A Federal Budget Crisis Months in the Planning (NY Times: Tea Party Conspiracy!)… “…Republicans could derail the health care overhaul if conservative lawmakers were willing to push fellow Republicans — including their cautious leaders — into cutting off financing for the entire federal government.”
The New York Times ^ | Saturday, October 5, 2013 | Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Mike McIntire
Posted on Sunday, October 06, 2013 10:42:58 AM by kristinn
Shortly after President Obama started his second term, a loose-knit coalition of conservative activists led by former Attorney General Edwin Meese III gathered in the capital to plot strategy. Their push to repeal Mr. Obama’s health care law was going nowhere, and they desperately needed a new plan.
He has not been charged with any of his many crimes because he controls the US Attorney General Eric Holder and the Department of Justice (Holder is just as guilty of treason as is Obama). The rest of Congress seems too spineless or fearful to say or do anything about it.
But let someone else try to stand up against Obama’s crime syndicate and he’s the first one to start hollering treason.
Common Core forcing Marxism/Nazism on America’s children… “Common Core is a Nationalized Federal government takeover of our Education system which of course is against the law, as the Federal Government is not allowed to set any educational curriculum standards – a right reserved to the States. Least of all do they have the power to create a one size fits all complete take over of education on all levels. “
Sher Zieve is an author and political commentator. Zieve’s op-ed columns are widely carried by multiple internet journals and sites, and she also writes hard news. Her columns have also appeared in The Oregon Herald, Dallas Times, Sacramento Sun, in international news publications, and on multiple university websites. Sher is also a guest on multiple national radio shows
Recently, I met a remarkable woman who has accomplished an extraordinary work in her mission toward educating the American people of a clear and present danger to their children and the methods by which said danger can be stopped. This lady’s accomplishments speak for themselves.BIO:Christina Michas is the Founder and Leader of the Palm Springs Patriots Coalition and President, Eagle Forum Palm Springs.
Prior to getting involved in politics and issues facing our nation, Christina was the Owner of a Design and Development Business. Christina felt the calling to stop her business, completely, and get involved in saving her country. This led to her becoming involved in politics and their attendant issues full time. As a result, in February, 2009 she founded the Palm Springs Patriots Coalition. Since then, Christina has been involved in many organizations and events, while continuing to work with her group to educate and activate people in her community. She has worked diligently with her local officials to bring positive changes to local area cities.
She was the VP of Marketing for Consumers Power Alliance CPA, a coalition of groups dedicated to stopping Smart Meter Installations in California. Through the work of CPA, they won the right for all Californian‘s to opt out of Wireless Smart Meters.Christina is the recipient of the 2010 Salvatori Award from the Heritage Foundation for her instrumental work in the Tea Party Movement. Christina is also a producer for Breaking News Journal.
Today Christina is the Co-founder of a newly formed Coalition called CURE Citizens United for Responsible Education to join in the fight to stop the Common Core Curriculum Standards of a Government led take over of our education system.
She has been on numerous local and national radio shows in the effort to educate and activate citizens and to encourage all to get involved. As Christina states, ” It is time for all of us to step up and take personal responsibility for what is happening in our nation,” to become our own representatives and to stop looking to Politicians to fix the problems. Christina is a Greek American and is strong believer in the Lord from which she draws her strength.
This enables her to look at current events objectively through the prism of the Bible and end time prophecy.The InterviewSher: Christina, thanks so much for being here with me, today. You are doing an extraordinary job of bringing the truth about what is happening in the government public school system in the USA…and it isn’t pretty. During his brutal reign in Russia, in which he established the Soviet Union or USSR, created the Secret Police, established Siberian prison camps, killed thousands of peasants when they did not work as hard as the ruling………………..
Beware the Internet Sales Tax
Heritage Foundation ^ | 4/19/2013 | Amy Payne
Posted on Friday, April 19, 2013 7:44:41 AM by IbJensen
The Internet sales tax is back, and it could be the next big vote in the Senate.
The proposed law would enable states to force businesses to collect sales tax from customers who live in their state—even when the businesses have no connection to that state.
As Heritage President Jim DeMint has said, this violates the classic American principle of “no taxation without representation.” Retailers would be forced to act as tax collectors for states in which they have no voice.
