The
pursuit of Constitutionally grounded governance, free markets and individual
liberty
"There is but one straight
course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily." --George Washington
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The difference
between those that put their faith in the American people
and those that put their faith in the American government
The President said: “The American
people don't expect government to solve every problem.” That’s the difference
between those that put their faith in the American people
and those that put their faith in the American government. Our
government is growing out of control and spending out of control
and unfortunately, the President believes every problem in America
needs a big government and that Washington knows the best solutions.
This reasoning is why our country
is $16 trillion dollars in debt. Our country cannot sustain all of these big
government programs and rather than offer spending cuts and pulling back in
order to balance the budget, the President's solution is more government.
The informed American people know Washington cannot solve
their problems and do not want to send their hard earned tax dollars to further
his wasteful programs. The state of our union will
only be strong when government practices fiscal responsibility and our
President makes true strides to stop the overspending.
~~~~~~
The Problem is Most Americans Still Believe It’s All
Bush’s Fault
Most Americans do
not like most of the policies of President Obama. If this is the case, then why
do they still support him? Because a
majority of people still blame George Bush for the state of the economy, and
the President, even with all his faults, has their best interests at
heart. Today’s voters are
schizophrenic. There’s a reason for it, as I hope to show below. Rush Limbaugh
said the following on yesterday’s show:
[On
February 11], we had the Gallup poll, and on every issue except one — and
I forget what the one issue was — every issue, every policy, by vast majority
numbers, the American people disagree with Obama. A vast majority disagree
with Obama on every policy. I mean, it’s not close. In some cases,
the numbers of people that disagree are in the 60 percentages, and the people
agree with Obama are in the forties. But they liked [his State of the
Union Address Tuesday] night. They thought it was exactly what was called
for.
A
New
York Times story reports that while there is dissatisfaction with the
country’s direction, they still support Obama’s agenda. Like Limbaugh, I am confused,
but like Limbaugh, not really. We’re back to low information voters again. I
have to say it: Most Americans are ignorant. They lack information and the
ability to process new information if it does not fit with their poorly
developed interpretive grid on how they see the world. They’re not stupid. They’ve been propagandized.
You don’t have to be a genius to figure out basic math
and its application to economics. Our nation’s schools require at least three
years of higher math, sometimes four, but most high school graduates don’t have
the slightest idea how our economy works, and you don’t need algebra, geometry,
trigonometry, or calculus to know. There
are many Americans who believe that the
downturn in the economy is complicated and that capitalism is the culprit and
has been discredited. The credit crisis was not
the fault of capitalism but with anti-capitalist (free market) policies brought
on by government intervention. Congress created an economic fiction by
subsidizing loans that no bank or mortgage company would have done if there had
not been government financial
institutions behind them to insure the bad loans they were forced to make.
But how do you explain this to people who don’t have the education and ability
to understand what you’re saying? They hear you speak gibberish. They need to be economically born again.
~~~~~~
Fact Check: State of the Union 2013 by Joel B. Pollak
President Barack
Obama’s State of the Union address included few new or unexpected proposals,
but many factually incorrect or misleading assertions. Here are the lowlights:
“Corporate profits
have rocketed to all-time highs – but for more than a decade, wages and incomes
have barely budged.” Wages and
incomes may not always be the best measurement, because they leave out
benefits, which have increased overall compensation over several decades.
Regardless, Obama chose his timeframe carefully,
because over the past four years, middle class income has actually
declined.
“In 2011, Congress
passed a law saying that if both parties couldn’t agree on a plan to reach our
deficit goal, about a trillion dollars’ worth of budget cuts would
automatically go into effect this year.” Obama is referring to the sequester. He
omits the fact that he (or his White House) proposed the sequester, and he
personally signed it, with the hope of using it to push Republicans into
passing higher tax rates on high earners.
“Over the last few
years, both parties have worked together to reduce the deficit by more than
$2.5 trillion.” Both Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Read have
used this claim, but it’s not true. As FactCheck.org noted recently, the figure
includes over $1 trillion in spending cuts that “have yet to materialize.” It
also includes $500 billion in projected reduced interest--not spending
cuts or tax increases--and deficits remain high.
