Why don’t I trust Obama’s motives?

It’s obviously not just me.

A quick Google search using the phrase “Dictators streamline government” popped with more than 41 million hits. Many of those hits include stories on President Obama’s latest talking point to streamline the federal government.

It’s easy not to trust this President when he says things like this… or at any time for that matter! While a majority of Americans favor cutting the federal government down to a much smaller and manageable size, the skeptic in me sees Obama as nothing more than a dictator on a quest for totalitarian rule under the guise of so-called Republican tenets.

Obama’s true colors and motives were blatantly evident when I heard a sound byte on the radio where he said that he will do this with or without the approval of Congress. Whatever happened to the rule of law and the separation of powers as articulated by the Constitution? Those are the words and premises of a dictator, not an executive who understands his authority and role!

Why wait until now to propose streamlining the government? Wasn’t that implied in the whole “Hope and Change” mantra that he ran upon? Why did he push the massive health care plan that had to be lied about and massaged to purportedly keep under a trillion dollars in cost? With government costs and debt spiraling out of control, why propose streamlining some of the smallest agencies in the federal government when the budgets of agencies such as the EPA have ballooned in size since Obama was elected? At what time in American history has any agency of the government had to do more with less (unless, of course, it’s the repeated call from Liberals to take a hatchet to the Department of Defense)?

The idea to streamline government is noble. It needs to be done if the United States collectively, as well as the individual states, are going to survive economically. But history shows that governments that accumulate power and wealth (the United States is no different) have never been able to vote themselves a smaller piece of the tax pie.

Related articles

• Obama Seeks Greater Power To Shrink The Federal Government (huffingtonpost.com)
• President Obama Seeks Power to Streamline Government: A Slog Poll (slog.thestranger.com)
• Obama seeks more power to merge agencies, streamline government – Washington Post (washingtonpost.com)
• Obama Wants To Shrink The Size Of Federal Government (alan.com)
• Boehner spokesman: Will agency merger help or is it just for show? (thehill.com)

Federal overspending made simple to understand

The following comes from David Barton at Wallbuilders. It puts the federal budget into numbers that are much easier to comprehend for those of us who don’t deal in millions, billions and trillions!

If the US Government was a family, they would be making $58,000 a year, they spend $75,000 a year, & are $327,000 in debt on their credit card. They are currently proposing BIG spending cuts to reduce their spending to $72,000 a year. That is a cut of $3000 per year. They are still going to overspend their income by $14,000 each year. So in another 10 years they will owe about ½ million dollars on their credit card.

These are the actual proportions of the federal budget & debt, reduced to a level that we canunderstand.

Here’s another one that was published on The Wall and Broad Report:

The USA Has NO BUDGET since OBAMA has Become President!!!

The U.S. Congress sets a federal budget every year in the trillions of dollars. Few people know how much money that is so federal spending needs to be broken into simple terms to be understood.

Let’s put the 2011 federal budget into perspective:

• U.S.income: $2,170,000,000,000
• Federal budget: $3,820,000,000,000
• New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
• National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
• Recent budget cut: $ 38,500,000,000 (about 1 percent of the budget)

It helps to think about these numbers in terms that we can relate to. Therefore, let’s remove eight zeros from these numbers and pretend this is the household budget for the fictitious Jones family.

• Total annual income for the Jones family: $21,700
• Amount of money the Jones family spent: $38,200
• Amount of new debt added to their high-interest credit card: $16,500
• Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710

Because the Jones’ realized they’re in trouble, they decided to become responsible and cut their spending. After a lot of posturing and wrangling, they agreed to cut a whopping $385 from their budget.

Either way we’re in a heap ‘o big trouble in America and our elected representatives — OUR EMPLOYEES — are committing malfeasance on a daily basis and we the people seem to be powerless to stop it. Well, we’re not!

It’s no big deal: Even the communists are complaining

Little did Jimmy Carter know then, but just a few months later he would no longer be known as America's worst President ever. Image via Wikipedia

Repeat after me: It’s no big deal!

