she find the plans for what they intended to do, she discovered how they were going to do it and most importantly why. Since uncovering this monstrous plan, Charlotte Iserbyt has dedicated her life to getting that information into the hands of parents, politicians and the news media.

Iserbyt’s work details how the process to restructure America’s education system began at the beginning of the Twentieth Century and slowly picked up speed over the decades. The new system used psychology-based curriculum to slowly change the attitudes, values and beliefs of the students.

The new school agenda was very different from most peoples’ understanding of the purpose of American education. NEA leader William Carr, secretary of the Educational Policies Commission, clearly stated that new agenda when in 1947 he wrote in the “NEA Journal:” “The teaching profession prepares the leaders of the future… The statesmen, the industrialists, the lawyers, the newspapermen…all the leaders of tomorrow are in schools today.” Carr went on to write: “The psychological foundations for wider loyalties must be laid…Teach those attitudes which will result ultimately in the creation of a world citizenship and world government… we can and should teach those skills and attitudes which will help to create a society in which world citizenship is possible.”

Professor Benjamin Bloom, called the Father of Outcome-based Education (OBE) said: “The purpose of education and the schools is to change the thoughts, feelings and actions of students.” B.F. Skinner determined that applied psychology in the class curriculum was the means to bring about such changes in the students values and beliefs simply by relentlessly inputting specific programmed messages. Skinner once bragged: “I could make a pigeon a high achiever by reinforcing it on a proper schedule.” Whole psychological studies were produced to prove that individuals could be made to believe anything, even to accept that black was white, given the proper programming.

The education system is now a captive of the Skinner model of behavior modification programming. In 1990, Dr. M. Donald Thomas perfectly outlined the new education system in an article in “The Effective School Report” entitled “Education 90: A Framework for the Future.” Thomas said: “From Washington to modern times, literacy has meant the ability to read and write, the ability to understand numbers, and the capacity to appreciate factual material. The world, however, has changed dramatically in the last 30 years. The introduction of technology in information processing, the compression of the world into a single economic system, and the revolution in political organizations are influences never imagined to be possible in our lifetime… Literacy, therefore, will be different in the year 2000. It will mean that students will need to follow

Appreciation of different cultures, differences in belief systems and differences in political structures.

An understanding of communications and the ability of people to live in one world as one community of nations…

In a compressed world with one economic system…it is especially important that all our people be more highly educated and that the differences between low and high socio-economic students be significantly narrowed…

Education begins at birth and ends at death…

Education is a responsibility to be assumed by the whole community…

Learning how to learn is more important than memorizing facts…

Schools form partnerships with community agencies for public service projects to be a part of schooling…

Rewards are provided for encouraging young people to perform community service.”

In this one outline, Dr. Thomas provides the blueprint for today’s education system that is designed to de-emphasis academic knowledge; establish the one-world agenda with the United Nations as its center and away from belief in national sovereignty; replace individual achievement with collectivist group-think ideology and invade the family with an “It takes a village” mind-set. Dr. Thomas’ outline for education is the root of why today’s children aren’t learning. These ideas permeate every federal program, every national standard, every textbook and every moment of your child’s school day.

THE BUSH SOLUTION

Upon election, Former President Bush declared education to be his number one priority. His first legislation to reach the hill was a major education policy proposal called: “No Child Left Behind.” The president said education was the hallmark of his time as Governor of Texas where he imposed strict guidelines for annual testing. He says he wanted to confront the growing problem of American illiteracy and the low standing of test scores. And the president said, “We must focus the spending of federal tax dollars on things that work.”

To those ends, the former President’s education policy proposal addresses four specific principles including: 1) Annual testing to assure the schools are actually teaching the children and achieving specific educational goals. 2) Restore local control by giving local and state school boards the “flexibility to innovate.” Said the former President, “educational entrepreneurs should not be hindered by excessive red tape and regulation.” 3) Stop funding failure. President Bush proposed several options for helping failing schools to improve. 4) Give parents a choice to find a school that does teach. Former President Bush gave schools a specific period of time to improve. If they failed, parents would be given the option of going to another, more successful school by way of a voucher plan.

On the surface these proposals sounded to many like fresh new ideas to take back local control of the schools and run the federal programs out the door. But time and a closer examination proved otherwise. In fact, President Bush himself unknowingly summed up the problem with his education program with one statement: “Change will not come by disdaining or dismantling the federal role of education.”

To the great disappointment of many, President Bush decided to completely ignore the very root of the education problem – the federal government and its programs. Instead, President Bush’s proposal accepted the incorrect conclusion that the problem with education is simply an over blown bureaucracy that wastes federal funds and fails to enforce clear standards by rewarding bad schools. His numerous statements that “no child will be left behind,” came straight from the decade-old motto of the Children’s Defense Fund, the group that claims Hillary Clinton as one of its leaders. By being so off-the-mark, there just is no way the Bush proposal could appropriately address a single school reform issue.

First, his plan to restore local control was directly tied to the use of Title I federal funding. Title I is one of the main federal programs to directly fund the “at-risk” catch-all devise now driving the invasion of in-home social workers; the establishment of in-school health clinics; the enforcement of pop diagnosis by teachers and administrators that has put millions of children on Ritalin. Title I is the root of the education establishment’s attack on families.

Second, by leaving the federal Department of Education intact, President Bush left in full force the machinery now driving the education system. State school boards are simply outposts of the federal bureaucrats. They are of the same mindset, driving the same programs in the states that are dictated by the federal office. Local ideas from local teachers and parents have no chance of a hearing in these vast bureaucracies. Failing to address this behemoth simply dooms any attempt to improve education.

President Bush made much of the testing program in the state of Texas, which shows scores up by dramatic numbers. His first Secretary of Education, Rod Paige, owed his appointment, in a great way, to his leadership in the Texas testing program. But a close look at what actually took place in Texas caused concern.

Under Governor Bush, Texas established a statewide achievement test called TAAS, which is administered annually to every public school student from third grade through twelfth. Texas officials tout the fact that, today, Texas reports an 80% passing rate. The test is given the credit for the dramatic increase because, as Bush then proposed on the federal level. TAAS was touted as providing “accountability” and an annual measuring stick to determine how students are progressing.

However, Texas colleges reported that Texas-educated students still couldn’t read, even after getting good grades on the TAAS test. Why? Because so much emphasis is placed on passing the test that teachers have begun to “teach to the test.” Even months before test day, teachers pressure students to be ready. They become little more than cheerleaders. Schools fly banners, hold pep rallies and the pressure builds to pass the test. Classroom time is spent practicing for the test rather than just focusing on well-rounded academic curriculum. Rarely do classes branch off into anything that’s not on the test.

Why such pressure? Because teacher salaries and job security are tied to the results. Schools have even been found to cheat on the results. Is this what parents have in mind when they call for accountability? This is the heart of the Bush plan. Under it, parents may see test scores go up, but they will find that their children still can’t read.

The Bush plan ignored the existence of the social scientists who have made psychological guinea pigs out of the children. It ignored the role of the Department of Education as a teacher training lab which brags that, in just two weeks, it can completely change the attitudes, values and beliefs of good, academically-focused teachers, and turn them into pliable facilitators to help dumb-down the very students they sought to teach. Nothing was changed in the classroom under the Bush plan. And the same plan flourishes under President Barrack Obama.

TIME TO INVESTIGATE THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

From the start of his administration, President Bush made it clear that he had no intention of getting rid of the Department of Education. Consequently, the Republican dominated Congress dropped its intentions to de-fund and remove the Department of Education. However, it is not possible to make the changes that Americans are hoping for without taking that step. Bush’s plan simply used warm and fuzzy rhetoric to further institutionalize more of the same. His voucher plan has proven to be little more than a Judas Goat to lead private schools into the nightmare of federal programs, which attack and feed on any school that accepts federal money. And so the cancer grows.

While promising to fix American education, the President doomed any hope of it by insisting on keeping the establishment intact. The “No-Child-Left-Behind” Act simply succeeded in institutionalizing the failed policies of Goals 2000 and School to Work. And that’s why American education continues to fall.

It’s time to ignore the agenda of a self-interested labor union and begin to look at the real reasons why American public schools are in crisis. What is robbing our children of the ability to get a good education?

Americans who want to rid the nation of this plague have little choice but to insist that their representatives in Congress begin a complete investigation into the Department of Education and its policies, its waste, and its fraud on the taxpayers, parents and children of this nation.

Perhaps then, as the facts are exposed under the hot lights of a Congressional hearing, the American people will begin to understand that the problem with education isn’t low paid teachers and crowded classrooms – but rather, is the result of a cynical, deliberate attempt to dumb-down America to promote a radical political agenda. For that is the truth.

Tom DeWeese is one of the nation’s leading advocates of individual liberty, free enterprise, private property rights, personal privacy, back-to-basics education and American sovereignty and independence.

A native of Ohio, he’s been a candidate for the Ohio Legislature, served as editor of two newspapers, and has owned several businesses since the age of 23. In 1989 Tom led the only privately-funded election-observation team to the Panamanian elections. In 2006 Tom was invited to Cambridge University to debate the issue of the United Nations before the Cambridge Union, a 200 year old debating society. Today he serves as Founder and President of the American Policy Center and editor of The DeWeese Report

For 40 years Tom DeWeese has been a businessman, grassroots activist, writer and publisher. As such, he has always advocated a firm belief in man’s need to keep moving forward while protecting our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.

The DeWeese Report , 70 Main Street, Suite 23, Warrenton Virginia. (540) 341-8911

E-Mail: admin@americanpolicy.org

E-Mail: ampolicycenter@hotmail.com

Website: www.americanpolicy.org

UNIONS, PROTESTS AND THE COLLAPSE OF THE U.S. ECONOMY PART 2

2011-04-17T11:57:00.006-05:00

By Dr. Michael S. Coffman Ph. D.
April 16, 2011
NewsWithViews.com

One hundred UAW members effectively shut down a Detroit bank for an hour and half; Eighty striking Pocono Medical Center workers and SEIU members fill a bank lobby in Stroudsburg, PA to demand a meeting with its CEO, intimidating employees in the process; Over 200 arrested in violent labor protests in London; Grocery stores stormed; Demonstrators angrily protesting at homes of targeted business management. Could these seemingly separate events actually be part of a massive agenda?

On the surface, the protests in Wisconsin and other states may seem to be simply about humble workers trying to fight to eek out a meager living. For many of the workers, that is what they believe it is all about. To be certain, there are many examples where teacher or public employee unions have protected a member against incompetent, vindictive administrators and bosses. Historically, there are many positive things unions have done.

The truth today, however, is actually much more complicated and fundamentally opposed to all that has made this country great. What we are seeing is just the beginning of a well-planned agenda to destroy the United States as we know it.

To put all of the pieces of this massive puzzle together would require scores of shelf-straining volumes. Although the roots of this agenda go back more than a hundred years, what is happening today started during one of the most radical decades of the 20th century, the 1960’s.

The Sixties brought rampant hedonism, radical social change, and political upheaval, all of which unleashed irreversible havoc and destruction on a very unprepared nation. Many of the agitators of that turbulent decade tossed out the traditional values, morals and beliefs of their parents’ and grandparents’ generations and chose instead to pursue the radical, extreme ideas of socialism and communism.

After decades of cold war with what President Ronald Reagan later called the “Evil Empire,” it is now graphically obvious that communism and other leftist ideologies did not die with the fall of the Soviet Union. This ideology has silently spread like a cancer to America.

Cloward and Piven

By now, most people who are at all interested in what is happening in America have heard of the “Cloward and Piven Strategy. The strategy has been accepted as the bible of the progressive left movement and is at the heart of this cancer.” Birthed by sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and his wife Frances Fox Piven, the strategy was published in an article entitled The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation, an ultra left leaning magazine which strongly supported the Communist bloc during the cold war.

The purpose of the Cloward and Piven Strategy “seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.” It also called for “cadres of aggressive organizers” to use “demonstrations to create a climate of militancy…. Carefully orchestrated media campaigns, carried out by friendly, leftwing journalists, would float the idea of "a federal program of income redistribution.”

One of the early targets of the strategy was New York City. Just as planned, New York City was overwhelmed by the cost of social programs and was forced to declare bankruptcy in 1975. New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani attempted to expose the attack in the late 1990s and again in 2009-2010 when the now bankrupt ACORN? (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) became front-page news. He accused them of deliberate economic sabotage. Not surprisingly, the mainstream media turned a deaf ear. Most of the mainstream media today have been infiltrated with editors and writers supporting Cloward and Piven ideology. They have essentially become propaganda outlets for progressive left-wing dogma.

Piven’s influence and voice are still very much in the forefront of The Nation’s headlines. In an article published in the The Nation just last January Piven wrote in, “Mobilizing the Jobless,”

Local protests have to accumulate and spread—and become more disruptive—to create serious pressures on national politicians. An effective movement of the unemployed will have to look something like the strikes and riots that have spread across Greece… or like the student protests that recently spread with lightning speed across England in response to the prospect of greatly increased school fees.

In both Greece and England the riots were violent and bloody. In England, a car containing Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall was violently attacked. When the rioters tried to break the windows of the car they yelled, “Off with their heads.”

Violent revolution is exactly what Piven is calling for in the United States. Piven’s article goes on to say, “So where are the angry crowds, the demonstrations, sit-ins and unruly mobs?” she writes. “After all, the injustice is apparent. Working people are losing their homes and their pensions while robber-baron CEOs report renewed profits and windfall bonuses.”

The duplicity of Piven and the unions is unbelievable. The housing collapse starting in 2007 and the economic collapse of 2008 which led to the mortgage defaults were at least partially caused by the myriads of special interest community organizing NGOs. They effectively used the Cloward and Piven Strategy of violence and intimidation for decades to force banks to provide mortgagees to low income people who could not afford them.[1] When the housing crisis hit in 2007, it was the banks that were blamed, not community organizing NGOs and Congress, both of which were at the heart of the problem.

Piven also protests the fat salaries of big business calling them “robber barons,” while glossing over the scores of union leaders who are making double, triple and quadruple six figure incomes, and higher. The discrepancy between salaries of union bosses and those of union members would infuriate most average union members if they knew. Worse, these union bosses typically receive large annual raises of 4 and 5% in many cases, while union members see a much lower percentage, if they get any raise at all. Union members are forced pay dues to their unions or lose their jobs. Yet, these union leaders and bosses are never called “robber barons.”

The Real Goal of Unions

Many unions and community organizing NGOs today are now using the Cloward-Piven Strategy to gain more and more power. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is one of the worst.

Stephen Lerner is the former director of SEIU’s banking and finance campaign. SEIU claims Lerner is on a leave of absence. At the Left Forum held at Pace University on March 19 this year, Lerner was introduced as partnering with unions and groups in Europe and South America. In his speech, Lerner laid out his recommendations to bring the kind of economic collapse that Cloward and Piven promote, “There are actually extraordinary things we could do right now to start to destabilize the folks that are in power and start to rebuild a movement.”

Lerner's plan calls for a carefully coordinated attack on home mortgages, student loans, and local government debt payments. Basically the plan calls for people who have these loans to stop paying. If enough people did this, reasoned Lerner, it would cause bank insolvency, which would theoretically cause the banks to renegotiate the terms of the loans. The attack would cause the destabilization that Lerner longs for and bring about a stock market crisis that would facilitate the transfer of power the radical left wants.

Lerner's plan starts by having union thugs attack JP Morgan Chase in early May with demonstrations on Wall Street and protests at the stockholders’ meeting. Lerner cautions that although unions would benefit from this strategy, they they cannot be seen as having orchestrated the disruption.

