Of course, Mrs. Obama is hopeless these days because Donald Trump will become our nation’s 45th President and demolish the odious Obama legacy. The First Lady and her husband joined the entire leadership of the Democrat Party to vigorously campaign for Hillary Clinton to become our next President. Despite their best efforts, Clinton lost the Electoral College to Trump by a landslide, 306-232. Trump will soon take office and will actually deliver tangible results to the American people instead of mere “hope and change” rhetoric like Barack Obama. The so-called “hope” delivered by the current administration consisted of the lowest home ownership rate in 51 years, millions of additional people on food stamps and in poverty, 15 million more Americans no longer in our nation’s workforce, stagnant wages, and skyrocketing health insurance premiums. As President, Barack Obama made many promises such as a stimulus plan that would create “shovel ready jobs,” and a health care plan that would lower costs, create jobs, not add to the deficit and give Americans the ability to keep their original plan and doctor if they wanted. Of course, all of these promises were eventually exposed as lies. Michelle Obama should talk to the millions of Americans who were negatively impacted by her husband’s policies and lost hope after his lies were revealed. The actual hope that Trump can deliver includes high paying jobs that can support a family. According to Judicial Watch, the total cost to the American people for all of the lavish Obama family vacations is more than $70 million and growing. In Hawaii, the Obama family will spend over two weeks enjoying luxurious accommodations provided by the American taxpayers. All of this is occurring while the average American supposedly injected with such Obama hope is lucky to afford even a measly family vacation in this economy. Fortunately, relief in the name of Donald Trump is on its way. The era of failed (democrap) policies and phony rhetoric is over for America, it’s time to get back to work.
“This dwarfs Iran-Contra, about which the media spent three solid years trying to take out Ronald Reagan. The latest shoe to drop in the Benghazi disaster is the news that the State Department was e-mailing about the attack on the consulate and the terrorists who they thought were behind it within two hours, and the e-mails went to the Situation Room of the White House. Obama knew.” For weeks after the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi, Obama and his surrogates proffered that the violence was merely an improptu response to an anti-Muslim video. But reports today from several agencies including Reuters and CBS News reveal the administration knew precisely what was going on almost immediately, courtesy of emails.
“They lied, folks “They knew exactly what happened and who was responsible for it and they knew what was happening. They knew it was not a video, they knew it was not a protest that had gotten out of hand … . It was a preplanned terror attack. There was real-time video of it.” Limbaugh also scorched Obama for not sending in U.S. military to help the Americans at the consulate: “The president may not have been aware that he had aircraft carriers in the region that planes land on and take off from and they go out and complete missions and they come back and they land. And we got these things they call submarines. They go under the water so the bad guys can’t see ‘em. They’re in the region, too. We got some naval assets in that region that could have been used. “They could have been authorized to take action to save the lives of Americans. Remember: Four dead in a seven-hour attack, two of them died in the final hours. This government made not one move, with full knowledge of what was going on, to protect those Americans. We had hundreds of people watching in real time, folks, as 30 Americans were being attacked for seven hours. Nobody rode to their rescue.” Limbaugh says most of the national media is now ignoring the revelations from the emails. “What we’re watching here today is the equivalent of Woodward and Bernstein helping Nixon cover up Watergate,” he said. “The mainstream media is Woodward and Bernstein. Watergate is Benghazi. (NO ONE died in Watergate & the President resigned.) Except this time, Woodward and Bernstein are helping Nixon cover it up.”
Earlier today, Charles Woods, father of Ty Woods, called the White House's explanations for events in Benghazi a "pack of lies" and implied that those in the administration who could have helped, but refused, were guilty of "murder." He added:
My son violated his orders in order to protect the lives of at least 30 people. He risked his life to be a hero. I wish that the leadership in the White House had the same moral courage that my son displayed with his life.
As voters learn more about this fiasco, they are outraged.
Voters are bothered by the fact that the Consulate in Benghazi did not have adequate protection. Voters are bothered that the Ambassador and the consulate personnel did not have a properly functioning security force and safe room. Voters are bothered that the president and his administration did not respond appropriately to the attack and calls for help. Voters are bothered that Obama went to bed on the evening of the attack and got up the next day and conducted business as usual – a short inappropriate speech from the Rose Garden – two days of campaigning in Las Vegas and Colorado – a fund-raiser in NY City sponsored by Jay-Z and Beyonce – and an appearance on the David Letterman show. Voters are bothered that the President did not stay at his desk or in the situation room at the White House providing appropriate analysis, leadership and encouragement.
