The DANGER to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency, than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgement to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for President. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the Prince of Fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is much less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.
The Republic can survive a Barack Obama only by putting Country before party
The cadre of conservatives at the National Review, hell bent on attacking Donald Trump in an effort to prevent him from becoming President of the United States, are clearly enemies to the resurrection of good judgement and common sense among the American electorate.
Donald Trump supporters are pushing for three big things:
A return to traditional GOP law and order practices when it comes to illegal immigration.
A return to a more traditional GOP foreign policy that would put the national interest ahead of globalism.
A return to a more traditional GOP trade policy that would analyze trade deals from the perspective of the country as a whole and not blindly support any deal — even one negotiated by president Obama.
What's not to like about these "demands"? All three make perfect sense. All three are "good" for the Nation and it's citizens.
Ah, but all three fly in the face of the coporatocracy that has hijacked our government...on BOTH SIDES of the aisle.
The corporations, that buy our government thru MILLIONS of dollars in campaign contributions, embrace illegal immigration and the "cheap labor" it provides. The corporations, that spend MILLIONS of dollars lobbying Congress, encourage Washington's globalist foreign policy initiatives. The corporations, that love cheap labor and a globalist foreign policy, adore international trade policies that make themselves rich, and our Nation's people poor.
The cartel of "conservative" opinion pushers that the National Review has brought together to attack Donald Trump are nothing more than shills for the corporate America that has gone to great lengths to steal the wealth of our Nation and leave it's core middle class broken and depressed.
These assassins of common sense and good judgement want you to believe that "The Bush Doctrine" is today's conservative gospel. "You're either with us or against us". George W. Bush's belief in open borders, his effort to create a permanent U.S. military mission in the Middle East, and his notion that trade can never be regulated, no matter how unfair — is now a permanent part of conservatism that can never be questioned. By refusing to recognize and make room for the demands of Trump supporters, these conservative zombies are only encouraging those who disagree with Bush to abandon hard line conservatives and seek allies elsewhere.
Clearly, The Bush Doctrine, no matter how well intentioned upon it's inception, is not working for average Americans. Holding forth The Bush Doctrine today as a conservative ideology is political suicide. The GOP Establishment has brought us open borders; massive giveaway trade deals; monstrous debt; bank bailouts; and a sprawling government that never stops expanding. You can't blame Obama for everything. He's had his political accomplices ensconced in the GOP helping him make things worse for Americans for the past 7 years...all to the benefit of "corporate America".
The names may have changed, but the voices are the same. These are the same voices that fought 35 years ago to prevent Ronald Reagan, William F. Buckley, and others from welcoming blue-collar voters, disgruntled democrats, and independents into and under the GOP's "big tent". History has proven that Reagan Revolution was right, the voices of "conservatism" were wrong. The National Review is completely out of touch, and clearly represents big-business...NOT the American people.
Is Donald Trump without flaws? No he is not. Is any candidate for the Presidency? Right now, today, Donald Trump has something none of the other presidential candidates possess. Donald Trump has the support of a growing majority of Americans angry with their government. And this scares the hell out of the political establishment on BOTH SIDES of the aisle.
The political-class, the elitists in DC's greatest fear is a UNITED AMERICA. A UNITED AMERICA is the single greatest threat to the corruption in our government. A corruption that lines the pockets of our government "representatives", fills the coffers of big-business, robs the middle-class and the poor blind, and steals our personal liberties and freedoms guaranteed by the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
The Voice of America is channeling through Donald Trump, and that Voice is demanding that the Country be put ahead of any political party, party ideologies, and corporate lobbyists.
"Conservatism transcends any individual or organization, because it’s ultimately about the God-inspired belief that we are destined to be free."
We live in a World today where TRUTHS are mocked and denigrated, and LIES are celebrated.
NO MORE!
The "silent majority" has a new voice...and it's name is Donald Trump.
Donald Trump’s proposal to bar [TEMPORARILY] Muslims from entering the United States has been repudiated by Democrats and Republicans alike. With most on both sides of the aisle suggesting that it has little chance of becoming U.S. law.
Mainstream media has acted as if the nation had come under terrorist attack with its round-the-clock, breaking-news coverage of Trump’s proposal, rife with countless references to Hitler, racism, and cries that his proposal is "unconstitutional".
Unconstitutional? Last I heard, the liberal mainstream media wanted the US Constitution torched for being "too old and outdated". Funny that they should want to embrace this tired warhorse when it suits their agenda.
I am sickened, and quite frankly enraged by the mainstream media's, the Democrat's, and the establishment Republican's incessant "moral superiority". Aren't you tired of being told what to think, what you can say, and generally lied to on a daily basis by this Axis of Political Correctness?
People without real arguments call anything they don’t like “racist” or “unconstitutional.”
Donald Trump's proposal is neither racist OR unconstitutional.
Why is Donald Trump's proposal with regards to Muslims entering the US so controversial? Is it because The Donald said them, or is it because the proposal itself is deemed so "outrageous" by the Axis of Political Correctness, and the sycophants that support said Axis?
Listen up peeps: No one now living outside the U.S. has any U.S. constitutional rights. THAT IS A FACT. That may sound simple, but the Axis of Political Correctness is repeatedly saying it's unconstitutional to refuse entry to Muslims. NO ONE presently living outside the U.S. has a "constitutional right". You don't get constitutional rights until you're here, AND A CITIZEN. You can't violate someone's constitutional rights when they don't have any. Is that clear?
Despite what the Axis of Political Correctness would have you believe. Our country has absolute authority to decide who gets to immigrate here. Sorry, the rest of the world does not have any constitutionally guaranteed civil right to move here. Period. YOU ARE BEING LIED TO.
This absolute authority, IS THE LAW OF THE LAND.
This law is on the books as The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. This Act restricted immigration into the U.S. and is codified under Title 8 of the United States Code (8 U.S.C.ch. 12). This Act governs primarily immigration to and citizenship in the United States. It has been in effect since December 24, 1952.