This is blatant economic terrorism; a term not to be thrown around lightly. The Center of Security Policy of Geneva, which is an international foundation that promotes the building and maintenance of peace, security and stability defined economic terrorism as “coordinated and sophisticated or massive destabilizing actions in order to disrupt the economic and financial stability of a state, a group of states or a society (such as market oriented western societies) for ideological or religious motives.”

Likewise, the FBI defines terrorism as “The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

There is no question that Learner’s plan is economic terrorism under the Center of Security’s definition. It is less clear under the FBI’s definition because of the word “unlawful.” It is certainly lawful to protest or picket. That is a civil right embedded solidly within the Constitution. But when does the use of force, violence or intimidation become unlawful?

The courts have historically given a lot of latitude to unions and protesters because of the inherent tensions and high emotions on a picket line. Historically, the use of blatant force or violence by unions was done out of sight and not provable in court. Not anymore. Dozens of instances of raw coercion, beatings and violence have been video recorded, but the police or courts look the other way.

A legal line must be drawn when force and violence becomes a tool to intimidate and destabilize. This is at the heart of the Cloward and Piven Strategy commonly used by SEIU and other unions, as well as leftist protestors. So far it has not been found illegal, especially within the Obama administration.

Why should the Obama administration be concerned about the violence and intimidation, when Obama admits he and SEIU are joined at the hip? In a speech at the SEIU’s 2007 convention, then candidate Obama pledged his total support to the unions so they could “take back” America. He claimed he “has spent his entire adult life working with SEIU” and that SEIU’s “agenda is my agenda,” whose “life’s work is your (SEIU’s) work.”

It is therefore no surprise that Lerner is not only a powerful voice within the unions, but also within the Obama administration. As with the former President of SEIU, Andy Stern, Lerner has visited the White House on numerous occasions. Based on their various speeches, both Stern’s and Lerner’s agenda go way beyond good fringe benefits and a living wage for workers.

Stern admitted to PBS on June 15, 2007 that he is trying to organize the world using the old communist phrase, “workers of the world unite! It’s not just a slogan anymore; it is the way we have to do our work.” Responding to another question during the PBS interview, Stern said “There are opportunities in America to share better in the wealth, to rebalance the power and unions and government are part of the solution.” This is militant socialism leaning towards Marxism.

The use of power to accomplish this goal is a given for Stern, “we are trying to use the power of persuasion and if that doesn’t work, we use the persuasion of power.” In yet another talk, Stern proclaimed “we took names, we watched how they voted, we know where they live.” His union thugs have terrorized spouses and families of corporate executives by militant protesting on the lawns of their homes.

The militancy that Cloward and Piven prescribed is moving forward with great speed and effectiveness. The progressive left clearly wants the events and actions in Wisconsin to become the norm. Union bosses now openly associate with socialist and communist groups. Mike Elk, third-generation union organizer and labor journalist wrote recently for a far left wing blog called Talking Union, conceived and administered by the Democratic Socialist of America’s Labor Commission.

In the past, labor leaders have been hesitant to call militant actions in part because they’re afraid they won’t have the support and energy of union members… ‘I think that we have entered a new era of labor militancy,’ SEIU President Mary Kay Henry told me the other day after speaking at a rally in front of 10,000 people. “I think Wisconsin proves that the rank and file is willing to take bold steps.”

The events in Wisconsin ensued when Governor Walker, facing a huge budget shortfall, had to take steps to avoid economic disaster for his state. Many states are facing such deficits. With the deliberate destabilization and disruption of the entire system as stated goals, it isn’t a stretch to link the current pension crises facing so many states, to the Cloward Piven goal of collapsing the economic system.

What amazes many people is the unions have no real grounds for discontent during this economic crisis. Public employees belonging to these unions typically make far more in salaries and benefits than do their private employee counterparts. An article in the New York Times reported that in Yonkers, more than 100 retirees are making significantly more in an annual pension than they did in salaries while they were still working. As it is, New York’s unfunded pension liabilities alone are $10.4 billion, which is a mere shadow of California’s $59.5 billion unfunded liability.

As bad as this is, New York’s retirement liability is a mere pittance when unfunded medical and other retirement benefits are included. Excluding New York City, the state’s total post-employment benefits total is $80 billion. For New York City alone, it is $62 billion. Paul Krugman, op-ed writer for the NYT wrote on February 27 of this year that the pension crisis in New York has resulted from “years and years of huge giveaways to unions” which have resulted in “gigantic, unpayable debts.” Tragically, this is true for too many states.

The Pew Center on the States estimates that all funds combined currently operate at a $1 trillion deficit, leaving many state public pensions funded well below the 80 percent level suggested by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). Many analysts believe that the $1 trillion deficit actually is much higher. The Pensions are contracted. The contracts are negotiated by the unions. The shortfalls are not an accident or an oversight.

Not all states having to take draconian action are being attacked by unions. Fox News reported on March 30 that the Democrat controlled Washington State legislature and governor are requiring public employee unions to pay far more of their retirement benefits than those proposed for Wisconsin public unions. Yet, the same unions whose thugs eventually stormed the Wisconsin state house in protest, and are spending millions of dollars trying to impeach Wisconsin Republican legislators, are strangely quiet in Washington State. It appears that Democrats are also joined at the hip with the unions.

Many leaders of the unions are seeking nothing but power and all that it brings with it. The inconsistency between Wisconsin and Washington is just further evidence that power is the real agenda. In a speech at a meeting of the National Education Association (NEA) in 2010, NEA president, Dennis Van Roekel declares it is all about power, and “collective action.” At the NEA annual meeting in 2009, NEA’s Chief Counsel Robert Chanin said in his retirement speech,

It is not because we care about children, and it is not because we have a vision for a great public school for every child. The NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power. And we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to pay us hundreds of million of dollars in dues each year.

The NEA’s goal is finally out in the open. It’s all about power. Collective bargaining and the power it brings are more important than the good of the students.

These unions proclaim that their first priority is students. The just released in-depth documentary on education in America, Waiting for Superman, puts the lie to that statement. Waiting for Superman provides shocking evidence that the single greatest reason for the stinking cesspool of public education in American is the unions. The state of education is so bad, especially in the inner cities, that students must be selected by lottery to attend schools not controlled by the union; where they can actually get an education. Think of it. A child’s future is decided by the luck of the draw. That is the legacy of teacher unions.

The SEIU and the NEA are not alone in the power mongering. The Daily Caller reported that “AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka didn’t pull any punches Thursday as he continued attacks against Republicans involved in the ‘Wisconsin Moment.’” The article went on to say, “The President of one of the country’s most powerful unions hailed the ‘Midwest Uprising’ as just the beginning of a battle between labor and corporate-backed Republican ‘tools.’ It’s a battle that has been 25 years in the making.” The most telling thing Trumka said in his speech? “As progressives … it’s our job to transform the outrage, and to make this moment a movement.”

Socialist/Communist Connections

The unions also seem to be joined at the hip with socialists and communists. On October 2 last fall, hard leftist socialists and communists marched together with unions in Washington DC in the One Nation March. This February, Moveon.org, a leftist activist organization which has received millions of dollars from George Soros held a rally for SEIU members. The rally was actually organized by the ISO, the International Socialist Organization (ISO). The ISO website has this as its stated goal, “We see our task as building an independent socialist organization with members organizing in our workplaces, our schools and our neighborhoods to bring socialist ideas to the struggles we are involved in today, and the vision of a socialist world in the future.”

Further evidence of the consummation of this unholy marriage, Communist Party US boasts a working relationship with Trumka in elections analysis. John Olsen, President of the Connecticut Chapter of the AFL-CIO was chosen for an award by the PWW, People’s Weekly World, which is the Newspaper for the Communist Party US. Olsen attended the event and accepted the award. Most people don’t know or remember that former Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev proclaimed to the 1,375 people attending the 1959 Communist Party Congress in Moscow that a capitalist nation must become socialist before it can become communist:

"Society cannot leap into Communism from capitalism without going through a socialist stage of development.” The transition "in which socialism develops into Communism is a regular historical process that cannot be arbitrarily violated or avoided. Socialist countries, correctly using the opportunity of cooperation and mutual aid, will more or less simultaneously reach the highest phase of Communist society. "

This is exactly what has been happening in America. The power of the public employee unions is growing at an alarming rate, and they appear to have the endorsement of President Obama. The most frequent visitor to the White House in 2009 was Andy Stern formerly of the SEIU. Once Stern resigned in 2010, Anna Burger, Secretary-Treasurer of the SEIU became the most frequent visitor.

Richard Trumka, President of the AFL-CIO also brags he is “at the White House a couple of times a week…” While Trumka visits a couple times a week, NBC news reports the President has not even conferred once with at least six of his cabinet members since he became president! It is clear that the unions are hungry for power and are joined at the hip with the Obama administration. They are determined to completely and radically change the country as we have known it. This realization gives new meaning to Obama’s campaign promise, “In five days we are going to fundamentally transform America.”

With Ronald Reagan’s, “Mr. Gorbechev, Tear Down This Wall!!!” still ringing in the halls of history, it is staggering to see what is happening in the United States of America. When President Reagan voiced those words we were the beacon of faith, freedom, innovation, initiative and defense of the defenseless. Many Americans still want to be that nation. People by the millions have flocked to these shores looking for a better life. America cannot keep up with the flood. However, we are rapidly losing this light of hope.

Never forget that Communists have to put up walls to keep their people imprisoned. Communism is a virulent, pernicious poison. Destruction, Domination and Death are its unholy children. The atrocities that are occurring in communist countries like China and North Vietnam today are getting almost no coverage in the media. So the current generation of Americans has almost no awareness of the unbelievably appalling and wickedness of communism.

The cold war ended over twenty years ago. Everyone under 35 was a child when the Wall fell and the tanks rolled in Tiananmen Square. Many adults today have little or even no memory of the evils of communism and the oppression that always accompanies it. We have to remember what Soviet Premier Khrushchev told Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson during the Eisenhower administration:

“Your grandchildren will live under communism." Khrushchev said to Secretary Benson. Secretary Benson assured him that he would do all in his power to see to it that that did not happen.

Khrushchev then replied in substance, "You Americans are so gullible. No, you won't accept Communism outright; but we'll keep feeding you small doses of Socialism until you will finally wake up and find that you already have Communism. We won't have to fight you; we'll so weaken your economy, until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands."

Khrushchev knew what he was talking about. Those who would turn America into a communist/socialist nation are very close to fulfilling that goal. The union’s goal must be exposed and stopped. We have very little time left. For part one click below.

Footnotes:

1. It has been reported that Lerner is no longer with SEIU. However, an entry this week on the Blog site of Wade Rathke, founder of ACORN and friend of Stephen Lerner, says Lerner was not fired but rather he was placed on paid leave, to “think through his contribution to the union, but was certainly present at the recent international executive board meeting. He’s in a curious position no doubt, but it’s something like being an ‘injured reserve’ in the NFL and waiting for the team to find a place to bring him back on the roster.”

E-Mail: mcoffman@epi-us.com

Website: DiscerningToday.org

Read Part I

UNIONS, PROTESTS AND THE COLLAPSE OF THE U.S. ECONOMY PART 1

2011-04-17T11:35:00.006-05:00

By Dr. Michael S. Coffman Ph. D.
April 9, 2011
NewsWithViews.com

During the February/March Wisconsin Public Union Debacle the union workers were portrayed by the mainstream press as underpaid, overworked public workers who were having their bargaining “civil rights” unjustly attacked by Republicans bent on destroying the Union. The truth, however, paints a very different and dangerous picture that threatens the very foundations of America.

It used to be that public sector unions were shunned even by progressives. President Franklin Roosevelt, a strong friend to unions, warned in 1937, “The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.” The reason for his concern? “[A] strike of public employees manifests nothing less than intent on their part to obstruct the operations of government until their demands are satisfied. Such action looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it is unthinkable and intolerable.” Roosevelt’s fears are literally coming true today.

Roosevelt wasn’t the only one warning that public employees should not be unionized. George Meany, the first president of the AFL/CIO remarked in 1955, it was "impossible to bargain collectively with the government." But starting with Wisconsin in 1959, states began to allow collective bargaining in government. Again the AFL/CIO warned; “in terms of accepted collective bargaining procedures, government workers have no right beyond the authority to petition Congress—a right available to every citizen.” It wasn’t until Democrat progressives realized that public sector unions would give the Democrats and progressives millions of campaign dollars and votes in any election did progressives begin to clamor for the right of public employees to unionize.

Public sector unionization provides the perfect circle of corruption. Once public employees were unionized, progressive Democrats could promise union members the moon to get their votes and campaign contributions. Once in office, there was no incentive for the elected official to protect the taxpayer when bargaining with the union. After all, to progressives, the taxpayer is merely a faceless, bottomless pit of tax revenue. Conversely, politicians have every incentive to capitulate to the unions to get their vote and campaign funding in the next election. In effect, public unions help elect the very politicians who will act as "management" in their contract negotiations. In essence, unions can handpick the officials who will sit across from them at the bargaining table.

A private corporation cannot do this. They must be tough, or their labor costs will become so high they will go out of business. Collective-bargaining laws also gave government workers a powerful incentive to join unions. The portion of full-time unionized public employees jumped from 10% to 36% of the public-sector work force between 1960 and 1980.

Today, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) has more than 1.5 million members. In comparison, the largest exclusively private-sector union, the United Food and Commercial Workers has a paltry 1.3 million members. As large as the AFT is, however, it is dwarfed by the largest labor union in the United States: the National Education Association (NEA), which claims 3.2 million members. The NEA also claims that in a single decade it became the most powerful union in the nation.

Although highly variable, public unions have generally given their members incredible retirement benefits. For example, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association successfully negotiated a contract with California in 2006 giving the average union member $70,000 a year, and more than $100,000 with overtime. Corrections officers can also retire with 90% of their salaries as early as age 50. These kinds of benefits are not universal, but they are not uncommon either.

Nationwide the Bureau of Labor Statistics at the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), reported that private sector employees receive an average of $40,768, while public workers receive $54,933 annually in wages.

The DOL also reported that state and local government employees received benefits that were 69 percent higher than those in the private sector in 2010. State and local government employees earn $13.85 per hour in benefits compared to the private sector workers who earn an average of $8.20 per hour. The Cadillac benefit packages for state employees have resulted in unfunded pension liabilities from $1 to $2.8 trillion, according to StateBudgetSolutions.org. The National Center for Policy Analysis calculates an even higher unfunded pension liability for all states at $3.1 trillion.

Regardless, of the amount, it far exceeds the private sector and the individual state’s ability to sustain it. The cycle of corruption between progressives and public unions has been repeated time and time again until the public sector unfunded benefit packages now threaten to bankrupt the states. Hence, states across the country suffering this corruption must take direct aim at public employee unions and their grossly out-of-line pension benefits.

Certainly, not all states have fallen victim to the public union corruption cycle. The public employees and teacher salaries and benefits are in line with the private sector. However, many of these states are also suffering from staggering unfunded liabilities because past progressive-dominated legislatures and governors have raided or not contributed their share to retirement funds. These progressives needed to pay for their altruistic social programs and they got it from retirement funds. The money is gone now, leaving the current legislature and governor (usually Republican) the nightmare of trying to bring the state back from bankruptcy to solvency without being blamed for the nightmare.

Once it became apparent that the corruption caused by the past cozy relationship between unions and progressive politician is threatening state solvency, taxpayers are outraged. Last November candidates who promised fiscal responsibility were sent by the voters en masse to Congress, state legislatures and governor offices to fix the insolvency mess. However, fixing the mess is easier said than done. As soon as the Republicans try to apply fiscal responsibility, the unions scream their civil rights are being violated. They protest loudly, sometimes violently and generally claim they are due every dime they make.

