Stark says, “You’ve heard a lot about the Debt Limit. And I guess that’s – I don’t know how many of you are worried about it or concerned about it. The fact is I think it’s a political charade.”
“I’m afraid that the Democrats have done that in the past, threatened to shut down the government. I don’t think there’s a chance that it will happen. I think the last time somebody did, they lost enough seats in the House of Representatives to convince them it was a dumbest thing they ever did. [It] doesn’t get us anywhere, it doesn’t help anybody, and to extend the Debt Limit is nothing more – than people have described it – than that the government’s credit card doesn’t run out of resources.
(Excerpt) Read more at mrctv.org …
Meet the New Plan, Same as the Old Plan As Drew noted below, Obama decided to hold our nation’s credit rating hostage over the sticking point of making sure he doesn’t have to beg for another increase in the debt limit before the elections.
Reid dutifully cancelled the plan he had agreed to, at Obama’s insistence.
Reid is now proposing a slightly different plan which will address the only thing that matters to Obama, his personal political fortunes.
In the new plan, Reid suggests giving Obama his $2.5 trillion in debt limit increase — enough to get President Pissypants through his election — and comes up with another $1.4 trillion in cuts.
Those “cuts,” however, are entirely of the phantom variety — they are the anticipated savings from no longer fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s actual money we won’t be spending, but that is already figured on anyway, and further, that’s money that’s spent as required, or not spent as not required. Bush had counted that spending off budget, which Obama claimed was deceptive, but it is a fair way to characterize the emergency, special-conditions nature of it. Those expenses were never part of the permanent budget going forward, were they?
So Reid invents $1.4 trillion in “savings” there and adds it to what he’s already agreed to cut (about a trillion) and says, “Voila, $2.7 trillion in cuts.”
I don’t know how that extra 0.3 trillion gets tacked on there — maybe interest saved by not spending that money. I don’t know.
The point is, this is still the same $1 T Biden and his team agreed to a month and a half ago, added to some phantom cuts, to claim that there is a 1-to-1 exchange of cuts and debt ceiling increase.
The only plus here, from our perspective, is no rise in taxes, which I’m not sure I’m even counting as a plus. What I mean is: Low taxes plus high spending forever (and always increasing high spending) is no way to run a country. Something has to give here, doesn’t it? Without actually reigning in out of control spending, I’m not sure how much of a victory it is to continue to push the country towards insolvency.
But it’s unclear whether this plan could pass, in any event, as liberals are calling it a “cave” by the Democrats because they don’t get their precious tax increases.
So, the new plan:
1. Will not have the support of the House’s fiscal hawk wing, because its cuts are puny, and mostly imaginary.
2. Probably will not have support of many Democrats, because there are no tax hikes.
I don’t see this new plan going anywhere.
Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) are calling the savings from “future wars unfought” a legitimate “cut,” because that was assumed in the Paul Ryan budget, too.
Um… yeah, this is a little hard to explain, but assuming those wars wind down, yes, we won’t be spending as much on them, and so yes, that money should be accounted for somewhere in the budget.
But this isn’t really a “cut,” and it’s definitely not a “cut” within the meaning of the Republicans‘s one-dollar-of-cuts-for-every-dollar-of-debt-limit requirement.
A Most Wonderful Human Being ~ “Movie buffs will recognize this quote from the film: “The Manchurian Candidate” starring Lawrence Harvey and Frank Sinatra.”
“Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.”
Movie buffs will recognize this quote from the film: “The Manchurian Candidate” starring Lawrence Harvey and Frank Sinatra. It is a riveting film, released at the very height of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. The film is a tale of a Soviet Communist plot where brainwashed and conditioned Korean War POWs are released back to the USA with a mission: Return home and assassinate a Presidential Candidate. The Soviets hope that in the ensuing panic and a desire for stability, that Vice-Presidential Candidate [ actually a communist dupe controlled by his wife] would be placed at the top of the ticket and swept into office sympathetically by voters.