The world’s single-most important currency — the one the world trades in by default — continues to be devalued as the owner of that currency, the United States, has for the first time in history lost its sterling credit rating. And now the communist Chinese are complaining, and rightfully so: their return on investment is failing.

But hey, it’s no big deal!

The fact that the stock market fell 699 points last week, the largest weekly drop since the market lost more than 800 points in the first week of October 2008, can simply be chocked up to a bunch of nervous investors who will likely continue this knee-jerk reaction on Monday.

But it’s no big deal!

Why is October 2008 and the 15.24% drop in the US stock market that month an important benchmark?

Could it be that in the weeks leading up to the presidential election in November, 2008, when it became painfully clear that Barack the Magic Negro was poised to become the next President of the United States, financial markets were already starting to worry about what someone with such a distaste for America could do as its leader? After all, we already knew that the media weren’t going to do their job and actually try to discover what this blank-slate of a human being was all about, even though the smattering of comments we had from him over the previous years caused those of us willing to do our own research to increase our intake of antacids. Veteran newscasters Charlie Rose and Tom Brokaw had already suggested that they weren’t willing to look into Obama’s record, even after admitting on television that they knew nothing of the man-child who rose to rock star status simply on the color of his skin and the crease in his pants.

Knee Jerk Reaction?

Knee-jerk #1: At the beginning of October 2008 the US stock market closed at 10,831. On the 6^th it closed at 9,955 and by Nov. 20^th was down to 7,552. It would finally bottom out in March of the following year at 6,626. How could all this be George W. Bush’s fault when everyone admits that markets are based on predictions of the future more than they are on current events.

And now, three years later we’re still in an economic depression; unemployment is even worse and all Barack the Magic Negro can do is continue to blame Bush and beg for an increase in the limit to the national credit card. In fact, he’s rung up so much debt that it’s now being reported that America’s borrowing has now matched its GDP.

It’s No Big Deal!

That’s the only logical impression sane Americans are left to assume of their government and their willing accomplices in the media after reading stories like this. How else can you explain the last three years? How else do you explain the fact that in all of what’s happened since it became apparent that Obama would win election that the media have utterly failed at connecting the dots between the economic abyss we’re in and Barack Hussein Obama?

While Obama has managed to amass more debt in three years than all the presidents combined going back to George Washington, America’s political leaders continue to argue like third graders in a game of kick ball where the rules are being made up on the fly.

Meanwhile, as Obama’s wife spends billions of taxpayer dollars globe trotting for another pair of shoes or a bad dress, real Americans are still out of work and are suffering through a malaise that makes Jimmy Carter’s term as America’s worst president — until now — pale in comparison.

But it’s no big deal.

A Bright Spot on the Horizon?

On a side note, there’s actually some good news out of California, where liberal social and fiscal policies have had a decades-long jump start on President Obama and his Marxist policies.

California’s exodus of taxpayers has now extended to illegal immigrants. That’s right, as the state’s unemployment continues in double-digit territory, illegal immigrants from south of the border are going… wait for it… Home to jobs and home to an unemployment rate that is less than 5%. According to another story in the Sacramento Bee this flight includes California’s next (legal) generation, probably the last people a state that actually seeks recovery would want. Then again nobody ever accused California leaders of sanity or common sense.

Not everyone is likely going to jump for joy over this news, though California Gov. Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown could technically claim that his policies, coupled with those of President Obama, are directly responsible for a considerable reduction in illegal immigration to the Tarnished State.

Think about it, with illegal aliens fleeing California who’s going to vote for the Democrats who caused California’s problems in the first place? Those are Democrat voters leaving California for jobs in a foreign country. Even so, if California’s woes are ever going to be corrected it’s going to take decades to tear down the wall that the Democrats built to keep in the bad fiscal and social policies and any semblance of fiscal and social sanity out.

I wonder what Mexico would do if we started flooding their sovereign border and protested in Mexico City for high-paying union jobs, free health care, drivers licenses so we can vote and free housing?

