on Afghan President: 31 Americans Killed in Helicopter Crash
A Vietnam Era Navy veteran friend of mine whom I served with during that war contacted me about this needless tragedy. And we both asked the same question that demands an answer.
Why, in the name of sanity, would you allow such a large group of your highly trained special forces to be put on a large, slow moving, target begging to be shot down instead of being dispersed on faster copters with close air support in the way of counter measures against a missile attack, and the ability to immediately fire directly, and/or dropping ordinance, upon those firing the missiles?
This is what happens when the PC rules of engagement that you're forced to fight under by the politicos put your military at needless extreme risk which, per the voices of the Veteran community that I'm hearing, and with which I'm in complete agreement, is a treasonable offense!
None of the Navy SEALs reportedly killed in Afghanistan were part of team that got bin Laden, U.S. officials say
I just received this comment from an Army Vet who said,
"I served in Vietnam with Army and don't understand why this
happened. They had to know that the Taliban would try and go after
Seal Team 6. Their unit should never have been released to the
media during an ongoing war."
My reply was as follows.
"Absolutely, as anyone who has worked with a security clearance would immediately know!
"THE problem is that our government is now in the hands of those who, not only would not come close to be deserving of a security clearance, given a thorough background check (this is called vetting for the politicos) like those of us who did have those clearances underwent, but also, would be deserving of being investigated as to why there was an insane thought that they should have been considered for clearances in the first place, given their communist leanings!"
Let us never forget that the Obama Administration, in total, had diarrhea of the mouth in unconscionably identifying SEAL TEAM 6 as taking part in this operation in their rush to take complete credit for it, this after, I think it was reported as, 15 hours of indecision where bin Laden could have easily gotten away, with no thought whatsoever as to the lives of the military that they were putting at extreme risk by doing so, and the compromising of future such operations!
In terms of political
correctness trumping victory, it most certainly is a Vietnam type of war.
To say otherwise is to be in denial. As in Vietnam,
"victory" is not in the vocabulary of the politicos and military
doing their bidding. I haven't seen a vet that disagrees with that.
Moreover, I haven't seen a vet who disagrees with the seminal truth that right
now, our national security is hanging by a thread!
Nothing that I responded to in regard to your previous post is solely a function of the tactics used in Vietnam. I'm talking about what can sanely be used effectively in Afghanistan if our troops have the material and ROE needed to win, as opposed to being used for cannon fodder!
The least they could have done is have two helicopters to split the team in case one did go down.
What you just said was very
logical, which is exactly what my Vietnam Era Navy friend was alluding to whom I referenced in my first post on this
matter. But, as you will see in my latest post on this thread, that
discusses this matter in detail, "logical" is not a word that
describes what's going on in our government right now, in particular, its
oversight of our Military in harm's way, which, IMO, is not only
unconscionable, but also a very grave sin in regard to the dereliction of duty
of those whose priority is supposed to be the Common Good, in particular, the
Good of the Armed Services in this instance!
There is a huge investment in the part of the training of our Special Forces in all branches of the Service. To put such a large number of them at needless risk without air support is beyond the pale of this Navy Vet, and all of the other Veterans that I've spoken with about this news who are rightfully angered at what happened.
My heart goes out to their families who, like they, deserved better from their commanders all the way up through the chain-of-command to the very top.
I, and the vets that I know, believe that there should be an investigation as to why this needless tragedy happened to so many of our best and bravest. And they can start by looking at the "loose lips" of the Obama Administration which is proving to be the biggest risk to our national security!
Evidently there are those out
there who deem themselves more qualified than the vets who have seen this
type of thing first hand as to what's capable and what's not, e.g.,
why weren't Apaches used to cover this operation at the very least, or Air
Force air cover with counter measure capability capable of misguiding incoming
missiles. Last I heard, planes can refuel in-air, and have done so over
much longer missions than this.
You don't need to land when you have special forces trained to rappel. All you need are enough fast smaller choppers with weapons capabilities to take them to their drop zones. But of course, if your military budget is in the process of being hollowed out by those who basically hate the military as evinced by their unilaterally disarming while our enemies, who are Obama's new friends, are arming to the teeth, which is the modus operandi of the Obamunists, then there's a good chance that this needed capability is not going to be available to you, as your life, and its loss to your family, isn't worth much in the minds of the blanket disarmers.
Why wasn't this area pulverized before landing our military as the mountainous terrain doesn't stop that from happening from the air?
Vets in the know, especially who served in this theater and/or have family members doing so can tell you why. And that is that the rules of engagement are carried to such an insane extreme as to prevent success, i.e., victory, in this war, only a prolonging of same with the the death count of our military needlessly rising.
And you most certainly can use other wars for comparison, in particular, when those other wars suffered from the same PC infestation that this one is presently with the resulting increase in casualties!
See the following links.
Good News: Miranda Rights Being Read to Terrorists
Troops told to stop Taliban pursuit if civilians are at risk
US 'to limit Afghan air strikes'
Sarah Palin: We Must Win in Afghanistan
U.S. soldiers battle own rules along with Taliban
Navy SEALS face assault charges for capturing terrorist
Hey, Don’t Give Terrorist Murderers a Fat Lip; Navy SEALS Criminally Charged
Another Politically Correct War Strategy
Posted by Editor on February 25, 2010 at 7:21pm
by Jim Kouri
U.S. Army General Stanley McChrystal has ordered U.S. troops to limit night operations and raids in Afghanistan. According to a report, the Pentagon is worried about rising civilian deaths in its assaults within the southern Taliban stronghold of Marjah.
McChrystal issued the classified directive -- which isn't very classified -- to garner the support of the Afghan people. Night raids of Afghan homes has created anger against the coalition forces especially the United States. This latest directive was issued amid outrage over recent civilian deaths caused by coalition forces.
This latest directive comes on the heels of the release of the U.S. military's revised rules of engagement.
U.S. troops involved in President Barack Obama's much-heralded military surge in Afghanistan are complaining about these new rules of engagement to which they must adhere. As a result of alleged killings of innocent civilians by Afghan and NATO troops, the Pentagon has promulgated strict rules that force soldiers and Marines to hold their fire until they are certain the individuals they face are armed.
While the Pentagon assures military commanders that the new rules are classified to keep terrorist and militant groups from obtaining them, troops claim that al-Qaeda, the Taliban and other enemy fighters know what actions are permitted and prohibited.
In addition, according to a source, who has trained Iraqi counterterrorists, these new rules are created by individuals who never fought in a war or who may be experienced military commanders but are or have become politicians rather than soldiers.
"If a Taliban sniper, who's killed a number of U.S. soldiers or Marines, decides to come out from hiding, all he needs to do is leave his weapon behind and walk out free and clear," said the source who requested anonymity.
"It's hard to fight a war like that let alone be victorious," he added.
Even more disheartening to counterterrorism and warfighting experts is NATO and Afghan military officials flatly stating that killing terrorists and Taliban militants is not their goal in southern Afghanistan. They claim it's more important is to win public support, and the way to win support is for soldiers and Marines to not fire their weapons or fire them only when absolutely necessary.
They even acknowledge that these rules of engagement will place troops at risk, but in the name of winning hearts and minds allowing enemy fighters to escape is a small price to pay.
The Afghanistan surge and the Iraq surge are similar in terminology only. In Iraq, according to reports, if coalition troops were fired upon by enemy snipers, they'd simply call in an airstrike to neutralize the threat.
In the Afghanistan theater, fighter jets will fly low over the battlefield to feign an attack, but the jets will not fire on enemy positions.
The new guidelines state that U.S. troops should use deadly physical force in self defense only, which is similar to the resistance/force continuum utilized within U.S. law enforcement.
However, the new rules of engagement create more questions than they answer. For example, what are Marines and soldiers permitted to do if a suspected terrorist or militant appears unarmed and approaches them with a hidden explosive "suicide vest?" If the enemy fighters are aware of the U.S. military's restrictions on use of deadly force, what prevents the enemy from training fighters to conceal their weapons?
A medal for restraint?!
Commander levels unprecedented criticism over handling of war on terrorists
McChrystal’s real offense
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
06/22/10 8:40 AM EDT
But the bigger problem with McChrystal’s leadership has always been the general’s devotion to unreasonably restrictive rules of engagement that are resulting in the unnecessary deaths of American and coalition forces. We have had many, many accounts of the rules endangering Americans, and the Rolling Stone article provides more evidence. In the story, a soldier at Combat Outpost JFM who had earlier met with McChrystal was killed in a house that American officers had asked permission to destroy. From the article:
The night before the general is scheduled to visit Sgt. Arroyo’s platoon for the memorial, I arrive at Combat Outpost JFM to speak with the soldiers he had gone on patrol with. JFM is a small encampment, ringed by high blast walls and guard towers. Almost all of the soldiers here have been on repeated combat tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and have seen some of the worst fighting of both wars. But they are especially angered by Ingram’s death. His commanders had repeatedly requested permission to tear down the house where Ingram was killed, noting that it was often used as a combat position by the Taliban. But due to McChrystal’s new restrictions to avoid upsetting civilians, the request had been denied. “These were abandoned houses,” fumes Staff Sgt. Kennith Hicks. “Nobody was coming back to live in them.”
One soldier shows me the list of new regulations the platoon was given. “Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force,” the laminated card reads. For a soldier who has traveled halfway around the world to fight, that’s like telling a cop he should only patrol in areas where he knows he won’t have to make arrests.
“Does that make any f–king sense?” Pfc. Jared Pautsch. “We should just drop a f–king bomb on this place. You sit and ask yourself: What are we doing here?”
Terrorists exploit rules of engagement to attack Marine patrol returning to base
What is happening here to our military and their families is CRIMINAL!
Fallen soldier's parents: RoEs 'put our son at risk'...
LAKE GEORGE - The parents of Army soldier Benjamin Osborn said Thursday that U.S. Bill and Beverly Osborn say that new military rules of engagement are making soldiers on the ground more vulnerable to attack, including they say, in the final battle that took their son's life.
"They were ambushed they were under attack and they couldn't fire until they were ordered to do so," Ben's father Bill Osborn said.
Wearing black armbands, a gold star pin, and grief fresh from burying their son, Bill and Beverly Osborn are speaking out about the circumstances of their son's death.
"Ben said that the tactics were wrong. There's one long road to bring supplies in. The Taliban's up there shooting down at them and they have to shoot up," Beverly Osborn said.
It comes as the family welcomed friends to a celebration of Ben's life, with his wife of only five months comforted at the event.