Other than a willingness to make small concessions, unions so distort the facts that they make it sound as if the taxpayers are ripping off underpaid public workers. Tragically, their tactics are working. Millions of dollars in union sponsored attack ads are convincing voters that the Republicans are mean and are trying to destroy the unions when in fact they are trying to save their respective states.

New Jersey, Illinois and Wisconsin

Some states like Indiana addressed the pension/collective bargaining issue several years ago and are generally in good fiscal condition today. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie was the first governor to take on the unions following the November 2010 Republican Revolution. New Jersey was $11 billion in the red and getting worse every day.

On his first day in office Christie signed an executive order preventing state employee unions from making political contributions. That broke the union/politician corruption cycle that kept New Jersey’s public union’s fat and progressives in power. Christie also battled the teacher’s unions by preventing pay raises in 2010 and lifetime health benefits for the union’s members. He also asked for a one year freeze on salaries, changes in the pension rules to limit future benefits and for the employees to pay a tiny fraction of their salaries to help cover the costs of their health insurance.

Christie’s proposals met with a firestorm of condemnation from the unions. Politicians who lost most of their campaign contributions under Christie’s executive order also joined the chorus of vitriol. The unions alone spent over $6 million in attack ads against Christie. Christie stood his ground and retorted, "If we don't win this fight, there's no other fight left." He was correct. Without his changes, the state would soon be in bankruptcy. Ironically, many of the public employees would have $0 salaries and benefits because of layoffs, while others would be forced to take severe salary and benefit reductions.

Unions never see it that way, however. Invariably, they accuse the state of hiding money or not prioritizing budgets to allow public employees what they deserve. Even though their toes are hanging off the edge of the bankruptcy cliff, they refuse to acknowledge it and continue to demand more. This bizarre refusal to accept reality is one of the reasons the private sector unions have lost so many members. It would have closed the doors of GM forever, if President Obama hadn’t bailed GM out and paid the union off with taxpayer money.

Unlike New Jersey, Illinois (surprise, surprise) voted the progressives back into power in 2010. The unions convinced the reelected progressive legislature that they should raise taxes by a whopping 66 percent to cover the $13 billion deficit it faces in 2011. Thirteen billion dollars is half of the state’s $26 billion budget! Raising taxes is the standard progressive solution to fiscal ills in the public sector. However, most analysts warn the tax increase will backfire and can possibly even reduce total tax revenues as businesses close and workers lose their jobs.

The comparison between New Jersey and Illinois will provide the perfect test of tea party vs. progressive economic theory. Worse, the Illinois solution merely kicks the can down the road as the state faces exponentially increasing deficits in the future. The root problem of the shortfall is not addressed with radical increases in taxes. The root problem centers on the grossly overpaid public employees receiving unconscionable benefits. These costs are rising exponentially as more and more people retire with the bloated benefits.

Governor Scott Walker and his Republican majorities in Wisconsin’s legislature were next state on the firing line. They had to reconcile a $137 million shortfall in 2011 and a $3.6 billion deficit in their two year 2012-2013 budget cycle. The 2011 hole could be filled if the public unions agreed to pay a 5.8 percent of their salary towards their pension fund, and 12.6 percent of their health care package. This is still less than most public employees have to pay in other states. However, after failing in New Jersey, the unions capitulated and agreed to the terms – temporarily.

While the agreement solved the immediate deficit, the root problem was the corrupt nature of collective bargaining in the public sector. As Wisconsin’s 2011 to 2012-13 huge increase in deficits illustrated, the deficit problem was going through the roof in the future. If the future excessive pension benefits were not stopped they would bankrupt Wisconsin within a few years, even with higher taxes and employee contributions. In other words, like New Jersey, the union’s demands were not sustainable.

Walker not only asked for employee contributions and some other give-backs, he asked for a severe reduction in the collective bargaining power of the unions. The Republican majority in both houses of the legislature agreed, and wrote legislation that would increase employee contributions and eliminate almost all union bargaining rights on everything except salary. Additionally, the unions would also have to hold annual votes to stay organized and would be unable to force employees to pay dues. Without these concessions, Governor Walker said 1500 state employees would have to be laid off.

If Governor Christie’s actions provoked a firestorm, Governor Walker’s and the Wisconsin legislature’s actions resulted in war. Raucous protestors occupied the capital. Initially the protests were civil and teachers brought their primary and high school students into the capital building to protest. The students were allegedly brought to demonstrate “democracy” to them. Of course, there is no chance of students this young truly understanding what was happening or what was at stake, other than what the teachers told them. Some called this child abuse despicable.

The unions put up $3.4 million in attack ads against the governor and Republican legislators, crying that the governor and legislator were union busting, denying workers their “rights,” and destroying “democracy.” Fourteen democrat senators fled the state so there would not be a super majority to pass funding-related legislation in the state senate. It turned into a fiasco that was exploited by the union attack ads.

Again, as the debacle heated up, the mainstream media faithfully spun the story to support the unions. Conflicting reports on salaries and benefits were reported daily, raising so much smoke and confusion so that very few understood the real facts. That was by design. The unions had to confuse the public to get their support.

Stripping the smoke away showed Walker to be correct. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor, Wisconsin state employees earned average salary and wages (not including benefits) of $51,305 annually compared to only $38,625 a year for private sector employees in Wisconsin. Interesting, local government employees earned $38,121 annually, about the same as private employees. This is not unusual for less populated states where local taxpayers are more in tune with what is happening locally.

Most of the media attention was focused on the tens of thousands of Wisconsin teachers. The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction’s Statistical Information Center on School Staff and Salary Data shows the average school teacher/staff salary of $51,675 with $25,596 in fringe benefits for a total of $77,271. That does not include school administrators which have average salaries of $77,857 with benefits of $29,694.

The average public union employee salary in Wisconsin is about $13,000 higher than the private sector employee. Even when the fact that teachers have college degrees is considered, the salaries are way out of line with the private sector. Although no one would dispute that teachers need to earn a living wage, it is often forgotten that teachers only work about ten months out of the year. That is either a huge benefit no one else gets.

Although there are other considerations, Wisconsin teachers and public sector employees generally are paid a minimum of 25 percent more in salaries than the private sector employees who ultimately pay their salaries. Yet, the mainstream media continue to describe the union employees the poor underdogs in the crisis whose rights are being violated by the heartless Republicans.

The Unions eventually brought in union thugs from other states to ratchet up the protests. Governor Walker and the Republican’s in the legislature had repeated death threats. Union thugs protested on their lawns at home and threatened their families. Of course, that is never reported in the mainstream media.

The Republican legislature held firm against this intimidation. The governor and legislator finally removed the financial aspect of the legislation, which allowed them to vote with a simple majority. The union thugs went berserk, literally storming the capital building through windows and doors, pushing back security and doing millions of dollars of damage. Of course, the taxpayers get to pay for the repairs. This is nothing less than politics by thuggery.

After the legislature passed the bill to limit collective bargaining and Governor Scott Walker signed it, Dane County Judge MaryAnn Sumi issued a temporary restraining order blocking the law from taking effect. The stay was requested by Democrat Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne. Ozanne’s lawsuit claimed the legislature acted without the 24-hour notice required by Rule 93 in Wisconsin’s open meeting law.

Republican’s accused Secretary of State Doug La Follette of delaying the publication of the law to allow the union’s to find a sympathetic judge to issue the restraining order on the newly passed law. The unions found what they were looking for in Judge Sumi. However, the non-partisan Legislative Clerk, Rob Marchant, backed up the Republicans by saying, “In special session, under Senate Rule 93, no advance notice is required other than posting on the legislative bulletin board.”

Wisconsin state case law also supports the Republicans. Both LTSB v State and Lafollette v Smith found that legislative rules are completely within the jurisdiction of the legislature. Courts may “not intermeddle in purely internal legislative proceedings.” In spite of these legal precedents, Judge Sumi’s ruling still stands.

The unions have mounted a multimillion dollar attack campaign to recall several of the vulnerable republican legislators and Governor Walker himself. It is working. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported on March 5 that 54 percent of Wisconsinites disapprove of Walker’s performance while 43 percent approved. It is amazing how citizens can believe that massive budget woes brought on by progressive legislation can be corrected without an all-out battle in the legislature. Especially when the unions are involved.

So why are the unions battling Wisconsin and other states so hard? The answer centers on an incredible lust for power and a heinous agenda. Unions can’t afford to lose in Wisconsin, or it will begin a rapid unraveling of their power across the country. Little do teachers, firemen and policemen know that they are merely being used as useful idiots (to use Stalin’s vernacular) to that end. In the final analysis, it is total power and a new form of government that the unions want. Read Part II to learn more about this shocking radical agenda. For part two click below.

E-Mail: mcoffman@epi-us.com

Website: DiscerningToday.org

The Forgotten Man

2011-02-18T11:38:00.003-06:00

A man, crestfallen, is sitting on a bench in front of the White House, contemplating his country’s future. At his feet lie the causes of his distress: tattered dollars, representing a weak currency, and scraps of paper, symbolizing an abused Constitution. Behind and around him stand the 43 presidents of the United States, most of whom are outraged. One of them, James Madison, reaches pitifully for the ground, trying to collect the shards of American greatness. Unfortunately, he can’t retrieve our founding document from the dust, for it’s beneath the foot of Barack Obama.

The title of this portrait is “The Forgotten Man,” and its creator is Jon McNaughton, a 42-year-old artist from Spanish Fork, Utah. McNaughton unveiled the piece last Tuesday with a video describing its origin and a website explaining its meaning. “For a long time, I didn’t know if I wanted to paint this picture, because I worried that it might be too controversial,” McNaughton intones in the video. Now, however, he’s courting controversy.

A husband and father of six, McNaughton graduated in 1993 from Brigham Young University, where he studied art and design. Today, he runs the McNaughton Fine Art Company, which offers mostly landscapes and Biblical images for retail. McNaughton models his work after the French Barbizon Impressionists, artists in the mid–19th century who painted scenes from the countryside in subtle shades. That said, there’s nothing subtle about his latest creation.

McNaughton first conceived of the portrait after Obamacare became law in March. “I was just frustrated with what was happening with Obama and the out-of-control spending,” he tells NRO. “As an artist, I thought this was a way to get my message out.”

What is that message? “I wondered, ‘If the presidents of the past could speak to us today, what would they say to us?’” McNaughton explains. Clearly, they would oppose the unprecedented expansion of government. Yet the focus of the painting is the forgotten man — the ordinary American. “If that man doesn’t get off his bench and try to change what’s going on in our country . . . we’re on the verge of bankruptcy. That was the point I wanted to make,” he says.

On McNaughton’s website, you can move your cursor over the faces in the painting and read an idiosyncratic summation of each president’s tenure. Yes, each of them. For instance, George Washington, who’s front and center, “instituted the First Bank of the United States in 1791.” But even Rutherford B. Hayes, who’s in the nosebleed section, gets a blurb for increasing “the government’s supply of gold.”

Working twelve-hour days, McNaughton spent five months researching the portrait, reading everything from Wikipedia to history books. “I tried to focus on the fiscal spending of these different presidents and how it has to do with the devaluing of the dollar,” he notes. “I didn’t go into civil rights or war.”

His educational forays led him to some unconventional conclusions. For example, McNaughton criticizes the Founders for their fiscal profligacy. “Our founding fathers weren’t adept at managing debt either,” he writes on the website. “In 1791, the national debt was a mere $75 million. But that is equivalent to $5.2 trillion in 2008 dollars.” To be fair to the Founders, though, a revolutionary war is kind of expensive.

Despite McNaughton’s good faith, the Left will censure him, and he knows it. He did his first overtly political portrait last October. Entitled “One Nation under God,” it shows Jesus Christ holding the Constitution while surrounded by figures from American history. The painting drove liberals bonkers. Comedian Bill Maher dubbed it “‘Where’s Waldo’ for wing nuts.”

“I did go to the Huffington Post to see what they said,” McNaughton reports. “They reminded me of a junior-high-school locker room. They all want to outdo each other with the grossest comment they can think of.”

Still, McNaughton thinks the opposition to this painting will be different. Whereas for the previous portrait, a viewer can accept Christ’s authority only on faith, in this one, “the facts are the facts. The people who trash the painting say, ‘Oh, it’s just another right-wing Republican.’ But I don’t feel my position is very threatened. I feel that the truth is just behind me.” If people object to the portrayal of Obama stepping on the Constitution, McNaughton reasons, he’ll tell them everything Obama’s done to deserve being characterized that way.

McNaughton knows his political background makes him a target. A former state delegate for the Utah Republican party, he now considers himself an independent. He left the GOP because of George W. Bush, who “ruined the Republican party.” Accordingly, in the portrait, Bush eyes the suffering man from afar — distant in location and in feeling.

But McNaughton also knows he’s got a hit. He’s already sold several prints, and his video has racked up over 170,000 views on YouTube. His video for “One Nation under God” — after spending almost a year online — has garnered more than 3 million views. At the rate “The Forgotten Man” is going, he expects it to surpass its predecessor in popularity.

“They’re quite the conversation pieces. People will have one hanging in their house and people will come in and there’s so much to talk about,” McNaughton says. In “The Forgotten Man,” McNaughton groups the presidents into two categories: those who oppose Obama’s actions, such as Washington and Madison, and those who support them, such as Franklin Roosevelt and Bill Clinton. Viewers routinely object to the placement of their favorites in either category. “It’s fun to have people talk about it,” he says.

He hopes to keep them talking. McNaughton just started a third portrait, which he plans to release by the end of the year. This one will be more religious in tone — at least, more religious than “The Forgotten Man” — though he hints that “I’ve got one painting [in mind] that might be affected depending on whether Obama runs for reelection.”

Whether or not Obama runs, McNaughton’s art has ensured that his message won’t be ignored.

Not Yours to Give

2011-01-22T10:53:00.003-06:00

by
Colonel David Crockett;
Compiled by Edward S. Ellis

One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:

“Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.
Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”
He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.
Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:
“Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.
“The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to
the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.
“I began: ‘Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and--’
“’Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett, I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.’
“This was a sockdolager . . . I begged him to tell me what was the matter.
“’Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. . . . But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.’
“’I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.’
“’No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?’
“’Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.’
“’It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had
been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.
“’So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.’
“I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:
“’Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.’
“He laughingly replied: ‘Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.’
“’If I don’t,’ said I, ‘I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.’
“’No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.’
“’Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-by. I must know your name.’
“’My name is Bunce.’
“’Not Horatio Bunce?’
“’Yes.’
“’Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.’
“It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.
“At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had every seen manifested before.
“Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.
“I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him--no, that is not the word--I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.
“But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted--at least, they all knew me.
“In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:
“’Fellow-citizens--I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.’
“I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:
“’And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.
“’It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.’
“He came upon the stand and said:
“’Fellow-citizens--It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.’
“He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.
“I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.
“Now, sir,” concluded Crockett, “you know why I made that speech yesterday.
“There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week’s pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men--men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased--a debt which could not be paid by money--and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighted against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.”

Holders of political office are but reflections of the dominant leadership--good or bad--among the electorate.

Horatio Bunce is a striking example of responsible citizenship. Were his kind to multiply, we would see many new faces in public office; or, as in the case of Davy Crockett, a new Crockett.

For either the new faces or the new Crocketts, we must look to the Horatio in ourselves!
—Leonard E. Read

Edward Sylvester Ellis - Born April 11, 1840, died June 20, 1916 - was an American author best known for his Deerhunter novels and other classic westerns.

Greediest Generation

2011-01-19T19:28:00.002-06:00

Senator Alan Simpson Calls Seniors 'Greediest Generation'..
This person is PISSED!!!! Wish I were the one that sent this to the beloved Senator!!!! There isn't a word that is false and I am believing that many Americans are beginning to think along these same lines.......