You can read the text of this LAW by clicking here
The Axis of Political Correctness may not like the law, they may refuse to recognize the law, and they may claim the law is unconstitutional. BUT IT IS THE LAW!
Ironically, this LAW was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress, House and Senate, and signed by a Democrat president.
Ironically, this LAW was used by Democratic President Jimmy Carter in 1979 to keep Iranians out of the United States during the Iranian Hostage Crisis.
December 09, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh, on the EIB Radio Network
"Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by president. Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, the president may, by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."
Over here, everybody in the establishment in the political class, Republican, Democrat, media, you name it, is all claiming that what Trump said is dumb, stupid, reckless, dangerous, unconstitutional, while it is the law of the land.
There is precedent for everything Donald Trump has said he wants to do. And if you listen to the wizards of smart in this country and our political establishment, you will think that this stuff is just unheard of, it's almost unspeakable, it's just indecent. Here we have in the establishment the reputed best and brightest, the smartest. We're not even qualified to be in their company no less. And they're dunces on this.
This law was passed in 1952. Do you know what was going on in 1952, among other things? There was no immigration in 1952. It was shut down. Immigration was shut down 1924 to 1965. And why did we have this? What was the need for this in 1952? Oh, yeah, we had rampant illegal immigration. I'm talking about we suspended legal immigration from 1924 to 1965, but we were being overrun in 1952 like we always are. We're the last great hope of the world. That law was written to allow the president to keep undesirables out and to kick undesirables out. There's no mystery.
A couple of weeks ago Obama went on TV, as he is wont to do, and said (imitating Obama), "We do not have a religious test for people entering our country. It doesn't matter what they believe. We have freedom of religion in this country, whatever amendments since then. And it's the law, it's our law, and we cannot ask people about their religion, and we certainly cannot use what they say as a reason to keep --" And I was forced to remind everybody that not only can we, we must, because it is also American statutory law. We must ask immigrants seeking asylum what their religious beliefs are. We have done it. We continue to do it. Here's why.
The primary reason most refugees give for seeking asylum is that they are fleeing religious persecution in whatever war torn place they're coming from. During the interview process, it is required that we investigate that. "What religion are you?" we ask. They must tell us. Based on what they tell us, we then examine whether or not there is indeed persecution of that religious belief in the place where the immigrant, the refugee, is coming from. We dealt with this a couple of weeks ago. Obama said you could never have a religious test for refugees, and we showed that a religious test is actually written into the statutes that govern refugees and asylum.
You know, the thing is here, folks, whether we're talking about the hard left or the progressive left or these RINO type Republicans and the commentariat, these people are actually making up a new Constitution and body of law as they go along based on how they feel. So Trump comes along, they do not know about this law. They obviously don't know it or they wouldn't be making fools of themselves saying what they're saying. They don't know the law exists. Trump proposes that we put a moratorium on Muslims entering the country, and they just have a conniption fit and they talk about how it's violating the Constitution and it makes a mockery of our system and it makes a mockery of our values and this is not who we are. They're just telling us how they feel, but they are certainly not knowledgeable of the Constitution. They're making it up.
Tom Brokaw is one of many out there claiming what Trump wants to do so is unconstitutional, it's in violation of United States law, it would never stand up in court. He doesn't know what he's talking about, but he certainly is letting us know how he feels about it and making up his own law and his own Constitution as he goes, as they are all doing.
So as a result the last thing that they want anybody to do is actually look at what the law of the United States is. And they certainly don't want us looking at the history of this country because they certainly do not want us finding any precedent for anything that, in this case, Trump has suggested. So now we have the soap opera, the daily soap opera that is the narrative of the day written by the media in Washington, and we've got the same thing about history.
Barack Obama has been ignoring the laws of our nation since his inauguration in January 2009. He has been rewriting our nations history with his lies about "who we are" as a nation throughout all his years in office as well. His minions in the mainstream media have given him a pass on his lawlessness and attempts at revisionist history. It is time for this BULL SHIT to end.
Donald Trump is pulling back the curtain on the fraud that has become our federal government. He is exposing for anyone who dares look that "political correctness" is a dangerous scourge upon our nation.
It is easier to believe a lie that one has heard a thousand times than to believe a fact that no one has heard before.
Barack Obama has told us a thousand times, "This is not who we are." And each time he has said this, he has lied. This IS who we are, and it is who we must be.
If only this fraud that sits in OUR White House would have consented to using the term "Radical Islam" to identify the likes of ISIS, this entire national discussion could have been avoided. Because he has refused to say the obvious, to say THE TRUTH, and call the enemy what they are and represent, "RADICAL ISLAM", Americans have been given no other choice but to identify all of Islam as a threat to our nation. ...until proven otherwise.
It may come as a surprise to some, but the world has not stopped turning after Donald Trump issued his most incendiary proposal yet on Monday.
The Republican front-runner proclaimed that the only proper course for America to take in the wake of the San Bernardino attack was to bar further Muslim immigration into the country until “we know what the hell is going on.”
The reaction, from all corners of the political sphere, was hyperbolic. Liberals took the hyperventilation up to 11 and officially decided that Trump literally is the second coming of Adolf Hitler. That response was probably not too shocking considering how the Left has treated The Donald’s candidacy so far.
What’s more surprising is the equally-intense reaction from Republican leaders to the latest Trump controversy. Despite being one of the few Republicans to respond to American fears about mass Muslim immigration with an actual plan, the whole topic is beyond the pale according to GOP elites.
The genius of Trump is that he’s been remarkably adept at making voters question whether what he says is actually crazy or just sounds that way because Americans have been conditioned to recoil at anything that breaks decorum or sounds like it might not be “PC.” And that plays right into his message. He makes you wonder if it’s you that’s the crazy one. Perhaps you’ve been put in a stupor by years of watered down stump speeches and Trump is just speaking plainly and saying what everyone knows is true but is too scared to say in public. If that’s true, he’s a kind of nationalistic Morpheus trying to pull you out of a dangerous, misplaced multiculturalism Matrix. Or at least that’s what he wants you to think. It could be that he is exactly what his detractors say he is: a demagogue that’s stark raving mad.
