| |||||
*
*
*
*CLAIMING VICTORY AS IF OBAMA HIMSELF RODE INTO BATTLE, HE SHOWBOATED OSAMA’S DEATH, WHO LIKELY DIED IN 2007 EXPLOSION. THIS BACKFIRES HORRIBLY ON OBAMA LAST SATURDAY MORNING....
IN THE MIDST OF THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS FORMALLY FILED 3 WEEKS PRIOR TO OBAMA SAYING “LOOKIE I GOT OSAMA....” IN MAY:- ACCORDING TO FOX NEWS, NATURAL CAUSES GOT HIM IN ‘01;
- ACCORDING TO BHUTTO HE DIED IN ‘07 EXPLOSION AND SHE WAS ASSASSINATED FOR SAYING THAT SHORTLY AFTER;
- AND THEN ‘2011 MISSION ACCOMPLISHED’, OBAMA MAKES OFFICIAL DEATH DECLARATION:
GA Tea Party
Bhutto was assassinated for speaking the truth about Osama dying in an explosion in 2007, the Youtube video has been up for 4yrs. now: I would say given the fact Twitter suspended my acct. and refuses to reinstate it without explanation over this tweet, that I am indeed correct:
1 May: @LibertyMaven LET'S CARBON DATE OSAMA'S BODY: 2007 Bhutto admitting Osama Bin Laden was dead. http://bit.ly/mNWwT5 -
Looks more like Osama died in '07 to me, Bhutto may have been righthttp://lnk.ms/MPx8J she said he died in an explosion, Bhutto said ithttp://lnk.ms/NXXf5. Who gets the reward for Osama's death if he supposedly died in '07? http://lnk.ms/MMmy6 Bhutto http://lnk.ms/MMyNt Twitter promotes photoshop Osama death http://lnk.ms/MN8br Islamic world criticizes "out-to-sea burial"
2 hours ago · Like
Aja Brooks After all Bhutto was assassinated, and the picture of his head exploded like a watermelon looks real, and no one has disputed it with corresponding photoshop image, like the one Obama won't release to the public, that is a fake anyway.
2 hours ago · Like
Aja Brooks I would say given the fact Twitter suspended my acct. and refuses to reinstate it without explanation over this tweet, that I am indeed correct:
1 May: @LibertyMaven LET'S CARBON DATE OSAMA'S BODY: 2007 Bhutto admitting Osama Bin Laden was dead. http://bit.ly/mNWwT5 -
2 hours ago · Like · 1 person
Cindy Fox I hope this mission was not fake because there are 24 Seals and chopper pilots caught in this web of lies and a ship of sailors and marines! Its hard to believe somewhere down the line it leak out that whole operation was fake! So because of our military I hope they haven't been used in such a way!
2 hours ago · Like · 1 person
Aja Brooks Well, they will have plenty of time to explain it, I'm just thinking that him not having a trial first, and them emphasizing that he didn't resist is suspect.
2 hours ago · Like
Aja Brooks Even Saddam was tried, so we could publicly watch his head roll! They denied us that justice, of seeing him publicly executed.
2 hours ago · Like
Cindy Fox Can you imagine what a trial would have cost! It would turn into a 3 ring circus with a team of lawyers defend'n him! Would he'd get death? I doubt it "life maybe"! Has any of them who's gone on trial received death? No! Happy he gone and terrorists don't need OBL to murder anyone its in their blood!
2 hours ago via · Unlike · 1 person
Aja Brooks So why could they not execute him publicly then, knowing declaring his death, whether it happened in '01, '07, or last weekend is an issue of default Jihad?
about an hour ago · Like
Aja Brooks BOTTOM LINE: when I said (LET'S CARBON DATE OSAMA'S BODY: '07 Bhutto admits Osama was dead. http://bit.ly/mNWwT5) it was put out to sea in 2hrs.
52 minutes ago · Like
*MAD HATTER NEWS* there is only one photo of Osama, the watermelon head and I'm not convinced he died in the compound. I agree that with the UN, this needs to be made public after Obama meets with SEAL TEAM. They put themselves at risk, it is only right to ask them first what they want revealed to the public or not. UN expert asks US to disclose Bin Laden raid facts - San Jose Mercury News http://t.co/jHRPlZM
GENEVA—The U.N.
15 hours ago · Like · · SubscribeUN expert asks US to disclose Bin Laden raid facts
The Associated PressPosted: 05/06/2011 02:13:50 AM PDT
GENEVA—The U.N.'s independent investigator on extrajudicial killings has called on the United States to reveal more details of the raid on Osama bin Laden's Pakistan hideaway to allow experts to assess the legality of his killing.
South African law professor Christof Heyns said in a statement Friday that Washington "should disclose the supporting facts to allow an assessment in terms of international human rights law standards."
Heyns says "it will be particularly important to know if the planning of the mission allowed an effort to capture Bin Laden."
His statement echoed similar appeals from other U.N. officials, human rights groups and the International Committee of the Red Cross.
U.S. officials say the raid is legal under U.S. and international law.
SINCE OSAMA WAS NOT OF THE ACTUAL MURDERERS WHO COMMITTED THE ACTS OF 9/11/01, IT IS NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND THE 3PT. TERRORISTS’ SUCCESS PLAN, WHAT OSAMA INDOCTRINATED HIS HUMAN MURDER WEAPONS WITH:
-IDEOLOGICAL -LOGISTICAL -ACTUAL
THIS IS THE PHILOSOPHY OF JIHAD, HOW THIS DROVE PEOPLE TO KILL OTHERS ON 9/11/01, LIKE HITLER DID TO THE JEWS. THIS PHILOSOPHY HAS SPONSORED ACTS OF TERRORISM IN THE PAST, AND HAS CONTINUED TO PREVAIL OVER THE PAST 10YRS., EVEN FROM THE OSAMA PROPAGANDA CENTER IN PAKISTAN, WHICH WAS TO ASSURE THAT JIHAD WAS AND WOULD CONTINUE, NO MATTER WHAT WAS SAID ABOUT OSAMA’S DEATH OR THE MOVEMENT OF RADICAL ISLAM.
THE POINT OF THE UNITED NATIONS’ INVESTIGATION IS TO PROMOTE SECURITY AND INCREASE SAFETY, BY UNDERSTANDING WHY OSAMA’S PHILOSOPHIES MOTIVATED THE MURDERS OF THOUSANDS WHO PERISHED ON 9/11/01 THROUGH THE ACTS OF OTHERS, OR THOSE WHO WERE COMMANDED OR ISSUED BY OSAMA TO CONDUCT ACTS OF JIHAD.
THE DEATH DECLARATION OF OSAMA BRINGS WITH IT FULL-SCALE JIHAD BY DEFAULT.
WE MUST BE EVER VIGILANT, NO MATTER THE DISPARITIES SURROUNDING THE EVENTS OR WHEN THEY ACTUALLY OCCURRED. WHAT DID WE LEARN BY THIS OPERATION?
Obama mourns dead in likely Afghan shoot-down
By MARK S. SMITH
The Associated PressWASHINGTON — President Barack Obama said Saturday that the deaths of Americans in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan are a reminder of the "extraordinary" price the U.S. military is paying in the decade-long Afghan war.
Virginia Beach residents Tom Hall, left, and Mark Janik, center, watch as news about the Navy Seal Team Six helicopter accident is displayed on a television at a bar in Virginia Beach , Va., Saturday, Aug. 6, 2011. The headquarters for the Navy Seal Team Six is located in Virgina Beach. (AP Photo/Steve Helber)
Virginia Beach residents Tom Hall, left, and Mark Janik, center, watch as news about the Navy Seal Team Six helicopter accident is displayed on a television at a bar in Virginia Beach , Va., Saturday, Aug. 6, 2011. The headquarters for the Navy Seal Team Six is located in Virgina Beach. (AP Photo/Steve Helber)
More Nation & World stories »
U.S. officials believe that none of those who died in the crash had participated in the bin Laden raid, although they were from the same unit that carried out that mission, two officials told The Associated Press. They spoke about matters of military security on condition of anonymity.
Obama, who learned of the incident at Camp David, issued a statement saying his thoughts and prayers go out to the families of those who perished. The White House had no comment about the details of who died or what happened.
"Their deaths are a reminder of the extraordinary sacrifices made by the men and women of our military and their families, including all who have served in Afghanistan," the president said. "We will draw inspiration from their lives, and continue the work of securing our country and standing up for the values that they embodied."
Obama said he also mourned the loss of seven Afghans "who died alongside our troops in pursuit of a more peaceful and hopeful future for their country."
National security adviser Tom Donilon first notified Obama of the incident shortly after 8 p.m. EDT Friday. The president spoke again to Donilon later Friday night and received a paper briefing both that evening and Saturday morning.
Obama issued his written statement just before 10 a.m. Saturday. A half-hour later, Obama, at Camp David, was briefed via conference call by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, White House chief of staff Bill Daley, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, Donilon and members of the president's national security staff.
Karzai sent his condolences to Obama, according to a statement issued by his office.
The Taliban claimed to have brought the helicopter down with a rocket attack, but similar claims in the past have proven to be exaggerated.
NATO officials in Afghanistan said they were trying to determine the details of what happened, but they acknowledged there was "enemy activity" in the area.
Panetta said he was saddened by the deaths of the Americans and Afghans.
"Their courage was exemplary, as was their determination to make this a safer world for their countries and for their fellow citizens," Panetta said in a statement. "We will stay the course to complete that mission, for which they and all who have served and lost their lives in Afghanistan have made the ultimate sacrifice. They and their families are in my thoughts, in my prayers and in my heart."
Mullen warned against jumping to conclusions about the incident before investigators have completed their work. He also asked that the process of informing family members be respected, no matter how long it takes, and that people remember that "the troops we lose in this war aren't just statistics or numbers on a wall."
"They were parents and siblings, and someone's child. We need to make sure we do all we can to comfort and support the families whose lives are now forever changed," he said in a statement.
Mullen also said Americans must remain committed to the mission.
"The fight goes on. These brave Americans volunteered to serve their country," he said. "They risked their lives doing it. They gave their lives doing it. The best way we can honor that sacrifice is to keep at it, keep fighting, keep moving forward. I'm certain that is what our fallen would have wanted, and it is certainly what we are going to do."
The toll Saturday surpassed the worst single-day loss of life for the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan since the war began in 2001 — the June 28, 2005, downing of a military helicopter in eastern Kunar province. In that incident, 16 Navy SEALs and Army special operations troops were killed when their craft was shot down while they were attempting to rescue four SEALs under attack by the Taliban.
___
Associated Press writers Kimberly Dozier and Lolita C. Baldor contributed to this report.
___
August 06, 2011 08:21 PM EDT
Copyright 2011, The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
FRI AUG 12 2011 01:39
25
0
Story Views | |
Now: | 7 |
Last Hour: | 12 |
Last 24 Hours: | 79 |
Total: | 79 |
*By BirtherReport.com (Reporter)
Contributor profile | More stories
100% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.