From a man in Montana .....who - like the rest of us - has just about had enough

Hey Alan,
Let's get a few things straight
1. As a career politician, you have been on the public dole for FIFTY YEARS
2. I have been paying Social Security taxes for 48 YEARS (since I was 15 years old. I am now 63)
3. My Social Security payments, and those of millions of other Americans, were safely tucked away in an interest bearing account for decades until you political pukes decided to raid the account and give OUR money to a bunch of zero ambition losers in return for votes, thus bankrupting the system and turning Social Security into a Ponzi scheme that would have made Bernie Madoff proud
4. Recently, just like Lucy & Charlie Brown, you and your ilk pulled the proverbial football away from millions of American seniors nearing retirement and moved the goalposts for full retirement from age 65 to age 67. NOW, you and your shill commission is proposing to move the goalposts YET AGAIN
5. I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying into Medicare from Day One, and now you morons propose to change the rules of the game. Why? Because you idiots mismanaged other parts of the economy to such an extent that you need to steal money from Medicare to pay the bills
6. I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying income taxes our entire lives, and now you propose to increase our taxes yet again. Why? Because you incompetent bastards spent our money so profligately that you just kept on spending even after you ran out of money. Now, you come to the American taxpayers and say you need more to pay of YOUR debt
To add insult to injury, you label us greedy for calling bullshit on your incompetence. Well, Captain Bullshit, I have a few questions for YOU
1. How much money have you earned from the American taxpayers during your pathetic 50-year political career?
2. At what age did you retire from your pathetic political career, and how much are you receiving in annual retirement benefits from the American taxpayers?
3. How much do you pay for YOUR government provided health insurance?
4. What cuts in YOUR retirement and health care benefits are you proposing in your disgusting deficit reduction proposal, or, as usual, have you exempted yourself and your political cronies?
It is you, Captain Bullshit, and your political co-conspirators who are greedy. It is you and they who have bankrupted America and stolen the American dream from millions of loyal, patriotic taxpayers. And for what? Votes. That's right, sir. You and yours have bankrupted America for the sole purpose of advancing your pathetic political careers. You know it, we know it, and you know that we know it.
And you can take that to the bank, you miserable son of a bitch.
Always say what you mean!!
always mean what you say!!
NEVER COMPROMISE ..........

This Is Why There Are No Jobs in America

2010-12-10T09:39:00.002-06:00

By Porter Stansberry

I'd like to make you a business offer.

Seriously. This is a real offer. In fact, you really can't turn me down, as you'll come to understand in a moment…

Here's the deal. You're going to start a business or expand the one you've got now. It doesn't really matter what you do or what you're going to do. I'll partner with you no matter what business you're in – as long as it's legal.

But I can't give you any capital – you have to come up with that on your own. I won't give you any labor – that's definitely up to you. What I will do, however, is demand you follow all sorts of rules about what products and services you can offer, how much (and how often) you pay your employees, and where and when you're allowed to operate your business. That's my role in the affair: to tell you what to do.

Now in return for my rules, I'm going to take roughly half of whatever you make in the business each year. Half seems fair, doesn't it? I think so. Of course, that's half of your profits.

You're also going to have to pay me about 12% of whatever you decide to pay your employees because you've got to cover my expenses for promulgating all of the rules about who you can employ, when, where, and how. Come on, you're my partner. It's only "fair."

Now… after you've put your hard-earned savings at risk to start this business, and after you've worked hard at it for a few decades (paying me my 50% or a bit more along the way each year), you might decide you'd like to cash out – to finally live the good life.

Whether or not this is "fair" – some people never can afford to retire – is a different argument. As your partner, I'm happy for you to sell whenever you'd like… because our agreement says, if you sell, you have to pay me an additional 20% of whatever the capitalized value of the business is at that time.

I know… I know… you put up all the original capital. You took all the risks. You put in all of the labor. That's all true. But I've done my part, too. I've collected 50% of the profits each year. And I've always come up with more rules for you to follow each year. Therefore, I deserve another, final 20% slice of the business.

Oh… and one more thing…

Even after you've sold the business and paid all of my fees… I'd recommend buying lots of life insurance. You see, even after you've been retired for years, when you die, you'll have to pay me 50% of whatever your estate is worth.

After all, I've got lots of partners and not all of them are as successful as you and your family. We don't think it's "fair" for your kids to have such a big advantage. But if you buy enough life insurance, you can finance this expense for your children.

All in all, if you're a very successful entrepreneur… if you're one of the rare, lucky, and hard-working people who can create a new company, employ lots of people, and satisfy the public… you'll end up paying me more than 75% of your income over your life. Thanks so much.

I'm sure you'll think my offer is reasonable and happily partner with me… but it doesn't really matter how you feel about it because if you ever try to stiff me – or cheat me on any of my fees or rules – I'll break down your door in the middle of the night, threaten you and your family with heavy, automatic weapons, and throw you in jail.

That's how civil society is supposed to work, right? This is Amerika, isn't it?

That's the offer Amerika gives its entrepreneurs. And the idiots in Washington wonder why there are no new jobs…

Regards,

Porter Stansberry

Porter Stansberry founded Stansberry and Associates Investment Research LLC. His company does real-world independent research, having researched 200 companies in the past 5 years. He publishes a monthly newsletter for investors.

The current unemployment rate in America is 9.8%. 80% of the unemployment are men.

A Plan to Seize Private 401(k) Plans

2010-10-11T12:27:00.003-05:00

by Connie Hair

10/08/2010

Democrats in the Senate on Thursday held a recess hearing covering a taxpayer bailout of union pensions and a plan to seize private 401(k) plans to more "fairly" distribute taxpayer-funded pensions to everyone.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee heard from hand-picked witnesses advocating the infamous "Guaranteed Retirement Account" (GRA) authored by Theresa Guilarducci.

(You can find the blistering interview with Guilarducci by radio talk show host Mark Levin in 2007 at the link).

In a nutshell, under the GRA system government would seize private 401(k) accounts, setting up an additional 5% mandatory payroll tax to dole out a "fair" pension to everyone using that confiscated money coupled with the mandated contributions. This would, of course, be a sister government ponzi scheme working in tandem with Social Security, the primary purpose being to give big government politicians additional taxpayer funds to raid to pay for their out-of-control spending.

From written hearing testimony submitted by Economic Policy Institute (EPI) Vice President Ross Eisenbrey:

“We need a comprehensive solution that addresses interrelated problems. For example, a system that places most of the burden for retirement saving on individuals will always have to wrestle with the problem of pre-retirement loans and withdrawals (simply plugging these leaks will not work, because many workers would stop contributing to the system). A system that relies on tax incentives to promote individual retirement savings will necessarily tend to favor high-income workers who can afford to save more and who benefit the most from these tax breaks. Conversely, a truly universal system would need to shield low-income workers from out-of-pocket costs or wage cuts. EPI has published and advocated what we feel would be an excellent national supplemental retirement plan, the Guaranteed Retirement Account which was authored by Prof. Teresa Ghilarducci, Director of the Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis at the New School for Social Research. "

The EPI is housed on the third floor of the building occupied by the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress, a hard-core leftist group whose flavor of socialist policy has brought you the current blend of elitist socialism and crony capitalism bankrupting the American economy. Which speaks volumes about EPI and the Democrat leadership's choice of witness.

Brett McMahon, spokesman for the Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC), a trade association, warns this hearing exposed part of a process that may come as early as the November lame duck push to bailout union pensions by attaching the bailout to an across-the-board extension of the current tax rates.

"I am deeply concerned that they will try to attach something like the Casey bill or the Casey bill in and of itself to tax cut extensions bill that is inevitably going to have to be dealt with at some point during the lame duck session," McMahon told HUMAN EVENTS.

As reported in HUMAN EVENTS the Casey bill from Sen. Bob Casey (D-Penn.) is a new entitlement program that would set up a permanent bailout of the union multi-employer pension plans that are desperately underwater through a new "fifth fund" at the government Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). Casey’s bill would create a line item on the federal budget through the PBGC to fund these union pension bailouts annually -- union pensions that are underwater as a result of mismanagement that pre-dates the 2008 financial upheaval.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was the only other senator at the hearing with Harkin. His particular brand of gutter class warfare was on full display as the self-described socialist made the absurd claim that wealthy job creators oppose the Social Security system because it "works."

"So, the reason that there is so much opposition to Social Security for some of these billionaire guys is because Social Security has worked. It has done exactly what it was supposed to do. It has worked for the elderly, for the disabled, for widows and orphans," Sanders said in his opening remarks.

In typical leftist drive-by fashion, Sanders never explained why he believes successful people don't like the elderly, disabled, widows or orphans.

And, of course, the theme of the day was "fairness" as it's somehow "fair" to take what one person has earned in the free market and give it to another in a government-run wealth redistribution retirement scheme.

Shareen Miller, a personal care assistant and a member of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local Number 5 in Falls Church, Virginia, offered testimony about the need for wealth redistribution to fund her pension.

"I make $12 an hour and receive no healthcare benefits, retirement benefits, sick time or vacation," the SEIU union member said.

Which begs the question: why is she paying union dues? Not exactly a sterling recommendation for SEIU membership.

Miller went on to say that the physical demands of her job giving care to a cerebral palsy patient are becoming more difficult. But Miller has been aware of these conditions for at least two years.

In 2008, Miller spent a day with then Virginia Senate candidate Mark Warner in an SEIU "Walk a day in the shoes" for Democrat candidates. Common sense would dictate Miller's individual responsibility for moving out of this particular line of work, leaving the physically demanding jobs to younger folks entering the work force. Perhaps Miller could demand fair payment for shilling for Democrats.

But the physical demands and hazardous jobs claims are not new from those demanding taxpayers fund a "fair" pension for everyone. This scheme is at the heart of the collapse of European socialism.

From Michael Lewis in Vanity Fair magazine:

"The retirement age for Greek jobs classified as 'arduous' is as early as 55 for men and 50 for women. As this is also the moment when the state begins to shovel out generous pensions, more than 600 Greek professions somehow managed to get themselves classified as arduous: hairdressers, radio announcers, waiters, musicians, and on and on and on."

Overall McMahon said the pressing issue for the lame duck is the union pension bailout with new Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) rules currently set to take effect December 15. These new rules would force companies to account for the cost of penalties to extract themselves from these union pension plans against their bottom line. (Full report from HUMAN EVENTS here.)

"The pension bailouts are something they need desperately and they need quickly because as everyone involved with the forthcoming new FASB rule acknowledges, you cannot stop the accounting board from a new transparency requirement," McMahon said. "It's going to hurt."

One of the largest of these multiemployer funds, Central States Funds, is in such bad shape that UPS paid a $6.1 billion penalty to extricate itself from employee participation in the fund. It is that type of penalty that would now be on the books, and it could be more than the company's overall value.

McMahon notes non-union companies without the multiemployer union plans have been operating under these types of transparency rules all along. And the participating companies have had decades to address the issue of the pension underfunding but have not done so.

Now companies and unions alike are looking for a taxpayer bailout in the lame duck session that could garner enough support from both sides of the aisle blanketed in the tax cut extension.

The lame duck session would offer the last chance for unions and companies to be able to place liability for their underwater pensions on the taxpayers' backs before the new FASB rule goes into effect.

Connie Hair writes daily as HUMAN EVENTS' Congressional correspondent. She is a former speechwriter for Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) and a former media and coalitions advisor to the Senate Republican Conference. You can follow Connie on Twitter @ConnieHair.

A Small Business Owner Responds to Paul Krugman, Nobel Ignoramus about The Angry Rich

2010-10-06T08:55:00.011-05:00

Tuesday, October 5, 2010, 11:55 AM

Paul Krugman Socialist !

Paul Krugman, the Nobel Ignoramus, recently wrote a column for the New York Times entitled, "The Angry Rich." According to Krugman wealthy people are angry because money to which they feel “entitled” is being taken away. Krugman is outing himself as a socialist by admitting publicly that he considers the idea of wanting to keep more of your own money an “entitlement.” Radical leftists lie and distort to incite class envy. They call it “greedy” to want to keep money that you earned, but it’s not greedy to demand that government steal it from you and redistribute it to those who never earned it. That’s an interesting interpretation of “greed.”

Krugman forgets to tell his readers that this "angry minority" pays the "disproportionate majority" of the taxes. The top 1% of earners pays almost 40% of all income taxes. The top 5% pays 70% of taxes. The top 25% pays almost 100% of taxes. Damn right the rich are angry. It’s always easy to vote for tax increases on someone else- especially when it gets redistributed to you.

Yes, we’re angry. We are tired of being scapegoats and punching bags. We are tired of politicians taking our hard-earned money and wasting it on bloated government spending; more government employees who receive guaranteed jobs and obscene pensions for life; unnecessary wars; vote-buying earmarks; corrupt bailouts to campaign contributors; and trillion dollar handouts described as stimulus.

Krugman reports that these are desperate times for people who have lost their jobs or homes. This is true. But who will create the jobs to help all these people? Assuming they still have the money- small business. Entrepreneurs who pursue the "American Dream” do so by creating businesses, creating jobs, and spending money on equipment and raw materials. They make their employees and the employees of the places they buy from, rich too. How many millionaires did Google, Cisco, Apple, and Microsoft mint? How much money did their employees spend? How many Americans were enriched by all this success?

Krugman says “real” rage and suffering isn’t found among the rich. In his socialist mind it’s only found among the poor. Well Mr. Krugman, my friends are mostly small business owners. They aren’t rich like your limo-driving, private jet-flying, Gucci-wearing, leftist, New York Times readers. My friends are “working rich.” And they are suffering in record numbers. They are losing their executive jobs, never to find another. They are struggling to make payrolls, so their employees can pay the mortgage- while they themselves forgo a paycheck. They are losing their small businesses, along with everything they’ve worked years to build. They are spending their retirement money on their own survival, or their children’s college education. They are desperate- you just don’t notice up there on the top floors of the New York Times.

This is precisely why there are no jobs- “the working rich” are in trouble, under siege and being squeezed by the economy and government. And as long as people like Mr. Krugman are in power, there will be no new jobs. The truth is socialists like Obama and Krugman wouldn’t know how to create a job, if it hit them in the face. The only way they know how to create jobs is by taking $40 million from taxpayers’ pockets to create twenty temporary jobs at a cost of $2 million each. Thank goodness we have Nobel Prize winners like Krugman and Obama to save us.

It’s small business owners earning $250,000 to $500,000, not the titans on Wall Street, who will be hit by Obama’s gigantic tax increases. Yet Obama and his leftist cronies chose to bailout Wall Street and give sweetheart deals to the big shot execs at AIG, Goldman Sachs, and GM. It’s no coincidence that Obama was the biggest beneficiary of their campaign contributions. During all this time, Obama did nothing for small business. Now Krugman and Obama demand higher taxes on “the rich” and use Wall Street titans as the scapegoat to hide who will really be paying the tab.

Krugman denigrates and taunts people who make $250,000 to $500,000. “They can afford higher taxes” is his leftist chant. But take another $50,000 in taxes from a family making $400,000 and you've just put two of their employees making $30,000 a year directly in the unemployment line. You'll spend about $400 a week in unemployment insurance for the next 99 weeks for each of those employees, for a net loss to the government of $30,000 or so. That kind of economic model only works in books written by Karl Marx, and taught by Nobel Ignoramus Prize winners.

Krugman calls the rich in America “the world’s luckiest people.” Are you joking? The majority of the rich you are referring to, toil at their small businesses 60+ hours a week, sacrificing family and quality of life. Unlike government employees, they have no short workdays, no 3-day weekends, no summers off, no guaranteed jobs for life, no bloated pensions.