Nearly two-thirds of Republican primary voters back Donald Trump’s proposed moratorium on Muslim immigrants, claims a new poll.
According to Bloomberg, the poll — which has a 4-percent margin of error — shows an astounding 65 percent of Republicans agreed with Trump following his initial proclamation. After hearing detailed arguments from the opposition, 64 percent of the voters still agreed with the real estate mogul, suggesting “despite some conventional wisdom expressed in the last 48 hours, [the proposal] is unlikely to hurt Trump at least in the primary campaign.”
Read more here
__________________________________________
December 10th – Even after being blasted for days by the media and politicians of both parties, Trump’s poll numbers are rising. Not surprising considering the results of this new yougov poll that asks the following question: Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the Islamic religion? 1) GOP: 11% favorable, 75% unfavorable 2) Indies: 15% favorable, 58% unfavorable and even 3) Dems: 27% favorable, 45% unfavorable If American Muslims ever wish to improve these numbers they could start by canning the Muslim Brotherhood associated CAIR to be their spokespeople! When immigrants become U.S. citizens included in their oath of allegiance are the following words: “I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;” This is not rocket science, immigrants (no matter their religion) either honor this oath or they don’t. If they don’t they forfeit any right to be American citizens! Paula Priesse, via Facebook
___________________________________________
For this group, there is virtually no second-choice candidate. Even their feelings for Texas senator Ted Cruz, who has intentionally maintained a friendly relationship with Trump in an attempt to cozy up to his voters, bordered just above apathy. Were Trump to leave the Republican party, his supporters said almost unanimously, they would follow.
The next time you hear politicians denounce Barack Obama as a lawless, imperial president with a scandal-riddled administration, ask them what they’re going to do about it. Their gnashing of teeth over Obama’s self-granted omnipotence is repetitive.
Let’s agree with our ninth president, William Henry Harrison, who said there is nothing more corrupting, nothing more destructive than the exercise of unlimited power. We understand the problem. The only way for politicians to fix it is with a little less talk and a lot more action.
The Constitution provides the remedy for a president who commits “high crimes and misdemeanors.” It’s impeachment.
"The only thing necessary to transform America into something unrecognizable is for good men to do nothing!"
To be clear, “high crimes and misdemeanors” are not necessarily ordinary criminal offenses. Our Framers used the term to signify a dereliction of duty, and the first duty of the president is to enforce our laws and preserve, protect, and defend our Constitution.
Alexander Hamilton described impeachable offenses as those “which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” He explained that they are “political” offenses “as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”
No serious person who is paying attention can deny that Obama and his administration have abused and violated the public trust and disregarded the Constitution. Let me count the ways.
Without notifying Congress as required by law, he set free terrorist prisoners at a time of war when they can return to the battlefield to kill our troops.
In violation of our Constitution, he regularly ignores court orders, changes laws by executive fiat, and refuses to enforce laws he doesn’t like, including our immigration laws.
When Congress declined to pass amnesty for illegal immigrants’ offspring, he unilaterally enacted his own version of it, which created the current crisis on our border as illegal youth pour into our country to receive what he illegally promised them.
He committed fraud on the American people when he promised that if we liked our health care plan we could keep it.
He got us into a war in Libya without Congressional approval. When our ambassador begged for security at the consulate in Benghazi, he was ignored and then murdered when the consulate was attacked as predicted. Americans were left behind to die, as the president did nothing to rescue our people there. Afterwards, he helped spread the lie that a spontaneous protest over a YouTube video was to blame for this highly organized, premeditated terrorist attack.
Obama’s IRS targeted his political opponents for harassment. Then the agency lied to and stonewalled Congress and likely destroyed subpoenaed evidence, while Obama falsely declared there’s no corruption there, not even a smidgen.
From the VA scandal to his unconstitutional recess appointments, to his DOJ wiretapping reporters and giving guns to Mexican drug cartels, to violating religious freedom exercised by businesses and ignoring in-house illegal fundraising, the list of abuse goes on and on.
Barack Obama’s administration is proving itself a festering boil of scandal. The Constitution is rock solid in holding the president responsible for the executive branch. He can’t just vote “present” while shrugging and feigning ignorance about all these abuses of the public trust, any more than a mob boss can claim innocence because he didn’t personally do the hit. The buck stops with the guy at the top.
Impeachment is the ultimate check on an out-of-control executive branch. It is serious, not to be used for petty partisan purposes; and it is imperative that it becomes a matter of legitimate discussion before the American people lose all trust in our federal government.
Impeachment requires moral courage to advance what is right, and it requires political will. A complacent or disheartened electorate may silently endure these abuses from the administration, the permanent political class is only too happy to maintain the status quo, and the mainstream media is not a fair watchdog. So, the nation’s last line of defense is for We the People to rise up and say, “enough is enough.”
Obama’s lawless encouragement of illegal immigration should be the tipping point for that political will because it impacts all Americans – native-born and legal immigrants of all backgrounds who followed the rules and now watch rewards go to rule breakers while they’re forced to compete for limited jobs and resources. It’s the tipping point because the forgotten working class is hurt most by this lawlessness; and these good Americans deserve the strongest, most effective tool to defend the livelihoods they’ve so honorably built!
Some are arguing for cautious inaction and dismiss even a discussion of impeachment. With Obama’s poll numbers in the tank and his liberal policies exposed as failures, why rock the boat? But that argument misses the point.
The president is radically changing the way the executive branch does business. He is setting a dangerous precedent that will fundamentally change us. With his “pen and phone,” he’s abrogating Congressional authority in violation of the Constitution’s separation of powers. He’s making himself a ruler, not a president. We had a revolution back in 1776 because we don’t like kings.