DeMint takes parting shot at Boehner… ““I’m not with Boehner,” DeMint said on CNN’s “The Situation Room… (“This government doesn’t need any more money, this country needs less government.”)
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), who shocked Washington on Thursday with the announcement that he would resign his Senate seat in January to become president of the the Heritage Foundation, sent a parting shot at Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) over the “fiscal cliff” negotiations.
By Alan Caruba
If my emails and the headlines I am reading indicate anything, there is widespread fear among Americans that something terrible has occurred with the reelection of President Obama. Not all Americans, though. Those who voted for Obama appear to remain oblivious despite the threat of a “fiscal cliff” or the new taxes in Obamacare that will kick in on January 2nd.
We have a Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy, Geithner, calling for an end to debt ceilings, apparently believing that America can continue to borrow money to pay for the interest on its escalating debt, now pegged at $16 trillion and growing daily. The U.S. borrows $4 billion a day. Anyone with a credit card knows that their payments increase as they struggle to deal with their personal debt. Eventually they either declare bankruptcy or turn to companies that negotiate a payment to release them.
If America was to default on its debt, the dollar, already in free fall, would be worth nothing. We would be bartering shiny beads and anything else to buy food and other necessaries. We would become Zimbabwe where you need a million of their dollars to buy a loaf of bread.
Hurricane Sandy hadn’t even touched down when liberals started blowing kisses to FEMA, or Federal Emergency Management Agency, the federal disaster relief agency. A New York Times editorial declared that the impending storm proved that the country needs FEMA-style “Big Government” solutions more than ever. Salon, New Republic and other liberal outfits heartily agreed.
Why do liberals love FEMA so much? Certainly not for its glorious track record. Rather, FEMA has been a great vehicle for expanding the welfare state.
FEMA’s tragic missteps after Katrina earned it well-deserved disgrace. The Times blames those on the Bush administration, whose anti-government philosophy supposedly gutted FEMA. President Obama, the argument goes, straightened things out, and Americans should now “feel lucky” that the agency is there for them. Without it, local and state authorities wouldn’t be able to coordinate where “rescuers should go, where drinking water should be shipped, and how to assist hospitals that have to evacuate.”
New York Times bestselling author
The book, which I read over this past weekend, seeks to explain the actions and policies of President Barack Obama using the principles of Anti-Colonial ideology.
Progressive organizations behind White House policy have crafted specific, second-term plans for President Obama
to transform the U.S. Armed Forces into a social work-style organization designed to combat “global warming,” fight global poverty, remedy “injustice,” bolster the United Nations and increase “peacekeeping” forces worldwide.
“I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs a repair, I’ll fix it.”Thus did Mitt Romney supposedly commit the gaffe of the month — for we are not to speak of the poor without unctuous empathy.
GUNNY G: SURPRISINGLY, THERE ARE WRITERS WHO WILL STAND UP FOR DR RON PAUL AGAINST OTHER (PSEUDO-CONSERVATIVE) WRITERS!
GUNNY G: SURPRISINGLY, SOME WRITERS DO STAND UP FOR DR RON PAUL AGAINST OTHER (PSEUDO-CON) WRITERS…
First, let us deal with some misinformation in Williams’ article. Neocon is not an insult. The word is short for neoconservative: a specific political position worked out in detail. One can find the “Cliff Notes” version on Wikipedia and elsewhere. Wikipedia says:
“Neoconservatism is a variant of the political ideology of conservatism which rejects the utopianism and egalitarianism of modern liberalism but sees a role for the welfare state. Their main emphasis since 1990 has been using American power to foster democracy abroad, especially in the Middle East. They were notably visible in Republican administrations of George H.W. Bush (1989-93) and George W. Bush (2001-2009).”
Wikipedia’s discussion continues by noting how the stance was developed by former Trotskyite left-liberals, perhaps explaining how one of its founding fathers, Irving Kristol, could famously describe a neoconservative as a “liberal who has been mugged by reality.” Back in the early 1980s, the term was not an insult. But as it developed, it was clear that neoconservatism retained a good bit of the leftism from which it originally sprung—having made peace with the welfare state, for example, or Keynesian economics, or a good deal of the trappings of political correctness when that became an issue in the 1990s. It was fundamentally a creature of Fabian socialism, created in academic centers of Fabian permeation such as New York University and think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute where Fabian ideas hijacked both capitalist economics and conservative politics.
heritage.org ^ | Dec 28, 2011 | By Rob Bluey
Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2011 5:20:45 AM by Jim Robinson
Would you be outraged if the Department of Justice shut down The Foundry  without any warning and blocked access for more than a year?