Related articles

• Surprise! Communist Party USA Officially Endorses Barack Obama (peregrine5700.wordpress.com)

Graft, extortion and the political way

President Barack Obama, flanked by Paul Volcker and Jeffrey Immelt. Image via Wikipedia

To say that America is on an unsustainable fiscal path is to overstate the obvious.

If the writers at The Big Picture blog are right, then America’s fiscal house will soon collapse as the percentage of income for the federal treasury coming from corporations has shrunk precipitously from 1955 to 2010, while the burden carried by individuals has increased greatly.

According to statistics, in 2010 81.5 percent of federal revenues came from individual income, up from 58 percent in 1955. During the same period, corporate taxes as a percentage of federal income fell from 27.3 percent to 8.9 percent. If true, then the Democrats are right: America’s corporations are paying less and less of a percentage of their income in taxes.

Given that fewer and fewer Americans are employed today because of the economic policies of the Obama regime, the amount of income to the federal treasury is also in sharp decline. Combine this with the fact that nearly half of all individual taxpayers in America paid no federal taxes on their income last year and it’s painfully obvious that America cannot sustain this sort of tax policy where a very small percentage of individual taxpayers are left to carry most of the weight while corporate cronyism runs rampant.

The Sunlight Foundation reported that while GE avoided paying any corporate income tax in the United States last year on $5.1 billion in U.S. income ($14.2 billion globally), Goldman Sachs paid $14 million in taxes last year, according to The Big Picture blog. Even more disgusting was the fact reported that GE actually received a tax refund from the federal government to the tune of $3.2 billion. Those are better-than-Vegas odds if you ask me!

How GE managed to become the president’s favorite pet is beyond me, but the fact that GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt moonlights in the Obama regime hasn’t been lost on everyday America. So where are the Senate hearings? Meanwhile, Immelt is out lecturing American businesses, telling them to just hire more people, as if his Nike ad — “Just Do It” — approach will help small business pay the bills.

I’m out talking about this company seven days a week, 24 hours a day, with nothing to hide. We’re a 130 year old company that has a great record of high quality leadership, and a culture of integrity — Jeffrey R. Immelt, chairman and CEO of General Electric

Does that “culture of integrity” include stiffing the federal government of billions of dollars in tax revenues while America suffers through an economic depression?

On the other side of the tax coin, Senate testimony by oil company CEO’s indicated that they paid millions of dollars in taxes on their profits; meanwhile, if Obama had his way, those executives would likewise be in the unemployment line, only without their 99-week lifeline pittance that millions of unemployed Americans have been on since this problem started back in 2008 when it became painfully clear that the Senator who only had the guts to vote “present” would soon become president.

The simple answer to all of this can be seen in the amount of protection money corporations pay each year for lobbyists to grease the palms of politicians. I’ve seen it in the agriculture industry where agricultural organizations pay large sums of money to politicians they claim to oppose because, as was stated in one meeting I attended, to not donate to their political reelection campaigns would be even more disastrous than parting with the money. By any other definition that is extortion.

While it may technically be legal for corporations to lobby themselves into the position of receiving a $3.2 billion tax refund on $5.1 billion in profits it’s certainly wrong. While politicians line their pockets thru tax policy or other nefarious means, America gets stiffed.

All this certainly makes a strong case for a flat tax, something that former presidential candidate Steve Forbes argued for years ago during his unsuccessful bid for President.

Consider the amount of bloated and expensive bureaucracy that could be eliminated overnight by burning the tax code and putting in place a one-page document that spells out the percentage of income from all wage earners and corporations that would go to the federal government under the caveat that there would no longer be deductions, loopholes or other such incentives. You could eliminate the IRS and thousand of tax lawyers on the public dole in one fell swoop! Suffice to say that if everyone with an income in America paid a fixed percentage (for argument’s sake, let’s say 10%) of it towards the federal government, regardless of income, again with no deductions or credits, several things would most definitely occur:

• The entire tax system would instantly be fair
• The effective tax rate to individuals paying federal taxes would go down
• More people would be employed because corporations would have more money with which to invest and employ more people
• The federal government would have more than enough money to use

The later point was proven in spades when President Ronald Reagan lowered the top marginal tax rate from 78 percent to 28 percent. The federal government saw more revenue generated from that one single act than any other act of Congress in the history of the United States.