Nigerian government nationalizes 3 banks as industry is embroiled in corruption allegations
By Associated Press, Published: August 5
ABUJA, Nigeria — Nigerian financial regulators nationalized three banks Friday night in the course of an ever-widening probe of corruption allegations and mismanagement of fiscal institutions in the oil-rich nation.Authorities took over Afribank PLC, Bank PHB and Spring Bank PLC after markets closed in Africa’s most populous nation, quickly renaming the institutions Mainstreet Bank Ltd., Keystone Bank Ltd. and Enterprise Bank Ltd., the country’s finance ministry said.
The move comes two years after the nation’s central bank injected $2.55 billion into the troubled banking industry and some former CEOs now face allegations of stealing depositors’ money.
This “represents an important milestone in the process of stabilizing the banks and enables these banks to move forward with a more certain future and bring to closure the banking crisis that started in 2008 in Nigeria,” Finance Minister Yerima Ngama said in a statement.
Nigeria’s central bank also issued a statement promising depositors their money would be safe and that interbank obligations would be covered through Dec. 31.
A top exporter of crude oil to the U.S., Nigeria is also considered to be West Africa’s banking center.
But central banker Sanusi Lamido Sanusi fired five top banking CEOs amid the 2009 bailout, blaming the crisis on poor decisions that led the firms into “technical insolvency.” Analysts later said the crisis grew out of lax regulation of financial institutions in Nigeria, leaving ample room for banks to cook their books.
The financial crisis ultimately affected nine of Nigeria’s 24 banks.
Anti-corruption officials later arrested and charged some former CEOs with stealing depositors’ funds, including former Afribank CEO Sebastian Adigwe. Former Bank PHB PLC chief Francis Atuche also faces fraud charges.
Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Alan Keyes: Obama's Connecticut Social Security Number Important Issue
Thu Aug 11 2011 22:40SHARE THIS STORY
Obama Social Security Number to become issue in 2012 race?
'You better probe a little harder to make sure identity you're dealing with is a real identity'Joe Kovacs
President Obama's potentially criminal use of a mysterious, Connecticut-based Social Security Number should become an important issue in his quest for re-election in 2012, says a former presidential candidate and ambassador in Ronald Reagan's administration.
Alan Keyes, who most recently sought the Republican nomination in 2008, discussed concerns about why Obama has a number reserved for Connecticut applicants, despite the president's never having lived in the Constitution State.
The first three digits of Obama's SSN are 042. That code falls within the range of numbers for Connecticut, which according to the Social Security Administration has been 040 through 049.
"I believe that when you are confronted with a situation that is filled with these kinds of – what shall we call them – anomalies, disparities, it is reasonable common sense to want to try to get straight answers," said Keyes.
"If you're trying to ascertain whether or not somebody ought to be sitting with, as they used to say, their finger on the button of nuclear weapons that can blow up the world, their power extending to decisions that can collapse our economy, their influence extending to areas that can destroy the standards and moral conscience of our people in the eyes of the world, I think you might want to know who they were. It might be a good idea!"
Jerome Corsi's New York Times best-seller, "Where's the Birth Certificate?", which addresses Obama's Social Security Number, is now available for immediate shipping, autographed by the author, only from the WND Superstore
Keyes' comments came during an online interview with Stan Solomon, as he addressed an issue that has been avoided by the White House and almost completely ignored by national news agencies.
"Let's say that you're trying to establish someone's identity for the purposes of an investigation and you come across a Social Security Number that has that person coming from a state that all the other records of their life indicate they've never been to," Keyes explained.
"I think you would look at that as an anomaly that suggests, among other things, that you better probe a little harder to make sure that the identity that you're dealing with is a real identity – that it's not something that's been in some sense fabricated for some particular purpose, because one of the things you want to do if you're tracking somebody down is make sure you're tracking them down, not following some phony figment down to dead ends. That's common sense."
Keyes thinks there are many Americans who are aware of this Social Security Number mystery and simply can't understand why it's not being addressed.
"Is it incompetence? Is it cowardice?" he asks rhetorically. "Is it just indifference and nonchalance of this elite in the courts and in politics, in the Congress and elsewhere?"
Steve Davis, police chief for Southport, Ind., was a co-host on the program, chiming in, "If anyone believes Barack Obama is gonna make an identity-theft commercial soon, forget it. It's not gonna happen."
Keyes then went on a scathing indictment of the current crop of political candidates and their apparent unwillingness to take on the issue. MORE HERE www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.
Alan Keyes on Obama's Bogus Social Security Number - 8/11/2011
Fox Business: Alan Keyes Discusses Natural Born Citizen Issue - 4/21/11
We Have a Criminal and Forger in the White House! 20110627 issue Wash Times Natl Wkly pg 5
CARTOON BELOW....
CARTOON BELOW....
Want to share YOUR story with our dynamic and rapidly growing audience?
Click here to become a Contributor.
Read more in Obama Birthplace Controversy- Alan Keyes: Time To Investigate Obama's Ssn
- Alan Keyes: Obama's Connecticut Social Security Number Important Issue
- MSNBC Scrubs Ad Admitting and Defending Obama's Ineligibility
- “Questions Answered for the Obama $104,500.00 “Buffer Zone, A Gift From Rita Rezko To The Trust”
- Birther Summit's Video Challenge To Colin Powell...general, Where Are You?
- Colonel Lawrence Sellin: Obamas Ineligibility; Take Down Obama and the Rogue Government
- 3 days after my upcoming show cause hearing in HI, there is a Marxist day of rage. Talk about pressure on the judge in the liberal -Democrat state of HI
- Shocking Proof Of Obama’s Illegitimacy Supported By 2008 Forged Document Image He Copied From Internet, Not Official Hawaiian Health Department Doc
- fire consumes obama's hawaiian birth records in the vault?
- That's great!...Very reassuring...
Colonel Lawrence Sellin: Obamas Ineligibility; Take Down Obama and the Rogue Government
Thu Aug 11 2011 16:30Obama’s ineligibility: Prepare to defend America - Take down Obama and the rogue government
- Colonel Lawrence Sellin
If wanting to uphold the Constitution, restore the rule of law and save our country from destruction is now considered terrorism or even treason; then count me among the guilty.
When a government stops listening to the voice of the people; then count them among the tyrants that patriotic Americans have always stood against.
Deceitful and arrogant political leadership has made the entire federal government culpable of obstruction of justice and dereliction of duty.
Ignoring our Constitutional crisis and the endemic corruption of the political establishment will, without a doubt, lead to the end of the United States.
There is no doubt that Barack Hussein Obama was illegally elected to the Presidency according to Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the Constitution and the Supreme Court binding precedent of Minor and Happersett.
There is no doubt that he committed felonies by forging birth documents and his Selective Service registration and has been illegally using a Social Security Number.
Finally, and most critically, there is no doubt that Obama does not want the United States to survive.
There is also no doubt that the political establishment, both Democrats and Republicans, have aided and abetted the Obama agenda by not challenging his Constitutional eligibility or providing vigorous opposition to his
destructive policies.
America is well down the road to national suicide.
As Larry Klayman, the founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, stated:
“All of these entrenched Washington establishment politicians sold the country out in the last weeks when they agreed to a phony deficit reduction package, which they crowed about for days as if they had accomplished a ‘Godly’ feat, only to see that Standard and Poors and the financial markets saw through their deceitful and traitorous charade. Now the nation is in a downward nosedive, with disastrous ramifications not only for us but the world.”
It is time to take the gloves off. Waiting until the 2012 election is no longer an option.
Obama is a usurper and a criminal. He must be removed from office.
The Congress is hopelessly corrupt and incompetent. They must be replaced.
Patriotic Americans must protest and begin acts of civil disobedience, which may be our last best effort to prevent the violence seen in Great Britain from happening in the United States.
There will be a “Pitchfork Rally” at 10 AM on August 15, 2011 at the steps of the Georgia state capital to support Georgia’s “Presidential Eligibility Assurance Act” to ensure that the usurper Obama cannot run for President in 2012.
Larry Klayman has announced “Assault on Washington - call for civil disobedience to remove Democrat and Republican leaders” to be held week of September 17, 2011 - Constitution Day in Washington, D.C. to “rid our nation of the Democrat and Republican self serving political leaders who are in the process of destroying our nation, before it is too late.”
Klayman calls for: MORE HERE www.canadafreepress.com/index.
FRI AUG 12 2011 00:16
6
1
Story Views | |
Now: | 1 |
Last Hour: | 1 |
Last 24 Hours: | 56 |
Total: | 56 |
*By Abdulkarim Jimale (Reporter)
Contributor profile | More stories
100% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.
To Me, to Many Egyptians, Obama Has No Credibility
By Sara Khorshid
Egyptian Journalist
In 2010, I attended a press briefing at the US embassy in Cairo, the speaker being Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy and Human Rights. His statements fell on my ears unglamorously as he echoed President Barack Obama's rhetoric of promoting democracy in the Middle East through supporting economic and scientific development. I told him that US aid and support in that direction would be a waste of time and resources in view of the prevalent corruption that the dictatorial regime was embracing and benefiting from. But the State Department speaker responded with the typical diplomatic lines in defense of the US alliance with the Egyptian government.
Back then, the ousted Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was the "stalwart ally to the United States," as Obama once said in a 2009 BBC interview. Obama's backing of the region's dictators was receiving much criticism from the Middle East as well as among American experts and analysts.
Obama didn't listen, and he went on with his stability-more-important-than-
After all of that, we couldn't expect Obama to suddenly present himself as the preacher of Arab democracy, claiming unwavering support for the will of the Egyptian and Arab people, as he did in his Middle East Speech on May 19.
Both his statements and actions in the past two years have reinforced our belief that the US governments, one administration after the other, have wanted nothing for the Arab world but US interests, from the perspective of those ruling America.
So when Obama comes now and speaks about our fight for our rights, saying that he will respect our choices, we can't believe him. |
We know very well that the US, pressured by the pro-Israel lobby, wanted a stable Egypt ruled by the dictator we revolted against after years of oppression and injustice, because he supported Israel and the Obama Administration with no regard for Egypt's interests, which did not always happen to coincide with US and Israeli interests. We also know that earlier, under the Bush Administration, Americans wanted to see democracy in Egypt – until they realized that democracy could possibly bring to power rulers that could challenge America's vision for the region.
And we know that despite Obama's assertion that America will "respect" our stances, behind the scenes, Obama will surely continue to do everything he can to ensure that no matter what Egyptians want, Israel's interests should remain intact; no matter whether the Egyptian people want to continue to adopt their country's peace treaty with the Jewish State or not, the Egyptian rulers will be pressured by the US to adopt it anyway.
So when Obama comes now and speaks about our fight for our rights, saying that he will respect our choices, we can't believe him.