That’s exactly what happened to a hip-hop blog called Dajaz1.com , which was falsely accused of criminal copyright infringement . The blog posted music from artists promoting their work. But federal authorities viewed it differently. They seized the domain name, then shared virtually no information with its owner for more than year. Only recently did they quietly drop the case .
The government’s handling of this hip-hop blog is fueling fears about legislation moving quickly through Congress  that addresses copyright infringement and online piracy.
The Stop Online Piracy Act , or SOPA as it’s known in the House, and the Senate’s PROTECT IP Act  would give the U.S. attorney general the power and authority to block criminal enterprises from trafficking in illegal products online.
Their cause is a noble one. Business incur significant losses when Americans buy counterfeit items. Consumers must also be increasingly vigilant about purchases they make online. Federal authorities shut down more than 150 websites  just last month for pirated goods.
But the two bills making their way through Congress are the wrong solution. They pose serious threats to freedom of speech and expression and raise security concerns . With the Senate possibly voting on the PROTECT IP Act in January and the House moving forward with hearings on SOPA, Americans should understand what’s at stake .
As the case with Dajaz1.com illustrates, the federal government already has the ability to shut down U.S.-based websites. A growing number of so-called “rogue sites” are located outside the United States, however, limiting the government’s ability to block them.
SOPA would give Attorney General Eric Holder and individual intellectual property holders the ability to sue these rogue sites if they were “dedicated to theft of U.S. property.” The government, through a court order, could take these four steps:
Require Internet service providers to prevent subscribers from reaching the website in question; Prohibit search engines such as Google from providing direct links to the foreign website in search results; Prohibit payment network providers, such as PayPal or credit card firms, from completing financial transactions affecting the site; and Bar Internet advertising firms from placing online ads from or to the affected website. “The legislation addresses a legitimate problem,” wrote Heritage’s regulatory policy expert James Gattuso , “but it may have unintended negative consequences for the operation of the Internet and free speech.”
The feature article of the June 2004 issue of “The Insider,” published by The Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., is one of dozens of articles written over the past twenty years or so by Roger Pilon of the Cato Institute urging Americans to educate themselves on how the Constitution supposedly limits government. Cato Institute staffers are known for carrying little pocket-sized copies of the Constitution around with them, presumably so that they will never miss a chance to prove to anyone who will listen that there is indeed a way of limiting government: enforce the Constitution.
But this whole enterprise of preaching about the Constitution, as conservatives and libertarians have been doing since at least the 1930s, is utterly futile. It has had no effect whatsoever, yet Cato, Heritage, and many other institutions continue to churn out essentially the same old arguments about how the Constitution can limit government.
RUSH: Folks, I have to tell you something. We got another Republican debate tonight. It’s sponsored by the Heritage Foundation. It’s gonna be moderated by Wolf Blitzer, CNN. It’s gonna be broadcast by CNN. It’s a Heritage Foundation debate on foreign policy. And from what I’m told, old Wolf is out there preparing a response to Newt Gingrich if Newt chides him for the way he’s conducting things as the moderator.
Last week, one of the Republican Party’s young stars, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc), spoke at the Heritage Foundation and gave forth his vision of America and what we need to do today to restore our vitality.
Listening to Ryan, I’m reminded of the late, great Congressman Jack Kemp, for whom he once worked. He talks about America as an “opportunity” society, driven by the ideals of individual freedom, limited government, traditional values, and free enterprise.
To sum up his working hypotheses: These are the values that made America great. Our economic machine is sputtering today as result of departure from these values. Today’s task is to restore them and get America growing again, which will benefit everyone.
Ryan contrasts this individual-centered, bottom-up, principles driven vision, with the take on things of our current administration. They believe everything starts in Washington, and that they can design, create, and finance with taxpayers’ money, a prosperous, just America.