Then again it’s already been shown by the Heritage Foundation that Washington DC does not suffer due to a lack of money; America’s financial woes are a direct result of over-spending and spending on things we just do not want or need.

Of course we’ll never see such a simple plan under the current political regime here in America because the tax code, for all its thousands of pages and weight, is not a means by which government extracts money from the private sector to run the system, but is rather a means of control over “we the people.”

Until we wrest control away from the government and gain the power back that the phrase “we the people” truly connotes, then we will forever be serfs in a fiefdom made up of rich politicians who’s only role in life is to gain more power.

Related articles

• The Social Economic Collapse of Amerka (whitelocust.wordpress.com)
• The president’s jobs czar is doing a heck of a job — for China (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Obama Butt-Buddy Jeffrey Immelt Moves GE Healthcare Division’s X-Ray Unit Headquarters To China (thedaleygator.wordpress.com)
• Obama Gives G.E. A Green-light In Paying No Taxes For The $5.1 Billion In Profits: Worst Bailout In U.S. History, G.E. Received $182.5 Billion In Obama Buddy Bailout. (politicalvelcraft.org)
• Immelt Won’t Call On Corporations To Be Part Of ‘Shared Sacrifice’ In Deficit Deal (huffingtonpost.com)
• Time to pay up (firedoglake.com)

Obama to help fathers? How… like he helped the economy?

Since President Barack Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 into law America has lost 1.9 million jobs, according to government statistics.

My first response was a bit skeptical; then it was a bit more positive, but not to worry: I got over that.

It seems that President Obama used his Saturday radio address to weigh in on fatherhood. One might call that appropriate since Mr. Obama is the father of two young girls.

After reading an ABC News blog, what made me think the most — knowing what we now know about Obama’s politics — can be found in the following paragraph:

He said many fathers don’t have the time or resources to be as good as fathers as they would like to be, in part because of the state of the economy, and touted his administration’s efforts to offer “men who want to be good fathers a little extra support.”

Where do we find the time or resources, Mr. President? As for time, that’s not a problem for millions of Americans; many of us have lots of that since we’re not working. Our problem isn’t time, but money. We’re not allowed to print money to pay our bills, so how do we pay those bills?

It’s no secret that the American economy sucks. Fathers all across America are worried about a whole host of economic issues that they can’t change and see no hope for ever getting better. For some of us our worries are only compounded by the little things in life such as divorce, relocation, child support, employment opportunities… the list goes on.

My question for Mr. Obama is this:

Dear Mr. President: you say that your administration has made an effort to offer “men who want to be good fathers a little extra support.” Those are your words, sir. Please tell me specifically what these efforts are and how I apply.

No sir, I’m not in line for some of your “stash money” to build me a new kitchen or buy me a fancy new ride, though I drove a nice new Ford F150 the other day… but I digress. I just want to know what you can do to maybe open some doors for me to get a good job in the state where my daughter lives with her mom (my ex-wife). You see sir, my daughter is just a little older than Sasha and younger than Malia. I just want to watch my little girl grow up and be there for her. Speaking man to man, you can understand, can’t you Mr. President?

Then again maybe I should ask Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper to elaborate since he was the one who apparently interviewed the President and wrote the blog post for ABC News. Why didn’t Mr. Tapper elaborate in his blog on just what it is that the Obama administration is doing to make life a little easier for us fathers? As a reporter I certainly would have asked that question, especially if it was my job and personal goal to make President Obama look good in the media.