“Already, the
Affordable Care Act is helping to slow the growth of health care costs.” The cost of health care has continued to grow,
albeit less quickly--but the recession is a big
part of the story. People are spending less because they can afford less. Obamacare
has already made health insurance premiums more expensive, and Obamacare does
not change the fundamental incentive problems that drive costs in U.S. health
care.
“Let me
repeat--nothing I’m proposing tonight should increase our deficit by a single
dime.” This is a repeated
promise (as well as a repeated metaphor: Obama also
used the “single dime” phrase to in describing tax cuts in his
stimulus). Obama broke that promise most
spectacularly in Obamacare, which only “balances” due to accounting tricks
and is almost certain to cost more than originally expected--net as well as
gross.
“We have doubled
the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas, and the amount of renewable
energy we generate from sources like wind and solar – with tens of thousands of
good, American jobs to show for it.” The supply of renewable energy sources in
the U.S. rose only about 10% in Obama’s first three years in office--very far
from doubling.
“Heat waves,
droughts, wildfires, and floods--all are now more frequent and intense. We can
choose to believe that Super-storm Sandy, and the most severe drought in
decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a
freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of
science – and act before it’s too late.” Or we can call it “weather,” which is far closer to
the truth than this scary story.
“That’s why my
Administration will keep cutting red tape and speeding up new oil and gas
permits.” In order to “keep”
doing something, you have to have been doing it already. As Mitt Romney argued
very ably in the presidential debates, the Obama
administration has tried to slow oil and gas permitting on public lands, while
taking credit for (or obstructing) much of the energy boom that has taken place
on private lands.
“But taxpayers
cannot continue to subsidize the soaring cost of higher education.” The fact that taxpayers
continue subsidizing the cost of higher education is part of the reason that
the cost of education keeps rising. Obama did
not mention the crisis in student loan delinquency, which increased
support from the government for tuition costs has not been enough to prevent. The fundamental problem is youth unemployment.
“[M]ore boots on
the southern border than at any time in our history, and reducing illegal
crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years.” Many of the “boots” Obama deployed to border states
did not actually go to the border, less than half of which is actually secure.
Illegal border crossings have decreased--but it is
almost universally agreed that the cause is our poor economy, not enforcement--which
Obama has effectively gutted. [recently increased
with the debate beginning on amnesty]
“And I ask this
Congress to declare that women should earn a living equal to their efforts, and
finally pass the Paycheck Fairness Act this year.” This is a rather amusing promise, since Obama’s
support for the Lily Ledbetter Act in 2009, which
was meant to have guaranteed “equal pay,” was a major boast in his
re-election campaign. Did he fail to make pay equal
when he said he had? No--he just needs the issue to boost support.
“Tonight, let’s
declare that in the wealthiest nation on Earth, no one who works full-time
should have to live in poverty, and raise the federal minimum wage to $9.00 an
hour.” That means, of course, that fewer people will be working
full-time, or even part-time. Hiking the minimum wage is at odds with increasing jobs, and hurts minorities and
young people worst, damaging their future employment prospects significantly.
“We’ll give new tax
credits to businesses that hire and invest.” A rather vague promise that sounds
like a good idea. It’s not a factual mistake by itself--except that it likely
contradicts his earlier promise on tax reform: “The
American people deserve a tax code that helps small businesses spend less time
filling out complicated forms, and more time expanding and hiring.” That means
fewer special rules, deductions and tricks.
“Today, the
organization [Al Qaeda] that attacked us on 9/11 is a shadow of its former
self.” It takes a special kind of chutzpah to say that,
five months after a terror attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that
claimed the lives of four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador. Obama
acknowledges that the threat continues--it is “evolving,” he says, in a curious
use of the word--but to declare victory, without mentioning Benghazi?
“The regime in
North Korea must know that they will only achieve security and prosperity by
meeting their international obligations.” Since when has the North Korean regime ever cared about prosperity? This marks the third State of the Union address in which
Obama has mentioned North Korea (he did so in 2010 and 2011 as well)--and each
time Obama has congratulated himself for his administration’s policy on the
issue.