Some liberal Americans are pleased with the speech, because they think Obama was brave in his support for the Palestinians' rights; and some conservatives are angry that he "threw Israel under the bus." For many Egyptians, Obama's words on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict didn't even amount to stating the obvious. International law and UN resolutions do imply that Israel abides by the pre-1967 borders; and that Israeli settlement construction on Palestinian territories is, as a matter of fact, illegal. There is no way for the Israelis and the Palestinians to be both satisfied about the two issues that "remain": "The future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees". What is "just and fair" can never reflect respect for "the rights and aspirations of Israelis" because Israel has never been satisfied in its 63-year-old history, and "negotiations" have never, so far, resulted in "justice and fairness" for the Palestinians.
As in his landmark Cairo speech in 2009, Obama talked the talk and uttered hope, and once again, in 2011, he is exaggerating about what he could do in reality, refusing to limit his promises to the magnitude of his abilities and will.
One Egyptian's message to Obama: We don't need your support for our democratic change, because we can achieve what we want on our own, with or without your "support". We have toppled your ally in Egypt, and we are determined to build our country the way we, Egyptians, want it to be.
This article was first published on Daily News Egypt.Related Links:
Obama Continues to be More Bark than BiteUS Military Braces for Complex Leadership
The Middle East is Changing
Egypt: Hard Questions of TransitionWant to share YOUR story with our dynamic and rapidly growing audience?
Click here to become a Contributor.
Read more in Obama- Nero In the Whitehouse
- Felonious Munk: Stop It Obama and Pay Your Bills!
- President Obama to Travel to Minnesota, Begin Three-Day Economic Bus Tour
- To Me, to Many Egyptians, Obama Has No Credibility
- Clinton surrogate says Obama is really from Somalia
- Readout of President Obama's Videoconference with Ambassador Crocker and General Allen
- Washington Post: Nervous Dems Freaking Out About Obama
- Remarks by the President at Johnson Controls, Inc.
- Time anomalies in the White House long form PDF
- Trump: Obama Born In Somalia Not Kenya
BiasAlert
Liberal Media Still Refuse to Tie Obama to 'Shocking' Food Stamp Crisis
By: Geoffrey Dickens
Thursday, August 04, 2011 6:04 PM EDT
NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams announced on Wednesday's show that "the number of Americans relying on food stamps has hit another all-time record" with "Nearly 46 million of your fellow citizens are receiving food stamp assistance." Yet curiously he did not tie Barack Obama's fiscal policies to this economic tragedy, something the liberal media was prone to do when it came to blaming Ronald Reagan in the '80s for homelessness or George W. Bush for high gas prices.
In fact, in the face of this growing plight for an increasing number of Americans no anchor or reporter at the Big Three networks (NBC, CBS and ABC) has come even close to blaming the Obama administration in their food stamp stories.
In June an MRC study found that since the beginning of this year the Big Three networks have barely touched on the story finding that from January 1 through June 6 the NBC, ABC and CBS evening and morning shows there was a total of just six stories that mentioned food stamps as an issue. Since then (June 6 to August 4) there have been an additional six stories (three of which were aired in the last two days) bringing the total number of stories on the food stamp crisis for the entire year to an even dozen.
The following is a sampling of the most recent coverage from the Big Three networks of the food stamp epidemic:
NBC
Nightly News
August 3, 2011
BRIAN WILLIAMS: And we saw some astounding new numbers that came out today. They show the number of Americans relying on food stamps has hit another all-time record. These numbers would come as a huge disappointment to President Lyndon Johnson, who launched his war on poverty back in 1964. Nearly 46 million of your fellow citizens are receiving food stamp assistance. That represents 21 million American households. Numbers went up in 49 out of 50 states. Nowhere more than Alabama, which saw a 120 percent surge in food stamp use. Listen to this, 36 percent of the state's population now receiving government food aid, over a third of the people in that state. The Department of Agriculture suspects the increase can be attributed, at least part-time, to the Tuscaloosa tornado.
NBC
Today
August 4, 2011
TAMRON HALL: We begin with new numbers this morning that paint a grim economic picture. There are more Americans relying on food stamps today than ever before, with some 46 million people receiving government assistance to feed their families. This as July saw the highest number of layoffs in 16 months, the steepest jump since the worst depths of this recession. To put these shocking numbers into context, let's check in with CNBC's Mandy Drury at the New York Stock Exchange. Mandy, it's hard breaking when you think about all of these people needing food stamps.
MANDY DRURY: It really is, Tamron. And the numbers are very concerning as well. There's now 15 percent of the American population is actually using those food stamps. There's also a big sign that there is lingering damage from the recession and the fear that we're headed back to a recession or a so-called 'double dip' has been one of the biggest factors hurting the stock market lately. The jury is still out though, tomorrow payrolls are expected to show that 75,000 jobs were created in July. That would be an encouraging sign. It would also help to offset some of those ongoing layoffs. Tamron, back to you.
ABC
Good Morning America
August 4, 2011
JOSH ELLIOTT: And more Americans than ever before are using food stamps. 15 percent of the population, a record high, now relies on them. Unemployment figures may be a part of the explanation as layoffs hit a 16-month high in July. Many of them in previously safe industries.
-- Geoffrey Dickens is the Deputy Research Director at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow Geoffrey Dickens on Twitter.
Food stamp use rises to record 45.8 million
3172By Blake Ellis August 4, 2011: 5:03 PM ET
Food stamp use hit an all-time high in May.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Nearly 15% of the U.S. population relied on food stamps in May, according to the United States Department of Agriculture.
The number of Americans using the government's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) -- more commonly referred to as food stamps -- shot to an all-time high of 45.8 million in May, the USDA reported. That's up 12% from a year ago, and 34% higher than two years ago.
The program provides monthly benefits to low-income individuals and families, which they can use at stores that accept SNAP benefits.
To qualify for food stamps, an individual's income can't exceed $1,174 a month or $14,088 a year -- an amount that is 130% of the national poverty level.
The average food stamp benefit was $133.80 per person and $283.65 per household in May.
The highest concentration of food stamp users were in California, Florida, New York and Texas -- where more than 3 million residents in each state received food stamps in May.
The rise in food stamp use comes as the U.S. job market continues to sputter, and food prices across the country climb.
Unemployment benefits at risk
But a spike in food stamp users in Alabama may have been responsible for pushing total usage unusually higher in May. Following a series of devastating storms, many residents received disaster assistance under the Disaster Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the USDA said. Food stamp use in the state surged from 868,813 in April to 1,762,481 in May."USDA does not anticipate that trend of increase to continue, given that it appears to represent a response to a single disaster," the USDA said.
Are you a new food stamp user? If you're interested in sharing your story about how you get by on food stamps and budget your costs, e-mail
blake.ellis@turner.com for the chance to be included in an upcoming story on CNNMoney.com.
First Published: August 4, 2011: 12:21 PM ET
GUEST COMMENTARY Aug-10-2011 (750 words) xxxa
On issue after issue, president out of step with Catholic teaching
Responding to editors' requests for a regular sampling of current commentary from around the Catholic press, here is an unsigned editorial titled "On issue after issue, president out of step with Catholic teaching," which appeared in the Aug. 5 issue of the Tennessee Register, newspaper of the Diocese of Nashville.
 *President Obama addresses commencement exercises at the University of Notre Dame in 2009. (CNS/Christopher Smith) |
After President Barack Obama was elected in 2008, the Catholic bishops of the United States applauded the historic nature of the election of the first African-American as president while at the same time expressing fear that the new president would pursue an aggressive pro-abortion agenda as part of efforts to reform the nation's health care system.
Despite protestations from the president and his administration, it's becoming ever clearer that that is exactly what is happening.
But it's not just on life issues that the president is so out of step with Catholic teaching.
On immigration reform, protecting the poor and vulnerable from carrying the burden of the recently enacted budget cuts, and defending the integrity of marriage, the president has done little to nothing.
For all those Catholics who convinced themselves to vote for Obama despite his aggressive pro-choice positions because they believed that on balance he would pursue policies that would protect the poor, improve access to health care for all, bring sanity to the country's immigration system, the first three years of this administration must be more than disappointing.
Viewed through the lens of the full breadth of Catholic social teaching, this administration must be seen as a disaster. In fact, its positions have been openly and aggressively hostile to our values.
Choices that the administration made during the health care reform debate forced the bishops to oppose an initiative -- making the health care system more fair, more just and more efficient -- that they had been working toward for decades. Instead, they felt compelled to speak against a bill that forced American taxpayers to pay for health insurance policies that will fund abortions and other procedures that violate the dignity of life.
Some argued that the bishops had it all wrong, but recent developments have made it abundantly clear the bishops' concerns were more than legitimate. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, as part of the health reform act, has implemented rules requiring that all insurance policies must provide coverage for a variety of preventive services, at no cost to the patient, including contraceptives and surgical sterilization. HHS officials pointed to clauses in their mandate that would provide conscience protections for religious agencies who believe such services are immoral.
But a closer look at the conscience protections reveal they are so narrowly defined that they would not apply to Catholic hospitals, schools and social service agencies.
"Under the new rule our institutions would be free to act in accord with Catholic teaching on life and procreation only if they were to stop hiring and serving non-Catholics," said Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities.
"Could the federal government possibly intend to pressure Catholic institutions to cease providing health care, education and charitable services to the general public?" Cardinal DiNardo asked. Apparently, the answer is a resounding yes.
In the recent budget and debt-ceiling debates, the bishops urged the president and Congress not to pass budget cuts that would hit hardest the poorest and most vulnerable. But, eager to make a deal, the president and the majority of Congress ignored the bishops' pleas and passed a plan that will lead to cuts in programs that help those who need it most. Even some in the president's own party objected to the deal as inadequate and unfair.
On same-sex marriage, the president has stood silent while courts and state legislatures render the definition of marriage meaningless.
There have been promises of needed reforms to the immigration system; something the Catholic Church has vigorously supported for years, yet no action.
The Obama administration has turned on the spigot of federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, again ignoring the sanctity of life by engaging in research that sacrifices lives unnecessarily and immorally.
Some might argue that the president's political opposition has blocked his efforts to pursue some of the legislation and policies that hew more closely to church teachings. But others might ask where has the president's soaring rhetoric been when it comes to so many issues that are vital not only to the church but to the entire country? Is it that he has lost his renowned power of persuasion or that he has no interest in fighting for the things Catholics believe are so important?
If he has no interest, then those Catholic voters who ignored his clear position on life issues and put faith in the rhetoric of his campaign trail stump speech were simply duped.
*UNREST OF THE STORY
Left preparing street chaos, class warfare
Radicals behind Seattle protests plan 'intimidation' at major NATO, G-8 summits
Posted: August 01, 2011
8:15 pm Eastern
By Aaron Klein
© 2011 WND
 *Scene from 1999 WTO protests in Seattle |
A slew of extremist organizations, some tied to President Obama, are preparing protests to coincide with major NATO and G-8 summits in Chicago next May.
Foreshadowing possible violent confrontations, some of the same radical trainers behind the infamous 1999 Seattle riots against the World Trade Organization have been mobilizing new protest efforts geared toward world summits as well as the current economic crisis.