Help me again, Mr. Tapper: just how has President Obama helped me and the millions of fathers across America? Weren’t we promised better economic times than the 5% unemployment under George W. Bush? Instead, Obama has presided over the loss of nearly 2 million American jobs in his first two years of office. That’s certainly not the kind of hope and change we were all expecting.

My letter to Speaker Boehner

Image by DonkeyHotey via Flickr

The following is a copy of the e-mail I was encouraged to send to House Speaker John Boehner.

I am completely disgusted with the GOP and its policy of giving into the Democrats every time they whimper, whine or threaten.

While the enemy does always get a vote in war, the objective is to always work to veto that vote by utterly annihilating the enemy! To be perfectly clear, the Democrats and anyone else who stands in the way of freedom, liberty and doing what’s best for the United States of America is an enemy, even if they call themselves Republican!

I then provided a link to my blog post “Democrats, the media and their terrorist agenda.“

Related Articles

• Dems Target John Boehner With Mocking Medicare Ad (VIDEO) (huffingtonpost.com)
• Will Boehner need Democratic votes to avert shutdown? (dailykos.com)
• Republicans in Disarray! Boehner a Weak Leader! (balloon-juice.com)
• Boehner wants to pass spending cuts with GOP alone (dailycaller.com)

Democrats, the media and their terrorist agenda

America has an avowed policy against negotiating with terrorists, particularly when those terrorists are holding hostages. Or at least that’s what we’re told.

It certainly makes sense politically and militarily. If your enemy knows that all he needs to do is take something of value that you possess, then wait until you give in to his demands, the enemy has won without firing a shot; He owns you.

Why then do the Republicans continue to “reach across the aisle” and negotiate with Democrats while the American public is being held hostage to high unemployment, high gas prices and high taxes? What is it about the mainstream media that makes the Republicans like Charlie Brown agreeing to let Lucy hold the football?

For the last several days Rush Limbaugh has been talking about how the GOP gave into the Democrats on a new continuing resolution, rather than live up to their promise to the American voters to cut $100 billion from the federal budget and further control government spending. Limbaugh, however, has been arguing that the mess America is in hasn’t happened overnight and won’t be cured by a single victory by the Republicans.

Whatever! That’s not the point.

The point, and I’ve been waiting for Rush to articulate this, is that the American taxpayer is being held hostage by Democrats, the media and their shared policies. These terrorists learned back in 1995 that their most successful weapon isn’t one that blows things up or tears flesh, but a boogeyman called “government shutdown.” You could hear it in House Speaker John Boehner’s voice when he promised that he would not shut down the government because the GOP and Democrats could not agree on a new continuing resolution to fund the government for another week or so.

Never mind the fact that when the Democrats controlled all three branches of the government that they never put forth an annual budget for the country; never mind the fact that Americans in large numbers told the Democrats last November to pound sand, never mind the fact that Obama promised to halve the national deficit within his first term, but has instead increased it more in two years than the total deficit amassed in the previous 200-plus years of American history!

This government shutdown boogeyman really has two faces. The other face is the one the GOP wants to believe will smile favorably upon them if they just say the right things. It’s sort of like Charlie Brown agreeing for the umpteenth time to let Lucy hold the football while he tries to kick it. Lucy will never let Charlie Brown kick the football and the media will never truthfully report that Democrat policies are the very reason why America’s actually unemployment is well over 10% and that Obama’s policies are why gasoline prices have surpassed $4 and are likely on their way to $6 by the end of the year.

Like the foreign terrorists who hold American citizens hostage, the media and the Democrats hold the American taxpayer hostage via our elected representatives, who we believed when they said prior to the November 2010 election would seriously cut federal government spending and the overall size of government. When the GOP leadership agreed the other day to avoid a government shutdown by cutting a paltry $38 billion from government spending, some of which had already been agreed to in previous negotiations, it was sort of like the American family deciding that while their expenses are way out of line with their income and the credit cards are all maxed out, to skip Starbucks once a week when the real solution to their overspending will require much more drastic cuts and a serious attitude adjustment.