But amid their grief, his parents also questioned whether new military rules of engagement put their son's unit at risk, by restricting use of firepower and the ability to call for backup, a strategy designed to minimize civilian casualties.
"The rules of engagement have put our son at risk and everyone that's over there," Bill Osborn said.
"They are laughing at us. The Taliban is laughing at us," said Beverly Osborn.
The Osborns support General Stanley McChrystal, who was just forced to resign after openly criticizing the Administration's strategy. Instead, these parents laid blame at the President's feet.
"I think he's the wrong man for the wrong job at the time, and I think he has things backwards I think that it's a kind of a touchy feely approach to war and it doesn't work," Bill Osborn said.
"We have to win the war first. The only way to do that is to have someone in charge who's a warrior, not a flower child," Beverly Osborn said.
They were grief-stricken but determined to push for change, as a community said goodbye to a native son.
The Osborns planned to write to New York's U.S. Senators and to General David Petraeus, now the top commander of the conflict, to call for a take charge strategy that they said will give other servicemen and woman a better chance to win the war.
Pentagon veteran: Obama disarming U.S.
Obama halts prosecution of USS Cole bomber...
Obama's military neglect: Is it intentional?
Obama's INTENTIONAL Destruction Of Our Military MUST BE STOPPED
National Security Shouldn’t Be For Sale
Qualifications No Longer
Important For Military Service, Per Liberal Diversity
Loons Whose Goal Is To Destroy The Military
Posted: August 06, 2011
12:00 am Eastern
By Aaron Klein
© 2011 WND
The U.S. military's Muslim chaplain program was founded by a terror-supporting convict while the Army's first Islamic chaplain, who is still serving, has been associated with a charity widely accused of serving as an al-Qaida front.
a plot uncovered last week to target Fort Hood's Army base – one year after the
same base was the subject of a shooting massacre by a Muslim army psychiatrist
– closer scrutiny of the military's Islamic chaplain program may be warranted.
Pfc. Naser Abdo was arrested just days ago with a backpack full of explosives. He reportedly admitted planning a terror attack on Fort Hood soldiers.
In previous media profiles, Abdo, a convert to Islam, described becoming more religious after he signed up for the Army.
In a television interview with HLN News, a spinoff of CNN, Abdo discussed a conversation he had with a Muslim army chaplain. Currently, there are only six Muslim chaplains in the U.S. military.
Terror supporter founded chaplain program
The military's Muslim chaplain program was founded in 1993. It was guided by Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi, an Islamic cleric who served as an Islamic adviser to President Bill Clinton.
Al-Amoudi currently is serving a 23-year sentence for illegal terrorism-related financial transactions with the Libyan government and for his alleged role in a Libyan conspiracy to assassinate then-Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah.
Al-Amoudi was described as an "expert in the art of deception" in a report by Newsweek journalists Mark Hosenball and Michael Isikoff.
The Newsweek article noted Al-Amoudi espoused moderate, pro-American views while lobbying for Muslim causes in the U.S., but then he expressed support for Hamas and Hezbollah at an Islamist rally.
Al-Amoudi founded the American Muslim Council, a lobbying group to advocate on behalf of Muslims in the United States, in 1990.
He also co-founded the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council, which worked with the U.S. government to establish the Army's Muslim chaplain program.
Al-Amoudi reportedly handpicked the army's first Islamic chaplain, Imam Abdul-Rasheed Muhammad, who serves until today.
Al-Amoudi was instrumental in selected several other of the military's six Islamic chaplains.
Army’s first chaplain tied to 'al-Qaida front'
A closer look at the Muhammad, the military's first chaplain, is instrumental.
Muhammad was recommended for appointment by Al-Amoudi's American Islamic Council.
Indeed, Al-Amoudi attended Muhammad's swearing-in ceremony just as he was present for the 1996 swearing-in of the military's second Muslim chaplain, Lt.JG Monje Malak Abd al-Muta Ali Noel, Jr.
Each Muslim chaplain must first be endorsed by an official Islamic agency.
Muhammad's endorsing agency reportedly was the Islamic Society of North America, or ISNA.
The ISNA subsequently became an unindicted co-conspirator in a scheme to raise money for Hamas.
WND has reported on the ISNA's deep ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Muhammad is a convert to Islam. In 1974 he joined the Lost-Found Nation of Islam, a Black Muslim group that espoused racial separatism and Black Nationalism.
Muhammad later said he did not fully subscribe to the radical group's philosophy, but was attracted by what he said was the organization's emphasis on personal responsibility and self-help.
"In the projects where I grew up," Muhammad said, "the women were exploited. In the Nation of Islam the men were always polite. They were always clean cut. I felt the Nation of Islam had more to offer than the church."
In a 1993 interview with Muslehuddin Ahmed of Islam4all.com, Muhammad detailed his association with the Muslim World League, or MWL, a Saudi-funded Muslim charity accused of terrorism financing and ties to al-Qaida.
The website reports Muhammad was in dialogue with the charity to help establish the army's Muslim chaplain program.
During the period of Muhammad's association with the MWL, the group spawned multiple Muslim charities that were alleged fronts for al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden.
recounted to Islam4all how he was an "honored guest" of the MWL for
his Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca.
"He was also full of praise for the Muslim World League for its excellent arrangements, which it had made for its guests, and was highly impressed by its dedicated Secretary General Dr. Ahmad Muhammad Ali, who symbolized for him a model Muslim leader," reported Islam4all.
The Islamic website reported Muhammad offered to work closely with the MWL and that he began an "ongoing interaction with the MWL in shaping and developing a vital Islamic presence within the U.S. Armed Forces."
The website reported Muhammad "evinced keen interest in the magazines and other publications of the Muslim World League and other similar organizations for support in his Dawah work."
The MWL, meanwhile, was founded in Mecca in 1962 and bills itself one of the largest Islamic non-governmental organizations.
But according to U.S. government documents and testimony from the charity's own officials, it is heavily financed by the Saudi government.
The MWL has been accused of terror ties, as have its various offshoots, including the International Islamic Relief Organization, or IIRO, and Al Haramain, which was declared by the U.S. and U.N. a terror financing front.
Indeed, the Treasury Department, in a September 2004 press release, alleged Al Haramain had "direct links" with Osama bin Laden. The group is now banned worldwide by United Nations Security Council Committee 1267.
There long have been reports citing accusations the IIRO and MWL also repeatedly funded al-Qaida.
In 1993, bin Laden reportedly told an associate that the MWL was one of his three most important charity fronts.
An ADL profile of the MWL accuses the group of promulgating a "fundamentalist interpretation of Islam around the world through a large network of charities and affiliated organizations.
"Its ideological backbone is based on an extremist interpretation of Islam and several of its affiliated groups and individuals have been linked to terror-related activity."
2003, U.S. News and World Report documented that accompanying WML's donations,
invariably, are "a blizzard of Wahhabist
"Critics argue that Wahhabism's more extreme preachings – mistrust of infidels, branding of rival sects as apostates, and emphasis on violent jihad – laid the groundwork for terrorist groups around the world," the report continued.
An Egyptian-American cab driver, Ihab Mohamed Ali Nawawi, was arrested in Florida in 1990 on accusations he was an al-Qaida sleeper agent and a former personal pilot to bin Laden. At the same time he was accused of serving bin Laden, he also reportedly worked for the Pakistani branch of the MWL.
The MWL in 1988 founded the Al Haramain Islamic Foundation, developing chapters in about 50 countries, including for a time in Oregon until it was designated a terror organization.
In the early 1990s, evidence began to grow that it was funding Islamist militants in Somalia and Bosnia, and a 1996 CIA report detailed its Bosnian militant ties.
The U.S. Treasury designated Al Haramain's offices in Kenya and Tanzania as sponsors of terrorism for their role in planning and funding the 1998 bombings of two American embassies in East Africa. The Comoros Islands office was also designated because it "was used as a staging area and exfiltration route for the perpetrators of the 1998 bombings."
The New York Times reported in 2003 that Al Haramain had provided funds to the Indonesian terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah, which was responsible for the 2002 Bali bombings that killed 202 people. The Indonesia office was later designated a terrorist entity by the Treasury.
In February 2004, the U.S. Treasury Department froze all Al Haramain's financial assets pending an investigation, leading the Saudi government to disband the charity and fold it into another group, the Saudi National Commission for Relief and Charity Work Abroad.
In September 2004, the U.S. designated Al-Haramain a terrorist organization.
In June 2008, the Treasury Department applied the terrorist designation to the entire Al-Haramain organization worldwide
Bin Laden's brother-in-law
In August 2006 the Treasury Department also designated the Philippine and Indonesian branch offices of the MWL-founded IIRO as terrorist entities "for facilitating fundraising for al Qaida and affiliated terrorist groups."
The Treasury Department added: "Abd Al Hamid Sulaiman Al-Mujil, a high-ranking IIRO official [Executive director of its Eastern Province Branch] in Saudi Arabia, has used his position to bankroll the al-Qaida network in Southeast Asia. Al-Mujil has a long record of supporting Islamic militant groups, and he has maintained a cell of regular financial donors in the Middle East who support extremist causes."
In the 1980s, Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, Osama bin Laden's brother-in-law, ran the Philippines offices of the IRRO. Khalifa has been linked to Manila-based plots to target the pope and U.S. airlines.
The IRRO has also been accused of funding Hamas, Algerian radicals, Afghanistan militant bases and the Egyptian terror group Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya.
The New York Post reported the families of the 9/11 victims filed a lawsuit against IIRO and other Muslim organizations for having "played key roles in laundering of funds to the terrorists in the 1998 African embassy bombings," and for having been involved in the "financing and 'aiding and abetting' of terrorists in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing."
'Saudi government front'
In a court case in Canada, Arafat El-Asahi, the Canadian director of both the IIRO and the MWL, admitted the charities are near entities of the Saudi government.
Stated El-Asahi: "The Muslim World League, which is the mother of IIRO, is a fully government funded organization. In other words, I work for the Government of Saudi Arabia. I am an employee of that government.
"Second, the IIRO is the relief branch of that organization, which means that we are controlled in all our activities and plans by the Government of Saudi Arabia. Keep that in mind, please," he said.
Despite its offshoots being implicated in terror financing, the U.S. government never designated the MWL itself as a terror-financing charity. Many have speculated the U.S. has been trying to not embarrass the Saudi government.
With research by Brenda J. Elliott
IN THE MILITARY
Pentagon worries body armor won't adequately protect GIs
5 million inserts in bullet-proof vests may not meet standards due to poor testing
More National Security Broken Promises Posted By Baker Spring On August 5, 2011 @ 5:00 pm In Protect America |
The Obama Administration’s plan to increase funding for the U.S. nuclear weapons complex has little chance to succeed  under the newly negotiated debt ceiling deal.