The founders of a radical group that teaches tactics of direct action, confrontation and intimidation were among the main speakers at a major union convention in June at which one leader called for opposing "right-wing threats to dismantle the Middle Class."
The group was involved in planning the 1999 WTO riots.
Find out how to restore America to greatness.
Meanwhile, it was announced in June that Chicago would host NATO and G-8 summits next spring. The decision followed an intense lobbying effort by the city's mayor, Rahm Emanuel, President Obama's former chief of staff.
Chicago will be the first American city other than Washington to host a NATO gathering.
The summit, May 15-22, is slated to coincide with a meeting of the Group of Eight industrialized nations, or G-8, convening to focus on global economic issues, the White House said.It will be the first time since 1977, in London, that the two organizations held meetings in the same city at the same time.
Such meetings have drawn mass protests that turned violent.
The 1999 WTO event in Seattle devolved into widespread rioting in which more than 40,000 protesters, some using violent tactics, descended on the city, prompting police to use tear gas and rubber bullets. The clash became known as "The Battle of Seattle."
The G-8 summit has similarly drawn violent protests.
A 2001 riot at a G-8 meeting in Genoa, Italy, left one person dead and hundreds injured. Also, in the run up to a G-20 economic summit in Pittsburgh in 2009, police reportedly fired pepper spray at marchers who threw rocks and garbage.
Preparing for such outbreaks, the Chicago Sun-Times last month quoted Superintendent of Police Garry McCarthy saying he was prepping 13,000 officers under his command for mass arrests of protestors.
"We have to train for mass arrests," McCarthy said. "We have to train 13,000 police officers in arrest procedures and containment procedures. At the same time, we will not stop patrolling the city."
In response, radical groups held a press conference Friday in downtown Chicago demanding permits to march during the world summits in May.
Joe Iosbaker of the United National Antiwar Committee, one of the groups planning protests, warned, "The wars and economic policies of the NATO and G8 nations are not just and will be met by protest."
Iosbaker is a University of Illinois-Chicago office worker and a union steward for his SEIU local whose home was raided by the FBI last September reportedly as part of a terror probe investigating material support for jihadist groups.
Obama has ties to many of the activists groups being investigated in that FBI probe.
WND reported Iosbaker and his wife, Stephanie Weiner, worked as leaders of the Chicago New Party, a controversial 1990s political party that sought to elect members to public office with the aim of moving the Democratic Party far leftward to ultimately form a new political party with a socialist agenda.
WND previously reported on evidence from the New Party's own newsletters showing Obama was a member of the New Party.
Another group at Friday's press conference planning to protest at the May summits is Code Pink.
Code Pink's co-founder, Jodie Evans, was a fundraiser and financial bundler for Obama's presidential campaign.
Also planning protests is Tom Burke of the so-called Committee to Stop FBI Repression, which has been leading activism against the FBI's reported ongoing terror probes of Chicago and Minnesota anti-war groups.
Burke, a former school custodian-turned-stay-at-home father, belongs to the Freedom Road Socialist Organization, a group mentioned in subpoenas and search warrants issued in the same FBI terror probe.
WND reported Obama has other ties to the activist groups at the heart of the FBI terror probe, including Hatem Abudayyeh, the executive director of the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN.
WND was first to report that Obama, while serving as a paid director of the far-left nonprofit Chicago Woods Fund, provided two grants to the AAAN.
Obama served at the Woods Fund alongside Weather Underground terrorist-group founder Bill Ayers.
AAAN was founded by a longtime Obama associate, Columbia University Professor Rashid Khalidi. Khalidi's wife, Mona, is president of the Arab American Action Network.
Forecast for American cities: Confrontation, intimidation?
The NATO and G-8 summits are not the only focus of radical groups.
WND reported Heather Booth, director of a Saul Alinsky-style community organizing group, the Midwest Academy, was among the main speakers at the "2011 State Battles Summit" in June at the Hyatt Regency Capitol Hill Hotel in Washington, D.C.
Booth's husband, Paul, also was a speaker at the union summit. Paul Booth co-founded Midwest Academy in the 1970s.
The four-day summit was organized by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, or AFSCME, with participation from the AFL-CIO, the nation's largest union.
An official schedule for the event, obtained by WND, declared: "Our union is under unprecedented attack in every state. Extremist politicians want to weaken us as we head into 2012. Their tactics include budget cuts, layoffs, privatization and the denial of our very collective bargaining rights."
Continued the flyer: "New challenges require new energy and new thinking. We encourage union activists to attend this conference and bring their creative ideas on how to overcome the challenges ahead."
Heather Booth participated in a panel entitled, "Our Message, Alliances and Best Practices."
Paul Booth delivered the opening remarks for the union conference.
Another speaker at the union event was John Podesta, who co-chaired President Obama's transition team.
Podesta is president of the Center for American Progress, which is heavily influential in advising the White House. The center is funded by philanthropist George Soros.
Mideast revolutions coming to U.S.?
Citizen Action of Wisconsin, an arm of Booth's Midwest Academy, is part of the Moving Wisconsin Forward movement, one of the main organizers of the major Wisconsin protests in February, as WND first reported.
The protests were in opposition to Gov. Scott Walker's proposal for most state workers to pay 12 percent of their health care premiums and 5.8 percent of their salary toward their own pensions.
WND reported at the time speakers at the rallies likened the Wisconsin protests to the ongoing revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa while calling for similar uprisings in the U.S.
Obama links, 'Redistribution of wealth and power'
Obama himself once funded Midwest Academy. He has been closely tied to Heather Booth.
Booth has stated building a ''progressive majority'' would help for ''a fair distribution of wealth and power and opportunity."
Her husband Paul is a founder and the former national secretary of Students for a Democratic Society, the radical 1960s anti-war movement from which William Ayers' domestic Weather Underground terrorist organization splintered.
In 1999, the Booths' Midwest Academy received $75,000 from the Woods Fund with Obama on its board alongside Ayers, In 2002, with Obama still serving on the Woods Fund, Midwest received another $23,500 for its Young Organizers Development Program.
Midwest describes itself as "one of the nation's oldest and best-known schools for community organizations, citizen organizations and individuals committed to progressive social change."
It later morphed into a national organizing institute for an emerging network of organizations known as Citizen Action.
Discover the Networks describes Midwest as "teach[ing] tactics of direct action, confrontation and intimidation."
WND first reported the executive director of an activist organization that taught Alinsky's tactics of direct action, confrontation and intimidation was part of the team that developed volunteers for President Obama's 2008 campaign.
Jackie Kendall, executive director of the Midwest Academy, was on the team that developed and delivered the first Camp Obama training for volunteers aiding Obama's campaign through the 2008 Iowa Caucuses.
Camp Obama was a two-to-four day intensive course run in conjunction with Obama's campaign aimed at training volunteers to become activists to help Obama win the presidential election.
Also, in 1998, Obama participated on a panel discussion praising Alinsky alongside Heather Booth, herself a dedicated disciple of Alinsky.
The panel discussion following the opening performance in Chicago of the play "The Love Song of Saul Alinsky," a work described by the Chicago Sun-Times as "bringing to life one of America's greatest community organizers."
Obama participated in the discussion alongside other Alinskyites, including political analyst Aaron Freeman, Don Turner of the Chicago Federation of Labor and Northwestern University history professor Charles Paine.
"Alinsky had so much fire burning within," stated local actor Gary Houston, who portrayed Alinsky in the play. "There was a lot of complexity to him. Yet he was a really cool character."
'Communist fellow traveler'
Former 1960s radical and FrontPage Magazine Editor David Horowitz describes Alinsky as the "communist/Marxist fellow-traveler who helped establish the dual political tactics of confrontation and infiltration that characterized the 1960s and have remained central to all subsequent revolutionary movements in the United States."
Horowitz writes in his 2009 pamphlet "Barack Obama's Rules for Revolution. The Alinsky Model": "The strategy of working within the system until you can accumulate enough power to destroy it was what '60s radicals called 'boring from within.' … Like termites, they set about to eat away at the foundations of the building in expectation that one day they could cause it to collapse."
In a letter to the editor of the Boston Globe, Alinsky's son praised Obama for stirring up the masses at the 2008 Democratic National Convention "Saul Alinsky style," saying, "Obama learned his lesson well."
The letter, signed L. David Alinsky, closed with, "I am proud to see that my father's model for organizing is being applied successfully."
With research by Brenda J. Elliott
Read more:Left preparing street chaos, class warfarehttp://www.wnd.com/?
| Send |
|
Posting as Aja Brooks (Change)
Post to Facebook
Why aren't these domestic terrorists in jail?
Oh wait, Obama is in the White House.
If you listen to the mainstream media, it is the Tea Party that are the terrorists. Is it a coincidence that both these groups are having meetings in Obama territory at the same time. This was planned.
That's why we have to stand behind the Tea Party members. They are the only ones that are at least trying to do something to change the game in Washington! Mainstream media did not report that Obama would not vote for a ceiling increase when he was a senator. But the Tea Party is terrorists? See the word they use so freely.....Terrorists.... in the wrong place! The Tea Party is far from being Terrorists but that word is being used for good reasons... What plans do Obama and his cronies have for groups that THEY choose to call terriorists.... They do nothing about the Muslims and what they are doing in our country to break down our court system........ but terrorists are Tea Party, Christians, people who have guns for protection from government.... What does all of this tell you? Get behind Beck........ get behind Tea Party, Get behind Huckabee.......
be active...............
The Media...that's a fwiggin' joke. A totalitarian regime will use the media until it's established. Then all of the media are locked up or they're shot. A fitting end to the media now matter how you slice it. Cowards die all the time. Patriots only once.
WHO’S TO BLAME FOR CREDIT DOWNGRADE TO DOUBLE AA+ RATING AND THE BAD ECONOMY? AND WHY ARE DEMOCRATS BLAMING THE TEA PARTY?!
The Tea Parties and the Jealous Power and Money
August 6, 2011, 10:30 am By Kelleigh Nelson 9 CommentsShare, recommend, tweet, like, email, bookmark, print at bottom
July 29, 2011, 11:05 am CT
“It is a known fact that the policies of the government today, whether Republican or Democrat
are closer to the 1932 platform of the Communist Party than they are to either of their own party
platforms in that critical year.”
–Walter Trohan (1903-2003) Chicago Tribune reporter (1929-1972) and bureau chief in D.C.
- G u l a g - B o u n d -
The frustration level from attending tea party meetings is so high that I simply have to walk out the door and go home. If I imbibed, I’d have to have a glass of wine to calm my emotions. It is with grief and melancholy that I am writing this article. Nevertheless it is with the urging of several Tea Parties across our nation who want others to know what is happening and to clean their own Parties of the change agent infiltrators. So with deep humility, here is the final product.At the tea parties I have attended the most, there are four very knowledgeable people who know there are major problems we should be focusing on at every meeting. Then there are a number who have just awakened to the problems and are not at all educated on the situation we face, but know they love their country and want to do anything they can to save her. The balance of these people are infiltrators and change agents that continually preach the RNC propaganda that has gotten us where we are today. “Compromise” is what they always propose and in my lexicon that’s a dirty word.