These heroes of the business world that Krugman derisively calls “rich” and “greedy” took on hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to fund their educations, then risked hundreds of thousands more to start their small businesses. Their reward for all this hard-work, sacrifice and risk-taking from socialists like Obama and Krugman? A greedy government that demands more and more in return for…nothing. Sorry Mr Krugman, I don’t need partners like that. Usually partners like that are called organized crime.

Mr. Krugman says the rich aren’t willing to sacrifice. Not true. The rich are willing to sacrifice, but they are not willing to be sacrificed, while the American Dream is forever destroyed.

Krugman says the rich are angry and out for revenge. Well that’s not hard to understand when a productive minority of risk-takers and job creators is being lynched by a dysfunctional group of socialists that believes keeping some of your own money is an "entitlement." Soon we intend to insure that Nobel Ignoramus socialists like Krugman and Obama and are never again allowed anywhere near the American economy.

The author Wayne Allyn Root is Chairman of the Libertarian National Congressional Committee and the former Libertarian Vice Presidential nominee. His new paperback will be released next month, “The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with GOD, GUNS, GOLD & TAX CUTS.” His web site: www.ROOTforAmerica.com

What has America become?

2010-10-01T13:25:00.004-05:00

By Ken Huber
Friday, July 2nd, 2010 at 1:00 am

Has America become the land of special interest and home of the double standard?

Lets see: if we lie to the Congress, it's a felony and if the Congress lies to us its just politics; if we dislike a black person, we're racist and if a black person dislikes whites, its their 1st Amendment right; the government spends millions to rehabilitate criminals and they do almost nothing for the victims; in public schools you can teach that homosexuality is OK, but you better not use the word God in the process; you can kill an unborn child, but it is wrong to execute a mass murderer; we don't burn books in America, we now rewrite them; we got rid of communist and socialist threats by renaming them progressive; we are unable to close our border with Mexico, but have no problem protecting the 38th parallel in Korea; if you protest against President Obama's policies you're a terrorist, but if you burned an American flag or George Bush in effigy it was your 1st Amendment right.

You can have pornography on TV or the internet, but you better not put a nativity scene in a public park during Christmas; we have eliminated all criminals in America, they are now called sick people; we can use a human fetus for medical research, but it is wrong to use an animal.

We take money from those who work hard for it and give it to those who don't want to work; we all support the Constitution, but only when it supports our political ideology; we still have freedom of speech, but only if we are being politically correct; parenting has been replaced with Ritalin and video games; the land of opportunity is now the land of hand outs; the similarity between Hurricane Katrina and the gulf oil spill is that neither president did anything to help.

And how do we handle a major crisis today? The government appoints a committee to determine who's at fault, then threatens them, passes a law, raises our taxes; tells us the problem is solved so they can get back to their reelection campaign.

What has happened to the land of the free and the home of the brave?

Ken Huber
Tawas City

THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!

2010-09-27T11:58:00.004-05:00

I know many of you will say "this is impossible." Let me remind you, Congress has the lowest approval rating of any entity in Government.

Now is the time when Americans will join together to reform Congress - the entity that represents us.

We need to get a Senator to introduce this bill in the US Senate and a Representative to introduce a similar bill in the US House. These people will become American heroes.

Congressional Reform Act of 2010

1. Term Limits.
12 years only, one of the possible options below..

A. Two Six-year Senate terms
B. Six Two-year House terms
C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms

2. No Tenure / No Pension.

A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives
no pay when
they are out of office.

3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social
Security.

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the
Social
Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social
Security
system, and Congress participates with the American people.

4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans
do.

5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise.
Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the
same health care system as the American people.

7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American
people.

8. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective
1/1/11.

The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen.
Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

If you agree with the above, pass it on.

Freedom versus Shariah

2010-09-24T12:29:00.007-05:00

By Ted Nugent

The Washington Times

5:36 p.m., Thursday, September 23, 2010

We've been told there are so-called moderate Muslims who deplore terrorism and that Islam has been hijacked by extremists.

If there are in fact moderate Muslims, they have been quiet as mosque mice regarding their views. For example, Americans don't know if moderate Muslims recognize Israel, what they think about women's rights, or if they believe the proposed New York City mosque should be moved to another location out of concern and sensitivity for the families of the victims of Sept. 11, 2001.

We also don't know if there are other freedom-loving and freedom-fighting Muslims who respect the rights of others to burn the Koran, draw cartoons of Muhammad in newspapers, hold marches to condemn Hamas and other terror organizations, write unflattering books about Islam, and vigorously support allowing people of other faiths to practice them in the city of Mecca, where all religions except Islam are currently outlawed.

If there are Muslims who hold these moderate beliefs, they are surely as rare as a Southern Baptist holding a Sunday morning church revival in Mecca.

Americans may not know much about Islam or its followers, but what we do know is that bloodthirsty terrorism is more often than not carried out by crazy-eyed, Muslim voodoo monsters screaming "God Is Great" while slaughtering innocent people. The Obama administration refuses to use the word "Islam" in describing these terrorists out of concern it will offend Muslims. I'm offended this is our nation's policy.

The Center for Security Policy assembled a "Team B" and just released a report that should give all of us, especially the Obama administration, reason to reverse course.

Composed of security experts from previous Republican and Democratic administrations, Team B urges the administration to reverse course on not referring to Muslim terrorists as "Islamist" out of fear of offending Muslims around the world.

The most bone-chilling finding by Team B is that America faces the threat of Islamic Shariah law slowing poisoning our legal system and ultimately destroying it. Shariah is the Islamic doctrine in which Allah rules over everything, including legal, political and military doctrine. Shariah is incompatible with a society of free and thinking people.

What the Obama administration and Muslims will not tell Americans is that the ultimate goal of Islam is to take over the world and replace representative, constitutional governments with Shariah. Under Shariah, freedom as we know it would be put to the Islamic sword.

What the free world faces is an insidious, violent movement that respects nothing but its own revolutionary ideology of world domination. This threat is not unlike communism, which President Reagan denounced at every opportunity.

Shariah should be banned in the United States and those Muslims and imams in America who advocate Shariah should be charged with sedition. Trying to overthrow our constitutional government through peaceful or violent means should never be tolerated.

I support reaching out to moderate Muslims, as Team B advocates. We need them to drive a wedge between the whacked-out voodoo Muslims and those who want to exist peacefully with others of different faiths. However, where are these moderate Muslims and what do they believe? Do they actually exist?

Shariah will only be allowed to poison our legal system and culture if we allow it. We should stand steadfast against it, outlaw it and make it known throughout the world that America stands with freedom and that we will not allow it to be compromised out of fear of upsetting Muslims or a false belief that we can coexist with a religious revolution whose goal is to destroy America.

We know the Obama administration will ignore the advice of Team B. The question is, what does the Republican Party or the Tea Party think of the report and what will they do with it?

Ted Nugent is an unstoppable American rock 'n' roll, sporting and political activist icon. He is author of "Ted, White, and Blue: The Nugent Manifesto" and "God, Guns, & Rock 'N' Roll" (Regnery Publishing).

Will the Real Mohammed Please Stand Up!

2010-09-17T12:36:00.002-05:00

This is the cartoon that caused the creator to go in hiding! The media fuzzed it out like it was some kinda porn.

Oh brother!

Happy Constitution Day everyone!

Oh, hey Mohammed, kiss my ass!

T'was the night before elections

2010-09-13T12:02:00.002-05:00

SEASON'S GREETINGS

T'was the night before elections And all through the town Tempers were flaring Emotions all up and down
I, in my bathrobe With a cat in my lap Had cut off the TV tired of political clap-trap
When all of a sudden There arose such a noise I peered out my window Saw Obama and his boys

They had come for my wallet They wanted my pay To give to the others Who had not worked a day!
He snatched up my money And quick as a wink Jumped back on his bandwagon As I gagged from the stink

He then rallied his henchmen Who were pulling his cart I could tell they were out To tear my country apart!

'On Fannie, on Freddie, On Biden and Ayers! On Acorn, On Pelosi' He screamed at the pairs!

They took off for his cause And as they flew out of sight I heard him laugh at the nation Who wouldn't stand up and fight!

So I leave you to think On this one final note— IF YOU DON'T WANT SOCIALISM GET OUT AND VOTE !!!! GOD BLESS AMERICA, OUR ONLY HOPE!

WHEN DIVERSITY DISPLACES AMERICA’S LANGUAGE AND CULTURE

2010-08-30T06:37:00.003-05:00

By Frosty Wooldridge
August 30, 2010
NewsWithViews.com

For the past 30 years, somebody, somewhere, or a group of people in high places decided to destroy the successful equation of “melting pot” within America. That ‘entity’ decided to pitch diversity and multiculturalism as the new monikers dismantling English as America’s common language. “It” decided to inject hundreds of incompatible cultures and languages into America while adding another 100 million people to stress the environment even further.

That same “It” worked its magic in France, Great Britain, Holland, Norway, France, Belgium and other countries—with devastating results: fragmenting, balkanizing and separated societies.

Like a group of chemistry students in a classroom where the teacher leaves for an emergency phone call—for kicks or giggles—the students start tossing multiple chemicals into a test tube to see what happens. Result: the mixture either melts the tube down or explodes. No one knows what kind of volatility may occur.

Today, our once “stable and sustainable” population suffered growth from a reasonable 194 million people in 1963 to a unsustainable 309 million in 2010. While we continue ‘celebrating’ our amazingly ‘diverse’ society with immigrants from over 150 countries, speaking 100 languages—in reality, the wheels fall off the ‘romantic’ pitch by newspapers such as the Denver Post and television networks across the USA. You will hear “racist confrontations” in dozens of media outlets weekly.

On the educational side, Brian Williams reported a 76 percent dropout/flunkout rate in Detroit, Michigan schools last spring. Why? They feature 50 different languages and unending diversity. Everyone speaks a slew of languages except English, they don’t know Thomas Jefferson, promote their own cultures and they call themselves hyphenated-Americans. Illiteracy rates exceed 50 percent according to an article in Time Magazine. (Source: Tragedy of Detroit, Time Magazine) Additionally: Re: “60 languages, one high school: South embraces student diversity” Denver Public Schools, O’Connor, Denver Post, 8/20/10

But hundreds of schools throughout the USA in major cities like LA, San Francisco, Chicago, Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Miami, Denver and others suffer 50 to 60 percent dropout/flunkout rates. Denver vacillates between 52 to 67 percent dropout/flunkout rates. Brian Williams added, “About 1.2 million teens hit the streets every spring unable to read or write.”

What happens when this country finds itself without a common language, culture and national identity? What happens when enough immigrants do not, cannot or will not integrate into American society? What happens when their cultures and languages trump America’s culture and English language? Today, 42 million Americans cannot read or write. Another 50 million read at the fourth grade level. Name the one term that defines third world societies: illiteracy. America degrades with every illiterate citizen.

You can see it accelerating in Islamic Detroit, Michigan. Already, we hear calls for Sharia Law. For Americans that don’t understand Sharia—its runs counter to everything in Western law. It subjugates women, commits barbaric acts such as female genital mutilation and calls for honor killings of women for minor infractions. Mexican reconquista operates in the Southwest and children continue to fare poorly in schools after several generations because of their ‘poverty culture’ roots in Mexico. In Arizona last week, immigrants painted the American flag with Nazi swastikas and stomped on it at the capital in Phoenix.

Other examples:

In New York, February 16, 2009, FOX News, Joshua Rhett Miller reported, “The estranged wife of a Muslim television executive feared for her life after filing for divorce last month from her abusive husband,” her attorney said — and was found beheaded Thursday in his upstate New York television studio. Aasiya Z. Hassan, 37, was found dead on Thursday at the offices of Bridges TV in Orchard Park, N.Y., near Buffalo. Her husband, Muzzammil Hassan, 44, has reportedly been charged with second-degree murder.

Adam Gadahn: The California-born Muslim convert assists Shukrijumah and Osama bin Laden as al-Qaida's chief propagandist. He tailors the group's message to American Muslims. In 2006, Gadahn invoked U.S. Muslims to attack military bases. Three years later, U.S. Army Major Hasan shot 43, killing 13 at Fort Hood.

Anwar Awlaki: Articulate and media savvy, the American-born cleric is al-Qaida's top recruiter of Western suicide cells. Awlaki has recruited or radicalized countless homegrown terrorists, including the Fort Hood shooter and the Times Square bomber, both English-speaking citizens. Authorities also believe he ordered the Christmas airliner attack. Thought to be bin Laden's heir, Awlaki has called on American Muslims to turn against their government, "Jihad against America is binding on every other (American) Muslim," he said.

For Americans that cherish the successful “melting pot” concept, at what point do they lose control of their culture, language and way of life—in favor of a polyglot of incompatible cultures, religions and languages?

At what point will all those countries ‘exhausting’ their excess population into America—take responsibility for their own fecundity and their own citizens—in their own countries?

At what point will Americans stand up for being Americans? On every level—unrelenting and accelerating immigration cannot be sustained environmentally, educationally, linguistically or culturally—if America hopes to survive the 21st century.

Latest figures show the USA adding 70 million immigrants within 25 years. Can we remain sustainable? Ask anyone in Bangladesh, Mexico or India!

An Argentina-like Economic Crisis

2010-08-16T08:24:00.003-05:00

The United States' economic decline precariously resembles Argentina's economic collapse, which started in 1998 and landed Argentina in a depression by the end of 2000. What began in Argentina as a recession mushroomed into a full-fledged depression due to bad economic and monetary policy. The Obama administration and its congressional Democrat lackeys are on the precipice of following Argentina's disastrous economic and monetary policy decisions.

Arguably, the United States economy has been in a two-year-long recession, and while some may posit that the country has started an economic recovery, others suspect the country will plummet into a deeper recession, or perhaps a depression. In the past two years, the United States government instituted economic and/or monetary policies detrimental to American's short- and long-term economic prosperity.

$700-billion TARP bill.
$787-billion economic stimulus bill the president deemed necessary to keep unemployment under 8%.
$410-billion Omnibus bill with 9,000 pork-barrel projects.
$1.3-trillion deficit in fiscal year 2009.
$1.4-trillion deficit estimated for fiscal year 2010.
$1 trillion or more for a health care bill that the majority of Americans didn't want.
Auto industry bailout with complete disregard to the bankruptcy laws, which turned the U.S. government into an equity owner and granted an ownership stake to the United Auto Workers union.
$500-billion bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
$145-billion bailout of Greece. (what, you didn't hear about this one?)
Billions spent by the Federal Reserve to purchase toxic assets. (they're not done here folks)
$10.6-trillion dollar public debt the day Obama took the oath of office. In nineteen months, the public debt stands at $13.3-trillion (a 25% increase).

In early 2000, Argentinean President Fernando de la Rúa's government evaluated options to end the recession. According to a 2003 report issued by the Joint Economic Committee of the United States Congress, the de la Rúa government evaluated several options and settled on raising tax rates as the solution:

The De la Rúa government was worried about the federal budget deficit, which was 2.5 percent of GDP in 1999. The government thought reducing the budget deficit would instill confidence in government finances, reducing interest rates and thereby spurring the economy, which was showing signs of recovery in late 1999. Among the options for reducing the deficit, cutting spending was politically difficult; the government doubted that cutting tax rates would spur enough growth in the short term to offset lost revenues; it did not wish to abandon the convertibility system and simply print money[.]

That left only one option: raising tax rates. President de la Rúa secured approval for three big tax increases, effective January 2000, April 2001, and August 2001.