The bill  mandates a cut of $44 billion for discretionary budget authority in “security” spending from the President’s FY 2012 requested level. Automatic spending cuts, if triggered, would impose up to an additional $750 billion in spending reductions on defense from FY 2013 through FY 2021. What does it mean for the nuclear weapons complex?
There is a little prospect that the Administration will proceed and fight for its nuclear modernization plan proposed in the context of the 2010 debate about the New Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty (New START). “My administration will pursue these programs and capabilities for as long as I am president,” President Obama wrote . Heritage Foundation predictions  that the vote on New START would not result in actual increases in long-term funding for nuclear modernization at the agreed-upon level turned out to be correct.
With New START, the Obama Administration traded  25 percent of the U.S. operationally deployed strategic nuclear missiles for a Russian nuclear buildup. Currently, the average age  of U.S. delivery platforms is 41 years for the Minuteman III, 21 years for the Trident II D-5 SLBM, 50 years for the B-52H bomber, 14 years for the B-2 bomber, and 28 years for the Ohio-class submarine.
Russia, unlike the United States, is planning on buying  36 strategic ballistic missiles, two strategic missile submarines, and 20 strategic cruise missiles in 2011 alone. This also means that Russia will be able to maintain its production capabilities, unlike the United States. Implications of the lack of funding are grave for the United States—vulnerability of its forces to the first strike. For a country that has maintained second-to-none position as a matter of policy, this should be unacceptable.
Some Representatives, for example Michael Turner (R–OH), foresaw  the danger of nuclear weapons funding not being appropriated in the years ahead. Turner introduced the New START Implementation Act, which would create a link between nuclear modernization and the implementation of New START’s required reductions. This is only prudent given that all the reductions required from the U.S. are costly  and will further increase the pressure on the already overstretched defense budget.
Obama Administration officials were silent on the issue of costs related to New START implementation and did not specify if the Air Force or the Navy will be required to build new storage facilities to accommodate missiles taken out of operational deployment as a result of New START. It remains to be seen whether and in what form the New START Implementation Act will be adopted and if Congress provides necessary nuclear modernization funding.
Article printed from The
Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org
URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/08/05/more-national-security-broken-promises/
URLs in this post:
 has little chance to succeed: http://gsn.nti.org/siteservices/print_friendly.php?ID=nw_20110803_8678
 average age: http://www.securityaffairs.org/issues/2009/16/thayer&skypek.php
Beijing to U.S.: Cut your military
I am destroying your country and you don't have the political guts to stop me!
August 7, 2011
To read the article, click here:
August 7, 2011
Obama has done his job well: USA all but destroyed
By Sher Zieve
By now, I assume everyone who isn't comatose has heard about the Standard & Poors downgrading of the USA's economic stability from AAA to AA+. Despite the White House feverishly working to spin the news for we-the-proletariat — and hinting that 'it really means nothing' — I suspect there is much celebrating going on behind the scenes. Since ratings were established, this is the first time in History that the United States of America has been downgraded. This is unprecedented in our history. Therefore, Obama is partying hardier than ever. After his Chicago $35,000 per plate birthday bash extravaganza — largely on the US taxpayer — his latest fundraiser planned for next Thursday in New York is designed to bring in $71,600 per plate. And all of this is transpiring while he is on a bus tour — we believe illegally on the US taxpayer — campaign for 2012. Note: As our leftist courts and supplicant US Congress support his every move, no one does anything about Obama's increasingly criminal behaviors.
The reality is that in order to establish a Marxist-Leninist or Marxist-Mao Utopian parasitic government to destroy the middle-class (who will then in their newly-imposed slavery support the elites) the host country must be utterly destroyed. Said country can then be rebuilt (i.e. "transformed") into the image of "The One" or The Ones." In this, I suspect Obama has far exceeded his own training and his Master's timeframe with what he has wrought upon OUR country...and the world. Truly, he is the first leader (make that "non-leader") of his type.
Obama is a destroyer par excellence and may, in the end and assuming we do not rid ourselves of him, end up surpassing even Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin or Mao Zedong. We know he is already brimming with pride over his accomplishments, as we see it in his growing smile — one that is beginning to oddly resemble a Narcissistic and condescending sneer as his eyes become even more sinister.
Obama has destroyed our health care system. Obama is in the process of removing our Bill of Rights. Obama has stolen trillions of our dollars and sent them overseas...some to locations and entities that still remain secret. He has taken over our water and food distribution (shades of Stalin and every other despotic ruler here!). Obama is increasingly talking publicly about 'the problems of democracies.' Obama's Operation Gunwalker/Gunrunner — "Fast and Furious" was specifically designed to legally-obtained remove guns from US citizens by blaming the planned murderous outcome of the program on gun shop owners and the US citizenry at large. The Obama-Holder syndicate bosses were caught in their criminal scheme...but, they're still continuing their plan to dissolve the Second (and therefore all) Amendment.
It has, also, now been revealed that the Obama syndicate and the Sinaloa Drug Cartel has a 'business relationship.' In return for 'favors," the Obama syndicate (aka the "US Obama Government") allowed the drug cartel to bring tons of cocaine into the USA with encouragement and without consequences. Note: Remember Obama has said his favorite movie it "The Godfather" and our Southern border still remains wide open. Still wonder why?
Now, Obama and the Marxist Democrats (remember that the Democrats took over both Houses of Congress in January 2007) have destroyed the economy...yet, they are still demanding we give them more! Nothing ever satisfies the corrupt and perverse. For the tyrannical ruler, there is never enough. There may not be enough for those who continue to demand they be allowed to suckle even when all the milk has been consumed. But, have you finally and decisively had enough from the Obama syndicate and those who support and collaborate with it? Have you? Isn't it time that we now begin to demand ever-more-loudly resignations — or prison time — from the parasites who continue to feed off of us? Isn't it?
"Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless." -Isaiah 10:1-2
"If money is wanted by Rulers who have in any manner oppressed the People, they may retain it until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public tranquility." Journals of the Continental Congress, 1:105-113
"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." — Winston Churchill
U.S. slapped with Standard & Poor's rating downgrade:
Report: White House challenged S&P's intent to downgrade US rating:
Obama Wants $71,600 for Power Dinner:
Documents: Obama Admin. "Walked" Guns to Sinaloa Cartel, Allowed Cocaine into U.S.:
Stacked Courts and Dissolution of US Laws set to officially establish the Obama Tyranny:
Obama Blames Terrible Economy on Bush, Nature, Arabs and "Big, Messy, Tough Democracy":
© Sher Zieve
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2011 05:06:32 +0000
They lied! They told you that unless you gave them 2.4 trillion dollars, dire economic consequences would ensue. But they simply didn't lie. When you called them on the lie, they called you a "terrorist" a "hijacker," a "mugger," a "hobbit," a "jihadist," and inside-the-beltway elites even went so far as to say that you were Psychologically Disturbed!
Use the button below to send your urgent and
personalized Blast Faxes to the Leadership of the United States Senate and
the United States House of Representatives. Or alternately, you can send your
urgent and personalized Blast Faxes to each and every Member of the House and
Senate... that's over 530 Blast Faxes.
But wait a minute? Didn't our
Republican Leaders secure at least 2.4 trillion dollars in spending cuts in
exchange for raising Obama's debt ceiling by 2.4 trillion dollars?
Use the button below to send your urgent and
personalized Blast Faxes to the Leadership of the United States Senate and
the United States House of Representatives. Or alternately, you can send your
urgent and personalized Blast Faxes to each and every Member of the House and
Senate... that's over 530 Blast Faxes.
When it comes to sham accounting and out-of-control
spending in Washington, Congressman Paul Ryan, on the floor of the House of
Representatives on July 29, 2011, explains to us how politicians get away
with "cutting" money they never actually intended to spend in the
first place: "The American people are tired
of all the accounting tricks and budget gimmicks that go on in Washington....
Imagine that we're at war for ten years... and we assume we're going to be
fighting this war for ten more years.... Oh Gosh, wait, we're going to
withdraw our troops in 2014; a trillion dollars in savings."
Use the button below to send your urgent and
personalized Blast Faxes to the Leadership of the United States Senate and
the United States House of Representatives. Or alternately, you can send your
urgent and personalized Blast Faxes to each and every Member of the House and
Senate... that's over 530 Blast Faxes.
By the way, while you did not see the
announcement on the front page of The New York Times, our national debt just hit 100% of our Gross
Domestic Product. You might have missed that ground-breaking milestone
because the lame-stream media in the United States didn't report it.
on Blame Game Vitriol Demonstrates S&P Disgust Enough
with the shameless agitprop of the communists like Kerry and the serially
corrupt Rangel masquerading as Americans under the regime of Comrade
Obama. Send them packing back to the former USSR which rapidly wants to
regain that status under Putin for the drones out there not following the
news. How about a one way ticket to Cuba, Venezuela, Red
China et al for these shameless pathological
lying hypocrites who couldn't care less about the future for our
children and grandchildren?
Rangel's right about one thing, the elections of 2012, primary and general, will be very important, moreover, the most important elections in the history of a Republic on life support due to the machinations of the most corrupt vile sham Administration in American history. And if there is not a sea change in terms of REAL Americans who love our country elected replacing those weaned on a hatred of anything and everything American and their RINO enablers at the executive, legislative, and judicial levels of appointment, then all will be completely lost with the USA ceasing to exist.
We're living a civil war right now with the communists vs those aforementioned REAL Americans. And if there is not going to be a political solution to this war, we have history to tell us what is going to be the inevitable alternative with anarchy the only result as the consequence of the complete implosion of the country which is what Obama wants to consolidate his power.
on Governor Palin: “[President] Obama, You’re Losing Our
Future”/Open Thread In the big picture, the battle
between the Washington Establishment and the tax-paying citizens is the ongoing
battle that’s been taking place since the 2008 election, if not earlier than
The fact that John McCain and John Boehner felt so empowered to lash out at the TEA Party during the lead-in to the Debt ceiling debate, and the fact that the msm and the Establishment is trying to tie the S&P Downgrade on the TEA Party is really their honest feelings about us. We are unfit to think for ourselves, need to be told what to eat, and can vote for the candidates that they pre-select for us, from a menu of sufficiently inoffensive and non-challenging centrists, whose beliefs are virtually interchangeable. Think Mitt Romney.