Some argue we should wait for midterm elections and hope a big victory by Republicans in both Houses of Congress will rein in Obama.
Been there, done that in 2010. If Congress refuses to use the power the Constitution gives it, Barack Obama will continue to rule however he wants.
Some argue that at best the House might vote for articles of impeachment, but the Senate is unlikely to convict. But that is no argument against holding a president accountable and sending the people’s message to all successors.
Obama can keep laughing and say, “so sue me” to the House’s tepid lawsuit threat. Let’s hear him laugh off impeachment. At the very least, despite his mocking the Constitution, this Constitutional process will put him on notice.
The only thing necessary to transform America into something unrecognizable is for good men to do nothing! If not these violations and the president’s promise to continue to “go it alone” in ignoring the separation of powers and rule of law, what will it take for you to take a stand? How bad does it have to get?
We live in an America where the NSA spies on our communications, the IRS targets us because of our political beliefs, the border is overrun by foreign nationals, terrorist leaders are released to the battlefield, our health care is taken from us and we’re forced to buy a plan we don’t want and can’t afford, Catholic nuns are targeted by the government simply because they adhere to their Catholic faith, the Justice Department arms Mexican drug lords, and the president keeps a “kill list” of people he’s authorized to be executed on sight.
If you’re comfortable with all that, then by all means sit back and hope for the best. Those concerned about America want change. That comes with healing the injuries done to society by an unchecked president; that starts with impeachment.
Sarah Palin first made history on December 4, 2006, when she was sworn in as the first female and youngest governor of Alaska. In August 2008, Senator John McCain tapped Palin to serve as his vice-presidential running mate in his presidential campaign, making her the first woman to run on the Republican Party's presidential ticket. She is a contributor for Fox News where she offers her political commentary and analysis across all Fox News platforms.
Consumer Confidence Plunges To Lowest In 2013
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 10/25/2013 10:01
Following record UMich misses, Gallup's economic confidence collapse, the slump in the conference board's measure of confidence, and Bloomberg's index of consumer comfort signaling major concerns among rich and poor in this country (in spite of record highs in stocks), today's Consumer Confidence data from UMich continues to confirm a problem for all those 'hoping' for moar multiple expansion. Falling for the 3rd month in a row, and missing expectations for the 2nd month in a row, this is the lowest confidence print in 2013. Perhaps even more worrisome for the 'hope and change' crowd is that the 12-month economic outlook has collapsed to its lowest since Nov 2011. It would seem that all that free money flooding our 'markets' has reached peak efficacy in terms of confidence inspiration, and as Citi notes, when this cycle has played out in the past, equity market corrections are often quick to follow...
"We have just concluded the 5th fiscal year since President Obama took office. During those five years, the federal government has spent a total $3.7 trillion on approximately 80 different means-tested poverty and welfare programs. The common feature of means-tested assistance programs is that they are graduated based on a person’s income and, in contrast to programs like Social Security or Medicare, they are a free benefit and not paid into by the recipient," says the minority side of the Senate Budget Committee.
"The enormous sum spent on means-tested assistance is nearly five times greater than the combined amount spent on NASA, education, and all federal transportation projects over that time. ($3.7 trillion is not even the entire amount spent on federal poverty support, as states contribute more than $200 billion each year to this federal nexus—primarily in the form of free low-income health care.)
How To Opt Out of ObamaCare Without Paying the Fine
October 25th, 2013 at 10:26 am. by: George Washington
Less than two-hours ago, I submitted a revised W-4 form to our payroll department. My goal is to avoid being in a position where at the end of next year I am owed a refund from the federal government. As an act of civil disobedience, I am refusing to purchase health insurance. This means that I am subject to a tax/fine of 1% of my income (2% the following year, 2.5% thereafter). But the beautiful thing is that unless I am owed a tax refund, the government will never get any of that money.
The GOP needs to stop calling Obamacare a “train wreck.” That means it’s a mistake or accident. That means it’s a gigantic flop or failure. It’s not. This is a brilliant and purposeful attempt to damage the U.S. economy, kill jobs and bring down capitalism. It’s not a failure; it’s Obama’s grand success. It’s not a train wreck; Obamacare is a suicide attack.
Obama’s hero and mentor was Saul Alinsky, a radical Marxist intent on destroying capitalism. Alinksky’s stated advice was to call the other guy “a terrorist” to hide your own intensions; to scream that the other guy is “ruining America,” while you are the one actually plotting the destruction of America; to claim again and again in every sentence of every speech that you are “saving the middle class,” while you are busy wiping out the middle class.
Barack Obama traveled the country promising that ObamaCare would lower the cost of health insurance and increase availability to healthcare. But it has had the opposite effect: Health insurance costs are skyrocketing. Doctors are dropping out of the healthcare market in droves, and HMOs are firing doctors by the thousands.
But this was no surprise to Obama’s central planners. They knew that health insurance premiums would skyrocket for most Americans. They knew that doctors would drop out of the healthcare market in droves. They knew that most would opt out of Obamacare and pay the fine.
Analyst/trader Karl Denninger says Obama Care is doomed to failure because of pre-existing conditions of many signing up for coverage. Denninger explains, “If you are an insurance company and you only sell insurance to those who have already lit their house on fire, you’re not going to be in business very long. You have to have people who buy insurance who are not likely to have fires.” As far as the Affordable Care Act, Denninger thinks, “Now we have a huge problem because the only people who are going to enroll are the people who are going to crash the system if everyone else doesn’t show up.” Denninger contends if there are not enough young healthy people signing up for Obama Care, “It will implode before the end of the year.” Denninger goes on to say, “What Congress calculated rather coldly is they could shove a gun up young people’s backs and make them fork up the money.” There are two very big problems with this, according to Denninger, “They have no reason to buy today, and the fine is insufficient motivation because it is a small fraction of the premium.” Denninger predicts, “This is not going to bring down healthcare costs. This is going to accelerate costs. This is extremely bad law.” Join Greg Hunter as he goes One-on-One with Karl Denninger of Market-Ticker.org.