The trained assassin Staff Sergeant Shaw [Lawrence Harvey], receives a Medal of Honor for actions in Korea. These actions were, in reality, only memories implanted into the minds of his squad members. Shaw is chosen as the assassin because he is the Step-son of the Vice-Presidential Candidate. And unbeknownst to Shaw, his mother is the planted Communist Agent who will influence his Step-Father’s actions as President. The assassination plot begin to unravel as Shaw’s former Commanding Officer, Captain Marco [Sinatra], deals with his recurring nightmare that slowly reveal discomforting details of a plot to which the soldiers are all to be accomplices. Are you totally confused? Do you think this is too fictionally fantastic? Watch the film again, but this time watch with a “different set of eyes.”
In the meantime, I have attached a short 7 minute film You Tube presentation about “Grinding America Down.” This film clip might amount to “singing to the choir” for most of you.
Grinding America Down
Still there are many, I fear, who would sincerely believe that this is only a bit of hyperbolic anti-Marxism and anti-Communism. It is so passé and overdrawn these days. Or is it? I still hear it opined: “After all, didn’t we win the Cold War? Surely, Barack Obama is not a Communist … he’s just an ordinary Liberal Leftist doing what he thinks is best for America.” We hear this every day and night from the “talking heads.” Welcome to “Conditioning 101.”
“Barack Obama is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being ever to be President.”
Grand Ole Tyrants by Thomas DiLorenzo ~ “What would cause a president to wage war on his own citizens whose liberties he had just pledged to protect?”
The very first public statement that Abraham Lincoln made after being inaugurated as the sixteenth president was an ironclad defense of slavery: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” He then quoted the Republican Party platform of 1860 that said essentially the same thing; pledged his support for the Fugitive Slave Clause of the Constitution “with no mental reservations”; and supported a proposed constitutional amendment (the “Corwin Amendment”) that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with slavery. In fact, it was Lincoln who instructed William Seward to see that the Corwin Amendment made it through the U.S. Senate, which it did (and the House of Representatives as well).
In the same speech, Lincoln promised a military invasion and “bloodshed” in any state that refused to collect the federal tariff on imports, which had just been more than doubled two days before his inauguration. “[T]here needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority,” he continued. Thus, mere minutes after taking an oath to protect the constitutional liberties of American citizens, Abraham Lincoln threatened to orchestrate the murder of many of those same citizens.
What on earth was he talking about? What would cause a president to wage war on his own citizens whose liberties he had just pledged to protect? Lincoln explained in the very next sentence: “The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using force against or among the people anywhere” (emphasis added). He promised to murder American citizens over tax collection.
CNS News ^ | 7/25/2011 | Patrick Goodenough
Posted on Monday, July 25, 2011 5:56:27 PM by IbJensen
CNSNews.com) – As more details about Norwegian mass murder suspect Anders Behring Breivik emerged over the weekend, some prominent voices who warn about the dangers Islamist extremism poses to the West found themselves under fire.
The book review does not withstand reasonable scrutiny.
First, Owens begins by describing the book as “a rehash of Confederate propaganda spiced up with touches of Marxist economic analysis.”
I think that someone has been watching Emeril.
Clearly, however, this is not a neutral or friendly review by Professor Owens. Ignoring the fact that one might accuse Owens of rehashing Northern propaganda (and spicing it up with touches of mercantilism and John Maynard Keynes), it is both highly amusing and distressing to see Owens accuse Tom DiLorenzo of applying “Marxist economic analysis” to the life of Lincoln.
Giving Owens the benefit of the doubt (and making his argument for him; generally, this is a no-no, but I am striving to be fair), it would appear that Owens refers to DiLorenzo as a “Marxist” because: (1) DiLorenzo (God forbid) considers the economic causes of the War Between the States; and (2) Marxists have considered the economic causes of the War Between the States. So DiLorenzo must be applying Marxist economic analysis.