They are so scared of a true reformer coming into town that there’s no telling what lengths they’ll go to in order to retain their grip on power. Right now, everything that we see from the documentary “The Undefeated” is already well-known by all the folks who will tell you with a straight face that Sarah Palin is a lightweight. This is an obvious lie just due to the fact that no one puts this much effort into stopping a lightweight who they’re certain to defeat.
In a sports analogy, back in 1996, The New England Patriots of Bill Parcells and Drew Bledsoe had a coming of age, and made it into the playoffs with an 11-5 record. Their first round opponent was the Pittsburgh Steelers in Foxboro, to be followed by a likely AFC championship game against the Denver Broncos, led by Hall-of-Famers John Elway and Shannon Sharpe, rushing champion Terrell Davis and a tough, experienced defense. The Broncos had already beaten the Patriots badly in Foxboro during the regular season, so it would be a daunting task to beat them in Denver.
But the Jacksonville Jaguars managed a huge upset, so the Patriots got to host the young and inexperienced Jaguars in an icy Foxboro Stadium the next week, and beat them solidly to advance to the Super Bowl.
The Patriots had been handed a gift by Jacksonville, because the Broncos had to feel confident against them until they could prove otherwise. If the Patriots could have chosen their opponent, obviously Jacksonville was their choice.
Right now, team Obama knows what they’ve known since August 29th of 2008, and that is that Sarah Palin of Alaska was and is the antithesis to Barack Obama of Chicago, and that she does not fear him. They want to face anyone else, and have been trying to keep Sarah off the field by any means possible since then due to this.
This explains much of the coordinated efforts between the Establishment Republicans, the media, and The Democrat Party regarding their war strategy against Palin. It also explains the need for the Palin team to be a Guerilla organization, because they simply can’t match up against the entire establishment if the establishment gets to define the playing field, supply the referees, etc.
Start with the first premise, that Obama is vulnerable to defeat. Well, do you think they’d be planning a Bus-Tour to promote his latest job-creating schemes if he weren’t extremely vulnerable? But the only way he can be beaten is by an opponent who can and will stand in against his threats and bullying, and not be afraid to throw a well-aimed knockout punch when the opportunity arises.
Mitt Romney would be the ideal candidate from the POV of the Establishment. The GOP loves his rolodex, and he pals around with all the boys at the Yacht clubs and Country Clubs. His policies would be a mirror image of Obama’s, and the dirty little secret that the Establishment doesn’t want you to know is that the very rich are well looked after by both the Democrats and the Republicans. Both parties will push legislation that continues the “Crony-Capitalism” insider game that benefits the Wall Street crowd immensely. Right now, it’s a Huge Casino where the bettors get to keep their winnings, but any losses can be passed on to us in Flyover country in some form, either TARP, a QE adjustment, some new stimulus, or even higher taxes that they never admit are taxes.
The rise of the TEA Party needs to be dealt with, and the establishment has been seeking to find an establishment-approved substitute for Palin ever since she started actively supporting their cause and promoting their candidates to unexpected victories. They already know that she’s a handful promoting other people’s candidacies, they don’t want to deal with an actual “Sarah Palin 4 President” candidacy. 2008 was too close for comfort as far as they’re concerned.
A chorus line of folks happily auditioned for the role. From Lynn Cheney to Mike Huckabee to Mitch Daniels to Donald Trump to Herman Cain to Michele Bachmann, and now, to Rick Perry, these ”Anybody But Palin” candidates have one thing in common, they are the Establishment’s attempt to lure the army of Palin Supporters into accepting their chosen substitute as the real thing. So far, it’s been “No Sale”, and her supporters know that she’s got the big Iowa TEA Party rally coming up on September 3rd to steal everyone’s thunder.
If and when Sarah delivers in this Speech, and then takes Iowa, does well in New Hampshire and South Carolina, she will have eliminated the “ABP” selection from the menu, thus forcing Mitt Romney to match up his vision with hers. Since his vision is whatever way the wind is blowing, and hers is well-documented, she looks very good in that matchup, especially as uncertain economic times would tend to work against an Establishment type. Additionally, at some point in time, the battle will be one of personalities as much as anything, and Sarah can be confident against any opponent in this aspect.
After the smoke clears, it will be Sarah Palin and the TEA Party versus Barack Obama and The Washington Establishment. The fight she’s wanted to have since August 2008, and the one that he’s dreaded since then. For all the marbles.
I like her odds in that bout!
- Lawrence Sellin Sunday, August 7, 2011
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the United States or the Constitution. We have no problem that cannot be solved. We just have terrible leaders.
The worst characteristic in any leader is hubris, which is best described as a combination of arrogance and stupidity. Sadly, our current leaders in Washington, D.C. have an abundance of it.
That hubris has led to the
nation’s most corrupt administration and a Congress filled with elitist
politicians, who compromise the Constitution, flout the rule of law and
bankrupt our country.
They consider themselves political royalty, whose words and actions may never be questioned and favor the suppression of free speech.
Such is their disdain for the citizenry that, not only do they ignore our petitions; they now refer to ordinary Americans exercising their Constitutional rights as “terrorists.”
It is not the Tea Party who are terrorists, but the arrogant political establishment, who have set the United States on a course for economic collapse within ten years.
For example, by 2020 just the interest payments on the debt will be larger than the U.S. military budget.
America will be rendered defenseless.
The situation is far worse than anyone could have imagined.
The politicians and government officials in Washington, D.C. have perpetrated and covered-up the greatest fraud in the history of the United States.
They contemptuously believe that they can deflect the issue with an organized campaign of disinformation and by blocking any legal avenues citizens wish to pursue to preserve the rule of law.
Barack Hussein Obama is, according to the Constitution and the
binding precedent of Minor and Happersett, an illegal
He committed a felony by presenting a forged Certificate of Live Birth as proof of his birth place.
He committed identity theft by using a Social Security Number, which was not issued to him as now verified by the Social Security Administration.
He committed a felony by forging a Selective Service registration.
Most damaging of all, Obama is clearly not serving the interests of the United States. He is dismantling our Constitution, eradicating our liberties and promoting policies for national suicide.
We cannot wait any longer or we will lose our country.
The American people are demanding to know why our elected representatives and government officials continue to permit such flagrant violations of the Constitution and federal law.
They resist and ignore us because they are co-conspirators. When the truth is revealed, their careers will be over. It is that simple.
The Republican and Democratic Parties and their cheerleaders in the mainstream media are desperately trying to maintain their grip on the levers of political and financial power.
They will do and say anything to prevent the American people from regaining control of their government.
They have made themselves tyrants and declared war on us.
Obama’s political career will shortly be over. It will also spell the end of the Democratic Party as we know it.
After the Democrats self-destruct, the Republican Party will have the only remaining political infrastructure, which can be used to bring the country back on the correct course.
Unfortunately, the Republican elite have acted no better than facilitators of the Obama agenda.
The coming situation will, however, provide an historic opportunity to bring down the political establishment and restore representative government, uphold the Constitution and reinstate the rule of law.
All American patriots must now join with members of the Tea Party to begin a bottom-up revolution by taking over the Republican Party at the precinct level.
The Precinct Project has been launched in an effort to help educate and motivate conservatives across the country to become more involved in the political process. Toward that end, they are working to gather an ever-growing amount of information about how to become a Precinct Chairman or Committeeman, how to be effective in that role and maximize your impact within the party system.
The fight to defend America is no longer abroad. It is at home.
Rogue politicians have begun this war, but We the People will finish it.
Downgrade a damning indictment of Obama's big government
Lessons from other countries suggest it can take years to win back AAA rating
Last updated: August 6th, 2011
The decision by credit agency
Standard and Poor’s to downgrade America’s AAA credit
rating for the first time in 70 years is a massive blow to the
credibility of the Obama administration, and a damning indictment of its
handling of the economy. No doubt the White House will pathetically try to
blame the Bush Administration, Republicans in Congress, and of course its favourite target, the Tea Party, for the move by S&P.
But without a shadow of a doubt, responsibility for the country’s financial
mess and staggering levels of debt lie with the current US president and his
administration. They have been in charge of running the economy for over 30
months, during which time the United States has witnessed an unprecedented
increase in government spending and borrowing.
As the Congressional Budget Office revealed In January, the deficits generated under the Obama administration are the largest since the end of World War Two:
The deficits of $1.4 trillion
in 2009 and $1.3 trillion in 2010 are, when measured as a share of gross
domestic product (GDP), the largest since 1945—representing 10.0 percent and
8.9 percent of the nation’s output, respectively… Just two years ago, debt held
by the public was less than $6 trillion, or about 40 percent of GDP; at the end
of fiscal year 2010, such debt was roughly $9 trillion, or 62 percent of GDP.
The implications of this debt
downgrade are extremely serious, not least with 46 percent of US Treasuries
owned by foreigners. As The
Wall Street Journal notes, the United States now has a
score that ranks “below Liechtenstein and on par with Belgium and New Zealand”:
by S&P could serve as a psychological haymaker for an American economic
recovery that can’t find much traction, and could do more damage to investors’
increasing lack of faith in a political system that is struggling to reach
consensus on even everyday policy items. It could lead to the prompt downgrades
of numerous companies and states, driving up their costs for borrowing. Policy
makers are also anxious about the hidden icebergs the move could suddenly
reveal. …. Lessons from other countries, such as Canada and Australia, suggest
it can take years for a country to win back its AAA rating.
Since President Obama took
office in January 2009, the United States has embarked on the most ambitious
failed experiment in Washington meddling in US history. Huge increases in
government spending, massive federal bailouts, growing regulations on
businesses, thinly veiled protectionism, and the launch of a vastly expensive
and deeply unpopular health care reform plan, have all combined to instill fear
and uncertainty in the markets. Free enterprise has taken a backseat to
continental European-style interventionism, as an intensely ideological left
wing administration has sought to dramatically increase the role of the state
in shaping the US economy. The end result has been a dramatic fall in economic freedom, sluggish
growth, poor consumer confidence, high unemployment, a collapsing housing
market, and an overall decline in US prosperity, with more than 45 million Americans
now reliant on food stamps – that’s over one seventh of the entire country.
These are increasingly dangerous times, with American leadership being challenged across the globe. Only an historic reduction in government spending combined with pro-growth measures including lower business tax rates to stimulate job creation and attract investment can turn the US economy around. Unfortunately, as Standard and Poor’s decision has shown, this is a presidency in extreme denial over America’s towering debts, leading a nation on a precipice while blindfolded to reality. The United States badly needs another Reagan-style revolution to stave off further economic disaster, preserve American leadership on the world stage, and secure the future of a superpower. Ultimately, greater liberty and freedom, not the deathly hand of Big Government, are needed to turn this great nation around.