The Growing Rift With Saudi Arabia Threatens To Severely Damage The Petrodollar
By Michael Snyder, on October 23rd, 2013
The number one American export is U.S. dollars. It is paper currency that is backed up by absolutely nothing, but the rest of the world has been using it to trade with one another and so there is tremendous global demand for our dollars. The linchpin of this system is the petrodollar. For decades, if you have wanted to buy oil virtually anywhere in the world you have had to do so with U.S. dollars. But if one of the biggest oil exporters on the planet, such as Saudi Arabia, decided to start accepting other currencies as payment for oil, the petrodollar monopoly would disintegrate very rapidly. For years, everyone assumed that nothing like that would happen any time soon, but now Saudi officials are warning of a "major shift" in relations with the United States. In fact, the Saudis are so upset at the Obama administration that "all options" are reportedly "on the table". If it gets to the point where the Saudis decide to make a major move away from the petrodollar monopoly, it will be absolutely catastrophic for the U.S. economy.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) quietly dropped a bomb in its October Fiscal Monitor Report. Titled “Taxing Times,” the report paints a dire picture for advanced economies with high debts that fail to aggressively “mobilize domestic revenue.” It goes on to build a case for drastic measures and recommends a series of escalating income and consumption tax increases culminating in the direct confiscation of assets.
Yes, you read that right. But don’t take it from me. The report itself says:
When the Chips Are Down, the Government Will Be Tempted to Grab Our Assets
The writing is on the wall for private pensions. Once the dollar becomes too weakened by the printing of vast amounts of them in order to finance Washington’s budget deficit and to support the solvency of “banks too big too fail,” QE will have to end. Desperate for money to fill the gap, Washington will turn to confiscation of private assets should any be left after the coming economic collapse.
American conservatives who are so pleased that “those damned bureaucrats who live on the public tit” are getting their comeuppance fail to see the precedent for their own private pensions.
As long ago as the Clinton regime, Alicia Munnell, an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston who was appointed Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy, the position I had held in the Reagan administration, advocated confiscating 15 percent of private pension funds on the basis of the argument that the pensions had accumulated tax free.
The writing is on the wall for private pensions. Once the dollar becomes too weakened by the printing of vast amounts of them in order to finance Washington’s budget deficit and to support the solvency of “banks too big too fail,” QE will have to end. Desperate for money to fill the gap, Washington will turn to confiscation of private assets should any be left after the coming economic collapse.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics".
-- Mark Twain
And then there are the lies of Barack Hussein Obama II, the 44th and current President Of The United States.
Dan from Squirrel Hills Blog says this about President Obama:
Every President, every politician, and every human being tells lies and engages in acts of hypocrisy. But Barack Obama does these things to a far greater degree than anyone else that I have ever known of. His campaign promises were so much better sounding than anyone else’s – no lobbyists in his administration, waiting five days before signing all non-emergency bills so people would have time to read them, putting health care negotiations on C-SPAN, reading every bill line by line to make sure money isn’t being wasted, prosecution of Wall St. criminals, ending raids against medical marijuana in states where it’s legal, high levels of transparency. Obama’s promises of these wonderful things sounded inspiring and sincere. They sounded so much better than the promises of any other President. So when Obama broke these promises, it felt so much worse than when other Presidents broke their promises.
Dan then submits a well sourced list of 365 examples of the President's lying, lawbreaking, corruption, cronyism, etc. in his blog. You can see the entire list here:
"Now that the government has reopened and this threat to our economy is removed, all of us need to stop focusing on the lobbyists, and the bloggers, and the talking heads on radio and the professional activists who profit from conflict, and focus on what the majority of Americans sent us here to do, and that’s grow this economy, create good jobs, strengthen the middle class, educate our kids, lay the foundation for broad-based prosperity and get our fiscal house in order for the long haul." --President Obama 10/17/13
Watch him say it at 5:40 on the video:
How unfortunate for the President that NONE of his policies "grow this economy, create good jobs, strengthen the middle class, educate our kids, lay the foundation for broad-based prosperity..." Those damn bloggers and their calculators... This President hates the TRUTH so much that he actually has the nerve to ask you to dismiss the TRUTH and those that speak it, and embrace his word and his LIES instead.
A leader who blames my freedom of speech for his failure to govern. Imagine that.
Today we are going to focus solely on one of this president's BIGGEST LIES...The Affordable Care Act. Also know as, Obamacare. Or simply The Big Lie.
Today the President stood before a "hand picked" group Obamacare supporters and offered an update on the failure of Healtcare.gov. It was more of a series of excuses for it's failure to function than it was an update, but then making excuses it what this president does best. You could almost say he turned The Big Lie into an even BIGGER LIE.
You can subject yourself to the President's Healthcare.gov update below. Pay particular attention to the "letters" he reads from "satisfied" Obamacare customers, and ask youself, "Did real people write these letters?"
Some Observations Of A Produce Clerk:
Why did the lady from Delaware have to read "her Obamacare story"...if this was really "her story" wouldn't she just be able tell it to us, instead of reading it to us?
How did she save $150 on her healthcare costs when she just said she could NOT get insurance previously? If she wasn't paying for any health insurance, how did she save $150 a month with Obamacare?
Thousands of people are signing up and saving money? Really Mr. President, the entire country is aware that "thousands of people have signed up" is a bit more than a stretch...probably more than a reach too...it's a LIE. And "saving money"? You're joking right? It's pretty common knowledge to ANYBODY that has made it though to the end on Healthcare.gov that their insurance premiums are not only going to rise, they are probably going to sky rocket.
Did anybody here the President mention "deductibles"? No? I didn't either...
Why does he keep saying it's "affordable"? Does the President even know the definition of affordable? Or is Obamacare affordable just because, well, because the President says it is?