Voters are bothered by the Obama administration’s attempt to cover-up the Benghazi atrocity and its mismanaged preparation and response. Voters are especially bothered by the arrogance of President Obama during the second debate – looking Governor Romney and the TV cameras in the eye and stating that he was offended by the accusations that he and anyone in his administration were misleading the American people about the cause of the Benghazi attack.
fears of another "Blackhawk down" incident as in Somalia under President Clinton or a repeat of the Desert One mission that crashed and burned in the Iranian desert in a failed attempt to rescue our hostages in Tehran in 1980. After all, according to Richard Miniter's book "Leading From Behind: The Reluctant President and the Advisors Who Decide for Him,"
former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were still fighting six hours into the attack, were "painted" with a laser targeting device as the two repeatedly requested backup support from an AC-130 Specter gunship. AC-130s are commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to support Special Operations teams involved in intense firefights. They are deadly accurate, with little risk of harm to civilians. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours, more than enough time for any planes based at Sigonella Air Base in Italy, just 480 miles away, to arrive. According to Fox News, two separate Tier One Special Ops forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators. So who told them to wait? At least President Carter tried to send help. You didn't. Why? And we don't need some lame excuse about faulty intelligence.
'What troubles me so much is the Benghazi attack in many ways echoes the attacks on both embassies in 1998, when Susan Rice was head of the African region for our State Department," Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said Wednesday after two hours with our U.N. ambassador. "In both cases, the ambassador begged for additional security." In both cases, Susan Rice was involved more than she would like to admit. In the spring of 1998, Prudence Bushnell, the U.S. ambassador to Kenya, sent an emotional letter to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright begging for a more secure embassy in the face of mounting terrorist threats and a warning that she was the target of an assassination plot.
The State Department had repeatedly denied her request, citing a lack of money. But that kind of response, she wrote Albright, was "endangering the lives of embassy personnel."
A matter of months later, on Aug. 7, 1998, the American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya were simultaneously attacked with car bombs. In Kenya, 12 American diplomats and more than 200 Africans were killed. As in Benghazi, requests for more security were denied, warnings were issued, prior incidents were ignored and Susan Rice went on TV to explain it all. Within 24 hours, Rice, then assistant secretary of state for African affairs, went on PBS as spokesperson for the administration — just as she was regarding Benghazi when she parroted the administration's false narrative on five Sunday talk shows on Sept. 16, 2012, that Benghazi was caused by a flash mob enraged by an Internet video. Then, as now, she worked for a Clinton. ( I thought Democrats were so smart? Can’t they learn from history?)
We have learned that if you put $1 billion behind a campaign of cynicism, racial division, class warfare, and extreme pettiness an incumbent with one of the worst records in modern times can barely squeak into a second term. And with such a narrow and demeaning “win,” what exactly does Barack Obama think he has achieved?
Well, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, he gets nice public housing for another four years. And, of course, there will be plenty of golf and parties and trips. But what does he hope to achieve for the American people, what does he think this campaign of small-things gets him?
The answer, oddly enough, is not in his hands. Under normal circumstances, a re-elected President can direct the debate. He has set out an agenda or has done so well in the first term that the country simply wants “more of the same.” Nobody – and I mean nobody – wants four more years of the same inane, vapid socialism of Obama’s first term. But, if Obama cannot determine the course we take, who does? That answer is yet to be decided. The reason the issue is in doubt is because we do not yet know what the Republicans in Congress will do. They have a very real choice. The Republicans can surrender to Obama, collaborate with his regime and institutionalize his radical, leftist agenda.
Billionaire Donald Trump today offered Barack Obama a check for $5 million for his choice of charities if he would produce his college and passport records. In an announcement that had been promoted on social media for days, Trump released the above video with the offer.