But our president has had three years to work his liberal experiment, with economic recovery barely discernible today, and recent Gallup polling showing only 13 percent of Americans satisfied with how things are going.
RUSH: Paul Ryan yesterday went over to the Heritage Foundation to deliver a speech about conservatism, Obama, and class warfare. We have three sound bites. It was a terrific speech, and I think Congressman Ryan is one of the leading intellectual lights in elected Republican circles for defining modern-era conservatism.
RYAN: The president has opted for divisive rhetoric and the broken politics of the past. He’s going from town to town impugning the motives of Republicans, setting up straw men and scapegoats and engaging in intellectually lazy argument as he tries to build support for punitive tax hikes on job creators.
RUSH: He continued.
RYAN: Instead of appealing to the hope and optimism that were the hallmarks to his first campaign, he has launched his second campaign by preying on the emotions of fear, envy, and resentment. This has the potential to be just as damaging as his misguided policies. Sowing social unrest and class resentment makes America weaker, not stronger.
RYAN: Pitting one group against another only distracts us from the true sources of inequity in this country. Corporate welfare that enriches the powerful and empty promises that betray the powerless.
RUSH: He’s right. The whole speech was superb. There was a Q&A afterward. The moderator was the president at Heritage, Ed Feulner. He said, “What do you make of Elizabeth Warren‘s comments that successful people are successful only because of the things government provides and that confiscatory taxation is justified because it’s not really their success?”
RYAN: This is what I call “the fatal conceit of progressivism.” It’s upside down. It’s the presumption that money and wealth made and created in America is the government’s unless they benevolently expend it back to people.
RUSH: Joe in Albany as we start with you on Open Line Friday today. Hello.
CALLER: (whispering) Hey, Rush. I was telling that… I was saying that the Republican Party are the biggest affirmative action organization for plaque people in America. As long as you’re willing to pretend that, you know, racism doesn’t exist and betray your race, you’re welcomed with open arms. I mean, imagine if, say, Ruth Bader Ginsburg had, uhhh, $700,000 in spousal income from MoveOn.org and then they ruled on some huge bill that MoveOn.org had before them — say, like the Citizens United decision — and Ruth Bader Ginsburg had fraudulently not declared her spouse’s income, uh, from MoveOn.org.
There would be impeachment hearings in the House right now. We’re not seeing any of that with Clarence Thomas, and that’s exactly what happened. His wife took $700,000 from the Heritage Foundation. He went and ruled on Citizens United, which Heritage Foundation had a hand in, and, duhhh, it’s radio silence from you guys.
RUSH: What did Heritage have to do with Citizens United?
CALLER: Uh… She… His… Uh… Ummm… His wife worked at Heritage.
RUSH: What did Heritage have to do with Citizens United?
CALLER: They wanted to see it repealed.
RUSH: So? So did I.
CALLER: (silence) So his wife took –
RUSH: You know what? I’ve had dinner with Ginni Thomas, and I think I bought it.
CALLER: So you’re telling me that Ruth Bader Ginsburg could take $700,000 from MoveOn.org, rule on an issue –
RUSH: I’m gonna tell you here that if you want to open this door, I’ll guarantee you I can find more examples of this kind of chicanery on the left than you can cite. I can find more conflict of interest. Plus, this is the problem with taking calls from people like you: I don’t know how to deal with people like you. There’s no talking to you about the issues. You want to get rid of Clarence Thomas because you know a worthless, unconstitutional piece of legislation might be overturned — might be declared unconstitutional — and you don’t want that. You want an unconstitutional piece of legislation to be declared legal and constitutional.
So you’ll do whatever you have to, follow whatever pied piper type device you get from these left-wing blogs that you read in order to support the supposition that what’s illegal should be made legal. There is nothing constitutional about the individual mandate, and – all these little side issues that you want to try to come up with here to distract from what’s really going on is exactly why this country is never gonna make any progress whatsoever as long as people like you have any power. Because your aim is to tear down this country and to destroy it and remake it in an image that nobody wants and nobody would enjoy. This is pure inanity. Snerdley, you asked me, “What would you say to these protestors?” It’s like talking to a brick wall. Anyway, who’s next? Where we going next? Louie in Denver. Welcome to the EIB Network, sir. Hello.