No. Wrong. Such a charge of guilt by association fails to convince.
Worse, in making such a charge, Owens ignores the fact that DiLorenzo is a prominent expositor of free market economics, by which I mean genuine capitalist, laissez faire, free market economics, as opposed to the “free and regulated” baloney so common in the mainstream today, which is not free market economics at all.
Owens calling DiLorenzo a Marxist is like Owens calling Babe Ruth a figure skater. It is simply a silly characterization.
(By the way, in the last paragraph of the review, Owens mentions that DiLorenzo “writes from a libertarian perspective.” How this is supposed to fit with the earlier charge that DiLorenzo is a Marxist, Owens does not elucidate. And how convenient that the Marxist charge comes in the first paragraph, and the libertarian comment comes at the end).
Contra Claremont ~ “Limbaugh was surprised to hear his callers criticize Abe Lincoln as responsible for the growth of federal power, a racist, and indifferent to the plight of the slaves”
Ken Masugi, director of the Claremont Institute‘s Center for Local Government, writes in Claremont Institute Precepts No. 267 that “Long-time fans of Rush Limbaugh‘s provocative radio show experienced a shock in a recent program that focused on Abraham Lincoln.”
It turns out that Limbaugh was surprised to hear his callers criticize Abe Lincoln as responsible for the growth of federal power, a racist, and indifferent to the plight of the slaves.
The discussion, Masugi notes, grew out of advance qualms over Steven “fundraiser to the Clintons” Spielberg’s forthcoming movie on Lincoln. As Masugi observes, the film will allegedly “portray [Lincoln] as a weakling, a racist, and a failure at the presidency.”
Limbaugh and Spielberg aside, what’s the truth about Abraham Lincoln? And what’s the truth about the Confederate States of America and the South?
Allow me to suggest that the truth is quite far from the conventional wisdom. Allow me also to suggest, as indicated by Masugi’s article, that the otherwise praiseworthy Claremont Institute goes too far in its adulation of Lincoln.
The Claremont Institute is “otherwise praiseworthy” because, for example, Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership and the Claremont’s Center for the Study of the Natural Law appear to do good things. Also, Mark Helprin (a very good contemporary novelist, and therefore a rare breed; A Soldier of the Great War is well worth reading) and Hadley Arkes (a natural law theorist whose works I have found insightful) are at Claremont. This article should not be interpreted as anything other that what it is: a criticism of the Claremont Institute’s treatment of Abraham Lincoln and the issue of secession.
The Claremont Institute’s devotion to Lincoln appears deep and widespread. The Institute provides “Abraham Lincoln Fellowships in Constitutional Government” and the Institute’s Salvatori Center for the American Constitution has published a plethora of essays praising Lincoln and attacking the right of secession.
via Contra Claremont.
The UN issued several policies at the 1992 Earth Summit, one of which was the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Compliance with this UN policy is being driven and managed by the Wildlands Network which shares the same goals as the CBD; to set aside half the land in America for animals.
But let’s reframe this issue just a bit and put it into perspective; is there any reason you would turn over half of America to Vladimir Putin? What is the difference between living under Putin’s rule or living under UN rule? We are giving the eco-socialists our land (the agencies buy it with our taxes) and we are sliding down the slope to living under UN rule. In Florida, the government has acquired 28% of the land (9.9 million acres), so the UN’s work is already better than 50% done in Florida!
The process of returning land to its wild state is referred to as “re-wilding.” Wildlands are created by buying land, reducing or eliminated human activities and access to the land, and then putting buffer zones around them. Then another wildland is created nearby, and they connect them with more land purchases. This accumulation of land begins to form corridors, and the corridors then connect to one of the four North American Wildways (migration routes).
When the Dictator speaks We Must Listen–or else and Congress establishing the US’ first Politburo| The Post & Email
AN IMPOSTER AND CRIMINAL GOVERNMENT RESIDES IN WASHINGTON, DC
by Sher Zieve, ©2011
How long will Obama continue his dictatorship? When will enough Americans recognize it?