“We know very little about our president,” he said. “I have a deal for the president.” “If Barack Obama opens up and gives his college records and applications, and if he gives his passport applications and records, I will give to a charity of his choice – inner city children in Chicago, American Cancer Society, AIDS research – anything he wants a check immediately for $5 million,” he said. Trump set a deadline of 5 p.m. on Oct. 31. The release, he said, “will end the question and indeed the anger of many Americans. They will know something about their president. Obama will become transparent, like other presidents. So all he has to do to get $5 million for a charity or charities of his choice, is get his colleges to immediately give his applications and records and also to release his passport records.” Trump said, “When he does that to my satisfaction, if it’s complete, this check is delivered immediately. A lot of people will be very, very happy to see this happen. Frankly, it’s a check I very much want to write.” “Once caveat: the records must be given by Oct. 31 at 5 o’clock in the afternoon. Mr. President, not only will I be happy, and totally satisfied, but the American people will be happy.” In a statement that also was posted online, Trump explained Obama is the “least transparent” president ever.
The former CEO should welcome the opportunity to compare his record in venture capitalism (starting and saving businesses, creating tens of thousands of net jobs, and delivering "superb" profits for Bain's investors -- including public pension funds and education endowments) with Obama's record in what Jim DeMint calls venture socialism.
Obama borrowed $825 Billion from China and future US taxpayers to fund a stimulus program that has failed on the very criteria he established to measure its success. One major flop was Solyndra, a misadventure that is particularly offensive for its cronyism, lawlessness, waste, and eventual pitiful attempts at blame shift.
Mitt Romney excelled at managing and investing the money that other people voluntarily entrusted to him. Barack Obama has proven himself to be a truly horrendous steward of the money people are compelled by law to fork over to the government he runs. Rising unemployment, and $5 Trillion in new debt -- with no plan to handle the crisis. Staples vs. Solyndra. A pillar of private sector enterprise vs. a $535 million consequence of the bloated, unaccountable, corrupt public sector.
As for whether or not a border fence or wall will work, all one has to do is turn to the border system built at Yuma, Arizona. They built a three fence system that has stopped up to 92% of illegal border crossings over 126 miles of border. The first fence encountered is a 20-foot-high steel fence. If they manage to scale that, illegals will have to cross a 75-yard-wide no man’s land that is monitored by cameras and sensors. Border Patrol agents also patrol the no man’s land in SUVs on a regular basis. If they make it across no man’s land, they will encounter a tightly woven steel fence that is also monitored. If they manage to breach the second fence, they find themselves faced with a cyclone fence topped with barbed wire. Click here to see tour of Yuma border fence. But what about the cost of building a secure border? How can America afford to extend Yuma’s fence another 1,800 miles? The solution is simple and I’m surprised that no one has ever mentioned it but me. Use our military. The greatest cost of most construction projects is labor. We have constructions battalions in our military personnel. They go overseas and build airstrips and military bases. They also help rebuild the infrastructure of cities and communities. Using our military to build and help patrol a border fence would mean the only real cost would be materials.
Obama has had no reason to veto these spending bills. The one time he did veto a spending bill was when Democrats were in the majority. With Republicans in control of the House since 2011, and the Senate since the beginning of 2015, no spending bill has actually reached Obama’s desk to even be vetoed. They were all pre-negotiated settlements. Spending bills that might have achieved something were never able to overcome the Senate filibuster, so Obama did not have to veto them. This has always been a problem. Since the advent of Rule XXII establishing cloture 98 years ago, Republicans have never had a filibuster-proof majority. (this rule needs to be terminated, it is not in the constitution) And if history holds, they likely never will. And until the filibuster is eliminated, at least on appropriations bills, and entitlement programs require periodic reauthorization, the Congress’ power of the purse will remain tenuous at best, leading to the very sort of crisis management we see today.
Impeach Judge James Robart for violating sovereignty and Constitution
In the long run, Congress must strip the federal judiciary of their power grab and restore Congress’ plenary power over immigration, as it was since our founding. However, in the meantime, it’s time to make impeachment great again. James Wilson, one of the preeminent Founders and an original Supreme Court justice who helped draft Article III, clearly annunciated this point: “In the United States and in Pennsylvania, impeachments are confined to political characters, to political crimes and misdemeanors, and to political punishments.” Here are a sampling of quotes and anecdotes from our Founders and congressional history regarding the purpose of impeachment……. Impeaching for political crimes is even more relevant to judges than executive officials because judges are to hold their tenure only under “good behavior.” [art. III §1] This was quite evident from Hamilton’s seminal writings in Federalist #s78, 79, and 81. He felt that impeachment would be the primary check against federal judges abusing judicial review. It is obvious he wasn’t referring to judges committing murder, but rather judges violating the Constitution with their decisions as we are witnessing today.