Analysts fear no rebound in sight for down economy as unemployment rate drops to 9.1 percent with 6.2 million out of work for more than six months and 2.8 million only 'marginally attached' to labor force.
Aug. 4: Recruiter Jason Bryant, right, speaks with job seeker Brian Shumate at the Career Job Fair in Arlington, Va.
The Obama administration is touting 154,000 new private sector jobs in July, a number that provided some solace to official Washington. But Friday's Labor Department report gave analysts few positive indicators that the economy is on the rebound.
With the unemployment rate hovering at 9.1. percent, down one-tenth of a percent from June, the report showed 13.9 million unemployed people, 6.2 million who have been out of work for more than six months.
Discussion of Friday's jobs numbers
Also telling is the 63.9 percent of the civilian labor force -- or 153.2 million people -- that is working. That's the lowest ratio of employed-to-unemployed civilians since January 1984. The employment-to-population ratio hit 58.1 percent, the lowest percentage since July 1983.
"The participation rate going down makes the unemployment rate look better than it is, but it doesn't really say anything for the recovery," said Peter Morici, a professor at the Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland School.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2.8 million people are "marginally attached" to the labor force, meaning they want to work and are able to work, but had stopped looking for a job four weeks ago or earlier. Of those, 1.1 million were "discouraged" workers, meaning they've just given up and didn't quit because they made personal decisions about school or family matters.
"It seems that once again the decline in the unemployment rate was driven by people leaving the workforce, rather than the creation of new jobs," Matt McDonald, a partner at Hamilton Place Strategies, a bipartisan policy and communications consulting firm in Washington, said in a statement.
McDonald noted that the the labor force dropped by 193,000 people and the number of people seeking employment dipped by 156,000.
"Today's jobs report bought time for policymakers in Washington and may marginally decrease concerns for a potential double-dip, but the unemployment situation across the country remains a slow-motion crisis that shows no signs of abating," McDonald said.
The White House says Friday's report offered plenty of good news. Private sector job growth adjusted upward in May and June, and growth had spanned a variety of sectors, including professional and business services, health care, retail trade, manufacturing, leisure and hospitality and construction.
"Manufacturing has added 289,000 jobs since the beginning of 2010, the best period of manufacturing job growth in over a decade. Meanwhile, state and local governments lost 39,000 jobs in July and have shed more than 400,000 jobs since the start of 2010," Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Austan Goolsbee wrote in a blog Friday, his last day with the administration.
But even Goolsbee said it's not enough.
"This report may be better than expected, but it's still a call to action," Goolsbee told Fox News.
Speaking at the Navy Yard in Washington about government assistance to veterans transitioning to jobs at home, President Obama said July marks the 17th month in a row of job growth in the private sector. But he too acknowledged the distance the job market needs to travel.
"We have to create more jobs than that each month to make up for the more than 8 million jobs that the recession claimed. We need to create a self-sustaining cycle where people are spending and companies are hiring and our economy is growing. We know that will take some time," he said.
Morici said based on his calculations, in order to bring the unemployment rate down to 6 percent over the next 36 months, 13.9 million new jobs will need to be created. He noted the irony that adding 13.9 million jobs -- the number of currently unemployed -- won't bring the unemployment rate to zero.
"Two things happen as you go through the 36 months, you get more people and the participation rate will go up again," he told FoxNews.com.
McDonald said his firm has been calculating that it would take 255,000 jobs per month, including Friday's report, to get to an 8 percent unemployment rate by Election Day 2012.
Since that goal didn't happen, the number has risen to 272,000 jobs.
"Given the difficulty of reaching that number on a consistent basis going forward, HPS is also beginning this month to track progress toward a more modest 8.5 percent unemployment by Election Day 2012. This would require the creation of 220,000 jobs on a monthly basis going forward," he said.
Morici said the decline in the labor force rate may be attributable to several factors, including expired benefits or households living off single incomes of a higher earning spouse. As with any prolonged "hidden unemployment," that results in additional pressures on other benefits provided by government, he added.
"People that are not employed
put more of a drain on other resources," Morici
said, describing the hidden unemployed as "people who have just dropped
out, who have some resources to pull on, but can still access government
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/05/when-good-news-is-bad-unemployment-rate-drops-as-workers-bolt-labor-force/#ixzz1UCDlcmyR
On The Job Hunt: Small Businesses Across the Country Say, 'We're Not Hiring'
By Adam Housley
Published August 05, 2011
On The Job Hunt: Small Businesses Across the Country Say, 'We're Not Hiring'
By Adam Housley
Published August 05, 2011
At a wholesale pizza factory just outside Los Angeles, Calif., 25 men and women pound out the dough.
But like many small businesses in America dealing with a struggling economy, the owners aren't necessarily rolling in it.
"I love what I do, I love my employees. I have people that have been here over 20 years working for me. I don't want to do anything else, but it's frightening out there," says Patty Phillips, the owner of Patty's Pizza in Marina Del Rey. "My bottom line hasn't changed in two years, but my cost of business has changed significantly."
Patty's Pizza isn't alone and reflects a worrying national economic trend -- that small businesses continue to flounder.
Recent polls show that small businesses are firing more than they're hiring.
According to a survey released this week from the National Federation of Independent Business, or NFIB, 14 percent of more than 1,800 small businesses across the country polled said they cut staff, while only 12 percent said they made new hires. Also, overall small business optimism is dropping, and the NFIB's optimism index is down for the fourth consecutive month.
John Kabateck, NFIB's California executive director says he doesn't expect things to get better in the near future amid the current business climate. "Well what we hear from small businesses everyday is that they're overtaxed, they're over regulated, and they're overwhelmed by a government that keeps getting in the way of their ability to grow," Kabateck says.
Phillips agrees. "You watch our government spend money they don't have and then their solution is we are going to tax you more. So what business wants to expand and create jobs with that environment?"
But not all economists are sold on the findings of the recent surveys, and despite the complaints and concerns of some small business owners, they say some key job numbers have actually bounced back.
"Up to 2010, the strongest part of the labor market actually was small businesses. In a very real sense most of the job losses were in larger institutions, and by larger I mean any sort of company that has 50 or above employees," says economist Chris Thornberg with economic forecasting firm, Beacon Economics.
On Friday the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the economy added 117,000 jobs in July and unemployment fell slightly to 9.1 percent from June. Economists were expecting 85,000 jobs to be added and unemployment to remain at 9.2 percent. Economists say before they declare small business in America is flat, they want to take a closer look at the numbers.
Meantime, a recent report from the U.S. Commerce Department shows anemic growth in the Gross Domestic Product (GNP). That, say experts, has many business owners building up cash reserves for possible problems with the economy and sales down the road.
While some businesses, like Patty's Pizza may not close their doors, they won't be dishing up any expansion plans anytime soon.
"I am an entrepreneur. I used my own savings to start this business. I nickled and dimed myself to build this company without the help of government, but we are frustrated and nervous to see where this economy is going. I am not going to give up, but I am not going to hire right now," says Phillips. "I am just hoping things get better."
8:45 pm Eastern
By Drew Zahn
© 2011 WND
A majority of U.S. voters simply
don't believe it when Congress and the White House say that their agreement
over a debt ceiling increase will include $1 trillion in spending cuts over the
The latest poll from Rasmussen Reports on the debt-ceiling deal struck by Congress and signed by President Obama indicates U.S. voters are not willing to take Washington's word that the plan is part of a solution to the fiscal mess in which the nation finds itself.
specifically, only 30 percent thought it "likely" the spending cuts
would materialize, while 62 percent believe the federal government will find
some way over the next 10 years to escape the legislated reductions. When
factoring out respondents identified as in the "political class,"
Rasmussen found 69 percent of mainstream voters doubt the cuts will happen.
Τhe poll follows on the heels of at least one legislator, Rep. Connie Mack, R-Fla., blasting the promised spending reductions as "fantasy cuts."
"All of this talk about the cuts, the supposed cuts that happened in this last bill that passed, those aren't cuts," Mack said in an interview with Fox News's Sean Hannity earlier this week. "Those are fantasy cuts, those are reductions in the rate of growth.
"And everyone knows if you continue to spend $1.6 trillion more than you bring in, you have to borrow that money, [and] it adds to the debt," Mack said. "We can't continue to do that."
The Budget Control Act of 2011, signed by Obama earlier this week, raises the federal government's debt ceiling by trillions, thus permitting additional deficit spending, but also proposes future expenditures be shaved by $917 billion over the next 10 years and creates a "supercommittee" of lawmakers to find an additional $1.5 trillion in savings.
Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, sold the measure as a success by pointing out the
increase in the debt ceiling was matched, dollar for dollar, with spending
Nonetheless, the federal government will continue to operate at deficit levels, enabled by the Act's immediate $900-billion debt-ceiling increase, with additional raises of $1.2 trillion and $1.5 trillion possible if certain conditions within the legislation are met.
The budget deal has proven to be significantly unpopular with voters. For example, another Rasmussen poll taken the day the Act was signed found only 22 percent of likely voters nationwide approved of the agreement, while 53 percent disapproved.
The unpopularity of the legislation has also been blamed for record-setting levels of congressional disapproval ratings.
A New York Times/CBS News Poll, for example, found that 82 percent of Americans disapprove of the way Congress has been handling its job, the highest level since the poll began in 1977. More than 80 percent of the poll's respondents further said the debt negotiations had put scoring political points above helping the country, and nearly 75 percent said the spectacle had diminished America's image.
Rasmussen's own polling recently found that just 6 percent of Americans give lawmakers a good or exellent rating, and while Obama's approval rating is higher (24 percent strongly approve of his work), it, too, is at record lows.
The Rasmussen polls were conducted through telephone surveys of 1,000 likely voters with a reported margin of sampling error at +/- 3 percentage points with a 95-percent level of confidence.
Passage of the
Debt Limit Flies in the Face of National Voters
By Jerry McConnell Full Story
- Jerry McConnell Saturday, August 6, 2011
Well, the arrogant and anti-Americans in our government, starting at the top with the most arrogant and anti-American foreigner who poses as a natural born American citizen and usurps our presidency, have once again gotten their way and have doomed us into even deeper debt than the historical depths we now despair.
Obama, Reid, Pelosi have chided us on the disastrous effects that would destroy our country if the infamous ‘debt limit’ was not increased by August 2, 2011. They have called a very courageous and patriotic country loving group of real citizens of America, the Tea Party followers such disparaging name as “traitors”, “terrorists” and other ill conceived labels, trying to make themselves look good while they push for some further destruction of our country, well beyond where they have pushed it so far.