(Jul. 25, 2011) — To anyone with a functional mind. it is inarguable that Obama has established a dictatorship–replacing the USA’s former Republic–with his own brand of totalitarian dictates (“executive orders and commandments”) that bypass and replace US Constitutional law. For example, Obama could not get his Cap & Trade through Congress, so he bypassed Congress and issued an order declaring the EPA as the regulator for his “electricity-rates-would-necessarily-skyrocket” program. Another was Dictator-in-Chief Obama’s forcing ObamaCare on We-the-People even though a huge majority of Americans did not want it and even protested against it. This was and is merely another Stalin-style program to steal an enormous portion of the US economy and control We-the-People. Obama and his Marxist-Leninist Democrat and RINO Congressional members shoved it down our throats after multiple secret behind-closed-doors meetings. There are dozens of these examples about which we know and I suspect many more about which we are still ignorant.
The Obama syndicate is also a patently criminal organization. The latest example of the Obama-Holder partnership is the “Operation Gunwalker: Fast & Furious” operation. Side Note: I can’t imagine that either Paul Walker and Vin Diesel are pleased with the name.
The negotiations about raising the debt ceiling remain extremely fluid, and it’s still too early to draw any definitive conclusions at this stage. But just a week away from the August 2 deadline, a few things do seem clear.
The first is the president’s angry and narcissistic press conference on Friday badly damaged the president, even with those, like David Brooks, who have been sympathetic to Obama’s substantive position.
It’s been clear to some of us for a while that Barack Obama is a man of uncommon self-admiration, quite thin-skinned, and increasingly consumed by his grievances. Obama has masked these traits pretty well so far, but on Friday his mask slipped more than it ever has. And that is bound to hurt him.
Second, Democrats on Capitol Hill are rapidly losing confidence in the president’s competence as a negotiator. Obama’s conduct during the debt ceiling negotiations – from his flip-flops to his irrelevant deadlines to his backtracking on his agreements with various parties – has been so erratic and uneven that his own party has decided the best hope of reaching an agreement is to sideline him.
And third, conservatives in the House, by holding firm rather than folding, have succeeded in shifting the debate away from tax increases, “grand bargains,” and Gang of Six compromises to spending cuts in exchange for an increase in the debt ceiling. How serious those spending cuts are remains to be determined, and there will be enormous pressure for Republicans to agree to Potemkin Village budget cuts, including from GOP appropriators. That pressure needs to be resisted. The cuts Republicans must agree to have to be real.
But there’s little question that so far at least, this whole messy debt ceiling episode has not helped President Obama politically (his approval ratings continue to slide). That may be one reason why he is instructing Majority Leader Reid to push for a deal that moves the next debt ceiling debate to after the 2012 election.
The president and his team entered these negotiations believing he could strike a grand bargain that would allow him to present himself as a born-again budget cutter, as fiscally responsible, as a Man of the Center. And in the process, he kept instructing us, he would emerge as the only adult in the room. At this juncture, it looks like Obama is the most adolescent, even childish, figure in the negotiations – a petulant man who also happens to be an inept negotiator.
This isn’t what the president and his supporters expected. But of course, that could be said for his entire presidency. Barack Obama, we were told by not a few liberals, would be America’s next Lincoln or FDR. It turns out with every passing day, he more and more resembles James Earl Carter . This is very bad news for our nation and very bad news for the Democratic Party.
He told the National Council of La Raza, “Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you.”
But he told the group meeting at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel that he has to work with Congress and will continue to fight for what he called a “balanced” plan that does not focus solely on spending cuts but that spreads the sacrifice to the wealthiest Americans as well.