Congress has plenary control over lower courts and the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Congress can abolish the lower courts altogether and reroute their cases to state courts. Every aspect of the court system’s structure — administrative procedures, rules of adjudication, methods of interpretation, and logistics of proceedings — can be regulated by Congress in any way. As such, it goes without saying that Congress can, as it has done in the past, modify the geographical jurisdiction of an existing circuit. The Ninth Circuit cesspool The time has come to strip the Ninth Circuit down to size. This court is by far the most anti-constitutional circuit amidst a federal judiciary where the majority of the circuits don’t respect the Constitution as written. – Indeed, the Trump administration and the GOP Congress owe it to the state to provide them with a new federal appeals court. The Constitution [art. IV, § 4.] requires the federal government to “guarantee to every state in this union, a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion.” Arizona has been invaded in the worst way possible and they have lost all republican representation by having their sovereignty and right to self-determination denuded by the unelected and unaccountable Ninth Circuit. As I observed in Stolen Sovereignty [page 100]:
Eastman commented it “does not get much clearer than that, yet the 9th Circuit does not even cite, much less explain away, that statute “Neither the judge in Washington state nor the court has offered anything approaching a detailed discussion of 8 U.S.C Paragraph 1182 (f), the law which specifically gives the president authority to suspend the entry of any aliens into the U.S. if he believes their entry would be ‘detrimental to the interests of the United States.'”
Physical harm is one type of harm. The other harm is harm to our American culture - our Judeo-Christian Western republican political culture. This is the original harm addressed in the debates over the 1795 naturalization law, wherein people antithetical to American republicanism were deemed unfit to be given citizenship. One must ask why there is a mania to bring immigrants into this country at this time. We have enough trouble as it is. We don't need the 1,000,000 new immigrants and the nearly 100,000 asylum seekers that come in each year. Those numbers are aside from foreign students and foreign guest workers. Almost half of all illegals already here are those who have come here legally and overstayed their visas.
Virginia seems to be on the road to becoming the latest state to attempt to switch the manner in which it allocates Electoral Votes in Presidential Elections from “winner take all” to one in which the votes are allocated based on which candidate wins each of the state’s eleven Congressional District: A Republican-backed bill that would end Virginia’s winner-takes-all method of apportioning its 13 electoral votes in presidential elections cleared its first legislative hurdle Wednesday.
A Senate Privileges and Elections subcommittee recommended Sen. Bill Carrico’s bill on a 3-3 party line vote Wednesday, advancing it to consideration by the GOP-dominated full committee next week. Republicans control the Senate and House in Virginia, and Gov. Bob McDonnell is a Republican. The bill would apportion electors by congressional district to the candidate who wins each of the state’s 11 districts. The candidate who carries a majority of the districts would also win the two electors not tied to congressional districts. Sen. Charles W. “Bill” Carrico, R-Grayson, said the change is necessary because Virginia’s populous, urbanized areas such as the Washington, D.C., suburbs and Hampton Roads can outvote rural regions such as his, rendering their will irrelevant. Under Carrico’s revision, Obama would have received only four Virginia electoral votes last year while Republican Mitt Romney would have received nine. Romney carried conservative rural areas while Obama dominated Virginia’s cities and fast-growing suburbs. Virginia would be only the third state after Maine and Nebraska to apportion electors according to congressional districts, and by far the largest. Maine has only two U.S. House districts, and Nebraska has three. (Stop the Sodom & Gomorah big cities from destroying USA, also need to stop gerrymandering and set congressional districts up along county lines or have County Lines apportionment.)
There is a better way, as demonstrated by Maine and Nebraska, which allocate electoral college votes based on which presidential candidate wins a majority in each congressional district. This is not only a fair way to allocate electors, but it will result in the presidential candidates campaigning in many more states where congressional districts are competitive, making the presidential campaign truly national in scope.
While Maine and Nebraska award the electors representing the two U.S. senators to the presidential candidate garnering the highest popular vote, it would be even more powerful — and force the presidential candidates to campaign in each state — if the electors representing the senators were allocated to the presidential candidate winning a majority of congressional districts in that state.
The U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 1) establishes the electoral "college" as the method of selecting a president. But it is neutral on the method of allocating electoral votes, stating that electors shall be appointed by each state ... in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct ..."
Other states which have Republican legislatures and governors — and could have influenced the presidential outcome this time — should enact congressional district elector allocation. In Virginia, Sen. Charles W. Carrico, Sr., a Grayson (Southwest Virginia) Republican, has introduced similar elector allocation legislation, saying "People in my district feel discouraged because their votes don't count.