CALLER: Dittos, Rush. Herman Cain‘s comment about a third of the blacks will think for themselves? I don’t think it’s a black thing. It crosses all lines. I’m white. I’ve tried for a long time to talk about conservative topics with my friends, and they all agree on the surface, but when you ask ‘em specifics, when it comes down to it, I ask you to vote Republican, “No, I’m a Democrat.” So the brainwashing is everywhere. I’ll state a poll. With today’s economy going on, with what’s going on in today’s economy, how could 40% of the people be happy or approve of what the president’s do doing.
RUSH: Well –
I was part of a panel a few days ago on politics, culture and the media. And the first question put to us was right to the point: “Can Barack Obama win re-election?”
Political guru Dick Morris, Tea Party unofficial leader Dick Armey, a scholar from the Heritage Foundation all said no. It’s tough to argue with that. President Obama’s approval ratings are not good and most Americans think we’re on the wrong track. He’s lost support from his key constituents, including Jewish voters and African-Americans. Worst of all for the president, independents who supported him in 2008 have jumped ship in big numbers.
Like the others, Dick Armey offered a smart analysis of why Obama is in big trouble. But unlike the others, he ended his analysis saying, quietly and almost as an afterthought, Obama won’t win, “Unless the Republicans nominate the wrong candidate.”
That’s like saying, “Besides that Mrs. Lincoln, how’d you enjoy the play?”
“Unless the Republicans pick the wrong candidate” is hardly a throwaway line, despite the fact that that’s how it was delivered. It just may be the single most important consideration in this whole discussion.
I was the odd man out on the panel. I said, Yes, Barack Obama can be re-elected – but it won’t be because the economy is in great shape on Election Day. And it won’t be because the unemployment rate has dropped from nine percent to six percent, or seven percent or even eight percent. It won’t be because a majority of Americans do an about face and suddenly believe the nation is on the right track, I said. And it won’t be because al qaeda has raised the white flag and said Barack Obama was the reason they were putting an end to their evil ways.
If Barack Obama wins……………
It should no more be necessary to write this article than to prove that there were Jews killed in the World Trade Center on 9/11. And yet the mythology refuses to die. Just last week, two well-educated and well-known writer acquaintances of mine remarked in passing on the “fact” that those who serve in the U.S. military typically have no other career options. America‘s soldiers, they said, were poor and black.
They don’t mean this to denigrate their service—no, they mean it as a critique of American society, which turns its unemployed into cannon fodder. Especially today with high unemployment, the charge goes, hapless youths we fail to educate are embarking on a one-way trip to Afghanistan.
These allegations—most frequently leveled at the Army, the military’s biggest service and the one with the highest casualty rate—are false.
In 2008, using data provided by the Defense Department, the Heritage Foundation found that only 11% of enlisted military recruits in 2007 came from the poorest one-fifth, or quintile, of American neighborhoods (as of the 2000 Census), while 25% came from the wealthiest quintile. Heritage reported that “these trends are even more pronounced in the Army Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) program, in which 40% of enrollees come from the wealthiest neighborhoods, a number that has increased substantially over the past four years.”
Indeed, the Heritage report showed that “low-income families are underrepresented in the military and high-income families are overrepresented. Individuals from the bottom household income quintile make up 20.0 percent of Americans who are age 18-24 years old but only 10.6 percent of the 2006 recruits and 10.7 percent of the 2007 recruits. Individuals in the top two quintiles make up 40.0 percent of the population, but 49.3 percent of the recruits in both years.”
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com …
Impact of Tea Party is not entirely clear (anti-Obamacare Prop C passes more than 2-to-1)
STL Today ^ | 8/05/11 | TONY MESSENGER
Posted on Friday, August 05, 2011 2:47:21 PM by Libloather
If there were a contest for the most misleading words used in politics, “poverty” should be one of the leading contenders for that title.
Each of us may have his own idea of what poverty means — especially those of us who grew up in poverty. But what poverty means politically and in the media is whatever the people who collect statistics choose to define as poverty.
This is not just a question of semantics. The whole future of the welfare state depends on how poverty is defined. “The poor” are the human shields behind whom advocates of ever bigger spending for ever bigger government advance toward their goal.