Argentina's economy continued to shrink throughout 2000. In April 2001, the Argentinean government proposed cutting spending by 4.5 billion pesos over a two-year period. Public outrage ensued, and special interest groups protested. Furthermore, government monetary policies manipulated current valuations, causing fear and instability, and debt policies such as refinancing debt at higher interest rates exacerbated a deteriorating economy. In late 2001, a newly elected government took control, and the Joint Economic Report summarized their actions:

In a series of blunders that made matters even worse, from December 2001 to early 2002, succeeding governments undermined property rights by freezing bank deposits; defaulting on the government's foreign debt in a thoughtless manner; ending the Argentine peso's longstanding link to the dollar; forcibly converting dollar deposits and loans into Argentine pesos at unfavorable rates; and voiding contracts

Coincidentally, the United States is in a two-year-long recession, and Obama and congressional Democrats intend on letting the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of the year. The outstanding public debt stands at $13.3 trillion. Any opposing viewpoints from Republicans or conservatives on cutting spending or addressing entitlement programs are met with media outrage, accusations of racism, and accusations that Republicans and conservatives are coldhearted people incapable of compassion or benevolence.

The Obama government's actions ominously mirror the actions and the timing of the Argentinean government in early 2000, when the first of three tax increases was instituted. Higher unemployment, more debt, falling wages, and eventually inflation ensued. Moreover, the Obama administration and the mainstream media deceive the American people regarding the impact of the Bush tax cuts. Obama and the MSM repeatedly espouse that only tax rates for those rich Americans in the top income tax bracket will increase.

Unfortunately, the truth is that all tax brackets are impacted, and even the Obama lemmings will recognize they've been duped when their payroll tax deductions increase in 2011 and their take-home pay decreases. Perhaps then the lemmings will seriously consider what "hope and change" means and that elections do indeed have consequences. A summary of the Bush tax cuts expiring at the end of 2010:

10% bracket reverts to 15%
25% bracket reverts to 28%
28% bracket reverts to 31%
33% bracket reverts to 36%
35% bracket reverts to 39.6%
Marriage penalty is reinstituted
Child tax credit cut from $1,000 to $500 per child
Dependent care and adoption care credits cut
Estate (death) tax returns at a rate of 55% on estates over $1 million
15% capital gains tax reverts to 20%
15% dividends tax reverts to 39.6%

Many economists recognize, though they many not publicly admit it, that inflation is the only feasible alternative. The government is limited to three possible revenue sources: taxing, borrowing, and inflating. Any sensible person realizes the country cannot tax its way out of a $13-trillion debt or sustain existing entitlement programs, much less government-run health care. The government borrows money by selling government-backed securities to investors. Eventually, investors will either stop purchasing government securities or demand substantially higher interest rates due to the increased risk. The only feasible alternative is to monetize the debt -- in other words, inflate it. Monty Pelerin's recent American Thinker article captured the essence of the problem:

The political class's survival is at stake. Eventually, anything that extends their rule will be tried. It is not concern for you or the economy that is driving policy, but the preservation of power of an increasingly wounded power elite. Their survival is now driving policy. Unfortunately, what benefits them is generally harmful for the economy.

Obama and congressional Democrats have chartered a course leading America down an Argentinean economic path. November may be the last reasonable chance to change course.

2010-07-27T11:27:00.001-05:00

Here is Hon. Gabrielle Giffords (D. 8th AZ) a perfect example of why we need to take out the trash on November 2, 2010.

You will simply not believe this.

Our 8th District US Congressional representative,
the Hon. Gabrielle Giffords, in a meeting of the House Armed Services Committee, asked General David Petraeus the following question:
"General Petraeus, what are you doing to reduce carbon emissions in the war on terror?"
Wow. I had to read, and re-read this several times to believe it. Folks, there are American sons and daughters dying every week on the foreign battlefields of southwest Asia . The
nation is completely bankrupt and ... quite literally, borrowing 43 cents for every dollar in federal spending. We have the largest environmental disaster in the nation's history in the Gulf of Mexico , and we have Mexican drug armies invading our nation. And yet ....A
member of Congress from Arizona 's 8th congressional district took the time to ask our
battlefield commander what he is doing to curb carbon emissions in the war.
Gabrielle Giffords is the poster-child for what is wrong with the US Congress. We are being led by imbeciles.
To the rest of America reading this blog, and to Gen. Petraeus if this blog makes it to your inbox ... my sincerest apologies for the stupid question asked of you by my US congressional
representative.
General ... I am sure you have better things to worry about than carbon emissions on the battlefield. I assure you, as a registered voter I will do everything I can to ensure Rep. Giffords is voted out of office in November, and I pray you'll get back to business of fighting the war on terror without worrying about such petty and nonsensical matters as your carbon footprint in the war.

Isn't she so sweet!

HELLO, I'M A RACIST, PLEASED TO MEET YOU

2010-07-23T10:57:00.004-05:00

By Selwyn Duke
July 23, 2010
NewsWithViews.com

There is such a thing as a conditioned response. Here’s an example: Leftists call conservatives “racists.” Conservatives cower and stutter some defense. Leftists call conservatives “racists” some more. Conservatives cower some more. Question: How do you think you break this pattern?

We’ve seen this again with the recent vitriol spewed by NAACP head Ben Jealous (a fitting last name). Speaking at the NAACP convention in Kansas City, Jealous accused the Tea Party of, take a guess . . . cue the “Jeopardy!” music . . . “racism.” Just as predictably, many conservatives are running around trying to convince everyone that, by gum, they really are swell guys. No, really. I’m not a racist. I don’t beat my wife. I don’t kick my dog. I eat my organic vegetables and drive a Prius.

Look, why don’t we just save everyone the trouble? Every time a conservative renders an opinion, we can just play a recording with a little weaselly voice screeching, “You’re a wacist! You’re a wacist!” (Barney Frank style) followed by a music video featuring The Cowering Conservative — I mean, 1950s-style, duck-and-cover footage with the tune and all.

And such conservatives abound. Oh, don’t get me wrong, conservative brethren, I love ya’, man. But, frankly, too many of you are saps. You really don’t get it. People who advocated welfare reform in the 1990s were accused of being “racist.” If you’re for border control, you’re “racist.” If you criticize Obama, you’re “racist.” If you oppose quotas, you’re “racist.” If you say that, be it nature or nurture, there are differences among groups, you’re “racist.” If you want English to be the national language, you’re “racist.” The word has become meaningless, only used to stifle and stigmatize opposition. And if calling you a heretic worked in that regard, the left would do that. And if calling you a Fig Newton worked, they would do that.

Nevertheless, the ploy prevents sap conservatives from speaking — and even conceiving of — certain truths. They won’t say that so-called racial profiling is just part of proper profiling, they pay lip service to the relativistic idea that all cultures are morally equal, they refuse to call bigoted blacks such as Obama and Eric Holder out on their bigotry, they tolerate double standards with respect to hate-crime-law application and racial jokes, and they let whites persecuted for making innocent comments twist in the wind. They won’t speak unfashionable truths for fear of becoming unfashionable people. Well, all I can say is that if the Truth can be “racist,” then hello, I’m a “racist.” Pleased to meet you.

And this gets at a deeper point. On the O’Reilly Factor recently, Bill O’Reilly was discussing the Jealous situation with Professor Marc Lamont Hill. You know, Hill is the fellow with a Cracker-Jack-box Ph.D. who looks like a high-school kid heading to the prom. Anyway, the good professor, in so many words, put forth the leftist definition stating that only whites can be “racist” because being so requires one to have “institutional power.” OK, whatever. I accept the definition. Really, I do.

I just reject the word.

What I mean is, I’ve long warned against using the Lexicon of the Left. “Racism” is a term as stupid as “ageism,” only, we’re inured to it. We forget that “ism” refers to a doctrine, system or theory. Thus, of course “racism” will denote doctrine, and is it any surprise that the doctrine is dumb? Leftist doctrine is usually dumb. But what’s even dumber is that we actually embrace the left’s doctrinal terms. This is why I prefer using what simply refers to attitude — “bigotry” — as in Barack Obama is a bigot, Eric Holder is a bigot and Ben Jealous is a bigot. As for “racism,” it was originated by the left. So leave it to them. They can define it. They can whine it. And if they ask me, I’ll tell them where they can stick it.

The point is that you can’t prove you’re not a “racist” to the left, because they’ll just define “racist” as being whatever you are. In fact, sap conservatives, understand something: You’re not going to “prove” anything to the NAACP. You’re not going to prove anything to the mainstream media. You’re not going to prove anything to any dyed-in-the-fool liberal. They are enemies. And enemies aren’t interested in proof; they’re interested in propaganda.

So cultivate the right warrior attitude. Look at it like this: If you were engaging in a cold war against the Nazis in 1938, would you bend over backwards to “prove” to them that their propaganda about you was invalid? Of course not! They know it’s invalid — that’s the nature of evil’s propaganda. And it’s designed to invalidate you. And you don’t respond to enemies with defensiveness and measured responses.

You propagandize against them.

Now, this doesn’t mean you have to lie. Note that while “propaganda” generally has a negative connotation today, it doesn’t denote dishonesty. It is simply, informs The Free Dictionary, “the organized dissemination of information, allegations, etc., to assist or damage the cause of a government, movement, etc.” And to damage leftists’ cause, all we need do is tell the truth about them.

So what this does mean is that you have to stop being “conservative” and start being bold. The only consistent political definition of a “conservative” — the only ones that holds across time and place — is “one who desires to maintain the status quo.” Well, maintenance men are seldom warriors. Conservatives too often take a conservative approach, being cautious while their enemies are callous. They too often bring a rhetorical knife to a rhetorical gunfight. They too often act like losers — and lose.

I am not saying that we should stop making reasoned arguments, but those are for the reasonable (those who can be swayed). They are wholly inappropriate for unreasonable charges from dishonorable children. They deserve your boot. You spit in their eye. For enemies bent on your destruction don’t want compromise; they won’t yield to reason. They are to be fought and, God willing, defeated.

This means that when a Congressman Joe Wilson shouts “You lie!” at Barack Obama, you respond, “Representative Wilson was wrong. Obama lies a lot.” It means that when the left bristles at a satirical letter to Lincoln, you understand that bold, fresh pieces of insanity will always hate satire. And, personally, do I really care that some Tea Party folks juxtaposed Barack Obama and Adolf Hitler on a billboard? Not really. I’m just not that concerned about Mr. Hitler’s reputation.

And what of civility? Be wary. When the left is civil — or calls for civility — it’s usually a ruse. It’s simply the tactic that best helps them achieve their aims at the moment. Here’s how it works: Leftists lie through their teeth, and then, when you respond with righteous indignation, they pout like little girls, saying, “You’re mean! You’re intolerant! What happened to civility! [Translation: You called our lies lies! How dare you!]” Understand that the effect here is to stop sap conservatives from calling lies lies, thus allowing the left to use its greatest weapon with impunity. Also understand that the worst form of impoliteness is insincerity in discourse.

And understand something else: Leftists are cowards. They are creatures of the pack, finding their strength only in numbers. After all, what do you think being politically correct is all about? It means doing what’s fashionable in our time, what makes you popular. A man who believes in Truth, such as Thomas More, will die for his principles, alone, twisting in the wind. A liberal goes the way the wind blows and will die for nothing. Stand up to leftists en masse, and they’ll fold like a tent.

So free yourself. Laugh at the “racism” shtick. Make it a badge of honor. Call leftists what they are: cowards, bigots, liars, demagogues, and, worst of all by far, enemies of Truth. Fight fire with fire. Remember, millions of good Americans are sick and tired of political correctness and will stand with you. So just say to our leftist legal aliens: If you like name-calling and you want to fight, OK. I’m a racist, sexist homophobe, and I’m in your face. What’s it to ya’?

Selwyn Duke is a writer, columnist and public speaker whose work has been published widely online and in print, on both the local and national levels. He has been featured on the Rush Limbaugh Show and has been a regular guest on the award-winning Michael Savage Show. His work has appeared in Pat Buchanan's magazine, The American Conservative, and he writes regularly for The New American, and Christian Music Perspective.

E-Mail: SelwynDuke@optonline.net

Website: selwynduke.com

Why Left Talks about "White" Tea Parties

2010-07-18T10:38:00.002-05:00

Tuesday, April 27, 2010
http://www.dennisprager.com/

Opponents of the popular expression of conservative opposition to big government, the tea party, regularly note that tea partiers are overwhelmingly white. This is intended to disqualify the tea parties from serious moral consideration.

But there are two other facts that are far more troubling:

The first is the observation itself. The fact that the Left believes that the preponderance of whites among tea partiers invalidates the tea party movement tells us much more about the Left than it does about the tea partiers.

It confirms that the Left really does see the world through the prism of race, gender and class rather than through the moral prism of right and wrong.

One of the more dangerous features of the Left has been its replacement of moral categories of right and wrong, and good and evil with three other categories: black and white (race), male and female (gender) and rich and poor (class).

Therefore the Left pays attention to the skin color -- and gender (not just "whites" but "white males") -- of the tea partiers rather than to their ideas.

One would hope that all people would assess ideas by their moral rightness or wrongness, not by the race, gender or class of those who hold them. But in the world of the Left, people are taught not to assess ideas but to identify the race, class and gender of those who espouse those ideas. This helps explain the widespread use of ad hominem attacks by the Left: Rather than argue against their opponents' ideas, the Left usually dismisses those making the argument disagreed with as "racist," "intolerant," "bigoted," "sexist," "homophobic" and/or "xenophobic."

You're against race-based affirmative action? No need to argue the issue because you're a racist. You're a tea partier against ever-expanding government? No need to argue the issue because you're a racist.

As a Leftist rule of thumb -- once again rendering intellectual debate unnecessary and impossible -- white is wrong or bad, and non-white is right and good; male is wrong and bad, and female is right and good; and the rich are wrong and bad, and the poor right and good. For the record, there is one additional division on the Left -- strong and weak -- to which the same rule applies: The strong are wrong and bad, and the weak are right and good. That is a major reason for Leftist support of the Palestinians (weak) against the Israelis (strong), for example.

This is why, to cite another example, men are dismissed when they oppose abortion. The idea is far less significant than the sex of the advocate. As for women who oppose abortion on demand, they are either not authentically female or simply traitors to their sex. Just as the Left depicts blacks who oppose race-based affirmative action as not authentic blacks or are traitors to their race.

In this morally inverted world, the virtual absence of blacks from tea party rallies cannot possibly reflect anything negative on the black and minority absence, only on the white tea partiers.

But in a more rational and morally clear world, where people judge ideas by their legitimacy rather than by the race of those who held them, people would be as likely to ask why blacks and ethnic minorities are virtually absent at tea parties just as they now ask why whites predominate. They would want to know if this racial imbalance said anything about black and minority views or necessarily reflected negatively on the whites attending those rallies.

And if they did ask such un-PC questions, they might draw rather different conclusions than the Left's. First, they would know that the near-absence of blacks and Hispanics no more implied racism on the part of tea partiers than the near-absence of blacks and Hispanics in the New York Philharmonic implies racism on the art of that orchestra.

Second, they might even, Heaven forbid, conclude that it does not reflect well on the political outlook of blacks and Hispanics that they so overwhelmingly identify with ever-larger government. Leftist big-government policies have been disastrous for black America just as they were in the countries that most Hispanics emigrated from. But like the gambling addict who keeps gambling the more he loses, those addicted to government entitlements keep increasing the size of the government even as their situation worsens.

Finally, if one eschews the "racism" explanation and asks real questions, one might also conclude that America generally, and conservatives specifically, have failed to communicate America's distinct values -- E Pluribus Unum, In God We Trust, and Liberty (which includes small government) -- to blacks and Hispanics.

Unfortunately, however, no real exploration of almost any important issue in American life is possible as long as the Left focuses on the race, gender and class of those who hold differing positions. And that will not happen. For when the Left stops attacking people and starts arguing positions, we will see what the Left most fears: blacks and Hispanics at tea parties.

IF I HEAR HE "inherited" THE DEFICIT ONE MORE TIME..............