But under a congressional district allocation system they know their vote counts, instead of a winner take all. I don't feel the electoral college right now is a fair system."
(All Red States must get this passed) When people think about “voter fraud,” they tend to think about the dead voting, people voting in multiple precincts or party machines paying homeless people to cast ballots. While those are all legitimate concerns, the mass fraud happens long before the vote is cast – at the point of registration – says Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation and co-author of the book, “Who’s Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk.” By centering the debate on “voter ID” laws, the left has been able to divert attention away from the real source of the problem – lax voter-registration laws. Only seven states have strict photo ID voter laws. But even these are not enough to stop non-citizen green-card holders from illegally registering to vote and providing their driver’s licenses when they show up to cast a fraudulent vote. Only 4 states require proof of citizenship to register The heart of the matter comes down voter registration, which is based on an “honor system,” Spakovsky said. “Nobody is checking to make sure those registering to vote are citizens.” Right now, there are only four states that require residents to provide proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate or passport, when they register to vote. Those states are Alabama, Arizona, Georgia and Kansas – all of which backed Trump in November. The United States is currently bringing in a record 1.3 million legal immigrants per year, most of them on green cards and increasingly from hostile nations like Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Saudi Arabia and Syria. A green card allows a foreign national to reside legally and permanently in the United States, as well as providing the right to work, obtain a driver’s license, purchase a gun and even serve in the U.S. military. But one of the few privileges not afforded to the green-card holder is the right to vote. Problem is, once you’ve afford all these other rights to the foreign national who’s here on a green card, what’s to stop them from registering to vote? There is no system in place to do that. Even the strictest voter ID law would not catch that green-card holder who checks off the “U.S. citizen” box on the voter registration application. He has his driver’s license or military ID to show at the polls, so he’s good to go.
(BIG MEDIA & JOURNOLIST-J List, where do you get your rigged propaganda?) The mainstream media doesn’t think you should hear about it, just like they don’t think you hear about the WikiLeaks revelations or other stories that could help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton. As I scanned the online news sites of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, along with the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time, and Newsweek, not one of them had one syllable about these charges against Hillary Clinton – and I searched these sites 8 hours after the Drudge headline went live. But should this surprise when recently released reports indicate that political donations from the media are 27-1 in favor of Hillary over Trump? And should it surprise us when off-the-record meetings are set up with media elites and the Clinton campaign? professors S. Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman ‘released a groundbreaking survey of 240 journalists at the most influential national media outlets — including the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS — on their political attitudes and voting patterns.’ The survey found these ‘media elites’ to be shockingly liberal
Most of all media in this country is owned by just a few companies, Free Press finds in a 2011 of study of media consolidation across print, television, radio and the Internet. Just 24 companies are listed, but the assets owned number in the hundreds. A chapter on the topic in Censored 2006 by Bridget Thornton, Britt Walters and Lori Rouse, “Corporate Media is Corporate America” noted the massive overlap of individuals who sit on the boards at major media outlets and those of non-media corporations. Throw in the new social media giants: Google, Facebook and Amazon — or Internet domain name system megaopolies ICANN and Verisign — and the same pervasive trend towards consolidation and liberal politics emerges. these outlets seem to almost universally seem to agree on certain issues: Open borders, bailing out banks, expanding trade agreements beyond what we already have, global warming, gun control, abortion and government as the solution. All of the airwaves singing with one voice. Isn’t that nice? Then imagine what might happen if the water company could just turn off the water to dissidents.
the nation's most troublesome and dangerous cities, which are also cities with low-performing and unsafe schools and poor-quality city services, have been run by Democrats for nearly a half-century -- with blacks having significant political power, having been mayors, city councilors and other top officials, such as superintendents of schools and chiefs of police. Panic among some blacks over the upcoming Trump presidency is unwarranted. Whoever is the president has little or no impact on the living conditions of ordinary black people, even when that president is a black person, as the Obama presidency has demonstrated. The overall welfare of black people requires attention to devastating problems that can be solved only at the family and community levels. Mountains of evidence demonstrates that outcomes are not favorable for children raised in female-headed households. Criminal behavior is greater, and academic achievement is much less for such children. This is a devastating problem, but it is beyond the reach of a president or any other politician to solve. If there is a solution, it will come from churches and local community organizations. Education is vital to upward mobility.