La Raza—and activist Latinos elsewhere—are disappointed in the president for not keeping his promise to champion comprehensive immigration reform in his first year in office. They are particularly angry that his administration has been aggressive in deporting undocumented immigrants, but the president defended the record number of deportations, contending he has had no choice.
“Those are the laws on the books,” said Obama. “I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books. That doesn’t mean I don’t know very well the real pain and heartbreak that deportations cause.”
He added that he shares the concerns of Latinos. “I understand them and I promise you we are responding to your concerns and working every day to make sure we are enforcing flawed laws in the most humane and best possible way.”
His ”I’d like to change” comment followed a section in his speech that mentioned the limitations of Washington in stopping deportations. He then spoke of his frustrations in dealing with Congress. His ”bypass Congress” comment drew applause and chants of “Yes, You Can,” a 2008 campaign slogan.
We have an illegal President, a Congress that tolerates criminal acts and an intentionally impotent judiciary Obama’s ineligibility: Prepare to defend America – Death of the Democratic Party ~ By Lawrence Sellin
We have an illegal President, a Congress that tolerates criminal acts and an intentionally impotent judiciary Obama’s ineligibility: Prepare to defend America – Death of the Democratic Party ~ By Lawrence Sellin
“There is now only the most tenuous of threads, if that at all, connecting the American people to the present government. The people are ready to rebel.”
The American people will then take out their vengeance on the political establishment and the main stream media. We will demand…
via BLOGGER.GUNNY.G.1984(+): We have an illegal President, a Congress that tolerates criminal acts and an intentionally impotent judiciary Obama’s ineligibility: Prepare to defend America – Death of the Democratic Party ~ By Lawrence Sellin.
For many years, a quiz entitled “Al Gore or the Unabomber?” circulated on conservative Web sites. The quiz juxtaposed passages from the former vice president’s eco-manifesto “Earth in the Balance” with quotes from Theodore Kaczynski’s critiques of industrial civilization and asked the reader to guess which writer was which. Was it the bearded hermit who hailed “isolated pockets of resistance fighters” for struggling against modern society’s “assault on the earth”? No, that would be the former vice president. Was it Kaczynski, the mathematics Ph.D. turned mad bomber, who complained about the “destructive” impact of bringing a child into “the hugely consumptionist way of life so common in the industrial world”? No, Gore again.
Enterprising left-wing bloggers have already begun to play a similar game with Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian man who apparently justified last week’s mass murder of helpless teenage campers with a 1,500-page “compendium” calling for a right-wing revolution against Europe’s ruling class. Judging by the manifesto’s contents, Breivik has roughly the same relationship to the cultural right that Kaczynski had to certain strains of environmentalism. The darkest aspects of his ideology belong strictly to the neo-fascist fringe. But many of his beliefs and arguments echo the rhetoric of mainstream cultural conservatives, in Europe and America alike.
Despite what the Norwegian authorities suggested over the weekend, those beliefs probably aren’t a form of Christian fundamentalism. Breivik’s writings bear no resemblance to the theology of a Jerry Falwell or an Oral Roberts, and his nominal Christianity (“I guess I’m not an excessively religious man,” he writes at one point) seems to be more of an expression of European identity politics and anti-Islamic chauvinism than any genuine religious fervor.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com …
via A Right-Wing Monster.
Put the Kettle On: Van Jones tries to help create a liberal version of the Tea Party
Slate ^ | July 18, 2011 | David Weigel (Journ-o-lister)
Posted on Monday, July 25, 2011 1:39:32 PM by 2ndDivisionVet
Prepare to defend America – Death of the Democratic Party:
“There is now only the most tenuous of threads, if that at all, connecting the American people to the present government. The people are ready to rebel.
The truth about Obama’s birth certificate will soon be disclosed. That will be followed by a flood of revelations about his past, which will send political shock waves throughout the nation.
The American people will then take out their vengeance on the political establishment and the main stream media. We will demand justice and the truth.
The Democratic Party will collapse and its leaders will be tried and sent to prison. Many Republicans will follow them.