Why does he tell everyone about the "benefits" of the Affordable Care Act for those who already have health insurance, but fail to mention how much our insurance premiums have risen, even though the President promised us they wouldn't? In fact he said our premiums would fall when this law was passed.
Is there somebody holding up an applause sign off to the side?
Why does he say that people who cannot afford healthcare insurance can afford it if they use Healthcare.gov to shop for it? Does that make any sense at all? They can't afford it without the website, but with it they can? That's like saying I can't afford to eat at Red Lobster, but if I go inside I can. Really?
Tax credits? You mean subsidies, right Mr. President? And if you make more than 4 times the poverty level, you get no subsidy...that if you make over $30,0000 a year, you are going to be paying higher insurance premiums to pay for those that can't afford healthcare with or without the Healtcare.gov. Shhhh, I'm not supposed to tell you that. Oh, I'm sorry Barack...guess the cats out of the bag now.
Get healthcare coverage for less than $100 a month? Yeah right. But hey, the President himself said so...so it must be true.
The website has been visited 20 million times, so far, according to the President. Mr. President, was that 20 million individual visits, or was that 1 million individuals trying to get into the website 20 times each? The President said it was 20 million visits, so it must truly be 20 million.
He's bombing the audience with statistics...what does that tell you? He's making it all up.
And EVERYBODY is saving money!
OK, I have to stop now, I'm getting sick...and he's about to start reading the phony love letters from Obamacare recipients.
The point I want to make, is that the President stood up in front of a canned audience today to do what he does best...make excuse for HIS failures....and LIE.
What, you don't believe me?
I know you do, but just to support my assertion that the President [and his administration] is a pathological liar, I will share with you what others are saying about the Affordable Care Act, AND the President.
At the White House: Obamacare success stories that aren't
BY BYRON YORK | OCTOBER 21, 2013 AT 1:59 PM
In the days since the problems with the Obamacare website became too large to ignore, defenders of the administration cited the many people they said have already benefited from the new exchanges, as well as from the law as a whole. Presumably, the White House had many success stories to choose from in deciding who would stand behind the president at Monday's event. But some of the successes they chose don't seem to be successes at all.
By Tami Luhby @Luhby October 21, 2013: 10:28 AM ET
Complaint #1: I can't log in
Many people are still having trouble signing onto healthcare.gov, the federal exchange that's handling enrollment for 36 states. While the site no longer leaves applicants hanging with a hold screen, many are still receiving error messages when they try to log in.
Maura Grady of Florida told CNNMoney last week that the federal site was still giving her trouble. It was not accepting her username and password. When she clicked on the Forgot Password button, she was told she'd receive an email with reset instructions. But she didn't.
Asked whether she'd try again, she responded: "2, maybe 3 years! When I'm in the mood for some aggravation."
Is Obamacare in a Death Spiral?
By Megan McArdle Oct 21, 2013 5:20 PM ET
But there was also a fourth leg, always acknowledged but not always numbered: the subsidies. Without them, the mandate wouldn’t work, either politically or practically, because you can’t order someone to buy insurance that costs 50 percent of their take-home pay. And the wonks, and the journalists covering them, tacitly understood that there was a fifth leg: the exchanges. You can’t order people to get insurance if they don’t know where to buy it, or if the only quote they got from the one company they called cost more than they could afford.
The exchanges were also broadly understood to be needed to get young, healthy people into the system. Somewhat naturally, almost every story you’ve seen about a new enrollee -- including those told by the president this morning -- has focused on someone who couldn’t buy insurance before, or who had very expensive insurance. But it’s not surprising that those people are fighting through the system to get coverage; they would pull themselves to the top of Mount Rushmore using only their teeth if that’s what it took to get a cheap insurance policy. What we need to know is what is happening among the people who didn’t need Obamacare to help them buy insurance, because insurers would be perfectly happy to sell them a policy without it. Those are the folks whose premiums will cover treatment for the rest.
Well, for starters, a lot of people would like to know how the federal government showered $634 million on a host of IT contractors to build HealthCare.gov, a website that has had the worst debut of any product since New Coke. The site is supposed to provide a menu of insurance plans for Americans in the 36 states without their own site. Instead, it has become a black box — the few applications insurance companies have managed to receive from it are glitch-filled and error-riddled, the insurers say.
President Obama and Secretary of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius have both said that the problems were caused by the site’s popularity — the system was overloaded by too many users eager to sign up. But in the two weeks following its October 1 launch, the number of visitors to HealthCare.gov dropped by 88 percent, based on the findings of the Millward Brown Digital research firm. The site has been taken down at least twice for “fixes.”
The shutdown drama has distracted from the fact that Obamacare’s debut is worse than many realize — and it threatens the fundamental viability of the law itself. The administration claims the Obamacare online exchanges crashed because the Web site got more than 8 million hits in the first week. Please. You know how many people visit Amazon.com every week? More than 70 million. The difference is: 1.) Amazon seldom crashes, and 2.) on Amazon, people actually buy something.
It appears virtually no one is buying Obamacare. While administration officials brag about how many visitors the site is getting, they refuse to divulge how many people actually signed up. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was asked that directly by Jon Stewart on “The Daily Show.” “Fully enrolled?” Sebelius stuttered. “I can’t tell you. Because I don’t know.” That is a frightening admission of incompetence. If the Obama administration can’t even track how many people signed up, how on earth is it going to verify whether those people are eligible for subsidies? How will it protect against fraud?
Constant “glitches” keep people from logging into the exchanges. Humiliating live video of reporters normally favorable to Obamacare simply giving up in frustration because they cannot sign up. Consumers who are lucky enough to get through the system are stunned to learn that their premiums have skyrocketed by thousands of dollars. One Pennsylvania mother says that she can either pay her increased premiums or pay for her kids to eat, but she can’t do both.
Extremely personal information has already leaked from the system in Minnesota. Software security experts from McAfee predict millions of identity theft victims. And one of the healthcare exchanges was forced to acknowledge that information collected from patients will be shared with law enforcement.