The Origins of Today’s Tea Party
The Tea Party movement got its start when CNBC’s Rick Santelli went on a rant against government efforts to protect Americans from home foreclosures and called for “tea parties” as a means to protest against government intervention in the economy. Despite Tea Party folks making it clear in the beginning they were not part of the RNC, it has not stopped the infiltration by the phony rightwing Republicans.
Norquist at CPAC, 2010
Grover Norquist
Gulag Note: For more on Grover Norquist as a model of transnationalists’ anti-Sovereignty subversion of conservatism, see “The Trouble at CPAC and the Real Dividing Line for Conserving America,” 2/11/2011
American Spectator
The American Spectator was the other sponsor and their then-managing editor organized the rally near the White House, according to promotional materials and participants. The Spectator was originally funded byRichard Mellon Scaife with $25,000 (Chase Mellon Bank – Rockefeller) and Scaife funds both sides of the aisle. He is also a strong Planned Parenthood pro-abort who recently had a full page article in the WSJ stating why we should support Planned Parenthood with our tax dollars. Emmett Tyrrell, the “Alternative’s” founder (later to be the American Spectator) cultivated the rightwing neo-cons to write for the magazine, including Irving Kristol a member of the Young People’s Socialist League in the 1930s, and whose son Bill Kristol also wrote for the Spectator.
Nelson Rockefeller directly gave Irving Kristol $100,000 through his Commission on Critical Choices for just 15 short essays. Irving’s son, William Kristol did make it big time of course and is a Fox News contributor and commentator. He is also a member of the Bilderberger group. William Kristol is one of the top three strategists of the GOP. He launched a weekly magazine called the Standard and is backed financially by CFR Rupert Murdock. Kristol is assembling the next generation of socialists on behalf of the NWO. The Kristol’s have plotted for several decades under the disarming word, “neoconservative.”
Richard Mellon Scaife continually funded The Spectator as did the widow of the pharmaceutical magnate Eli Lilly. She sent $3,000 and offered to give much more if the magazine could be set up as a charitable foundation, which would make her contributions tax-deductible. This was done and supplied Tyrrell with enough money to live a stylish life.
Other influential writers and board members of the Spectator included,Jeanne J. Kirkpatrick(Former Director of CFR; Ambassador to UN; Trilateral Commission; Co-Director, Empower America; Board Member, American Spectator) andAdrian Karatnycky, President (CFR, Publisher Freedom Review Publisher; Conservative author, American Spectator).
Dick Armey
Richard “Dick” Armey and FreedomWorks
Former House Republican Leader Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity, which is funded by the Koch family’s oil wealth, also have worked behind the scenes to build the Tea Party movement. Dick Armey is a charter member of the CNP. He is staunchly pro-amnesty, which has cost him some of the tea party allegiance.In 2003, Armey became co-chairman of Citizens for a Sound Economy, which in 2004 merged with Empower America to becomeFreedomWorks. In 2004, Citizens for a Sound Economy split into two new organizations, with Citizens for a Sound Economy being renamed as FreedomWorks, and Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation becoming Americans for Prosperity.
In 2008 Freedomworks Foundation Paid Dick Armey $550,000 even before the Tea Parties got going in 2009! So the entire program was planned. Looks to me like some pre-planning of tea party propaganda to infuse the angry grassroots Americans, doesn’t it? Here is FreedomWorks 990 for 2008, see page 7.
Empower America was founded in 1993 by high stakes gambler and former Drug Czar and Education Secretary William Bennett, who was involved with the US-Soviet education exchanges and treaties and implementing the Soviet quota system; former Secretary of HUD Jack Kemp (charter CNP member); former UN Ambassador Jeanne J. Kirkpatrick; and former Representative Vin Weber, CNP member and co-director of the globalist Aspen Institute’s Domestic Strategy Group. (Link) Charlotte Iserbyt exposed Bill Bennett for his purposeful destruction of education since she worked under T. H. Bell in Reagan’s education department. Bennett continued all of Bell’s socialist/communist policies, especially OBE and the Skinner method. Regarding Bennett’s role in U.S./Soviet education agreements, he wasn’t overtly involved, but he, when asked by Malcolm Lawrence about the agreements, responded “I’m not in that loop.”Link
Empower America was largely filled with Council for National Policy members, CFR members, Trilateralist members, as well as Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church members such as Josette Shiner Sheeran, now Executive Director of the United Nations World Food Programme.
David Koch
David Koch and Americans for Prosperity
Americans for Prosperity has worked closely with the Tea Party since the movement’s inception. In the weeks before the first Tax Day protests, in April, 2009, Americans for Prosperity hosted a Web site offering supporters “Tea Party Talking Points.” Peggy Venable, State Director for AFP explained that the role of Americans for Prosperity was to help “educate” Tea Party activists on policy details, and to give them “next-step training” after their rallies, so that their political energy could be channeled “more effectively.” And she noted that Americans for Prosperity had provided Tea Party activists with lists of elected officials to target. She said of the Koch’s, “They’re certainly our people. David’s the chairman of our board. I’ve certainly met with them, and I’m very appreciative of what they do.” A Republican campaign consultant who has done research on behalf of Charles and David Koch said of the Tea Party, “The Koch brothers gave the money that founded it.Tim Phillips is president of AFP for the Koch’s. Phillips was a political veteran who had worked with Council for National Policy member Ralph Reed, the so-called evangelical leader and Republican activist, co-founding Century Strategies, a campaign-consulting company that became notorious for its ties to the disgraced lobbyist and fellow CNP member Jack Abramoff. Century Strategies had many political clients, including Dick Armey. Phillips also has a history of anti-Semitic smear campaigns and lobbying work on behalf of a forced-abortion sweatshop owner.
David Koch and his brother, Charles own Koch Industries, the 2nd largest privately owned company in the country after Cargill. David and Charles are lifelong libertarians and David ran as vice president to Ed Clark on the Libertarian party in the 1980 election funding 2 million of his own dollars into the campaign. Ed Clark told The Nation that libertarians were getting ready to stage “a very big tea party,” because people were “sick to death” of taxes. The Libertarian Party platform called for the abolition of the F.B.I. and the C.I.A., as well as of federal regulatory agencies, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Energy. The Party wanted to end Social Security, minimum-wage laws, gun control, and all personal and corporate income taxes; it proposed the legalization of prostitution, recreational drugs, and suicide. William F. Buckley, Jr., CFR and Yale Skull and Bonesman alleged conservative, called the movement “Anarcho-Totalitarianism.”
In 1977, the Koch’s provided the funds to launch the nation’s first libertarian think tank, the Cato Institute. According to the Center for Public Integrity, between 1986 and 1993 the Koch family gave eleven million dollars to the institute. They’ve also heavily funded Heritage Foundation, which is connected to Rockefeller, just as are the Koch brothers. Heritage has fascist, communist, United Nations, and Sun Myung Moon connections. See part 2 of my article, “Saving the RepubliC?“.
David Koch is on the board of Trustees of Rockefeller University. He is also on the board of the globalist new age Aspen Institute formerly headed by new age environmentalist Maurice Strong which I wrote about inMore Republican Deception. He is also on the board of Earthwatch Institute, an environmental, sustainability, Agenda 21 group. See this map of Koch’s many connections. David Koch also supports gay marriage and stem-cell research
Council for National Policy
The Council for National Policy was started allegedly to counter the workings of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), yet there were five CFR members on the early membership rosters of the CNP. The CNP was started in 1981 by Nelson Bunker Hunt, Pat Robertson, Tim LaHaye, (who accepted millions from Sun Myung Moon who claims he came to finish what Jesus started) and T. Cullen Davis who helped fund the CNP to get it off the ground. T. Cullen Davis was tried for murder not once, but twice. A book written about the trials is still available entitled, “Blood Will Tell: The Murder Trials of T. Cullen Davis” by Gary Cartwright. For a short synopsis click here.Several of the CNP’s original members, such as Nelson Bunker Hunt, contributed large sums of their money to the JBS, which initially was provided by people such as Nelson Rockefeller — another example of how the elite control all sides and administer the opposition to these sides they create. (Link) The JBS however is instrumental in continuing the fight against a constitutional convention and they completely understand the dangers. Their research and exposure of who is behind the latest con-con push seems impeccable to me.
Many of CNP’s highest-ranking members also belong to the Masonic Knights of Malta and are associated with Fabian socialism and the eugenics movement, not to mention cultists like Sun Myung Moon and Scientology as well as the heretical and cultic Dominionist/Reconstructionist movement. Oil baron and CNP member Nelson Bunker Hunt was a former member of the racist pro-eugenics group called the International Association for the Advancement of Ethnology and Eugenics. The group was heavily involved in the promotion of eugenics and segregation. I know two members who left the CNP stating it was in bed with the left from its inception. One of these former members writes for News With Views.
Fiddling While Rome Burns
The very first tea party meeting I attended was a few years ago in another county. I got up and left when the speaker who was supposed to be guiding the audience to educational forums told them to go to Third Wave futurist Newt Gingrich’s and Heritage Foundation sites.
The second meeting had about half the people as the first meeting and someone from the audience read a one page article on California and Texas statistics resulting after tort reform. There was another gentleman that fully understood the problems with this reform which are basically socialistic, leads to higher negligence, increases the deficit and should be fought by every tea party. One officer of this group was particularly staunch on his support of tort reform, but then his father is a physician. Sadly under Obama care we will have no recourse for poor or deadly healthcare.
Also at this meeting were two women running for a state senate seat that had been vacated. Neither have the background nor experience. One is a school teacher who is convinced that charter schools are wonderful, as does Obama, and the other woman is the sister of our district’s alleged conservative representative in congress. This particular congressman took over the seat when his father died, and is training his son to take it over when he retires. This congressman also voted for the UN Goals 2000 and NAFTA.
When I spoke up that charter schools would be run by corporations with “school to work,” as well as eliminating the school board and resulting in taxation without representation, I was shouted down by more than one of the tea party officers neither of whom knows anything about what’s really behind charter schools. As well, I spent days sending articles by Charlotte Iserbyt and Jed Brown, two of the most knowledgeable and brilliant people who have exposed what has been done to American education and this young man writes me back and says, “I find this all very confusing drivel.”
What is difficult to understand in this article from Jed Brown? “Finally, the entire plan to establish this quasi-privatized education system has a brilliantly conceived marketing plan. Those pushing the New World Order agenda have implored the conservative citizens to swallow school-choice plans in the name of the founding fathers, who would roll over in their graves. The words of John Chubb and Terry Moe, of The Brookings Institute and Stanford University respectively, would have gotten them an invite to a tar and feather party – “Our guiding principle in the design of a choice system is this: public authority must be put to use in creating a system that is almost entirely beyond the reach of public authority.” (Politics, Markets and America’s Schools, 1990)”
I hadn’t given up yet however, and when an article came out in a local paper about our newly elected RINO Governor Bill Haslam pushing for a national internet sales tax, I called up the young man that wanted me to critique the tea party and told him about it and sent him the article. Isn’t this right up the tea party’s alley? It’s more taxation! Haslam had stated he was going to contact the other 49 governors and have them push the congress to pass legislation taxing any and all out-of-state internet sales.