It is time to put an end to the permanent political class. Obama’s coming downfall will expose the entire crooked system.”
MORE @ LINK…
Just over one-in-five Likely U.S. Voters (22%) now support government programs that give special treatment when hiring to women and minorities.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 63% oppose programs that give hiring preference to women and minorities. That’s up eight points from 55% a year ago. Fifteen percent (15%) are not sure about them.
A plurality (46%) of voters believes affirmative action programs discriminate against white men, but 31% disagree. Twenty-three percent (23%) are not sure.
Still, just 10% think affirmative action programs have been a success. Twenty-five percent (25%) rate them as a failure, while 60% feel they fall somewhere in between success and failure.
Male voters are much more critical of affirmative action programs than women are, although a majority (56%) of female voters also oppose government programs that give women and minorities hiring preference.
Seventy-four percent (74%) of black voters favor government programs that give special treatment to women and minorities. Sixty-nine percent (69%) of whites and 66% of voters of other races oppose these programs.
(Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com …
The numbers are startling.
……Given all of the above, advocates of a third party — or at the very least another viable option in the 2012 presidential race — seem to be sprouting up all over.
The two most prominent are Americans Elect, a group aimed at winning ballot access for an eventual third-party candidate, and No Labels, an organization filled with high-profile names — including former George W. Bush media consultant Mark McKinnon and former Kentucky state treasurer Jonathan Miller — designed as an online home for the politically disaffected. “If you build it (ballot access), they (candidates and voters) will come,” McKinnon said in an e-mail.
No Labels says it advocates for bipartisan solutions to problems and not a third-party presidential candidate
“I think you need an appealing big name, an experienced candidate to capture people’s imagination and for the movement to organize around,” said Mark Salter, a longtime aide to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and a member of No Labels.
What would that candidate look like? “A sane, experienced [Ross] Perot,” Salter said.
The only name mentioned who fits Salter’s “sane [and] experienced” description is New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I), although it’s hard to imagine what exactly Bloomberg’s support base would look like in a national race. Businessman Donald Trump, who recently said he might run as an independent, doesn’t meet the Salter standard.
So although the climate is ripe for a third-party candidacy, it’s not at all clear that such a campaign would function as anything other than a spoiler for one of the two parties’ nominees…
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com …
Is Barack Hussein Obama sabotaging the Ft. Hood murder case to avoid executing a Muslim? « Coach is Right
Within hours of Norway’s deadly bomb and gun attacks claiming at least 91 victims it has become clear that the horror was perpetrated by a Norwegian loner with rightwing Christian fundamentalist affiliations.
Yet President Barack Obama reacted immediately to the news of the atrocity to insinuate an Islamic connection and to justify America’s war on terror.
The US President said of the attacks: “It’s a reminder that the entire international community has a stake in preventing this kind of terror from occurring, and that we have to work co-operatively together both on intelligence and in terms of prevention of these kinds of horrible attacks.”
Prime Minister Key added: “If it is an act of global terrorism I think it shows that no country, large or small, is immune from that risk, and that is why New Zealand plays its part in Afghanistan as we try and join others like the United States in making the world a safer place,” he said.
On Friday evening local time, 32-year-old Anders Behring Breivik was captured by police moments after he went on a two-hour shooting rampage at a youth summer camp, killing at least 84 people, most of whom were aged between 14 and 18.
Hundreds of teenagers had gathered on the island of Otoeya, about 20 miles northwest of the capital, Oslo, for an annual summer camp organised by the Scandinavian country’s ruling Labour party.
Six-foot blond-haired Breivik was heavily armed and dressed as a policeman when he………………
At the beginning of this year, a rash of stories popped up in liberal media, promising that the death of conservative talk radio was imminent – and this time, the critics of hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage insisted, they had the hard numbers to prove it.