The sorry and tragic state of black education is not going to be turned around until there's a change in what's acceptable and unacceptable behavior by young people. Using 2012 data from the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Law Street Media offers some sobering statistics in an article titled "Crime in America: Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities Over 200,000" (http://tinyurl.com/qeusjj4). The nation's most dangerous big cities are Detroit, Oakland, St. Louis, Memphis, Stockton, Birmingham, Baltimore, Cleveland, Atlanta and Milwaukee. The most common characteristic of these cities is that they have predominantly black populations. Another common characteristic is that for decades, all of them have been run by Democratic and presumably liberal administrations. Some cities -- such as Detroit, Buffalo, Newark and Philadelphia -- haven't elected a Republican mayor for more than a half-century. What will matter is an unyielding black intolerance for crime, along with a willingness to allow policing authorities to do what is necessary to stop criminals from preying on the overwhelmingly law-abiding people of the community.
An article on News Forum for Lawyers titled "Study Finds College Students Remarkably Incompetent" cites a study done by the American Institutes for Research that revealed that over 75 percent of two-year college students and 50 percent of four-year college students were incapable of completing everyday tasks. About 20 percent of four-year college students demonstrated only basic mathematical ability, while a steeper 30 percent of two-year college students could not progress past elementary arithmetic. NBC News reported that Fortune 500 companies spend about $3 billion annually to train employees in "basic English." Reported by Just Facts, in 2009, the Pentagon estimated that 65 percent of 17- to 24-year-olds in the U.S. were unqualified for military service because of weak educational skills, poor physical fitness, illegal drug usage, medical conditions or criminal records. Among high-school students who graduated in 2014 and took the ACT college readiness exam, here's how various racial/ethnic groups fared when it came to meeting the ACT's college readiness benchmarks in at least three of the four subjects: Asians, 57 percent; whites, 49 percent; Hispanics, 23 percent; and blacks, 11 percent.
These 66 pages are a must see. Obama’s Fiscal commission that he completely ignored.
Our challenge is clear and inescapable: America cannot be great if we go broke. Our businesses will not be able to grow and create jobs, and our workers will not be able to compete successfully for the jobs of the future without a plan to get this crushing debt burden off our backs.
As members of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, we spent the past eight months studying the same cold, hard facts. Together, we have reached these unavoidable conclusions: The problem is real. The solution will be painful. There is no easy way out. Everything must be on the table. And Washington must lead.
Our nation is on an unsustainable fiscal path. Spending is rising and revenues are falling short, requiring the government to borrow huge sums each year to make up the difference. We face staggering deficits. In 2010, federal spending was nearly 24 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the value of all goods and services produced in the economy. Only during World War II was federal spending a larger part of the economy. Tax revenues stood at 15 percent of GDP this year, the lowest level since 1950. The gap between spending and revenue – the budget deficit – was just under nine percent of GDP.
Since the last time our budget was balanced in 2001, the federal debt has increased dramatically, rising from 33 percent of GDP to 62 percent of GDP in 2010. The escalation was driven in large part by two wars and a slew of fiscally irresponsible policies, along with a deep economic downturn. We have arrived at the moment of truth, and neither political party is without blame.
Economic recovery will improve the deficit situation in the short run because revenues will rise as people go back to work, and money spent on the social safety net will decline as fewer people are forced to rely on it. But even after the economy recovers, federal spending is projected to increase faster than revenues, so the government will have to continue borrowing money to spend. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects if we continue on our current course, deficits will remain high throughout the rest of this decade and beyond, and debt will spiral ever higher, reaching 90 percent of GDP in 2020.
Over the long run, as the baby boomers retire and health care costs continue to grow, the situation will become far worse. By 2025 revenue will be able to finance only interest payments, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Every other federal government activity – from national defense and homeland security to transportation and energy – will have to be paid for with borrowed money. Debt held by the public will outstrip the entire American economy, growing to as much as 185 percent of GDP by 2035. Interest on the debt could rise to nearly $1 trillion by 2020. These mandatory payments – which buy absolutely no goods or services – will squeeze out funding for all other priorities.
Federal debt this high is unsustainable. It will drive up interest rates for all borrowers – businesses and individuals – and curtail economic growth by crowding out private investment. By making it more expensive for entrepreneurs and businesses to raise capital, innovate, and create jobs, rising debt could reduce per-capita GDP, each American’s share of the nation’s economy, by as much as 15 percent by 2035.