So he said since he was in charge that evening, we’d discuss it. Immediately I made 20 copies of the article and called two former congressional candidates to see if they’d attend. There were a total of five of us there that fully understand the agenda of both the right and the left and that it’s the same, just couched in different verbiage.
First we listened to the treasurer tell us that way too much money goes to social security, Medicare, and defense. Excuse me but all of us have paid into social security and Medicare and it is not an entitlement. We have paid for it! As for the military, it is the one constitutionally legal funding that should be at the top of our budget to protect American citizens.
Next we listened to another officer tell us that he visited a MoveOn.Org meeting and the people were quite nice, just deceived and it was under the guise of “knowing our enemy.” Needless to say I think all of us that care one iota about our country understand who George Soros is and what he stands for and it’s certainly not freedom. I sat there thinking, “Why are we visiting George Soros’ groups, why aren’t we picking our battles and fighting them?”
Next we heard from a rather bedraggled and bare footed lady who was to speak to us about Agenda 21, sustainability, and the latest land grabs by our federal and state governments. Granted, some people in the audience may not have fully understood this diabolical UN plan, but papers could have been handed out that also included a website for more information. Instead this woman read for over 15 minutes from papers she had with her and we didn’t discuss it afterward.
When an audience member asked when we were to discuss our governor’s new push for internet sales taxes, the young man I had called about this said, “There’s some misinformation regarding this subject matter,” and he dismissed it. We all looked at each other.
I asked him later why he had done that and he told me that he’d called our state senator and was told that Tennessee already collects internet sales tax. Obviously the young man did not understand what our senator told him. If you purchase something on the internet that is made in your state or whose company has a store or division in your state, you pay your state’s sales tax because they reside in your state. However, if you purchase something on the internet or via a catalogue phone order from another state and that store does not have a facility in your state, you do not pay sales tax. Our RINO governor wants to rectify this by making us pay each state’s tax whether they have a company in our state or not. Typical tax and spend!
The five of us walked out of the meeting shaking our heads. All of us agreed that it was a total waste of time and that it’s too late to educate…we must be on top of the issues. The meeting prior to this should have concerned the debt ceiling shenanigans and we should have had a plan of attack on the politicians. We also should have connected with the other tea parties around the country with a plan to flood D.C. with complaints. At this meeting, we should have had a discussion of our governor’s new tax plan and getting this information to the rest of the tea parties in the state and then to the tea parties throughout the country. We didn’t even discuss it because the young man didn’t understand the issue.
False Friends
Lastly, on the website of this local tea party is the link to American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) which is a spin-off of the Heritage Foundation. ALEC is a shadowy group and member of the secretive Council for National Policy founded by former grand poobah of the CNP, Paul Weyrich. (Please again seepart 2 of “Saving the Republic?”) Originally it was funded to the tune of 7 million dollars by Richard Mellon Scaife who funds both sides of the aisle.ALEC is a group that brings together state legislators and representatives of corporations to draft model bills that can then be introduced at the state level of government. An archive of ALEC documentswas recently leaked.
This map shows their success of getting their legislative agenda in terms of bills passed on a state by state basis. Any legislator who jumps on their bandwagon is just a lamb to the slaughter, in my opinion.Legislators in ALEC pay a minimal fee to join the group, while corporations pay much more — up to $25,000, Nichols says. The corporations make up the huge majority of members. One of their top corporations is Koch Industries. Along with the corporations, another major funder is The Church of Scientology.
ALEC’s main goal is privatization which has been done extensively to prisons, thus making corporations quite wealthy on prison labor and keeping pot sellers and smokers in for longer periods of time. ALEC is also at the head of the pack calling for a constitutional convention which would totally destroy the nation. (Link) (Link)
On the Knoxville, Tennessee tea party’s website is of course a link to David Koch’s Americans for Prosperity. Also linked is the horrible Mt. Vernon Pledge, see part 1 of “Saving the Republic? for those involved, including Islamist Grover Norquist. Another group listed is Contract for America which advertises for Koch’s Americans for Prosperity, Grover Norquist’s ATR, American Solutions which is communist Newt Gingrich, and the worst of the lot, if there is such a thing, is the National Taxpayers Union, founded by James Dale Davidson who has pushed a constitutional convention since the late 70s and who we fought tooth and nail in the early 80s to stop the destruction of our constitution. Davidson gives $100,000 a year towards the efforts to call a constitutional convention, which our founder James Madison warned against only a year after the original convention. Davidson also sits on the board of Newsmax with several CFR members. On the blog site, Heritage Foundry is listed as well as the anti-Semitic Republic Broadcasting Network.
My God in heaven, did anyone do any research before linking to these groups? They need to know that “a false friend is more dangerous than an open enemy.”
Conclusion
If this doesn’t frustrate all of us that are weeping over our losses, I don’t know what will. I recently read an article by fellow writer and retired SEAL, Jim O’Neill entitled, “It’s Time to Reboot America.“ Give it a gander because I believe Jim has once again hit the nail on the head. As Claire Wolfe said, “We’re at that awkward stage where it’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.”I also do not want my good readers to think that all tea parties are fully infested with change agents, infiltrators, or power hungry know-nothing leaders as so many in our part of Tennessee seem to be. One tea party leader who communicates with me is from Tea-MAC in Elkhart County, Indiana, and here’s what he says,
Yeah, we know about the infiltrators and have been on guard. We are in the crosshairs of the enemies of the nation because of our effectiveness. You are right and it is very, very, worrisome and we are actually developing a very effective way of discovery and elimination in our groups. We’ve been dialing our little fingers off and e-mailing our little computers dry to Boehner, Cantor, McCarty and our own reps. Most Hoosier tea parties I know are urging their members to do so. And the opposition knows it and that’s why they’ve decided to infiltrate. And they are using the Saul Alinsky method against us. We don’t care, it’s full bore ahead.
George Miller keeps me informed as well from the Ventura County, California Tea Party. They have an excellent website and try to keep people informed with up-to-date information on what our congress criminals are up to and how to fight it.There are another half dozen large Tea Parties that encouraged me to write this article in the hope that other groups would understand that the enemy comes in both left and right propaganda as false friends of freedom.
May the Lord open the eyes of those who love America and give them discernment for without it I’m afraid we’re lost. Pray without ceasing fellow patriots, for our Heavenly Father is our only hope. May He have mercy on our nation. “And having done all to Stand!”
proverbs133@bellsouth.netSee Kelleigh Nelson’s Phony Rightwing Series, on certain GOP presidential candidates.
Graphics added by Gulag Bound
S&P Downgrade
9:20 pm August 5, 2011, by Jamie DupreeThe debt limit deal struck by Congress earlier this week was not enough to stave off a debt downgrade on Friday night by Standard & Poors, as S&P announced it was classifying U.S. Government debt as "AA+" instead of "AAA."
Here is the press release from S&P explaining the decision:
=
-- We have lowered our long-term sovereign credit rating on the United States of America to 'AA+' from 'AAA' and affirmed the 'A-1+' short-term rating.
-- We have also removed both the short- and long-term ratings from CreditWatch negative.
-- The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics.
-- More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.
-- Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics any time soon.
-- The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. We could lower the long-term rating to 'AA' within the next two years if we see that less reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest rates, or new fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general government debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case. TORONTO (Standard & Poor's) Aug. 5, 2011--Standard & Poor's Ratings Services said today that it lowered its long-term sovereign credit rating on the United States of America to 'AA+' from 'AAA'. Standard & Poor's also said that the outlook on the long-term rating is negative. At the same time, Standard & Poor's affirmed its 'A-1+' short-term rating on the U.S. In addition, Standard & Poor's removed both ratings from CreditWatch, where they were placed on July 14, 2011, with negative implications.
The transfer and convertibility (T&C) assessment of the U.S.--our assessment of the likelihood of official interference in the ability of U.S.-based public- and private-sector issuers to secure foreign exchange for debt service--remains 'AAA'.
We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.
Our lowering of the rating was prompted by our view on the rising public debt burden and our perception of greater policymaking uncertainty, consistent with our criteria (see "Sovereign Government Rating Methodology and Assumptions," June 30, 2011, especially Paragraphs 36-41). Nevertheless, we view the U.S. federal government's other economic, external, and monetary credit attributes, which form the basis for the sovereign rating, as broadly unchanged.
We have taken the ratings off CreditWatch because the Aug. 2 passage of the Budget Control Act Amendment of 2011 has removed any perceived immediate threat of payment default posed by delays to raising the government's debt ceiling. In addition, we believe that the act provides sufficient clarity to allow us to evaluate the likely course of U.S. fiscal policy for the next few years.
The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy. Despite this year's wide-ranging debate, in our view, the differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently. Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability.
Our opinion is that elected officials remain wary of tackling the structural issues required to effectively address the rising U.S. public debt burden in a manner consistent with a 'AAA' rating and with 'AAA' rated sovereign peers (see Sovereign Government Rating Methodology and Assumptions," June 30, 2011, especially Paragraphs 36-41). In our view, the difficulty in framing a consensus on fiscal policy weakens the government's ability to manage public finances and diverts attention from the debate over how to achieve more balanced and dynamic economic growth in an era of fiscal stringency and private-sector deleveraging (ibid). A new political consensus might (or might not) emerge after the 2012 elections, but we believe that by then, the government debt burden will likely be higher, the needed medium-term fiscal adjustment potentially greater, and the inflection point on the U.S. population's demographics and other age-related spending drivers closer at hand (see "Global Aging 2011: In The U.S., Going Gray Will Likely Cost Even More Green, Now," June 21, 2011).
Standard & Poor's takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures that Congress and the Administration might conclude is appropriate for putting the U.S.'s finances on a sustainable footing. The act calls for as much as $2.4 trillion of reductions in expenditure growth over the 10 years through 2021. These cuts will be implemented in two steps: the $917 billion agreed to initially, followed by an additional $1.5 trillion that the newly formed Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction is supposed to recommend by November 2011. The act contains no measures to raise taxes or otherwise enhance revenues, though the committee could recommend them.
The act further provides that if Congress does not enact the committee's recommendations, cuts of $1.2 trillion will be implemented over the same time period. The reductions would mainly affect outlays for civilian discretionary spending, defense, and Medicare. We understand that this fall-back mechanism is designed to encourage Congress to embrace a more balanced mix of expenditure savings, as the committee might recommend.
We note that in a letter to Congress on Aug. 1, 2011, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated total budgetary savings under the act to be at least $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years relative to its baseline assumptions. In updating our own fiscal projections, with certain modifications outlined below, we have relied on the CBO's latest "Alternate Fiscal Scenario" of June 2011, updated to include the CBO assumptions contained in its Aug. 1 letter to Congress. In general, the CBO's "Alternate Fiscal Scenario" assumes a continuation of recent Congressional action overriding existing law.