Passage of this measure was in opposition of the wishes of a majority of the voters according to Rasmussen Reports in their August 03, 2011 presentation which showed that while 22 percent approved of the deal, 53 percent disapproved and 26 percent were not sure. That is a total of 79 percent who did NOT approve of the deal that was done.
One reason for the disapproval may be that most voters (58%) say it’s unlikely the deal will lead to a significant decrease in federal spending over the next few years. Only 35% consider such spending cuts even somewhat likely. Most voters believe that cutting government spending will help the economy .
Sen. Jim DeMint, (R-SC) has little faith that conservative principles will prevail and stated “there’s no honest way to put a happy face on the outcome.” He also stated that this new agreement “Raises the debt limit by as much as $2.4 trillion.”
How in the world can raising the debt limit by $2.4 trillion be considered as being even remotely ‘good’ for our country. We were in serious trouble at the current rate which exceeds FOURTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS, and now tosolve the problem, as the PRO gang: Pelosi; Reid, and Obama would have us believe, they want to ADD more trillions. The liberal Democrat mantra of “to get out of debt, you must ADD to the debt.”
ANY normal, natural, common-sense person knows that a solution like that is NOT a solution but an extension of the problem. And worse, as Senator DeMint adds, this unprincipled agreement allows the debt to continue to grow by $7 trillion over the next decade.”
How about them onions Matilda; think they’ll grow in our national garden? Not dang likely you say; too much like Bittersweet nightshade a very common weed and especially dangerous to have around liberal Democrats, as they’re attracted to plant’s brightly colored berries most people call “earmarks”.
DeMint correctly claimed that this legislation if finally approved and signed by the president in its current form could threaten our AAA bond rating, once all the facts are known to financial institutions and one of the cherished goals of conservatives will likely never materialize; that being a balanced budget.
Another one of the ‘unprinciples’ that Sen. DeMint foresees in this sorry action in sharp disagreement with the majority of the nation’s voters is that it “creates a new, 12-member ‘super-committee’ with the power to force major tax increases through Congress.” Which also seems to be the opinion of super conservative, Rush Limbaugh who says in a Newsmax column written by Martin Gould on August 01, 2011, “Whether the deal to reduce the government deficit passes or not, says radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, the American people are still going to get a tax increase.
“Anyone wanting to tell you there are no tax increases in this technically may be right, this piece of legislation does not have a specific tax increase in it. But what’s slated to happen over the next few months results in one,” Limbaugh said.
He explains this bit of logic as follows: “President George W. Bush’s tax cuts that are due to expire at the end of next year. If Obama extends the cuts, the CBO will consider that a $ 5 trillion reduction in government income which will have to be made up elsewhere. If they expire, that’s a direct tax hike on Americans, Limbaugh said.
It seems, however that the discontent with this piece of legislation has spread to both major political parties as I have paraphrased here what George Will said in a recent column, “[Politicians] have forgotten that it is the PEOPLE of this country, the REAL citizens who enjoy the power to TELL those that they elected to political positions such as Congress and the Presidency what it is that THEY want for our country.”
Reason Magazine on August 2, 2011 issued the following quotes, except for those of mine; “Liberal Democrats including Socialist Bernie Sanders, (I-VT) have come out with strong language in opposition to the debt ceiling legislation of recent passage. Sanders said he, “also wasn’t happy. He issued a statement saying that the deal is “not only grotesquely immoral, it is bad economic policy.”
Here’s what other LibDems have said: The New York Times this morning (Aug. 2), columnist Joe Nocera complained that “Tea Party Republicans have waged jihad on the American people.”
Jihad, an Islamic term, is a religious duty of Muslims. In Arabic, the word jihād translates as a noun meaning “struggle”; so I guess the NYT thinks the Tea Party is a Muslim group in a political ‘struggle’; do you?
Now this one from Reason Mag. would be funny if it wasn’t so pitiful:
“At a private Democratic Caucus meeting this week, Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.), echoed the sentiment. “We have negotiated with terrorists,” he said. “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.”
Well holy cow Mike, isn’t that what conservatives are supposed to do? I know it hurts liberals like you to NOT spend our tax dollars, but this is what most Americans want. Aren’t you for the people, Mike?
‘Reason’ published this majestic quote from none other than the infamous Nancy Pelosi: “Democrats weren’t the only ones under the GOP gun. Failing to get a debt-limit hike was a global threat. “We’re trying to save life on this planet as we know it today,” she said of a July 28 debt deal vote.”
Gosh Nancy, we’re not under United Nations control yet; we’re still trying to do what’s right for the good old USA, not the whole planet.
Here are a few more in a nutshell from ‘Reason’: “Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) “this deal is a sugar-coated satan sandwich. If you lift the bun, you will not like what you see.”
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) the final compromise bill “may be the single-worst piece of policy to ever come out of this institution.”
Vice President Joe Biden— told Democrats in the Senate that Republican negotiators had put “guns to their heads.”
And finally, one quote from a Republican that makes some sense:
“Minnesota Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann worried about what might happen if there was a deal. Raising the debt limit at all, she said, would be “like saying we embracebeing Greece.”
Well they did, Michele; what should we do now, hug a Greek?
2011’s David & Goliath Defining Moment: “Bring it on, Barry!”
The name for Tea Party members hated and feared most by Barack Obama and his cohorts is `patriot’.
That’s why they hurl the names racist, bigot, bitter clinger and domestic terrorist at the Tea Party, and that’s why the Obama running dog mainstream media so desperately works to keep up the big smear.
Be Wary: This is one crisis that will NOT go to waste
By Billie J. Tucker Full Story
Before we talk about the historic credit rating down grade – let us stop for a moment and pray for the American soldiers who lost their lives last night in Afghanistan. There are hundreds of thousands of families waiting today to hear if their son, daughter, wife, husband, mother or father were among the casualties. When and if they receive a knock on their door, we pray for peace that passes all understanding as they hear the news that will change their lives forever.
- Alan Caruba Saturday, August 6, 2011
August 5, 2011
“Credit rating agency S&P has downgraded U.S. debt from AAA,
the first debt downgrade in U.S. history, the Associated Press reported.”
When a nation’s debt equals its entire annual gross domestic product, it is bankrupt. It can still produce goods and services, but it will likely encounter fewer customers worldwide as they too are drawn deeper into their own debt crises.
When it must borrow billions daily just to meet its obligations to other nations and individuals who have purchased its treasury notes, it is has reached a point of “moral hazard” that threatens the wealth of every single citizen.
When it raises its “debt ceiling” to $14.58 trillion, the amount its Congress permits, and one day later its Treasury Department announces that its debt reached 100% of its GDP, it is in serious financial difficulty. Not since 1947 when the U.S. was recovering from the cost of World War II have we reached this point.
The nasty “debate” in Washington over the debt ceiling included the Republican demands that we reduce our spending and Democrat demands that we raise taxes. Those advocating sanity were called “terrorists” and “extremists.” The shallow reductions agreed to were stretched over ten years and barely begin to address the immediate financial crisis. Harder decisions were pushed off on a “super committee” that no one expects to agree on anything.
This news is bad enough for the United States of America, but it affects many other nations around the world in exactly the same way the Crash of 1929 did, leading to the Great Depression of the 1930s and putting in motion the events that led to World War II.
Does history repeat itself? Apparently so.
What is happening in America is happening around the world. Greece, a nation of 11 million people, had by 2009 managed to run up its debt to more than $500 billion. Its fellow members of the European Union took notice even though Greece accounted for only two percent of the EU’s economy. A year earlier, the tiny nation of Iceland, population 300,000, had literally bankrupted itself when its debt went from $8 billion in 2001 to more than $48 billion in 2007.
On September 29, 2008, the Irish cabinet held an emergency session by phone because the implosion of its housing market threatened to bring down its financial system. To avoid a bank run, it guaranteed all deposits and, not long after, England did the same thing.
Many people find history boring, but it does provide lessons and what America and its lenders all face is the potential for The Great Depression 2.0. The gyrations on Wall Street and worldwide are evidence of global fears.
In America, the Congress merely applied a band-aid to a gaping wound, the result of the “solutions” instituted during the Great Depression of the 1930s, the entitlement program of Social Security and, in the 1960s, the addition of Medicare. In the 1930s, the federal government guaranteed mortgages by creating Fannie Mae and later Freddie Mac.
When the financial crisis arrived in 2008, they owned half of all the mortgages issued by the nation’s banks. The government was forced to step in and seize both “government sponsored entities” to avoid bringing down the nation’s financial system. At the same time, it agreed to buy up the “toxic assets” owned by a number of banking firms and by the insurance giant, AIG. Billions in public funds were allocated to this.
There probably was no alternative.
In the same way the government in the 1930s initiated all manner of programs to put Americans back to work, the Obama administration created a “stimulus” program while, at the same time, taking ownership of Chrysler and General Motors. The Federal Reserve reduced interest rates close to zero, lending banks and nations billions. By contrast, during the Great Depression the government had allowed hundreds of banks to fail which, in hindsight, contributed the nation’s ills.
Franklin D. Roosevelt had been elected to end the Depression, but after nearly eight years of the New Deal has passed, FDR’s Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., addressed the House Ways and Means Committee on May 9, 1939, to say, “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.” Unemployment remained high and would remain high until World War II intervened in 1941.
Much has changed since the 1930s, but much has not.
In 2010, power in the House of Representatives was returned to the Republican Party, but the debate over the debt ceiling revealed the difficulty it had marshalling support for raising it. Many new Tea Party caucus Representatives opposed it. Others argued that only massive spending cuts could remedy the growth of the nation’s debt. In the Senate, controlled by the Democrat Party, any deal that did not include raising taxes was dead on arrival.
Other than the so-called “stimulus” programs, the President devoted all of 2009 to legislation dubbed Obamacare that would have created a government takeover of twenty percent of the nation’s economy. By May 2010, a million people marched in Washington, D.C. to protest it. It has since been repealed in the House and has 26 States allied against it in the courts.
In the 1930s, efforts to keep the world’s economy from imploding found little political support for the measures needed to sustain an integrated world economy. In the modern era of globalization, the same problems have been encountered and, sadly, the United States has shown little taste for reducing its spending as it continues to borrow until, at some point, other nations decide to put their money elsewhere. So far that has not happened.
The United States’ financial future is in peril without a significant downsizing of the federal government and the international economy faces similar challenges as nations share similar debt levels that exceed their ability to meet their obligations.