Tom Bevan at RealClearPolitics wondered why Kathleen Sebelius still has a job. Jon Stewart invited her onto The Daily Show and mocked that he could “download every movie ever made” before she could log onto her own website. Her home state senator called for her to resign for "gross incompetence," as exactly “zero” residents of Kansas were able to successfully enroll in the program.
The rollout has been such a nightmare that it is abundantly clear now that members of Congress really did not, as then-Speaker Pelosi admitted, even read the Obamacare bill before they passed it. In fact, the program's launch has been such an unimaginable disaster that it raises an alarming new question that would have been unthinkable amid the exaggerated claims of health utopia from three years ago: Did President Obama even read this legislation before he signed it into law?
Raising the Debt Ceiling Does Not Increase Our Debt!
It may be true that raising the debt limit does not authorize "new" spending commitments, but the suggestion that raising the debt limit does not increase the debt is both absurd and a LIE.
The United States Treasury claims raising the debt ceiling simply allows the government to finance existing legal obligations that Congresses and presidents of both parties have made in the past.
If only that were true, I guess it depends on how you define "finance".
If raising the debt ceiling doesn't raise the national debt, why has the national debt risen following each increase in the debt ceiling.
Let's begin with a brief history of raising the debt ceiling. I will limit our debt ceiling history lesson to the years since Barack Obama was elected President in 2008.
The fiscal year for the United States Government begins every year on October 1 and ends the following year on September 30. Therefore, for this debt ceiling history lesson, we will begin with the fiscal year 2009 that began on October 1, 2008. Barack Obama was elected President of the United States on November 4, 2008.
The 2007-2008 fiscal crisis and subsequent economic slowdown led to sharply higher deficits in recent years, which led to a series of debt limit increases. The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (H.R. 3221), signed into law (P.L. 110-289) on July 30, 2008, included a debt limit increase. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (H.R. 1424), signed into law on October 3 (P.L. 110-343), raised the debt limit again. The debt limit rose a third time in less than a year to $12,104 billion with the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 on February 13, 2009 (ARRA; H.R. 1), which was signed into law on February 17, 2009 (P.L. 111-5). Following that measure, the debt limit was subsequently increased by $290 billion to $12,394 billion (P.L. 111-123) in a stand-alone debt limit bill on December 28, 2009, and by $1.9 trillion to $14,294 billion on February 12, 2010 (P.L. 111-139), as part of a package that also contained the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.
The 2011 debt limit episode, during the 112th Congress, was resolved on August 2, 2011, when President Obama signed into law the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; S. 365). The federal debt had reached its statutory limit on May 16, 2011, prompting Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to declare a debt issuance suspension period, allowing certain extraordinary measures to extend Treasury’s borrowing capacity. The BCA included provisions aimed at deficit reduction and would allow the debt limit to rise between $2,100 billion and $2,400 billion in three stages, with the latter two subject to congressional disapproval. All three increases, totaling $2,100 billion, have occurred. A January 12, 2012, presidential certification triggered a third, $1.2 trillion increase that took place on January 28, 2012. A disapproval measure, which would have been subject to veto, could have blocked that increase if enacted within 15 days of the certification. On January 18, 2012, the House passed such a measure (H.J.Res. 98) on a 239-176 vote. The Senate declined to take up a companion measure (S.J.Res. 34) and on January 26, 2012, voted down a motion to proceed (44-52) on the House-passed measure (H.J.Res. 98), thus clearing the way for the increase, resulting in a debt limit of $16,394 billion.
According to the timeline above, the debt ceiling has been raised FOUR times since Barack Obama became President of the United States. The debt ceiling is today up for a FIFTH increase during the Obama presidency.
Contrary to popular belief, the current debt ceiling was originally reached on December 31, 2012. It was only through extraordinary measures by both the US Treasury Department and the US Congress that the "current" debt ceiling has been reached once again....and I do mean EXTRAORDINARY...in fact, the government has been operating WITHOUT a debt ceiling since January 31, 2013:
The 2011 debt limit episode, during the 112th Congress, was resolved on August 2, 2011, when President Obama signed into law the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; S. 365). The federal debt had reached its statutory limit on May 16, 2011, prompting Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to declare a debt issuance suspension period, allowing certain extraordinary measures to extend Treasury’s borrowing capacity. The BCA included provisions aimed at deficit reduction and would allow the debt limit to rise between $2,100 billion and $2,400 billion in three stages, with the latter two subject to congressional disapproval. All three increases, totaling $2,100 billion, have occurred. A January 12, 2012, presidential certification triggered a third, $1.2 trillion increase that took place on January 28, 2012. A disapproval measure, which would have been subject to veto, could have blocked that increase if enacted within 15 days of the certification.8 On January 18, 2012, the House passed such a measure (H.J.Res. 98) on a 239-176 vote. The Senate declined to take up a companion measure (S.J.Res. 34) and on January 26, 2012, voted down a motion to proceed (44-52) on the House-passed measure (H.J.Res. 98), thus clearing the way for the increase, resulting in a debt limit of $16,394 billion.
On December 26, 2012, the U.S. Treasury stated that the debt would reach its limit on December 31 and that the Treasury Secretary would declare a debt issuance suspension period to authorize extraordinary measures (noted above, described below) that could be used to meet federal payments for approximately two months. As predicted, federal debt did reach its limit on December 31 when large biannual interest payments, in the form of Treasury securities, were made to certain trust funds. From December 31, 2012, until H.R. 325 was signed on February 4, 2013, total federal debt subject to limit was held just $25 million under its $16,394 billion limit.
The U.S. Treasury stressed that these extraordinary measures would be exhausted more quickly than in recent debt limit episodes for various technical reasons. A January 14, 2013, letter from Treasury Secretary Geithner also estimated that extraordinary measures would be exhausted sometime between mid-February or early March 2013.13 CBO had previously estimated that federal debt would reach its limit near the end of December 2012, and that the extraordinary measures could be used to fund government activities until mid-February or early March 2013. One policy research group had projected that the deadline for action would fall in mid-February,15 while other estimates put that date at the beginning of March 2013. Changes in economic conditions or financial markets, as well as in federal taxation and expenditure trends,
affect Treasury’s debt management requirements.