We view the act's measures as a step toward fiscal consolidation. However, this is within the framework of a legislative mechanism that leaves open the details of what is finally agreed to until the end of 2011, and Congress and the Administration could modify any agreement in the future. Even assuming that at least $2.1 trillion of the spending reductions the act envisages are implemented, we maintain our view that the U.S. net general government debt burden (all levels of government combined, excluding liquid financial assets) will likely continue to grow. Under our revised base case fiscal scenario--which we consider to be consistent with a 'AA+' long-term rating and a negative outlook--we now project that net general government debt would rise from an estimated 74% of GDP by the end of 2011 to 79% in 2015 and 85% by 2021. Even the projected 2015 ratio of sovereign indebtedness is high in relation to those of peer credits and, as noted, would continue to rise under the act's revised policy settings.
Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act. Key macroeconomic assumptions in the base case scenario include trend real GDP growth of 3% and consumer price inflation near 2% annually over the decade.
Our revised upside scenario--which, other things being equal, we view as consistent with the outlook on the 'AA+' long-term rating being revised to stable--retains these same macroeconomic assumptions. In addition, it incorporates $950 billion of new revenues on the assumption that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners lapse from 2013 onwards, as the Administration is advocating. In this scenario, we project that the net general government debt would rise from an estimated 74% of GDP by the end of 2011 to 77% in 2015 and to 78% by 2021.
Our revised downside scenario--which, other things being equal, we view as being consistent with a possible further downgrade to a 'AA' long-term rating--features less-favorable macroeconomic assumptions, as outlined below and also assumes that the second round of spending cuts (at least $1.2 trillion) that the act calls for does not occur. This scenario also assumes somewhat higher nominal interest rates for U.S. Treasuries. We still believe that the role of the U.S. dollar as the key reserve currency confers a government funding advantage, one that could change only slowly over time, and that Fed policy might lean toward continued loose monetary policy at a time of fiscal tightening. Nonetheless, it is possible that interest rates could rise if investors re-price relative risks. As a result, our alternate scenario factors in a 50 basis point (bp)-75 bp rise in 10-year bond yields relative to the base and upside cases from 2013 onwards. In this scenario, we project the net public debt burden would rise from 74% of GDP in 2011 to 90% in 2015 and to 101% by 2021.
Our revised scenarios also take into account the significant negative revisions to historical GDP data that the Bureau of Economic Analysis announced on July 29. From our perspective, the effect of these revisions underscores two related points when evaluating the likely debt trajectory of the U.S. government. First, the revisions show that the recent recession was deeper than previously assumed, so the GDP this year is lower than previously thought in both nominal and real terms. Consequently, the debt burden is slightly higher. Second, the revised data highlight the sub-par path of the current economic recovery when compared with rebounds following previous post-war recessions. We believe the sluggish pace of the current economic recovery could be consistent with the experiences of countries that have had financial crises in which the slow process of debt deleveraging in the private sector leads to a persistent drag on demand. As a result, our downside case scenario assumes relatively modest real trend GDP growth of 2.5% and inflation of near 1.5% annually going forward.
When comparing the U.S. to sovereigns with 'AAA' long-term ratings that we view as relevant peers--Canada, France, Germany, and the U.K.--we also observe, based on our base case scenarios for each, that the trajectory of the U.S.'s net public debt is diverging from the others. Including the U.S., we estimate that these five sovereigns will have net general government debt to GDP ratios this year ranging from 34% (Canada) to 80% (the U.K.), with the U.S. debt burden at 74%. By 2015, we project that their net public debt to GDP ratios will range between 30% (lowest, Canada) and 83% (highest, France), with the U.S. debt burden at 79%. However, in contrast with the U.S., we project that the net public debt burdens of these other sovereigns will begin to decline, either before or by 2015.
Standard & Poor's transfer T&C assessment of the U.S. remains 'AAA'. Our T&C assessment reflects our view of the likelihood of the sovereign restricting other public and private issuers' access to foreign exchange needed to meet debt service. Although in our view the credit standing of the U.S. government has deteriorated modestly, we see little indication that official interference of this kind is entering onto the policy agenda of either Congress or the Administration. Consequently, we continue to view this risk as being highly remote.
The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. As our downside alternate fiscal scenario illustrates, a higher public debt trajectory than we currently assume could lead us to lower the long-term rating again. On the other hand, as our upside scenario highlights, if the recommendations of the Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction--independently or coupled with other initiatives, such as the lapsing of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners--lead to fiscal consolidation measures beyond the minimum mandated, and we believe they are likely to slow the deterioration of the government's debt dynamics, the long-term rating could stabilize at 'AA+'.
On Monday, we will issue separate releases concerning affected ratings in the funds, government-related entities, financial institutions, insurance, public finance, and structured finance sectors. This unsolicited rating(s) was initiated by Standard & Poor's. It may be based solely on publicly available information and may or may not involve the participation of the issuer. Standard & Poor's has used information from sources believed to be reliable based on standards established in our Credit Ratings Information and Data Policy but does not guarantee the accuracy, adequacy, or completeness of any information used. Complete ratings information is available to subscribers of RatingsDirect on the Global Credit Portal at www.globalcreditportal.com. All ratings affected by this rating action can be found on Standard & Poor's public Web site at www.standardandpoors.com. Use the Ratings search box located in the left column.
Senator Rick Santorum on the credit downgrade…by Greta Van Susteren Posted in: 2012, Senator Rick Santorum
AUG 6 2011 - 8:47 AM ET
18 COMMENTS
Another Presidential candidate statement
——
Santorum Comments on
Downgrade of U.S. Debt
Urbandale, IA – Former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) made the following statement in response to S&P’s decision to downgrade U.S. debt from AAA Rating.
“If this downgrade holds, then it’s another example in a long line of examples of the President’s failure of leadership. Is anyone surprised at this point? There are 14 million people out of work and looking to the White House for answers – but they are receiving nothing but a blank stare. The markets are scared and the credit downgrade has happened because the President and this Congress continue to address the symptoms and not the disease. This nation is spending more money than it takes in and the world knows it – now, it’s time to show the world that the United States has the fortitude and resolve to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to stop out of control spending and shrink the scope of government once and for all. The deal the President cut with Congress was supposed to avoid this downgrade but all it did was once again kick the can down the road.
President Obama and his Administration have been a failure.
I understand the US Treasury is going back to Standard and Poors to say that a two trillion dollar mathematical error by S&P contributed to the downgrade. So, in addition to blaming President Bush for all of its problems, now the White House is blaming S&P – but this happened on the President’s watch – and he has to deal with it. I guess President Obama is left to cling to the “hope” that a mathematical error caused this. Is that the “hope” the President was talking about?
Folks, an AA rating should be so far in our rear view mirror that no mathematical error should affect it.
Tonight, I’m saddened for the millions out of work – but I’m hopeful that I will replace Barack Obama as President and get this country and its economy moving again.”
PRESS RELEASE
 *Print version of this document |
IF YOU TALK TO THE GOP, TEA PARTY, AND THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS, THEY WILL TELL YOU OBAMA, THE DEMOCRATS, AND REFUSAL TO MAKE CUTS WHATSOEVER IS WHAT GOT OUR CREDIT DOWNGRADED:
YOU KNOW, CHALKING UP $9 TRILLION IN UNPAID MANDATES AND PROGRAMS, WHICH LED TO JOB LOSS BECAUSE OF THREATENED TAX INCREASES TO PAY FOR WHAT WE DIDN’T WANT, AND THEN STAGNATION OF THE JOB MARKET FROM FAILING TO CUT GOVERNMENT AT THE RATE OF EACH STATE’S UNEMPLOYMENT....
Morning Bell: “The White House Does Not Create Jobs”
Rory CooperAugust 5, 2011 at 9:42 am
Never were truer words spoken. At yesterday’s press briefing, White House spokesman Jay Carney admitted: “The White House does not create jobs.” As the Examiner’s senior political columnist Timothy P. Carney (no relation) later noted, conservatives should greet this statement as “a true and long-awaited admission of government’s limits.”
Despite the now-admitted fact that the President does not create jobs, President Obama continues to manipulate the economy from the West Wing, offering “stimulus” here, threatening higher taxes there, and picking and choosing which industry can thrive and which cannot under his watch.
The government cannot create private-sector jobs, but it can strongly affect the conditions for job-creating economic growth. But instead, the Obama Administration has helped create the conditions to stifle job growth. This morning, the unemployment rate was 9.1 percent. The positive news was that the unemployment rate went down from 9.2%.
However, Heritage expert James Sherk puts this job growth rate into perspective, noting: “The economy needs to add between 100,000 and 125,000 jobs per month to keep pace with population growth. Unemployment will rise if employers consistently create fewer jobs than this.” Stagnant growth that barely keeps pace with population growth proves once again that Obama policies simply aren’t working. In fact, they’re making the recovery more difficult.
Nobody trusts that better conditions and certainty will emerge soon, especially not the markets. The Dow Jones Industrial Average plummeted yesterday, closing down 512 points, erasing all gains made to this point in 2011. The NASDAQ and S&P also lost roughly 5 percent on the day. The White House’s reaction to the biggest one-day drop since 2008 was: “Markets go up and down.” Yet, investors are worrying about anemic growth, economic weakness, financial turmoil in Europe and Obama’s economic interference.
So what are just some of the job-killing conditions that are making the markets and employers nervous?
Obama’s Energy Policy: More than one-third of the drilling rigs in the Gulf of Mexico in 2009 left after the President’s moratorium. If the White House simply didn’t interfere, additional production from deepwater wells could generate 411,000 more barrels per day—providing jobs and lower gas prices.
Obama’s EPA Regulations: Heritage Visiting Fellow Andrew Grossman explains that the EPA forces businesses to “waste tens or hundreds of billions of dollars per year on environmental upgrades of dubious value mean[ing] that money isn’t available to invest in business expansions or create jobs. Higher costs also cut down on business investment—a factory that makes economic sense at a cost of $10 million may not when EPA regulations have jacked the cost up to $30 million.” These regulations are costing America millions of jobs.
Union Interference: At the behest of unions, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is attempting to eliminate thousands of Boeing jobs in South Carolina because it is a right-to-work state. The NLRB is alsopushing for “snap elections,” which would prevent workers from hearing counter-offers to unionization efforts. Unions are also aggressively lobbying against free trade agreements that have been languishing in Washington since President Bush left office. These agreements would create hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Obamacare: Obamacare makes labor costs uncertain. Every day brings more bad news as the details of the legislation emerge. Before Obamacare was enacted, private-sector job creation was averaging 67,600 jobs per month. After the law was signed, this number plummeted to 6,400 jobs per month. It’s no wonder 57 percent of Americans want to see the bill repealed.
The Threat of Higher Taxes: President Obama spent the past month promising that any debt deal would include tax hikes on job creators. When he failed to get those through Congress, he promised they would be part of the “special committee” recommendations. This is now the fourth major push of the Obama Administration to raise taxes on small business owners and investors. The first three attempts failed in Congress and in the court of public opinion, but this push will include the self-destructive leverage of putting the funding of our nation’s security at risk.