It will take a minimum of a decade to meet the USA’s present need to reduce spending and reduce the burden of its borrowed debt. Let us hope the voters in 2012 take the first steps toward the political resolve needed by returning power to the Republican Party in the Senate and the White House. Then let us hope they show real political courage.
Let us hope it doesn’t take another world war to focus our attention on survival of a different kind.
Editor’s Note: This commentary was greatly aided by data in the “Lost Decades” by Menzie D. Chinn and Jeffry A. Frieden, recently published by W.W. Norton & Company.
© Alan Caruba, 2011
- Michael Oberndorf, RPA Friday, August 5, 2011
We are all pretty much aware that many of our elected representatives are not heavily endowed with functioning brain cells, especially the ones called Senators. However, stupidity alone is not enough to explain the unmitigated betrayal of America, her constitution, her people, and her future that the vote for the Budget Control Act of 2011 represents. These clowns have been around long enough to know exactly what they were doing.
Recent polls have shown that between 70 and 80 percent of Americans – Republicans, Independents, and Democrats – oppose raising the debt ceiling to allow more borrowing. They also oppose more government spending of this borrowed money. And they also oppose raising taxes on We, the Already Overtaxed People to get even more money to feed their spending addiction.
Knowing, as poll-driven politicians must, that Americans were adamantly against a bill that would clearly result in economic disaster, they voted for it anyway. Like crack addicts holding up a 7-11, knowing the consequences, but doing it anyway, n’est pas? Like true, mentally ill addicts, they have rationalized to themselves all sorts of lies as to why the unacceptable is acceptable, why wrong is actually right, why black is actually white, and why day is actually night, and why treason is patriotic.
In the Senate, only 19 Republicans voted against this unconstitutional bomb, this economic daisy-cutter, thrown by Obama-Soetoro, Harry Reid, and the running dog “leadership” of the Republican Party. I strongly urge everyone to work to de-elect every single one of the traitors who voted in favor of this nation-killing legislation, both Republican and Democrat. I’d include socialist, too, but Bernie Sanders actually voted against it.
However, the Senate is not alone in harboring willful miscreants. In the House, only 66 Republicans voted against turning America into a Third World, neo-fascist dictatorship (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll690.xml). So much for the lie that conservatives – or even, Americans – are in control of the House. And just so you know, the fascist Democrats who voted against it did so because it didn’t raise the debt ceiling high enough, nor did it have massive tax increases.
This whole despicable display of unabashed contempt for the Constitution, for the wishes of the American people, for truth, for the rule of law, and for freedom will be, for many, the tipping point. For opposing a law that will add at least $7,000,000,000,000.00 to our already crushing debt - and probably a lot more, given that it will surely cause interest rates on the debt to rise - a law that puts dictatorial power in the hands of a “committee” that is more like a Soviet commissariat, a law that will wreck the constitutionally mandated balance of powers regarding borrowing and spending, for opposing all this un-American, unconstitutional, fascism, we have been branded as hostage-taking terrorists.
Folks, we have another unconstitutional law, the so-called Patriot Act, that allows all sorts of nasty things to be done to people whom the government decides are terrorists. Joe Biden, who in spite of having an IQ of about room temperature is our Vice President, has publicly called us terrorists. So have half of the neo-fascists in the Democrat Party, and the Ministry of Propaganda, aka, the “mainstream” media. It does not take a political genius to see where this is likely to lead.
Obama-Soetoro claimed that the Budget Control Act would protect global stock markets. Granted, he is only marginally intelligent, and so ignorant that he may actually have believed his own bald-faced lie. However, the rest of us knew that the market crash we are witnessing would happen, as well as the continued collapse into recession. We – meaning the scant 53 percent of us who actually pay taxes – also know that we and our children and our grandchildren will be tax-slaves, with everything we earn taken from us to pay the interest on a never ending, never shrinking debt, interest that goes to already fabulously wealthy foreign and domestic fascist bankers – does “Federal Reserve” ring a bell?
The simple truth is that if we know all this, then the traitors on Capitol Hill who wrote, promoted, and voted for this abomination knew it too.
Our best, and perhaps only, hope is our Tea Parties. We all need to get active, NOW. We need to take every action we can think of, from starting recall campaigns against Senators and Congressmen who have broken their oaths to support and defend the Constitution, to finding and supporting candidates to replace them and/or run against them in 2012. And we need to seriously discuss what we will do if those in power commit fraud and steal the elections.
To hesitate is to be lost.
Lessons in lunacy
Lessons in lunacy
Posted: August 05, 2011
9:03 pm Eastern
By Gina Loudon
Moms and dads try to teach their children to be loyal and disciplined. Both qualities are honorable, and expected of leaders, especially servant leaders. I remember a day when I would jump to the defense of Republican leaders because they were Republican leaders. I would tell myself that "they only control so much and therefore could only be expected to do so much" or other propitiations of truth to validate my own cognitive dissonance.
This denial is no longer an option. We are facing the grim reality of the end of America as we know it if we don't forego the denial and learn from our mistakes (spending, spending, spending!).
According to a guest on my radio show, Craig R. Smith, most economic indicators are at levels worse than the Great Depression – it is only masked by our social safety nets, like food stamps and . We don't see food lines going on for blocks not because there is no need, but because need is masked by welfare programs. The same goes with " lines" – we have the cleverly crafted unemployment checks going out at a rate of 42 million per month. Our GDP now equals our , and I see no way out. I see that the compromise bill was a cop out. There was virtually no threat of a default, and if there were, it would have been 100 percent on Obama. If Republicans had called his bluff, it could have cost Obama the election. How can victory?
At election time in 2010, our freshmen as candidates promised 72 hours for Americans to review and then weigh in on every bill. They also promised $100 billion in cuts or no budget deal. We don't have that. How can conservatives even know whom to believe any longer?
Politics, like medicine, has become a personal responsibility in that you can no longer depend on any source to gather information or courses of treatment that your life may depend upon. We have to become our own, individual experts to fully see the big picture. Even traditional journalists whom I have trusted for years were just plain wrong on this debt-ceiling issue. Worse, they were spouting the rhetoric of the left, using phrases like "debt crisis" and "default day," which were fabrications the left used as scare tactics toward their constituencies. Instead of the fear tactics only working on the leftist constituencies who are easily played, they worked on noted conservative columnists, conservative talk and even some staunch conservative elected officials.
Republicans negotiated against themselves. They held all the cards. Neil Cavuto asked me about this issue in January, and I said, "This is the showdown we have been waiting for". Conservatives believed way back then that even though we only hold the Congress, this so called "debt crisis" (which it never was) gave us unprecedented leverage if we properly wielded it – fiscally responsible Republicans had a choke hold on the spending leftists because they would be forced to cut spending if they could not to cower and raise the debt ceiling. This was our fast track to a revolution of leadership in 2012. All we had to do was call Obama's bluff and stand firm. We did not.
The administration asked us for a fair, bipartisan bill. Sen. Mike Lee, R- Utah, gave them "Cut, Cap and Balance." Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid tabled it.
My writing partner, Dr. Dathan Paterno and I write often about the Playground Politics and bullying of the left and the right's sometimes too tolerant response. Business Economics 101 teaches that you don't ever negotiate against yourself. You put your offer on the table, and then you wait for a counter offer. Republicans didn't do that. When Reid and company scoffed, ridiculed, name called and ultimately tabled the bill, Boehner seemed to respond with, "Oh, you didn't like that? You think we are mean? Well, we don't want to get blamed for a default (that could only be caused by Obama and Geithner), so let us give you more." He devised "The Boehner Plan." The Boehner plan conceded so much conservatives were already up in arms about it, and we all stood in shock as the train wreck continued to barrel toward us. The GOP negotiated against themselves yet again by compromising on an ominous bill, loosely defined with no campaign promises kept and a creepy "super committee" with unlimited powers, to boot.
The GOP excused itself by saying their campaign promise of $100 billion in cuts in lieu of raising the debt ceiling was "unreasonable." If it were unrealistic as they say now, then why did they make the promise in the first place? That doesn't make constitutional conservatives "Hobbits" or "radicals" or "racists" or "terrorists" – it makes the people who made the promises, promise breakers.
Kids know they can't get away with bad behavior like making promises, name calling, lying, scaring people to get your way and cowering to bullies. Apparently Washington politicians need a little discipline that was missed in this debt debacle. The sad thing is, the American people will pay the price of this lesson in lunacy resulting from a lack of discipline. Is caning still legal in Singapore? A junket might be in order.
Read more: Lessons in lunacy http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=330617#ixzz1UGBGHsX0
COLUMN DU JOUR
Andrew Cline spotlights founder's words about perils of public debt
- Paul Driessen Saturday, August 6, 2011
A frequent refrain during budget and debt ceiling debates is that we need revenue enhancement: higher tax rates, reduced deductions, eliminated credits. But doing this, especially amid today’s massively expanding regulations, will kill more jobs and further reduce government revenues.
There is a better way. Huge
revenue sources are literally under our noses, or more precisely our feet.
America is blessed with vast oil, gas, coal, uranium, rare earth and other natural resource riches – to compliment our ultimate resource: the creative, competitive, innovative spirit of our people.
Finding and developing these resources would generate millions of jobs and billions, even trillions, in new government revenue and societal wealth. It would prevent default and downgraded credit ratings, reduce the need to cut government programs, shrink unemployment and welfare payments, avoid having to send hundreds of billions of dollars overseas each year for foreign energy and minerals, and reduce the need to borrow $120 billion out of every $300 billion the United States is now spending every month.
Many of these untapped resources are on federal public lands in our western states, Alaska and Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Many more are on private land and onshore and offshore state-owned lands.
Leasing, exploration, extraction, transportation and processing unleash economic activities and revenues on extraordinary scales: business activity, investment and profits, along with lease bonus and rental payments, permit fees, royalties and severance taxes for each unit produced, direct and secondary jobs, taxes on corporate profits and workers’ income, property taxes on equipment and facilities.
These activities also generate billions of dollars in purchases of equipment, food, supplies, raw materials, hotel lodging, special services and myriad other items. All this means still more employment, newly enabled consumer spending, more local, county, state and federal revenue, and other economic benefits.
Newly developed horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) techniques have enabled companies to unlock previously unavailable natural gas riches in conventional and shale gas deposits. That increased production, in turn, has reduced industry’s cost for energy and raw material feed stocks.
The American Chemical Council says this is reopening idled plants and creating jobs. In 2010 it helped increase chemical and plastics exports by 17% and 10% respectively, turning a $100 million industry balance of trade deficit into a $3.7 billion surplus. Other industries could soon see similar benefits.