Rising debt will also hamstring the government, depriving it of the resources needed to respond to future crises and invest in other priorities. Deficit spending is often used to respond to short-term financial “emergency” needs such as wars or recessions. If our national debt grows higher, the federal government may even have difficulty borrowing funds at an affordable interest rate, preventing it from effectively responding.
Large debt will put America at risk by exposing it to foreign creditors. They currently own more than half our public debt, and the interest we pay them reduces our own standard of living. The single largest foreign holder of our debt is China, a nation that may not share our country’s aspirations and strategic interests. In a worst-case scenario, investors could lose confidence that our nation is able or willing to repay its loans – possibly triggering a debt crisis that would force the government to implement the most stringent of austerity measures.
Cut spending we cannot afford – no exceptions. We must end redundant, wasteful, and ineffective federal spending, wherever we find it. We should cut all excess spending – including defense, domestic programs, entitlement spending, and spending in the tax code.
Demand productivity and effectiveness from Washington. We must use fiscal restraint to promote reforms and efficiencies that force government to produce better results and save money. We should insist on consistent productivity growth in our government.
Reform and simplify the tax code. The tax code is rife with inefficiencies, loopholes, incentives, tax earmarks, and baffling complexity. We need to lower tax rates, broaden the base, simplify the tax code, and bring down the deficit. We need to reform the corporate tax system to make America the best place to start and grow a business and create jobs.
Don’t make promises we can’t keep. Our country has tough choices to make. We need to be willing to tell Americans the truth: We cannot afford to continue spending more than we take in, and we cannot continue to make promises we know full well we cannot keep.
The problem is real, and the solution will be painful. We must stabilize and then reduce the national debt, or we could spend $1 trillion a year in interest alone by 2020. There is no easy way out of our debt problem, so everything must be on the table. A sensible, realistic plan requires shared sacrifice – and Washington must lead the way and tighten its belt.
We propose a six-part plan to put our nation back on a path to fiscal health, promote economic growth, and protect the most vulnerable among us. Taken as a whole, the plan will:
Most other delegates, led by Madison along with John Adams, wanted a republic; none wanted a democracy. Madison, who would become known as the "Father of the Constitution," argued that in a pure democracy, "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual." Delegate Edmund Randolph agreed, saying, "In tracing these evils to their origin, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy." Adams added: "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Eleven years earlier, Madison had helped to develop the Virginia Constitution, and it was his Virginia Plan that served as the basis for debate in the development of the U.S. Constitution. Madison, along with Hamilton, argued for a strong but limited central government that could unify the country. Madison's political genius is mostly seen in his contribution to The Federalist Papers, which were co-authored with Hamilton and John Jay.
we don’t live in a democracy. Article IV, Sec. 4 of the Constitution states, “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of governmen
Not everyone will be as aware of the book or movie titled Logan’s Run. It is a good sci-fi story that also, like Atlas Shrugged, contains some prophetic themes that we can currently identify in our culture. Allow me to share a brief synopsis of each of these unique books in order to make some points about our current state of the union. Atlas Shrugged is about a society that is so “fair minded” and heavily regulated that it becomes increasingly difficult and finally impossible for producers to be successful. In the story, Congress levels the playing field in a way that would make Obama proud. Redistribution is almost a holy word. By law, wealthy, successful people are forced to share what they have worked so hard to acquire. The elected officials went so far as to limit the number of businesses a person could own to only one. Business owners were forced to give up any additional businesses in their portfolio. Congress continued to pass additional legislation in the spirit of fairness and to redistribute whatever the successful people owned. As these measures continued society began to fall apart. Decay set in everywhere. Finally, society’s producers, led by John Galt, go on strike and begin to disappear. Where they go no one knows. As Galt and his followers bow out, society continues to crumble at an increasing rate. Eventually, everything comes to a grinding halt.
This book is wordy, but very well written. For those who cannot conquer a tome of this size I recommend they watch the Atlas Shrugged movies. Part one was released in 2011. Part two was recently released and part three is scheduled for release sometime in 2013. There is also the Cliff Notes which is as long as some novels, 133 pages.