“As long as I’m
Commander-in-Chief, we will do whatever we must to protect those who serve
their country abroad, and we will maintain the best military in the world. We
will invest in new capabilities, even as we reduce waste and wartime spending.” Even before the
sequester, the Obama administration has slashed defense, reducing our military
capabilities to the point where we can no longer plan to fight a two-front war.
“That’s why,
tonight, I’m announcing a non-partisan commission to improve the voting
experience in America.” Not the accuracy or fairness or transparency of the process, but the
experience. The chances that Obama’s commission will recommend photo ID for voters,
or that such a recommendation would be adopted, are zero. In fact, the Obama administration has stridently opposed states’
own efforts to improve voting in America.
“Police chiefs are
asking our help to get weapons of war and massive ammunition magazines off our
streets, because they are tired of being outgunned.” These terms suit Obama’s gun control agenda, but
they are grossly misleading. So-called “weapons of
war”--i.e. assault rifles, machine guns and the like--are already banned, and
proposals on the table to reduce magazine size target relatively small clips, not
“massive” ones.
~~~~~~
Obama Wants to Close Thousands of Businesses & Raise
Unemployment by Dave Jolly
Many businesses in
America, large, medium and small, are operating on shoestring budgets. As
Obamacare began to kick in, hundreds of businesses began laying off staff to
offset the increased costs they face under Obamacare. Consequently,
thousands of people have lost their jobs, thanks to Obama and his Affordable
Care Act. Hundreds of other businesses, especially many small businesses have
had to drop health benefits for their employees as they can no longer afford
the higher premiums. Consequently,
thousands of Americans who still have jobs have lost their employer provided
healthcare plans. The vast majority of these employees cannot afford to
purchase their own health insurance because the Affordable Care Act has driven
prices beyond what is affordable. Consequently, thousands of
Americans are finding themselves uninsured. Then there are all of the tax increases that took effect this year
that are also hitting business owners hard. If a business owner makes
$250,000 or more a year, they are facing combined tax increases of 6%-10%.
So you have
business owners paying more for employee health coverage and more in
taxes. However, their revenue intake is not increasing, which means this
all comes off their already thin profit margin.
Now President Obama
wants to add a third financial burden onto the already weakened shoulders of
business owners. He wants to
increase the minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $9 per hour. If you’re
an employee making minimum wage, this sounds great. That means you will
earn $70 more per week or $3,640 more per year. Obama claims raising the
minimum wage will help eliminate poverty, but it won’t. In reality, it will cause more businesses
operating with a very thin profit margin to either cut more jobs or close their
doors. Either alternative means more people losing their jobs. If
they weren’t part of the poverty class then they soon will be.
~~~~~~
Obama Seeks 29 New Programs: "Nothing I’m Proposing
Should Increase Deficit by Single Dime"
By Terence P. Jeffrey
President Barack Obama said in his State of the Union Address on Tuesday
night that nothing he was proposing in the speech would “increase our
deficit by a single dime.” He then proposed at least 29 new government
programs. “Tonight, I’ll lay out
additional proposals that are fully paid for and fully consistent with the
budget framework both parties agreed to just 18 months ago,” said Obama.
“Let me repeat: Nothing I’m proposing tonight should increase our deficit by a
single dime.” In fiscal year 2008,
the year before Obama took office, federal spending was $2.98 trillion,
according to the White House Office of Management and Budget. In fiscal 2013,
the current year, OMB estimates federal spending will be $3.80 trillion--an
increase of 27.5 percent. Since Obama
was first inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009, the federal government's debt has
increased by $5.86 trillion. So, do you believe these 29 programs will “increase our
deficit by a single dime?”