The critics had latched onto a story that appeared in Crain’s New York Business (a subscription-only newsletter), which announced: “A new Arbitron report shows Rush Limbaugh’s ratings down 33 percent from a year ago and Sean Hannity down 28 percent over the same time period.”
“Are we sick of Rush Limbaugh yet”? Alex Pareene asked at Salon.com, adding gleefully, “We might be!”
Find out amazing, behind-the-scenes information that the doctor of democracy never talks about on the air in “Rush Limbaugh: An Army of One,” direct from WND!
But how exactly did Rush Limbaugh lose one-third of his audience over 12 months?
According to Pareene and others, the answer was a 2008 change in how ratings-tracker Arbitron determines listenership, away from the survey system to the Portable People Meter.
The survey system worked like this: At the end of each day, a small number of designated “diarists” wrote down which shows they’d listened to. Listeners sent those diaries to Arbitron, where numbers were crunched and ratings revealed.
A few years ago, Arbitron began phasing out diaries and brought in the Portable People Meters, or PPMs. These pager-sized devices automatically record whatever their wearers hear as they go about their day. No need to rely upon fallible human memories, or worry about diarists “fudging” their feedback or forgetting to send it in.
The PPM sounded like the accurate, scientific ratings system sponsors and programmers always hoped would be invented.
Until the first batch of ratings came in, showing conservative talk going strong and certain, urban and minority programs far lower than ever calculated before.
Faced with the new numbers, community leaders suddenly turned on the PPMs, blasting the new system as “racist.”
Or at least they were, until Arbitron was pressured by powerful political forces to “fix” its new ratings system.
(Story continues below)
Why Democrats Always Win
Why Democrats Always Win:
“Why Democrats Always Win
Posted on Monday, July 25, 2011 8:20:50 AM by evilrooster”
Posted by Gunny G at Monday, July 25, 2011
“I Can Do Whatever the Hell I Want”:
“Newark Cop: ‘I Can Do Whatever the Hell I Want’”
Posted by Gunny G at Monday, July 25, 2011
President Obama continues to push the notion that he wants a “balanced approach” to budget cuts, but it is becoming increasingly clear that the only spending cuts he is willing to contemplate are cuts in defense spending. The vast entitlement system that now eats the majority of tax dollars is, by contrast, not only on his list of programs to be sustained, but expanded. Mr. Obama seems determined to protect the welfare state. He lacks the courage and the candor to admit to the unsustainablity of an entitlement system which has pushed the nation to the brink of insolvency as our debts continue to mount. Instead of addressing the source of the spending problems, it is becoming clear that Mr. Obama intends to hollow out the military. What folly!
Only weeks ago, Obama signaled intentions to cut $400 billion from Defense, but key Democrats are already talking about even large cuts of $1 trillion to Defense. Such a move would signal a broad American retreat from the world and erode our national defense for many years to come. Obama’s military budget shenanigans are yet another reminder that the key characteristic of Obama’s involvement in any aspect of U.S. life–economics, policies or participation on the world scene—is that Obama’s policies have left Americans with a weaker world presence as a result of his involvement.
Military spending is an area which, traditionally, in past years, Dems have loved to cut. Democrat eagerness to cut military spending is the result of a fundamental, ideological difference: the GOP believes the U.S. is served best by a strong military, both at home and abroad, while Dems believe that a more kumbaya, we-are-the-world, approach is the way to best protect America. Obama, who first launched his apologize-to-the-world tour on this premise, has never been a keen supporter of endeavors military. Obama’s recent threats, that our veterans might not receive their retirement and disability checks if a debt ceiling-budget compromise is not reached by 2 August, just prove that point.
It seems clear that the $100 billion in defense cuts proposed in the FY2012 budget are merely the tip of the iceberg. Further cuts will likely be proposed because the budget dollars for defense are so big and because cutting in this area will appease at least one faction of the Dems ideological extremist base.