Logan’s Run, written by A.M. Putnam, is a book and film that depicts another future society. It was written in 1967. In this story, that takes place in the year 2274, society is almost perfect. Citizens live in a domed city, isolated from all that is outside. In fact, no one really knows what is outside. People work little and enjoy all the pleasures of life. There is one little hitch though. Life ends at 30. That’s the bad news. The good news is that Social Security isn’t an issue.
The main elements of both these futuristic novels are finding uncanny fulfillment in 2012. We have a government that heavily regulates every area of society and the regulations are coming out at a growing rate. In 1936 there were only about 3,000 new regulations issued. In 2011 there were over 80,000 new regulations. Like in Atlas Shrugged the flood of regulations and massive government regulatory agencies monitoring us, cause us to lose more and more freedom each year. Businesses find it increasingly hard to be profitable while they try to comply with all the red tape. Today’s producers are already holding back and in some cases cutting back as they prepare for higher taxes and Obamacare. In Atlas Shrugged, at the end of the book, the lights of New York go out. There is little motivation for people to try any more. The over regulation and oppressive legislation has taken its toll. Basically, the society is destroyed. Those who could save it are nowhere to be found. John Galt and friends lay low.
Likewise, today producers are really good guys even though our government, the media, and many brainwashed citizens see them as villainous, greedy, evil people. This attitude, if it continues, will eventually usher in our own pervasive stagnation as it did in Rand’s novel. Whether you personally like them or not, our country needs the Donald Trumps, Steve Wynns, and Steve Jobs. They are our John Galts. It is likely that because of these people or people like them that you and I have a job. Someone has to take the risks and invest the capital. We should be thankful that they still do.
Socialism or Communism does not appeal to those of us who know what this country can offer. Who of us wanted to move to the “workers paradise” in the Soviet Union or to Cuba or other communist countries?
Read more: http://patriotupdate.com/articles/when-atlas-shrugged-and-logan-ran#ixzz2AA20gESM
http://culturaloffering.com/2008/10/27/wealth-redistribution--the-grades-example.aspx imagine your teacher or professor announcing that those students getting A's will have two grade points deducted so that the students getting F's and D's can have their grades lifted to a C. The individuals getting B's will have one grade point deducted and used for the same purpose. After all, isn't it fair that those students getting A's and B's should help out students who aren't as fortunate? Make sense?" I asked. "No. The reason we get A's and B's is that we are working harder or maybe we are smarter. It isn't our fault that some kids are getting D's and F's," he answered. "Well, you'll still do okay. Getting a C is still passing, and you will have helped out the other students," I argued.
"If you do that, there is no reason for me to study hard," he reasoned. "I'll take it easy." "But if you take it easy, where will we get the grade points to help those D and F students?" I asked. "We have to get the points somewhere." "I don't know," he said. He now understands the economic effect of redistribution through taxation. Also, contrast Communism, Socialism, Fair results, fair outcomes, fair share, income inequality, class warefare, welfare, hand out versus Capitalism, hand up, opportunity society, fair shake, merit,performance, effort, smart & hard work, behavior, attitude, talent, persistence, skills, experience, content of character.
(The College Republicans at the University of California-Merced ask fellow students, who support raising taxes on the rich, if they would be willing to redistribute their GPAs. They don’t think it’s a good idea because they earned their grades.) Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/20/students-not-eager-to-redistribute-gpa-scores/#ixzz1KAckeFqh
communism works?! Which country is it working in?! North Korea, Russia, Cuba? Are people flocking there to live? Risking their lives on rafts to get there?
The liberal Miami Herald today had an article about tourists visiting Cuba. They hated to admit that the place is a falling apart poverty stricken mess. They didn’t use the “c” word of course to explain why it suddenly went bad when Castro took over. All they would offer was, “…There’s no way tourism alone can prop up a system so enfeebled by the weight of government bureaucracy, market controls and limits on personal freedoms.”
“…a system enfeebled by the weight of government bureaucracy, market controls and limits on personal freedoms…” sounds like the Obama administration. do you want America to look like Cuba? stop defending communism!
The “utopia” of communism killed 94 million, according to The Black Book of Communism. The breakdown of the number of deaths is as follows:
65 million in the People’s Republic of China, 20 million in the Soviet Union, 2 million in Cambodia, 2 million in North Korea, 1.7 million in Africa, 1.5 million in Afghanistan, 1 million in the Communist states of Eastern Europe, 1 million in Vietnam, 150,000 in Latin America, 10,000 deaths resulting from actions of the international Communist movement and Communist parties not in power