~~~~~~
Obama’s Most Audacious SOTU Lie
It is difficult to say with certainly which of the many whoppers
President Obama told tonight took the most crust to utter, but my money is
going on this assertion, made a few minutes into the speech: “Already, the
Affordable Care Act is helping to slow the growth of health care costs.” I know
“Orwellian” has now become rather hackneyed, but there is simply no other
adjective that better describes this statement. It is not merely a lie. It is
the precise opposite of the truth. It is just as absurd as “war is peace” or
“freedom is slavery.” Portents of
this stretcher began appearing over the weekend in the usual media outlets, and
a particularly transparent harbinger appeared in Forbes of all places. In a
column titled, “New Data Suggests Obamacare Is Actually Bending The Healthcare
Cost Curve,” Rick Unger writes that “A new Congressional Budget Office
report out last week has the healthcare world scratching its head over the
possibility that Obamacare might—in part—be responsible for what is being
described as a significant slowdown in the growth of healthcare costs in
America.”
First of all, the
slowdown began before Obamacare passed. Specifically, it began to manifest
itself in an obvious way during 2009. Moreover, cost data are only available through last year: “National
health expenditures grew at an estimated annual rate of 4.3 percent in 2012, a
bit higher than the 3.9 percent experienced for each of the years 2009-2011.
While this estimate is subject to revisions, it portends a fourth consecutive
year of record-low growth.” In other
words, the President and media are crediting Obamacare with a slowdown that
began a year before it passed and four years before the law took effect. Thus,
having set the bait in his headline, Unger switches to the primary reason for
the slowdown: “To be sure, a big part of the decline in healthcare spending is the
result of the recession’s impact.… Indeed, up until this point, most analysts
have agreed that the poor economy was pretty much the sole cause for the
improvement we have seen in containing the explosion of healthcare
spending.” High unemployment and lower
incomes have caused many to put off spending on healthcare. This is not good news!
~~~~~~
Healthcare Paid for With Unicorn Farts - anonymous
There will be many words from many people about much of the President’s
State of the Union speech. I will only focus on one line, which distinctly
highlights again just how out to lunch the man is when it comes to real
healthcare reforms in this country.
During his speech the President said this:
"We’ll
bring down costs by changing the way our government pays for Medicare, because
our medical bills shouldn’t be based on the number of tests ordered or days
spent in the hospital – they should be based on the quality of care that our
seniors receive."
In other words, we should stop paying for tests based on the number
performed and we should stop paying for hospitals based on the number of days
in which a patient stays in the hospital. Instead, we should pay based on the
quality of care given, which I guess means if suddenly your stool sample turns
to gold, we’ll charge more. His approach makes no sense. Healthcare cannot
be paid for based on quality of care without introducing subjective standards
that will themselves drive up the costs of healthcare. He might as well claim
he does not want to pay for healthcare at all or, at best, will cover the costs
with unicorn farts!
~~~~~~
55% Favor Cuts Over More Spending on Education, Clean
Energy, Infrastructure
President Obama in
his State of the Union address Tuesday night called for new government spending
on infrastructure, clean energy and education. While pluralities of
voters believe those proposals would help the economy, most think
spending cuts would help the economy more. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 55%
of Likely U.S. Voters think cutting government spending would do more to help
the economy than increasing government spending on infrastructure, clean energy
and education projects. Thirty-six percent (36%) believe increased spending
in those areas would help the economy more.
~~~~~~
Right Direction or Wrong Track - Only 38%
Say U.S. Heading In Right Direction
Thirty-eight
percent (38%) of Likely U.S. Voters say the country is heading in the right
direction, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey
taken the week ending Sunday, February 10.
The latest finding
is down a point from the previous week, is up five points from a month ago but
is still down from 42% three months ago – just below the highest level measured
in over five years of weekly tracking. This time last year, 34% were confident
in the nation’s current course. Then why, do so many voters support the
President's policies?
~~~~~~
Chief of Police Says Guns Are NOT a Defensive Weapon by
Dave Jolly
Why do law
enforcement officers have guns? Do they use their guns as offensive or
defensive weapons? According to Ken
James, Chief of Police in Emeryville, California:
“One
issue that always boggles my mind is that a gun is a defensive weapon. That is
a myth. A gun is not a defensive weapon, a gun is an offensive weapon used to
intimidate and used to show power.”