During the 112th Congress, Speaker John Boehner had stated that a future debt limit increase should be linked to spending cuts of at least the same magnitude, a position that reflects the structure of the Budget Control Act. On April 10, 2013, the Oversight Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee held hearings on the debt limit and how the U.S. government might operate when the debt limit binds.
House Republicans decided on January 18, 2013, to propose a three-month suspension of the debt limit tied to a provision that would delay Members’ salaries in the event that their chamber of Congress had not agreed to a budget resolution.19 H.R. 325, according to its sponsor, would allow Treasury to pay bills coming due before May 18, 2013, and would hold salaries of Members of Congress in escrow if a house of Congress had not agreed to a budget resolution by April 15, 2013. Such a provision could raise constitutional issues under the Twenty-Seventh Amendment. A new debt limit would then be set on May 19.20
On January 23, 2013, the House passed H.R. 325, which suspends the debt limit until May 19, 2013, on a 285-144 vote. The Senate passed the measure on January 31 on a 64-34 vote; it was then signed into law (P.L. 113-3) on February 4.
Once H.R. 325 was signed into law on February 4, the U.S. Treasury replenished funds that had been used to meet federal payments, thus resetting its ability to use extraordinary measures. As of February 1, 2013, the U.S. Treasury had used about $31 billion in extraordinary measures.21 Statutory language that grants the Treasury Secretary the authority to declare a “debt issuance suspension period” (DISP), which permits certain extraordinary measures, also requires that “the Secretary of the Treasury shall immediately issue” amounts to replenish those funds once a debt issuance suspension period (DISP) is over.22 A DISP extends through “any period for which the Secretary of the Treasury determines for purposes of this subsection that the issuance of obligations of the United States may not be made without exceeding the public debt limit.”
Once the debt limit suspension lapsed after May 18, 2013, the U.S. Treasury reset the debt limit at $16,699 billion, or $305 billion above the previous statutory limit. On May 20, 2013, the first business day after the expiration of the suspension, debt subject to limit was just $25 million below the limit.
Some Members, as noted above, stated that H.R. 325 (P.L. 113-3) was intended to prevent the U.S. Treasury from accumulating cash balances. The U.S. Treasury’s operating cash balances at the start of May 20, 2013 ($34 billion), were well below balances ($60 billion) at the close of February 4, 2013, when H.R. 325 was enacted.
Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew notified Congress on May 20, 2013, that he had declared a new debt issuance suspension period (DISP), triggering authorities that allow the Treasury Secretary to use extraordinary measures to meet federal obligations.27 That DISP will last until August 2, 2013, just before the expected date of a summer recess of Congress.28 Secretary Lew urged Congress to raise the debt limit in a “timely fashion.”
That was certainly a series of extraordinary events, care of the Congress and the Treasury Department, that has gotten us to today's "threat" of a debt default. It is bit disingenuous of President Obama and the Senate Democrats to blame the Republicans for this looming "debt default". If the Republicans "wanted" a debt default, they could have forced one months ago.
Okay, we have now established that the debt ceiling has been raised FOUR times since President Obama was elected in November 2008. The President and the Treasury Department are today seeking a FIFTH increase in the debt ceiling.
So the debt ceiling has been raised FOUR times during the Obama presidency, with a fifth on the way. If raising the debt ceiling doesn't raise the debt, as President Obama claims, then why have we had to keep raising the debt ceiling? BECAUSE THE DEBT KEEPS RISING!!!
According to TreasuryDirect, the 2009 fiscal year began with the a US Treasury debt of $10,024,724,896,912.49...that's $10.024 BILLION. Today's debt stands at $16,747,409,787,772.33...that's $16.747 BILLION. During President Obama's 4.8 years in office, the US Treasury's debt has risen $6.723 BILLION!
FOUR debt ceiling increases, and a $6.723 BILLION increase in US Treasury debt since October 1, 2009...and the President stands before the American public...BEFORE THE ENTIRE WORLD...and he makes the claim that raising the debt ceiling does not raise the debt? Seriously?
Did this man pass third grade math, or is he a bonafide moron? If the President honestly believes that the American public is dumb enough to believe this bald faced lie, he is in for a world of hurt. Can he not hear the entire WORLD laughing at him?
Obama Lies About the Implications of Raising the Debt Ceiling
As we noted in the opening: The United States Treasury claims raising the debt ceiling simply allows the government to finance existing legal obligations that Congresses and presidents of both parties have made in the past. If we have to borrow money to pay back money we have previously borrowed, are we "financing the debt", or are we really just adding to it?
(CNSNews.com) - The U.S. Treasury needed to pay off a record of approximately $7,546,726,000,000 in maturing Treasury securities in fiscal 2013, which ended last Monday, according to Treasury's official accounting.
During the same period, the Treasury turned around and issued another $8,323,949,000,000 in new Treasury securities.
The spread between the old debt held by the public that matured and was paid off during the fiscal year and the new debt that was sold to cover government spending over and above tax revenues, increased the net federal government debt held by the public by $777.223 billion during the fiscal year.
In the previous fiscal year, 2012, the Treasury had needed to redeem only $6,804,956,000,000 in Treasury securities, but then it needed to turn around and issue $7,924,651,000,000 in new securities—increasing the net debt held by the public by $1.119695 trillion.
And yet, the President insists that raising the debt ceiling DOES NOT raise the debt! Perhaps the President is confusing the debt with spending. Does he think the money that is borrowed is never spent? Does he think that just because "he says" that raising the debt ceiling doesn't raise the debt...it doesn't raise the debt?
I'm just a produce clerk, and from what I have observed, the President is either REALLY BAD at math, or a complete moron...or simply, he is just a LIAR. Gasp!