2010-07-16T12:12:00.004-05:00

The Washington Post babbled again today about Obama inheriting a huge deficit from Bush. Amazingly enough,...... a lot of FREAKIN STUPID people swallow this crap. So once more, a short civics lesson.

Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress,and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party. They controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

For FY 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period: (below)

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.

Sheeeeeeeesh people, get a ****** clue!

Remember the rules in Chicago

2010-07-09T09:49:00.012-05:00

Rod Blagojevich, is the former Illinois Governor who tried to sell Obama's seat in Congress. Obama was asked by the press if he had ever met Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

Barack Obama: "I only saw Rod Blagojevich one time ... and that was in the stands and from a distance at a Chicago Bears Football Game."

Rod Blagojevich, Barack Obama, and Richard Daley during a rally in Chicago , April 16, 2007.
(Photo Reuters)

To understand the next 4 years, you have to understand "the world according toChicago . While Chicago is a city in Illinois , it is almost a completely different country when it comes to politics, with a whole different set of morals and language.

There are only three rules and a Prime Directive which anybody can understand.

You don't even need an attorney to understand them -- and if you need an attorney ... Well, you know too much .... so look out for Rule #3!

RULE #1. No matter what you see, hear, or do -- you don't know anybody and you don't know nothing!

RULE #2. If you capture something on tape or camera -- it doesn't reveal nothing!

RULE #3. If you know what everybody knows in Chicago -- well, you still don't know nothing.

The PRIME DIRECTIVE in CHICAGO ...
No matter what the vote, Democrats win the election.
Now pay close attention!

It's very simple -- we'll illustrate... Remember, you know nothing.
These two? They don't know each other! They said they didn't..

The fellas in this picture, They never actually met face to face. What fellas? We don't see nothing!

The guy on the left? For all you know he's Santa Claus. And the guy on the right ... well, he's the Easter Bunny! That's all you need to know.

Make an appointment with your eye doctor ...
your eyes are lying to you! Ca'pish?

Remember Jimmy Hoffa?

He knew too much and now .... well, now no one knows where he is.
Is the big picture clear? Not these pictures! Remember, you've already forgotten them .....

Now, ain't that simple? They don't know each other and they never met!
How is that possible? 'CAUSE THEY SAID SO! And don't forget it!

So how's that whole "Hope & Change" thing working out for ya?

The Difference Between Economic Policy and Monetary Policy

2010-06-23T12:13:00.002-05:00

Richard Anatone
Infowars.com
June 22, 2010

This isn't really that hard to understand folks!

Every day, we watch the news and see the talking heads go on and on about the same stuff: Obama is spending too much; Bush spent too much—we’ll stop spending over here, and use the money from over there to fund this project over here.” It’s the same argument, and unfortunately, it’s a huge distraction. Yes, Bush spent like a drunken sailor—Obama is continuing the spending. But to truly understand where we are economically, and where we’re headed and how to actually achieve economic prosperity again, we must first understand money, where it comes from, how the United States money works, and above all, we must define clearly the difference between Monetary Policy and Economic Policy.

First, Economic Policy. This is the easier and the less important to define, and unfortunately for this very reason, this is the policy that politicians and the talking heads on corporate news networks and state-run media outlets like to bicker about. Simply put, Economic Policy refers to the actions that a government takes in the field of money. How are they spending the money? How much goes to our ‘national security’? How much goes to this war as opposed to that war? How much will we ‘invest’ in green jobs? How much can we afford to ‘give back’ to the taxpaying (and non-taxpaying) citizens? These are the kinds of questions that deal with Economic Policy, and these are the only kinds of questions that we’re hearing people in the news ask.

Broadening the definition, we can typically say that there are two sides of Economic Policies: Liberal and Conservative. Using the current definitions of the day, ‘liberal’ would refer to a government spending more, and ‘conservative’ would refer to a government spending less.

It’s all a hoax.

The argument over ‘conservative and liberal’ economic policies is a hoax played on the American people by the Political Elite, who are in bed the the bankers, who are in bed with the unions, who are, in turn, in bed politicians.

To really understand this and to be able to sufficiently define “Monetary Policy”, it is important to define the 4 kinds of money: Commodity money (money back by gold in most cases), receipt money (money that can be redeemed on demand in full value in terms of gold or silver by the receipt-holder), fiat money (money not backed by gold or silver and is deemed legal tender by decree) and fractional money (which is how we function today along with fiat, and will be addressed later).

The real and more important (and more complicated) question is: ‘What is the Monetary Policy of the United States?’ This question refers to how we as a nation define money and how we create money. Simply put, there are basically 2 different ways to answer the question of how money is created and regulated: 1)a government body; 2)a central bank. Our Constitution clearly states that one of our Congress’ obligations is “To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.” Further, many of our Founding Fathers were strong supporters of a currency that was backed by gold and silver, and not a paper money, mainly because they saw the horrors what artificially inflating or deflating the currency can do to a nation.

The Founding Fathers understood fiat money and inflation because they lived through it themselves. Inflation destroyed the the Massachusetts Bay colony in the 1730s, when the state devalued their fiat currency by 66%; they offered 1 new ‘dollar’ for every 3 old ‘dollars.’ They promised that the money would be redeemed in gold after 5 years, but they broke it, which resulted in poverty.

This happened throughout America too; by the 1750s, Connecticut inflated their prices by 800%, the Carolinas by 900%, Massachusetts 1000%, and Rhode Island by 2300%! Whey they finally deflated their fiat money, depression became widespread. When Massachusetts returned to a commodity-backed system while Rhode Island stayed on its fiat money, Newport lost its trade to Boston.

The Revolutionary War was paid with inflation as well. At the beginning of the war (1775), the total money supply (the Continentals) was $12 million—by 1779, the money supply rose 5000%! The Continentals went from being redeemed for 1 dollar in gold in 1775, to 25 cents in gold in 1777, to less than a penny in 1779. Incidentally, this is where the term “not worth a Continental” originated.

George Washington wrote that, “A wagon load of money will scarcely purchase a wagon load of provisions.” This is the same thing that happened in the Weimar Republic—wheelbarrows full of money to buy a loaf of bread. This destroyed the middle class, caused massive economic and social instability, and led the way for a sociopath taking over the country and starting a world war.

This leads us to the obvious lesson that fiat money is the direct cause of inflation, and the amount that we lose in the purchasing power of our dollar is the same amount that was taken from us and transferred to the government without us even realizing it! Inflation is therefore, a hidden tax, and it hurts the middle class and the poor class the most.

The solution proposed by Socialists and Keynesian economists is simple: “Print More Money and disburse it to the underprivileged!” This leads to even higher inflation, and worse depressions, which leads to printing new money as the so-called ’solution.’ The beauty of money backed by a commodity like gold and silver is that it can’t be counterfeited, and therefore can’t be artificially inflated to pay for the economic wet dreams of the politicians.

This is the reason that Keynes wrote (in his book The Economic Consequences of Peace, 1919):

“Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalist System was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method, they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily and while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some…as the inflation proceeds and the real value of the currency fluctuates wildly and from month to month, all permanent relations between debtors and creditors, which form the ultimate foundation of capitalism, become so utterly disordered as to be almost meaningless; and the process of wealth getting degenerates into a gamble and a lottery. Lenin was right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of a society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose,” (emphasis added).

This is the exact reason that our Founders gave the responsibility to Congress to COIN money, not to print fraudulent paper money. Here’s what some of theme had to say at the Constitutional Convention concerning fiat money:

George Washington: “They may pass a law to issue paper money, but 20 laws will not make the people receive it. Paper money is founded upon fraud and knavery.”

James Wilson (PA): It will have the most salutary influence on the credit of the United States to remove the possibility of paper money.”

John Langdon (NH) warned that he would reject the entire plan of a federation if the government had the right to issue fiat money.’

George Mason (VA): Said he had a ‘moral hatred’ against paper money.

Thomas Paine (not a delegate) wrote that fiat money was a counterfeit to the state, and that he hated legal tender laws, which FORCE people to accept the counterfeit. He said, speaking of legislators, “The punishment of a member who should move for such a law [legal tender laws] ought to be death.”

The result was a Constitution that gave the power to the Congress to COIN money, and prohibit specifically the states from issuing bills of credit (fiat money). Sound money backed by precious metal reigned free, and the results were economic prosperity. The Pennsylvania Gazette stated that since the Constitution removed the possibility of paper money, their trade increased 50%. The US exports jumped from $19 million to $93 from 1791 to 1801. By 1802 THE DEFICIT VANISHED, and the country experienced a surplus almost as large as the Government’s spending!

George Washington wrote in 1789, “We may one day become a great commercial and flourishing nation. But if in the pursuit of the means we should unfortunately stumble again on unfunded paper money or similar species of fraud, we shall assuredly give a fatal stab to our national credit in its infancy (emphasis added).

It is clear that this country’s Founders wanted a sound monetary policy, one backed by gold, to be the only kind of monetary policy for the country, because they, themselves lived through the horrors of inflation. Unfortunately, greed has a way of corrupting even the best men, and this is what led to depressions, wars, and our current economic situation.

One of the arguments against a Monetary System backed by Gold is the charge that there isn’t enough gold in the world to be used as money, but that’s nonsense. The very nature of money is NOT wealth in itself, rather, it is the MEASUREMENT of wealth. The best kind of money is a money that has intrinsic value, is versatile, and is somewhat scarce, because that fits into the notion of Supply and Demand. Gold fits this criteria, and isn’t that scarce—there is still lots of gold to mine; it has been estimated that only 45% of the gold mined in the world since the discovery of the United States is in government/bank stockpiles—the rest is in private hoards and in jewelry/ornaments. Furthermore, Gold can not be counterfeited, like paper money, and gold currencies, historically speaking, has been the only currency that did not bankrupt its own nation until the Governments started debasing the coins with substitutes to gold, which is why virtually ALL of the Founding Fathers were for a gold currency against a fiat money printed by a Central Bank.

If the supply of gold in relation to supply of goods is so small that 1 full ounce of gold would be too valuable to measure, then we would use 1/10 ounce coins instead. The amount of gold doesn’t hurt its ability to be used as money, it just affects the quantity that you would use to measure how much something is worth.

The Constitution denies the Congress the bower to print money, but it does allow them to borrow money—if only there were some kind of Private Centralized Bank in America, then the government could borrow from them and get around the Constitution! This is exactly what happened with the 1st Central Bank of America [the Bank of North America] (1781-83), the 2nd Central Bank of America [the First Bank of the United States] (1791-1811), and lastly, the 3rd and Current Central Bank of America, known as the Federal Reserve [est. 1913].

As an aside, it is important to note that the Central banks did usher in inflation at time to time, but they were much different than the Central Bank of today, in that the 2nd bank was still required to have some amount of gold in their vaults, meaning that there was only so far that the bank was able to artificially expand the money supply.

The main idea behind the current Central Bank, the Federal Reserve, is the 4th kind of money mentioned earlier: Fractional Money. The idea is that people deposit their money into banks, and the banks take that money and lend it to others. The theory behind banking is that not everyone will want their money at the same time, and so lending person A’s money to person B is fine, because person A can have person C’s money when he wants his money back. But the main flaw in this idea is that the deposits are not available for lending. Period. We’re all told that our money is in the bank, and we can get it at any time we want, but we’re not getting our money, we’re getting someone else’s money—they just lent ours out to someone else!

This leads to Fractional Reserve Banking. Banks only kept about 15% of what was deposited—the rest was lent out to others. Depositors were given receipts for their deposits, but the bank issued out loans with 85% of the deposits, and the new borrowers of that money were given new receipts for the same money! This resulted in the existence of twice as many receipts as there was money! The Bank, out of Fractional Reserve Magic, was able to create brand new money. This can only go on for so long, because eventually, when people wake up and realize that their money that they deposited isn’t really safe, they all run to the bank and demand their money, which as we know from It’s A Wonderful Life, ends in mass depression and poverty.

As John Keynes said, “A sound banker…is not one who foresees danger and avoids it, but one who, when he is ruined, is ruined in a conventional and orthodox way along with his fellows, so that no one can readily blame him. It is necessarily part of the business of a banker to maintain appearances, and to confess a conventional respectability, which is more than human. Life-long practices of this kind make them the most romantic and the least realistic of men.”

This leads us to our second question from earlier. What is the Monetary Policy of the United States currently? The answer is that we are a nation that funds its money on bonds, which is essentially debt. Our money comes from our own debt. We are a nation with fiat money and the Federal Reserve is practicing Fractional Reserve Banking. But to truly understand the idiocy that is American Monetary Policy, we must learn exactly how the magic is done.

Before we do that, it is important to remember that the Federal Reserve System is not Federal. It is a private banking cartel that the US Government is restricted from conducting a full audit. There are videos online showing Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke refusing to answer questions regarding bail out money at Congressional Testimony and he has every right to do so because the US Government is restricted from knowing the what happened to the bailout money, and other kinds of transactions, including transactions WITH FOREGIN GOVERNMENTS.

It is also important to realize that the Federal Reserve is an Unconstitutional institution. The Congress and the Congress alone has the authority to coin money. The Constitution does not say that the Congress could create a bank through the legislative process and divert the money-making process to them, and therefore, through the 10th Amendment, the Congress is not allowed to do so…but that didn’t stop them. Thanks to President Wilson (and the bankers who met at Jeckyll Island almost 100 years ago this year and planned the system), we are now stuck with a monetary system backed by nothing but US government debt.

One thing to bear in mind is that the way money is made is ridiculously complicated, as it is reclassified as new terms, and newly printed money is printed—That’s the plan: it’s supposed to be confusing because that way people will give up and continue to go about their lives not really caring to know how their money is being sucked dry from their bank accounts. I have labeled this with ’steps’ to make things as easy to understand as possible.

First, the Government has no money. They can obtain it two different ways: tax the people, or print up bonds or treasury notes to sell to the people. The Government has other debt too, but the bonds make up most of it. Either way, the Government has no money. So,

1. The Government gives the Federal Reserve the bonds and treasury notes that people don’t buy, and in exchange, the Fed gives the government a Federal Reserve Check. Meanwhile, the bond and treasury notes are re-classified in the Fed as a “Securities Asset” because it’s assumed that the government will make good on the promise to pay the Fed back the money it just borrowed from them.

2. The Government now has a Federal Reserve Check. This is money used to pay government expenses. They endorse it and send the money to Federal Reserve Banks, where the check now is classified as a Government Deposit.

3. As a Government Deposit, the money is used to pay many expenses, and so it is re-classified as Government Checks.

4. Government Checks are given to Government employees, who deposit these checks in their own Commercial Banks (Citizens, Bank of America, etc.)

5. This is where it gets fraudulent (more than it already is, anyway). The deposited checks are liabilities to the bank because they are liable to pay it back to the depositors. But, as long as they remain in the bank, they’re considered assets, and so the books ‘balance out.’ (It’s important to know that if you or I did this in our private business or tax filings, we’d be thrown in prison for the rest of our lives).

6. The so-called assets (which are nothing more than deposits which are really liabilities), are now re-classified as Bank Reserves. The banks are permitted by the Fed to only hold on to 10% of these reserves, and they’re allowed to lend out the other 90% (which are named “Excess Reserves”) as new bank loans. Think about that for a minute: This is a double claim on the same money that was originally deposited as Government Checks. So, to prevent a double-claim on this money, they just print new money out of thin air for the exact purpose of off-setting the double claim. And better yet, the banks are allowed to collect interest on this new money from their customers, and considering it cost them diddly-squat to make the money, that isn’t bad (unless you have a moral conscience).