I
have family and friends that have been in law enforcement and they all tell me
that their weapons are for defensive purposes only to defend themselves, others
or property. It is illegal for a police officer to use their weapons in
an offensive manner as that would place them as the aggressor which flies in
the face of everything a police officer stands for. When police have used
their weapons offensively, they generally end up in jail and prison with the
rest of the criminal offenders. If guns are not
defensive weapons, then what about all of the reports we’ve seen lately of
people using their guns to defend themselves from robbers and home
invaders? From a 12
year old girl shooting intruders to 86
year old lady who shot at an intruder, we hear about guns being used for
self-defense all the time. There were two cases in Detroit where
teenage robbers were shot by their intended victims who were armed and had
conceal carry permits. Today, many homeowners still have firearms to protect
them from criminals and the tyrannical government.
Chief James’
statement is so outlandish and ludicrous, that one California deputy sheriff
responded by sending the following email to the Emeryville Police Department:
“To
whom it may concern;
I
recently watched your Chief of Police, Ken James, make a speech during a press
conference where state legislators announced sweeping new gun legislation (the
first 36 seconds of this Youtube video http://youtu.be/-pN2gzeG0MU).
During his speech, Chief James displays an utter lack of knowledge of both the
California Penal Code and of case law regarding use of force. His claim that
firearms are not defensive weapons, and that they are used only as offensive
weapons used to intimidate and show power, is both shocking and entirely
inaccurate. As a Deputy Sheriff in California, I am astounded by the ignorance
of the law he displayed publicly, and solely for the purpose of backing a
political agenda.
Just
for a little refresher,
~~~~~~
Price of Gallon of Gas Up 96% Under Obama By
Matt Cover
The average price
of a gallon of gas has increased 96 percent since President Barack Obama first
took office in 2009, according to figures from the Energy Information Agency
(EIA). According to EIA data, the average price of a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline in the United
States was $1.838 on Jan. 19, 2009--the day before Obama took office. As of Monday, Feb. 11, 2013, the per-gallon
price had risen to an average of $3.611--an increase of 96 percent. The $3.677 is not the highest gas prices
have been under President Obama. That record was reached the week of May 9,
2011 when they averaged $3.965 per gallon. Gas prices took a sharp dive during
the recession but have climbed back to near their pre-recession peak under
Obama, despite the President’s push for greater fuel-efficient cars and trucks
and pursuit of expanded clean energy. (The recession officially occurred from
December 2007 to June 2009.) Gas prices
have never been this high in early February in American history, according to
EIA, even in 2008 when gas prices reached all-time highs. Gas prices at this level mean an actual reduction in
discretionary spending by the middle class.
~~~~~~
DHS Nullifies Fourth Amendment Rights of Millions of
Americans
The Fourth
Amendment to the US Constitution reads:
“The
right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no
Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.”
The Department of
Homeland Security doesn’t believe in the Fourth Amendment and has recently
issued statements to that affect. They are claiming that if you live within 100 miles of
the international border that they have the right to search all electronic
devices, including cell phones and laptop and tablet computers without probable
cause or first securing a warrant. The 100 mile distance is being
referred to as the border security search zones. This would include cities such as
San Diego, Escondido, El Centro, Yuma, Tucson, Las Cruces, Carlsbad, El Paso,
Brownsville, Seattle, Grand Forks, Toledo, Cleveland, Erie, Buffalo, Rochester,
Syracuse, and Montpelier to name just a few. But wait, it gets even
better! If you live anywhere in Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii,
Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey or Rhode Island, DHS says the search zones encompass the
entire state. Let’s not leave New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia out
of the fun, because large areas of these states are also being designated as
search zones. If you live anywhere in
any of the designated search zones, the feds claim to have the right to invade
your privacy and conduct an unconstitutional search of your private possessions
without any probable cause or warrant. If you ask me, this sounds a lot
like the Gestapo under Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany. I will likely get chastised for such
comparison!
~~~~~~~~~~~~
No comments:
Post a Comment