 

Kick the can

How much farther down the road is Congress and the President willing to kick the can?

Obama extends middle finger at America

Regardless of your position on same-sex marriage, Obama’s decision earlier this week on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is yet another middle finger gesture by the President of the United States at the US Constitution, and a clear and present danger to the very fabric of the United States.

The irony in his decision is thicker and juicier than the meat on the ribs Michelle ate recently while vacationing in Aspen, although you wouldn’t know it from the headline on the story, which chose instead to highlight the vegetables she also apparently ate; but I digress.

The US Constitution explicitly outlines the duties and responsibilities of Congress (Article 1); the President (Article 2); and the Judiciary (Article 3). Nevertheless, Obama apparently chooses not to recognize these clear delineations in legal authority by declaring a duly signed law unconstitutional. Obama clearly and unconstitutionally inserts himself in Article 3 by assuming the powers authorized only by the judiciary. At least his Liberal friend in the Senate, Dianne Feinstein, is attempting a constitutional remedy to the Defense of Marriage Act by introducing legislation to repeal the Clinton-era law.

Meanwhile, the autocrat in chief has boldly declared DOMA unconstitutional, citing “the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment.”

I thought Obama saw the Constitution as a “charter of negative liberties” and therefore he didn’t believe in it at all? He certainly doesn’t think very highly of the constitutional citations given by Judge Roger Vinson in his ruling that declares ObamaCare unconstitutional.

Related Articles

• Diane Feinstein to Seek Repeal of Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (nowpublic.com)
• Senate Dem to Introduce Repeal of “Defense of Marriage Act … (politics.blogs.foxnews.com)

Did Rush fail or did we truly doubt doubt him?

Image via Wikipedia

Shortly after Obama was inaugurated the state media in the United States picked up and ran with Rush Limbaugh’s hopes that Obama would fail in what he wanted to do to the United States. I say “to” and not “for” because Obama himself actually used that verbiage in his defense of why he believes the US “Constitution is a charter of negative liberties” in that it “says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you.”

Two years later we can see where Rush’s hopes, along with the hopes and desires of most of America were dashed by passage of Obama Care and several other egregious acts foisted upon the people by a Congress bent on its will and not the public’s. It certainly can be said that Obama succeeded in his first two years; the argument isn’t that, but what was at the root of his actions. Was Obama simply a tool for Liberals who’ve wanted for decades to nationalize health care in America, or is he worse, someone with truly despotic ideas and goals for America based on what we already know about him through his speeches and writings?

For more than two decades Rush has succeeded in airing the opinions of people who previously had no voice in media and government in America. Yet I’m here today to suggest that Rush has also failed.

While Rush suggests that he’s not going away until everyone in America agrees with him that liberalism is a fatal disease, it’s been the actions of Liberals such as Obama and Nancy Pelosi and their former majority in the House of Representatives, not Limbaugh’s articulate arguments, that have apparently affected positive change in America. Limbaugh almost admitted such in his radio program, but in a subtle way.

Rush recently argued that Americans aren’t buying Liberal arguments anymore because we can’t afford it, particularly when we make less than half, on average, than public sector union members for doing similar jobs. And it’s “We the People” who are paying for these public sector jobs! It’s our money coming out of our paychecks through increased taxes that is going to grease the pockets of these union members and their fat cat bosses. Meanwhile, Obama lectures us from the teleprompter that “We the People” must sacrifice at a time of economic stress in America, yet government and the public sector unions that own them refuse to sacrifice.

So in that sense it seems that for all the articulate arguments of Limbaugh to paint Liberalism as pure evil and detrimental to human liberty and freedom, it’s been the force feeding of Liberalism over the past two years by Obama and his despots, and not Limbaugh’s words over the past two decades, that have succeeded in showing Americans just how Liberalism’s true goal is not to usher in a utopian environment where nobody suffers, but an authoritarian type of regime where EVERYONE but government suffers.

Then again, maybe Rush is right. As he like’s to say: “Don’t doubt me.”