7. When the second wave of fiat money moves into the economy, it goes right back to the banks. The previous process (steps 5-6) are repeated, but this time with a twist. The loans of last week are now deposits this week, which are reclassified as ‘reserves’, and again, 90% of that is defined as Excess Reserves, and that means that the bank, in order to prevent a double-claim against the same money, prints NEW money out of thin air. Thus, 90% of the original 90% is brand-new money, and this happens again…and again…and again…approximately 28 times for the same money to become deposits, loans, then deposits again, etc.

8. All of this adds up to: Bank Fiat Money is about 9X the National Debt that started the entire process when they asked the Fed for some money. Adding the Original Debt, that makes the Total Fiat Money equivalent to 10X the National Debt…this is where the term “ghost dollars” comes from—for every 1 dollar that exists, 9 ‘ghost dollars’ exist.

9. This means that Inflation is about 9-10X the National Debt, meaning OUR TAXES ARE 9-10 TIMES THE NATIONAL DEBT. Without realizing it, through inflation, our taxes are through the roof due to inflation. This becomes especially scary when you realize that because our monetary system is based on debt, the money supply goes up the deeper into debt we become. When we pay off our debt, then the money supply goes down, and prices collapse (in reality, they ‘reset’ to what the Free Market and the laws of Supply and Demand want). This is cause of boom and bust cycles. In essence, if we didn’t have debt, then we wouldn’t have money.

This system is unsustainable, as we can see from other countries and their economic situations. Countries in Europe are experiencing the same economic hardships due to their fiat money, and countries like India, Iran, and China are actually starting to hoard tons and tons of gold and at the same time, they’re not buying as much of our debt as they used to, while they dump billions in euros and dollars. The argument that China needs us as badly as we need them is nonsense if they have tons and tons of gold in their vaults.

This is America’s Monetary System in a nutshell. Going to back to the original question about the difference between Monetary Policy and Economic Policy, you can see how Monetary Policy is much more important to our survival as a Republic than Economic Policy. The Government can be ‘fiscally conservative’ or ‘fiscally liberal’ in its spending in both a Commodity-Backed Monetary System and in a Fiat-Fractional Reserve System. It’s the Monetary Policy that makes all of the difference. With a Fiat Currency, the Government can literally spend money on anything it wants, which is what America is doing: troops in over 100 countries, constant wars, welfare spending like crazy, jobs for literally digging ditches, phony ’stimulus packages’ that don’t do anything but worsen the situation, bank bailout after bank bailout. And they do this by printing new money and the taxpayer never sees it—they don’t even realize that they’re getting taxed 10 times our National Debt.

With a Commodity-Backed Currency, however, politicians are forced to be fiscally sane. You can’t have your troops in over 100 countries ’spreading democracy’ without paying for it, and you can’t pass fake spending programs without paying for it—and the only way to pay for it with a Commodity-Backed Currency is by directly taxing the people. And if the people saw how much this cost, they would throw every last one those elected officials out on the street.

TO THE NRA : REFERENCE H.R. 5175 STATEMENT

2010-06-16T06:33:00.004-05:00

To the NRA in reference to the NRA statement and letter to Congress on H.R. 5175.

As a loyal member of the NRA, I find your statement on H.R. 5175 the DISCLOSE Act, not only offensive but also shows that NRA staff leadership is quick to sell out its members for special favors and find their actions not in support of the First Amendment rights.

If the NRA "cannot defend the Second Amendment from the attacks we face in the local, state, federal, international and judicial arenas without the ability to speak" and cutting back room deals, then this member will be reconsidering my membership.

Now is not the time for special favors and sleazy back room deals. This is the time to take a stand against many in Congress who don't believe in the constitutional rights of its citizens and want to overturn a recent Supreme Court ruling which favored the rights of individuals to freely criticize their elected officials.

In response to this attack on our freedoms, there is one group of people (the NRA) that are pleading for a special favor, and in doing so, are willing to let the rest of us dangle in the wind.

I'm not sure who is making the decisions over at the NRA headquarters... but this type of thing would have never happened in the past, and I'm positive that the rest of the NRA membership would not be happy with it. This will not stand.

If you are a NRA member, I urge you to read their statement to Congress in reference to H.R. 5175 and then call the NRA-ILA at (800) 392-VOTE (8683).

Obama Issues Another Executive Order

2010-06-13T16:22:00.002-05:00

Obama Issues Executive Order Mandating “Lifestyle Behavior Modification”

June 12, 2010 ·

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is fond of saying, “You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid.” Well, the Obama Administration certainly has not let the British Petroleum (BP) Deepwater Horizon oil rig crisis go to waste, using it as a smokescreen to silently assault and further diminish American citizens’ personal freedom.

While the nation has its eyes and ears focused on the blame game ping-pong match between President Obama and BP top brass, President Obama on Thursday, June 10, quietly announced a new Executive Order establishing the “National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council.”

Claiming the “authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America,” President Obama has truly gone off the deep end this time in his most atrocious attempt to date to control every aspect of Americans’ lives.

According to Sec. 5. of the Executive Order that details the President’s “National Prevention and Health Promotion Strategy,” the Council will be charged with carrying out “lifestyle behavior modification” among American citizens that do not exhibit “healthy behavior.”

The President’s desired lifestyle behavior modifications focus on:

smoking cessation;
proper nutrition;
appropriate exercise;
mental health;
behavioral health;
sedentary behavior;
substance-use disorder; and
domestic violence screenings.

Making matters even worse, if that is even possible at this point, President Obama will create an “Advisory Group” composed of experts hand-picked from the public health field and various other areas of expertise “outside the Federal Government.”

Let’s consider who the President has sought advice and mentoring from in the past:

Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who the Anti-Defamation League calls a “Messenger of Intolerance,” and
Bill Ayers, leader of the 1960′s domestic terrorist group ”Weatherman” that was “responsible for 30 bombings aimed at destroying the defense and security infrastructures of the U.S.”

Now, President Obama is going to seek medical advisors who will be charged with modifying lifestyles and behaviors of those citizens he deems unhealthy? “Paging Dr. Kevorkian! You’re wanted in the White House STAT by President Obama!”

Whether you are a child, a parent, a worker, or retired, the President’s approximately 25-member “Advisory Group” will soon be present in every aspect of Americans’ lives, as the Executive Order prescribes. Specifically, our new so-called lifestyle behavior modification advisors will be actively carrying out the President’s orders in:

worksite health promotion;
community services, including community health centers;
preventive medicine;
health coaching;
public health education;
geriatrics; and
rehabilitation medicine.

President Obama’s sweeping plan to enforce “lifestyle behavior modification” is chock full of open-ended target areas, especially when it comes to issues of “mental” and “behavioral” health, “proper nutrition,” “sedentary behavior,” and “appropriate exercise.” The President’s Executive Order is a blatant and forceful attempt to adjust the way Americans young and old think, behave, eat, drink and whatever else free will used to entitle our nation’s citizens to enjoy as prescribed by the Founding Fathers.

Show your ticket

2010-06-03T18:00:00.005-05:00

Wise Words from a LEGAL Mexican immigrant

This was written by a Mexican who is now a naturalized US Citizen, and I think it's a great explanation of the illegal immigration issue.

Here is the quote:

"If you had tickets to a sports event, concert, Disneyland, or for an airline flight, and when you got to your assigned seat you found someone else was in that seat, what would you do? You would call for a person in charge of ticket checking and have the person in your seat removed. You would properly be asked to show your ticket, and you would gladly and proudly do so, for you have bought and paid for that seat. The person in your seat would also be asked for a ticket, which they would not be able to produce. They would be called “gate crashers” and they would properly be removed.

Now in this huge stadium called the USA we have had millions of gate crashers. We have been asking security to check for tickets and remove the gate crashers. We have been asking security to have better controls in checking at the door. We have asked security to lock the back doors. Security has failed us. They are still looking the other way. They are afraid to ask to see the tickets. Many people say there is unlimited seating, and whether there is or not, no one should be allowed in for free while the rest of us pay full price!

In “section AZ”, of “Stadium USA”, we have had enough of the failures of Security. We have decided to do our own ticket checking, and properly remove those who do not have tickets. Now it seems very strange to me that so many people in the other 49 “sections”, and even many in our own “section” do not want tickets checked, or even to be asked to show their ticket! Even the head of Security is chastising us, while not doing his own job which he has sworn to do.

My own ticket has been bought and paid for, so I am proudly going to show it when asked to do so. I have a right to my seat, and I want the gate crashers to be asked to show their tickets too. The only reason that I can imagine anyone objecting to being asked for their ticket is that they are in favor of gate crashing, and all of the illegal activities that go with it, such as drug smuggling, gang wars, murder, human smuggling for profit, and many more illegal and inhumane acts that we are trying to prevent with our new legislation. Is that what I am hearing from all of the protesters such as Phoenix Mayor Gordon, US Rep. Grijalva, even President Obama? If you are not in favor of showing tickets, (proof of citizenship, passport, green card, or other legal document) when asked, as I would do proudly, then you must be condoning those illegal activities."

Written by a US Citizen, Globe, Arizona.

Since Obama has never shown his ticket I guess he feels obligated to not ask others to show theirs.

CRIME, INC. – The Story Behind Cap and Trade

2010-04-30T07:01:00.000-05:00

A World of Pain Ahead

2010-04-18T17:23:00.003-05:00

Mike Whitney
April 18, 2010

The brief period of stabilization in housing appears to be over and the next leg-down has begun. Mortgage rates are edging higher, foreclosures are on the rise, and the government programs that supported the sector, are being phased out. The uptick in bank-owned properties (REO) is adding to surplus inventory and pushing down prices. A recently released report from First American CoreLogic shows that “distressed sales accounted for 29 per cent of all sales nationwide.” Nearly one-third of all home sales are distressed REOs. Also, according to a report from Clear Capital, “Home prices nationally have dropped 3.9 percent quarter to quarter, the first quarterly drop in nine months. (Thanks to Diana Olick, Realty Check, CNBC) Bottom line: More people are being forced from their homes, the banks are facing bigger losses, and the housing market is on the skids.

The Obama administration’s Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) has largely been a bust. Of the 3 to 4 million potential modifications, only 170,000 homeowners have successfully converted into a new mortgage. Under the new “principal reduction” plan, borrowers will be able to refinance into a FHA loan if lenders agree to slash the face-value of the mortgage. This puts the government on the hook if the homeowner defaults, which will lead to heftier losses for Uncle Sam. One of the main sticking points with the new program has been second liens, which are the home equity loans that were made using the mortgage as collateral. Falling home prices have made these loans essentially worthless, but the banks have resisted writing them off altogether because hundreds of billions of dollars are at stake. Even so, the four biggest banks have signed on to the new program hoping to stem the surge in foreclosures. Here’s an excerpt from an article on Housingwire that shows how desperate the banks are to stop the bleeding:

“Two major banks are expecting major increases in foreclosures, by the end of 2010.

“According to the Irvine Housing blog, Bank of America, which currently forecloses on 7,500 homes every month will see that number rise to 45,000 by December 2010…..

“JPMorgan Chase is forecasting bigger foreclosure numbers in the coming months. According to a presentation at the end of February, JPMorgan expects the amount of real estate owned (REO) properties in its portfolio to reach between 33,000 to 45,000 in Q410. By comparison, in Q409, REO inventories were at 23,100.” (“Big Banks Prepare for Major Rise in Foreclosures Ending 2010″ Jon Prior, Housingwire.)

Bank of America’s 6X increase in projected foreclosures is a real eye-popper. It suggests that housing prices (particularly in California) have quite a bit further to tumble. This will effect everything from private consumption to state revenues. It’s a disaster.

Worth noting is that subprime defaults are largely over, and that, the new wave of foreclosures is made up of option ARMs, primes and Alt As. Many of these are high-income individuals who are using “strategic default” as a way to cut their losses and walk away from what has turned out to be a bad business deal. In fact, the data show that well-heeled homeowners are almost twice as likely to default than middle or low income people. So much for moral hazard.

Obama’s revised HAMP program could keep as many as one million homeowners out of foreclosure, but, even so, it’s just a drop in the bucket. Foreclosures and short sales will soar into 2011 no matter what the government does. In fact, the torrent has already begun as CNBC’s Diana Olick reports on Tuesday:

“Lender Processing Services just put out its “Mortgage Monitor Report,” and we have a new record: The nation’s foreclosure inventories reached record highs. February’s foreclosure rate of 3.31 per cent represented a 51.1 per cent year-over-year increase. The percentage of new problem loans also remains at a five-year high. The total number of non-current first-lien mortgages and REO properties is now more than 7.9 million loans. Furthermore, the percentage of new problem loans is also at its highest level in five years.” (CNBC, Diana Olick, Realty Check.)

Whoa. 8 million homeowners are behind on their payments! And, that’s not all; mortgage applications dropped 9.6 per cent last week while the Refinance Index (refis) fell 9 per cent in the same period. So, mortgage apps are down even though the Firsttime Homebuyer Tax Credit is still in effect (it ends in two weeks) and, even though this is the “peak season” for home sales.

So, why the sudden spike in foreclosures a full four years into the housing crash?

Because the banks have been withholding supply to keep prices artificially high. There may have been an understanding between the banks and the Fed (a quid pro quo?) to keep inventory low so it looked like Bernanke’s $1.25 trillion Quantitative Easing (QE) program was actually stabilizing the market. But now that the banks are stuffed with reserves, there’s no need to continue the charade. So the dumping of backlog homes has begun. That will cause inventories to rise and prices to fall. More homeowners will slip into negative equity which will lead to even more foreclosures. It’s a vicious circle. If the coming wave of foreclosures is anything close to Bank of America’s projections, there’s a world of pain ahead.

April 19th

2010-04-08T07:20:00.003-05:00

I assume you are familiar with the history of Lexington and Concord on April 19th, 1775. British soldiers left Boston at midnight and marched all night to arrive in Lexington just after dawn. Because Paul Revere had ridden through the night to warn the townspeople, the British soldiers were met by a group of armed citizens who refused to disperse. History does not record who fired first, but it is remembered as the "shot heard around the world".

IT IS TIME FOR PATRIOTS TO STAND IN DEFENSE OF LIBERTY!

You already know that most of what our government does is unconstitutional. You already know that "something must be done" to stop it. I hope you know that nothing will change until you take action to stop it.

From November 11th to 22nd last year, delegates from 48 states met in St. Charles, Illinois to discuss the situtation, and to make suggestions on how to fix our political problems. The result is a sixty page document called The Articles of Freedom. This document contains a list of instructions to our federal and state governments to once again limit government authority. No matter how well these ideas have been articulated, they will be completely ignored unless you, your family, and your friends, gather together with a "goodly number of millions" across the country to demonstrate your support.

Make no mistake! This is an emergency, and we need as many people as possible! On Monday, April 19th, people will gather at each of the 50 state capitols to peacefully express their discontent with our existing government. Formal ceremonies are being planned during which, copies of the Articles of Freedom will be served on all three branches of each state government. You have an opportunity to be a part of history! I'm hoping that you also feel an obligation and DUTY to defend your life, your Liberty, and Texas. Please bring as many people as you can to Austin, Texas on April 19th to let our politicians know that we are not asking... we are DEMANDING... that they follow the Constitution and abide by their oath of office.

As the President of Continental Congress 2009, I am calling you into service in the defense of your country. I fully expect you to help with organizing this event, so please eMail Barbara Harless at harless1@verizon.net to let her know that you are on the team. Time is of the essence! Please do not allow the government to continue its rapid progress toward dictatorship.

Lighting the fires of Liberty, one heart at a time!

Michael Badnarik

P.S. We are hoping to find military personnel from each branch of service (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines) to participate as color guard during the ceremony. If you are, or know someone, willing to fulfill this role, please contact Barbara as soon as possible.

We The People Congress, Inc.
2458 Ridge Road, Queensbury, New York 12804
http://GiveMeLiberty.org/