America’s OCS generates over $19 billion annually in bonus, rent, royalty and tax revenue, IHS Global Insight has calculated. Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay oil field alone has generated hundreds of billions in government revenues since 1978, and the state of Alaska has collected a whopping $157 billion (in 2010) dollars from statewide oil and gas development since 1959. Millions of jobs were created and sustained.
In the Lower 48 States, Marcellus Shale deposits stretch across 95,000 square miles of New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, western Maryland and eastern Ohio. In Pennsylvania, say the state Labor and Revenue Departments, Marcellus fracking activities created 72,000 jobs (with an average $73,000 salary) between October 2009 and March 2011. Workers and royalty recipients paid $214 million in personal income taxes attributable to Marcellus development, while Marcellus drillers paid $1 billion in state taxes 2006-2010 (and another $238 million just during first quarter 2011).
The shale gas success story is being repeated in West Virginia, Louisiana, Texas and other states: thousands of jobs created, billions in royalties and taxes collected. New York should take note.
Taken together, America’s oil industry sustains 9.2 million direct and secondary jobs (5.3% of all US employment), generates $533 billion in total annual payrolls, contributes $1.1 trillion to US gross domestic product (7.5%), invested $2 trillion in capital improvements since 2000, and accounted for $190 billion in 2010 oil production. The largest integrated oil companies alone paid $1.95 trillion in corporate income, severance, property, excise and sales taxes, between 1981 and 2008, says the Tax Foundation.
We have it in our power to put many of our 20 million unemployed and involuntary part-timers back to work, generate trillions in revenue, and slash our chronic indebtedness. We just need to take action.
· End the leasing moratorium and “green flu” backlog on drilling permits in formerly accessible areas of the Gulf of Mexico. By the end of 2012 America could create 230,000 jobs in Gulf Coast and dozens of manufacturing states, produce 150,000,000 barrels of oil (worth $15 billion), reduce oil imports by a like amount, and generate $12 billion in tax and royalty payments, says IHS Global Insight.(Right now, we are losing over $1 billion annually in Gulf royalty payments, because Gulf oil and gas production is down 220,000 barrels a day, thanks to DOI, EPA and White House foot dragging.)
· End leasing and drilling bans in the East Coast, West Coast, Western Gulf and Alaskan OCS, Rocky Mountains and Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. America could produce up to 40 billion barrels of oil (worth $4 trillion at $100 a barrel) … create 114,000 to 160,000 jobs … and generate $547 billion to $1.7 trillion in new government revenues over the next few decades, according to ICF International.
· Open up some of the nearly 500 million acres of public lands that are now closed to mineral exploration (nearly 70% of all public lands). We could repeat these petroleum-related gains, and end our near-total dependence on China for rare earth metals that are essential for smart phones, smart bombs, night vision goggles, hybrid and electric vehicles, wind turbines, solar panels and a host of other modern technologies.
Unfortunately, Congress and the EPA, Interior Department and White House are doing just the opposite.
EPA denied Shell Oil permits to drill in Alaska’s Chukchi Sea, after Shell had spent $5 billion acquiring and exploring leases. EPA also blocked construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Alberta, Canada to Port Arthur, Texas. During construction, the project would generate 130,000 US jobs, plus $600 million in state and local tax revenues – plus $5 billion in property tax and other government revenues during the pipeline’s life. EPA’s excuse? The projects would contribute to global warming.
EPA is also imposing thousands of pages of new rules on coal-fired power plants that provide 48-98% of the electricity in 26 states, including our most important manufacturing centers. Experts say the actions will raise electricity rates 20-60 percent, shutter up to 60,000 megawatts of electricity generation, kill 3.5 million jobs in six Midwestern states, and cost those six states $42-82 billion in lost annual GDP.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar continues to stall OCS leasing and drilling, and keep Western States oil, natural gas, oil shale, shale gas, coal, uranium and metals deposits off limits.
Meanwhile, our state and federal governments are spending over $10 billion annually, subsidizing wind and solar energy, and bankrolling radical environmental activism on energy, climate and public land issues.
Americans deserve a complete and honest accounting of how much revenue and how many jobs have been lost to environmental excesses. We have a right, and a duty, to develop our resources, rather than depleting other countries’ energy and minerals – and saddling our children with more joblessness and debt. It’s a perfect time for bipartisanship, at least among Republicans and moderate Democrats.
Committee hearings and briefings could discuss and evaluate industry, government and independent analyses of our vast energy, mineral, job and revenue opportunities. They would go a long way toward revealing the enormity of our self-inflicted wounds – and charting a responsible path forward.
WARNING: Graphic and Vulgar Descriptions of Homosexual Acts; NOT Suitable for Children
TAKE ACTION: Share this disturbing information with your adult friends, family and co-workers — as well as your U.S. Senators and Congressman [Senate 202-224-3121; House: 202-225-3121; www.congress.org]. Urge your representatives in Congress to put the safety of Americans — and a pristine blood supply — ahead of the demands of the selfish Homosexuality Lobby. Also urge your representatives to launch a Congressional investigation into the health hazards of homosexual behaviors (just as the government studied the dangers of smoking). We need the government to regulate the commercialized “gay” sex industry (e.g. bathhouses) – which fosters anonymous perversions and a reckless culture of promiscuity that spreads diseases and ultimately endangers innocents.
Are we starting to see that the militant homosexual
movement is owed nothing but universal condemnation because we're talking
about a sin crying out to Heaven for Vengeance, per Genesis?
Subject: RE: Sex Abuse in Religious Orders
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 10:49:10 -0400
DOVER, Del. — A Roman Catholic
religious order agreed Thursday to pay $24.8 million to settle lawsuits filed
by 39 survivors of priest sex abuse in Delaware.
As part of the settlement, the Oblates of St. Francis de Sales also agreed for the first time to release the names of 12 of its members identified as child molesters and to disclose personnel files and records related to their placement, supervision and handling.
“I am sorry in the name of all Oblates for anything that an Oblate has done to violate a trust or to harm a person,” said the Rev. James Greenfield, head of the Oblates’ Wilmington-Philadelphia province. His members work in schools and other ministries from Massachusetts to Florida.
Greenfield said the settlement brings an end to litigation against the order and Salesianum School, a Catholic high school in Wilmington, Del., run by the Oblates, and clears the way for the order to try to rebuild trust with the victims. ..
It is to be recognized that there is a distinct difference
between genuine rights claims rooted in a natural rights or natural law
foundation, and those that aren’t. The former is needed, for example, to
protect the claims of religion from unwarranted state intrusion, to protect
vulnerable members of society, and to influence public policy for the common
good. The latter is a function of rights discourse based on assumptions
about human nature and the moral order that run contrary to the very things
that are to be protected – assumptions involving unbounded freedom, unlimited
free speech, or an individualist conception of the political order where each
man possesses a universe of rights unto himself, defined solely for his
convenience with no thought to the consequences for his neighbor or society as
This is the caution that Solzhenitsyn was alerting Americans to – specifically, the confusion of authentic freedom, doing what you ought with a duty to your fellow man, with license, doing what you want selfishly and to heck with your fellow man.
Solzhenitsyn was onto something. He saw that America was constructing its own politically correct gulags that allowed for no opposition. He saw that America was making itself slaves to its own appetites in the skewed name of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness with no thought at all to violations of nature’s law and an obedience owed to its Author for the sake of the common good. He saw no difference with his gulags and those of a modern hypocritical America that had forgotten the real meaning of its founding documents, or what at least, should have been their real meaning, not in a Lockean sense where Locke tried to make Hobbes’s Leviathan palatable, but rather in a sense of a pressing need for a sound philosophy of human rights rooted in nature and nature’s Author.
Such a sound philosophy of human rights has as its core the realization that rights possess a strict correlative duty, and are not dominions over things to use as one pleases. It rejects completely any premise that human freedom is the fundamental moral fact, not virtue, or divine command. It does not lower the goal and mission of the temporal order away from the inculcation of virtue and the defense of the faith to the sole protection of the temporal welfare of its citizens. It does not put a premium on natural self-preservation at the expense of the supernatural. It allows for no confusion in this regard. It is not ambivalent in that it gives the appearances of a theistic tradition while underwriting a model of radical human autonomy in which unlimited freedom dominates the moral order. It does not lower the goal of the state to a merely neutral position, imposing a minimal obligation of non-harm, thereby ultimately encouraging self-interest – the legacy of Locke.
In short, per Jacques Maritain, it is theocentric as opposed to anthropocentric where rights are rooted in the natural law and its Author, per The Declaration of Independence, THE founding document of this country, instead of man’s will and freedom – the latter allowing for escaping every objective measure, and denying every limitation imposed upon the claims of the ego, a concern of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.
This may come as a shock to the State College Pennsylvania Borough Council but people of faith and right reason also have rights. They are not obliged to obey unjust laws that coerce them to compromise traditionally held beliefs in the moral order. This particularly includes the forced acceptance of proven changeable aberrant behavior that is counter to any sane concept of the common good - the promotion of which being classically understood to be the primary goal of the state.
Accordingly, this not only applies to Church organizations to include the Church proper, schools, and any Church affiliated groups, but also to anyone still capable of rational thought who understands that there is such a thing as just discrimination between right and wrong behavior!
One would have thought that this lesson would have been learned in light of the successful challenge by two high school students against the State College Area School District’s anti-harassment policy, which de facto promoted homosexuality as perfectly normal, a bald-faced lie to be sure, contending that it violated their First Amendment rights. The students believed that the policy prohibited them from voicing their religious belief against the promotion of homosexual lifestyles. Their challenge was upheld by U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on Feb. 14, 2001.
Clearly, the State College Borough Council is inviting similar challenges via its arrogance in demanding that residents of the Borough kowtow to its irrational demand that proven changeable aberrant behavior, which has been shown to be physically, psychologically, socially, and economically ruinous, let alone the spiritual connotations of being grave sin leading to eternal perdition, per Sacred Scripture, must now be accepted by all, no questions asked. This is pure and simply un-American, making a mockery of the sacrifices of all those who fought and died for our country in its history. Rational societies are obliged to discriminate between right and wrong behavior; else, they cease being rational! If responsible parents can understand this, why can’t responsible federal, state, county, and local governments?
Just who made the State College Borough Council God in the “Peoples Republic of State College, Pennsylvania?”
Subject: Financial Crisis, yet 'Gay' School Promotion Gets Six Figure Annual Grant
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2011 17:31:29 -0700