The Gang of Six proposal called for almost trillion dollars ($886 billion) in cuts from defense. Others have proposed that some direct cuts could come from canceling air craft carrier construction (not surprisingly, the Dems have pointed to the USS George H.W. Bush) as one of the possible candidates for cancelation.
Other proposals include the reduction of U.S. troops in Europe and Asia, as well as at home. Others propose to implement cuts to military health care, reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal and reduce the military research and development efforts and even revise the military pay and compensation scale.
Certainly, any of these proposals would reduce the amount of military spending, and thus reduce overall federal spending, but we would be weaker as a nation as a result. George Washington said: “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite.” Obama seeks to render our military neither well-armed nor well-planned which calls into question our nation’s ability to remain a free people for long.
Meanwhile, over at NASA, the U.S. space program has, essentially, been canceled. Instead of pushing the agency to focus on its core mission and core competencies, Obama has allowed NASA to take itself out of the space business, and thus take the country out of space for the next 30 years. NASA’s reduction of mission will result in thousands of jobs lost” as contractors for the shuttle program begin to lay off workers.”
Worse, to put a man in space, America will now be required to pay Russia for shuttle space. Not too surprisingly, Russia has already stepped forward and declared that the next decade will be “the era of the Soyuz” as Russian space exploration continues.
The next U.S. president will inherit an economic disaster of a country on an epic scale, courtesy of the bungling of Obama, and his team of advisors, whose repeated efforts to stimulate the economy through government subsidies and increased regulation that punishes small business owners, has failed to yield significant growth in the economy or in jobs. The next president, courtesy of Obama’s bungling, will also face a monumental, uphill task to restore the superior force and prestige of our military at home and abroad. For that, a new president, who believes in our country and believes in American exceptionalism is mandatory.
November 2012 cannot come soon enough.
The Non-Energy Generating Department of Energy and the Smart Grid:
“The Department of Energy is an arm of the federal government, run by career bureaucrats who march in synch with United Nation’s Agenda 21 goals of “sustainability,” does not produce any energy, subsidizes for profit university and laboratory research with our taxpayer dollars, and wants to implement smart grid technology in order to control 24/7 our daily lives.
Is it a good idea to allow them into our homes to install Smart Meters?”
MORE @ LINK……………..
Posted by Gunny G at Monday, July 25, 2011
College Park, Md. (CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama said that Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) – the president best known for establishing a welfare and regulatory state in America – was “fiscally conservative,” in response to a question about how to keep the economy going.
Obama was referring to spending-cut measures Roosevelt took in the middle of the New Deal that lasted from 1933 to 1940.
“FDR comes in, he tries all these things with the New Deal; but FDR, contrary to myth, was pretty fiscally conservative,” the president said Friday during a town hall meeting on the campus of the University of Maryland.
“And so after the initial efforts of the New Deal and it looked like the economy was growing again, FDR then presented a very severe austerity budget,” Obama continued. “And suddenly, in 1937, the economy started going down again. And, ultimately, what really pulled America out of the Great Depression was World War II.”
Obama used this to illustrate why the political leaders should tread carefully in cutting the deficit.
“Some have said, I think rightly, that we’ve got to be careful that any efforts we have to reduce the deficit don’t hamper economic recovery, because the worst thing we can do for the deficit is continue to have really bad growth or another recession,” Obama said.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com …
Why do Jews still support Obama?:
“I’ve been puzzled ever since Obama first started campaigning for president. Why do Jews support him? It cannot be their love for learning influenced by his great grades in any of his colleges.
He has refused to disclose them. So it’s, Oh! Who cares about them? “He had to do well to become editor and chief of the Harvard Law Review,” they chirp. Actually, he was the president of the HLR, and he was appointed to that position. It couldn’t be because of his great record in the Illinois Senate. He never initiated a bill and merely voted a majority of times “present.” It couldn’t be because of his support for Israel throughout the years.
(Excerpt) Read more at bizpacreview.com …”
Posted by Gunny G at Monday, July 25, 2011