If poverty meant what most people think of as poverty — people “ill-clad, ill-housed, and ill-nourished,” in Franklin D. Roosevelt’s phrase — there would not be nearly enough people in poverty today to justify the vastly expanded powers and runaway spending of the federal government.
Official data cited by Rector show that 80 percent of “poor” households have air conditioning today, which less than half the population of America had in 1970. Nearly three-quarters of households in poverty own a motor vehicle, and nearly one-third own more than one motor vehicle.
Virtually everyone living in “poverty,” as defined by the government, has color television, and most have cable or satellite TV. More than three-quarters have either a VCR or a DVD player, and nearly nine-tenths have a microwave oven.
As for being “ill-housed,” the average poor American has more living space than the general population — not just the poor population — of London, Paris, and other cities in Europe.
Various attempts have been made over the years to depict Americans in poverty as “ill-fed,” but the “hunger in America” campaigns that have enjoyed such political and media popularity have usually used some pretty creative methods and definitions.
Actual studies of “the poor” have found their intake of the necessary nutrients to be no less than that of others. In fact, obesity is slightly more prevalent among low-income people.
The real triumph of words over reality, however, is in expensive government programs for “the elderly,” including Medicare. The image often invoked is the person who is both ill and elderly, and who has to choose between food and medications.
It is great political theater. But, the most fundamental reality is that the average wealth of the elderly is some multiple of the average wealth owned by people in the other age brackets.
Why should the average taxpayer be subsidizing people who have much more wealth than they do?
If we are concerned about those particular elderly people who are in fact poor — as we are about other people who are genuinely poor, whatever their age might be — then we can simply confine our help to those who are poor by some reasonable means test. It would cost a fraction of what it costs to subsidize everybody who reaches a certain age.
But the political Left hates means tests. If government programs were confined to people who were genuinely poor in some meaningful sense, that would shrink the welfare state to a fraction of its current size. The Left would lose its human shields.
It is certainly true that the elderly are more likely to have more medical problems and larger medical expenses. But old age is not some unforeseeable misfortune. It is not only foreseeable but inevitable for those who do not die young.
It is one thing to keep people from suffering from unforeseeable things beyond their control. But it is something else to simply subsidize their necessities so that they can spend their money on other things and leave a larger estate to be passed on to their heirs.
People who say they want a government program because “I don’t want to be a burden to my children” apparently think it is all right to be a burden to other people’s children.
Among the runaway spending behind our current national-debt problems is the extravagant luxury of buying political rhetoric.
Debt ceiling negotiations are intensifying and the rhetoric is heating up. And President Obama’s insistence that we raise taxes to solve our spending problem has paralyzed the debate. It is clear that President Obama has neither the will nor the ideas to lead in this debate or lead this country.
If we continue down the path set forward by President Obama, we will be sentencing our children and grandchildren to permanent economic malaise while at the same time condemning this current generation to the same fate. Congress must step in and lead where he has failed.
Our challenges are well known. The federal government is spending money at breakneck speed with complete disregard to the consequences. Since 1970, federal spending has increased by 299% while the median household income has increased by just 27%. Government’s budget is growing far more rapidly – especially in the past decade – than household budgets. It’s simply not sustainable.
Regardless of whether or not Congress decides to raise our nation’s debt ceiling, spending must be brought under control. If Congress decides to use the debt ceiling as leverage to force change on unwilling liberals, they must: 1) significantly cut current spending; 2) restrict future spending; and 3) fix the budget process.
Currently, there is only one plan on the table that meets this test and that is the plan embodied in the Cut, Cap and Balance Pledge. This is an example of a plan that matches the historical moment that we currently face as a nation.
Liberals fear any change that empowers individuals and frees America’s entrepreneurial spirit, and they will stop at nothing to obstruct our efforts to save the American dream for our children and grandchildren.
We’re seeing it already. President Obama and Democrats are afraid to put a real plan on the table. One Democrat source said laying their ideas on the table “could be a simply awful decision – and one with significant ramifications. If done wrong, it could hand the GOP a piñata for them to whack Democrats.” Their plan deserves to be whacked: increase spending to create jobs and raise taxes on the real job creators.
Of course, liberals thrive on uncertainty. Uncertainty allows government to fill a void, and occasionally it incites a panic that forces lawmakers to make bad decisions with your tax dollars. This uncertainty, though, is also one of the leading reasons employers are not hiring.
is inciting more uncertainty by his constant references to default. Congress can end the uncertainty. They can silence the hysteric rhetoric of default and economic “Armageddon” by exercising its constitutional power of the purse and prioritize federal spending.
As Heritage Foundation economist J.D. Foster, Ph.D. points out:
“Both immediately and long after it reaches the debt limit, the government would have far more than enough revenue coming in that the Secretary of the Treasury could use to pay interest on the debt. Nor would preserving the current debt limit put at risk the full faith and credit of the United States government, as the President’s chief economic adviser has claimed. The government would continue to pay net interest as it comes due.”
There is no reason to panic. And there is no reason to accept a bad deal that is riddled with half-measures, gimmicks, tax increases and defense cuts. Congress has time and options on the debt ceiling.
In the event that liberals will not allow us to raise the debt ceiling because they cannot stomach substantive, systemic changes to put the country back on sound footing, conservatives must develop a responsible plan. Congress must exercise their constitutional power of the purse, building upon the framework of the Toomey-McClintock legislation, and prioritize federal spending.
One thing is certain, we must reject Washington’s inclination to go behind closed doors and strike a grand bargain. Heritage Action, and the hundreds of thousands of Americans we represent, demand transparency and accountability. Americans must feel confident their Members of Congress understand what they are voting on. There must not be another “pass the bill so that we can find out what is in it” moment.
Our nation’s spending problem has grown so large it is impossible to ignore. It not only dominates Washington, but it is on the mind of the American people as they look toward the future. They see the riots in Greece, which was threatening to default on its debts, and they wonder if that is in store for America.
With strong leadership and a commitment to our children and grandchildren we can avoid that fate. We have the opportunity and obligation to change course. It is a challenge we must not fail.
But the fact is, the Obama administration previously called for $7 a gallon gasoline. Two years ago, Obama’s Energy Secretary Steven Chu wanted to “figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” which at the time were over $7 a gallon.
This is not just a public statement but also a result of anti-oil government policies over the past couple years. A blog by the Heritage Foundation outlined many areas in the Obama administration that have contributed to increased oil prices:
Nine years ago this week, we began to chant: “We never will forget 9/11.”Nine years later, I think too many of us have forgotten, especially those in the White House.Islamic extremists murdered almost 3,000 innocent Americans on 9/11.
Who would have believed that within a decade of that tragic event, we’d have a president who believes, according to his own 2009 Cairo confession and creed, that it is part of his “responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear”? Not to mention his mission to fight for the new mosque near ground zero!
In Part 1 of this series, I began to demonstrate how President Barack Obama is using his special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Rashad Hussain, to “deepen and expand the partnerships that the United States has pursued with Muslims around the world since President Obama’s speech in Cairo.”
In Part 2, I detailed President Obama’s real spiritual beliefs based upon a rare in-depth interview by a religious reporter for a major newspaper publication, including his beliefs about prayer, sin, heaven, the Bible and Jesus.
In Part 3, I explained how President Obama categorically has been prejudicial in his treatment against Christians and Christianity in comparison with Muslims and Islam.
In Part 4 here, I will not only expand on that case but also show how the Obama administration has changed course in just this past year regarding passing anti-First Amendment defamation of religion resolutions, exclusively benefiting Islam and its proliferation while again abandoning the principles in the U.S. Constitution.
In October 2009, the White House rightly opposed the Organization of the Islamic Conference’s an intergovernmental body of 56 Muslim countries push for the United Nations Human Rights Council to adopt a resolution that would broadly condemn the defamation of religion or the defamation of Islam, because it would plunder Americans’ First Amendment right to freedom of speech.Hypocritically, however, as The Heritage Foundation reported, at the same time that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was publicly repudiating that U.N. Human Rights Council resolution, on Oct. 2, 2009, the Obama administration’s “delegation to the 12th session of the council and OIC-member Egypt co-sponsored a resolution on freedom of opinion and expression that contains the essential elements of the resolutions on ‘defamation of religions’ that the U.S. opposed in the past.”