Runaway Spending: After the debt deal was signed earlier this week, the President’s first order of business was a fundraiser in Chicago. At the $35,000/plate dinner, Obama told guests: “Precisely because we were inheriting so many challenges, that we’re not halfway there yet. When I said ‘change we can believe in’ I didn’t say ‘change we can believe in tomorrow.’”
One wonders: is “halfway” to where? President Obama inherited a 7.8 percent unemployment rate.Unemployment has now been above 9 percent for all but two of the last 27 months.
Obama inherited a $10.6 trillion national debt. It is now over $14.5 trillion. President Obama’s 2012 budget proposal would have more than doubled this in less than 10 years. It took President Bush eight years to add less than $5 trillion to the debt. Just this week, a newborn baby’s share of the national debt went from $45,000 to $46,700.
And just yesterday, with $238 billion in new borrowing just since Tuesday, the total debt of the federal government became equal to the size of our economy (i.e., the debt-to-GDP ratio hit 100 percent). That is, if we wanted to wipe out the public debt, it would take all of the goods and services the country produces in a year to do so.
So, no, this White House does not create (or save) jobs. But it is also crystal clear looking at Administration policy—coupled with unemployment as well as increased debts and deficits—that it also does not produce the conditions to create jobs.
President Obama should work with Congress to get Washington spending under control, withdraw the threat of higher taxes, enact real entitlement and tax reform that removes uncertainty from the economy, and heed the lessons of the past.
It can be done. The Heritage plan for “Saving the American Dream“ proves it. But the President and liberals in Congress instead continue pushing job-killing tax hikes and more federal over-spending and over-borrowing. The only economic numbers these actions will increase are spending, borrowing, taxes, and unemployment.
Quick Hits:
- Russia has been using dirty tricks to intimidate American diplomats, despite U.S. “reset,” including breaking into homes, vandalism and surveillance.
- Defense Secretary Leon Panetta held a news conference yesterday to warn of the dire consequences of the defense budget cuts that liberals demanded in the debt deal.
- Former Governor Jeb Bush writes in support of state-based education reform in Politico: “If DC won’t act, it should at least support those that are.”
- An insider look at the debt limit negotiations reveals that Republican and Democrat Congressional leaders at one point asked President Obama and his aides to leave a room in the White House so negotiations could improve.
- Join us for lunch today as Heritage national security expert James Carafano chats with you about the defense cuts included in the debt deal. Find us here at 12:00 pm EST.
Posted in Ongoing Priorities
Print This PostJim Matheson: A break in gridlock
First published Aug 06 2011 01:01AM
Updated Aug 6, 2011 01:01AM
With less than 24 hours before the United States faced default on its financial obligations, I joined a bipartisan majority of 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats in the U.S. House in support of the Budget Control Act of 2011. The Senate vote was also strongly bipartisan—74 to 26. For the first time in a very long time, Congress passed legislation that reflects compromise and offers a path forward to address our unsustainable debt.
This legislation is far from perfect, but it is time for us to rise above petty politics and to do what is right for the country. Like many of you, I felt frustrated, disgusted and at times angry at the political posturing at our country’s expense.
It was wrong that the extreme left and right in Congress bickered and fought over ways to trap each other in the rhetoric of campaign pledges while we were teetering on the edge of a default that would compromise Americans’ ability to purchase homes and cars and would deal another blow to retirement and education savings.
I listened to your emails and countless calls to stand for reason and put country first. One such message I received from a constituent read: “I appreciate your common sense and your refusal to be held hostage by ideologues trying to make a point at the expense of the country’s well-being.”
I believe Utahns expect and deserve an end to the squabbling and shortsighted political games in Washington and that they demand a real solution — one that cuts and caps spending, as well as provides economic stability for the future.
This bill offers $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction, as certified by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. It initially produces $900 billion in savings, primarily by capping discretionary spending each year. It creates a 12-member committee composed of members from both parties in the House and Senate to develop a plan for an additional $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction that Congress must vote on by the end of this year.
As insurance, should Congress fail to enact that level of savings, a “trigger” would force automatic spending cuts in both national defense and mandatory spending. Finally, it requires both chambers to vote on a balanced-budget amendment by the end of this year. Together, the package reflects my long-standing deficit-reduction principles of cutting spending, capping spending and support for a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution.
It does not increase taxes and it does not harm Social Security.
Business groups and others who supported this bill include: The Business Roundtable (an association of CEOs of leading U.S. companies with more than 13 million employees), the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Real Estate Roundtable, the National Association of Homebuilders, the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste and the AARP.
Following the vote, U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue said the White House and Congress had done “the right thing by passing bipartisan legislation to cut federal spending.” A Utah constituent provided his thanks as well in this email: “Your vote hopefully will help spare our country from a first-ever default on our debt which would have created an irreversible tax on anyone through higher interest rates for everything.”
There is much more work to be done before we adequately lower our debt and achieve fiscal balance. But this is an important first step — a crucial break in the partisan gridlock that prevents progress.
Rep. Jim Matheson , D-Utah, represents the 2nd Congressional District.
Friday, August 5, 2011
Compassion can’t be paid for
AS I SEE IT
By Kenneth Mandile
172 comments | Add a comment
Governments do not have emotions. They cannot share the suffering and the pleasure that make us human. Governments do not love, hate, laugh or smile, so why should we expect them to be compassionate? By pretending that we can have compassion by government proxy we are made less human. A truly compassionate society would not relinquish compassion to a soulless entity.
There is a popular television show on ABC called “What Would You Do?” It puts people in ethical situations where they witness some form of abuse or injustice. Hidden cameras record the reaction of strangers to the situations created by the show. Sometimes it is hard to watch, even knowing that the people being abused are really actors. What makes the show worth watching is that in almost every situation someone steps forward to intervene to aid the victim.
What would make a total stranger step forward to help a person who is being abused? Wouldn’t it be easier to ignore the situation and let someone else take care of the problem? Perhaps, but by personally witnessing the abuse, the good Samaritans have a tenuous, but real, relationship with the victim. Compassion is relational. Witnessing the abuse causes the witness to suffer along with the victim.
Supporters of unlimited social programs want us to have a compassionate government, but compassion is a human trait, and expecting our government to be compassionate for us is a copout. Is a tea party member less compassionate than a big government advocate? Perhaps it is the statists, who would use the government to seize the property of one person to give to another who are the ones who lack compassion.
Professor of philosophy William B. Irving of Wright State University makes an interesting analogy in his essay “The Politics of Compassion”: “... it would be absurd to take a person’s willingness to increase Federal defense spending as evidence that the person is himself brave, or to take a person’s willingness to spend government money on athletic programs as evidence that the person is himself physically fit. In the same way as it is possible for a ‘couch potato’ to favor government funding of athletic teams, it is possible for a person who lacks compassion to favor various government aid programs; and conversely, it is possible for a compassionate person to oppose these programs.”
Professor Irving differentiates between the Mother Teresa theory of compassion and the liberal theory of compassion. The first requires personal suffering and sacrifice. The second requires that a third party sacrifice to relieve suffering.
I’m sorry, but forcing someone else to pay more for government programs is not compassion. It is lazy, greedy selfishness. Perhaps you can look and feel compassionate, but you have made no sacrifice and have not shared in the pain of your fellow citizens.
I am offended when statists claim that conservatives lack compassion. I also cringe when fellow conservatives fail to show compassion toward the poor and disabled, to illegal immigrants, to gays and lesbians, the homeless and others who do not fit their concept of ordinary. Compassion is not a political philosophy, though. It is a human trait that we share and that we sometimes have trouble practicing.
Our society cannot thrive without compassion. We are all dependent upon others for survival. Witness the many volunteers who recently came out to help area tornado victims.
The role of government in a crisis of that nature is to provide emergency services. The government cannot provide a shoulder to lean on, hands to help sort through personal possessions or an ear to hear the stories of sorrow. The government cannot relieve the emotional suffering of the victims.
Instead, hundreds of people sacrificed time and energy to help strangers.
Let’s not fool ourselves into the belief that any amount of government aid could replace this kind of compassion. When we attempt to use the government as our proxy in the role of compassion, we distance ourselves from those we are trying to help, and our society is the poorer for it.
Kenneth Mandile is a resident of Webster and president of the Worcester Tea Party.
172 comments | Add a comment
A couple of emails I have received. One is from the Republican Study Committee and the other is from Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's office. ~Mellie
From the Chairman
After months of debate, the House and Senate have reached a deal to raise the debt limit (read about the planhere). In the end, I could not support the legislation. While it contains cuts and caps, they should be much more robust. Additionally, the framework of “triggers” and a new 12-member House-Senate committee opens the door to dangerous national security cuts and raises the possibility that six Democrats and one misguided Republican could rush tax increases to the House and Senate floors.
Most importantly, this deal is not a solution. The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act remains the only plan that protects our AAA credit rating from the risk of a downgrade.
Our debt is a permanent, long-term problem, and it requires a permanent solution in the form of a Balanced Budget Amendment. While the House and Senate will be required to vote on one this fall, there is no requirement that it pass and be sent to the states for ratification. Unless we send a Balanced Budget Amendment to the states, however, promises to cut spending today can always disappear tomorrow. (Watch our quick video onWashington Spending 101).
Just a few weeks ago, the Balanced Budget Amendment wasn’t even a part of the conversation, despite the overwhelming support it has among the American public. The growing momentum toward requiring Washington to actually balance its budget is encouraging, but there’s still a lot of work to be done.
God Bless,
Congressman Jim Jordan
Chairman, Republican Study Committee
RSC Media Activity – RSC members work hard to ensure that the conservative viewpoint is well-represented in all corners of the media. Visit our Media Center for more.
RSC Member Activity – RSC members make it a priority to introduce productive, conservative solutions for America’s future.
House Floor Activity – The following key legislation came through the House of Representatives recently.
Outlook – A quick look at what’s on the horizon.
RSC Reports
______________________________
Today the Senate agreed on the motion to concur in the House amendment to S. 365 by a vote of 74-26.
We have now entered into a period of morning business on the floor until 4:00pm.
I wanted to share Leader McConnell’s speech prior to the vote. You can also find it here.
A few of my favorite points:
“The American people sent a wave of new lawmakers to Congress in last November’s election with a very clear mandate: to put our nation’s fiscal house in order. Those of us who’d been fighting the big-government policies of Democrat majorities in Congress welcomed them into our ranks. Together we’ve held the line. And slowly but surely, we’ve started turning things around.”
“Now, I know that for some of my colleagues reform isn’t coming as fast as they would like. I understand their frustration. I too wish we could stand here today enacting something much more ambitious. But I’m encouraged by the thought that these new leaders will help lead this fight until we finish the job. And I want to assure you today that although you may not see it this way, you’ve won this debate.
In a few minutes, the Senate will vote on legislation that represents a new way of doing business in Washington.”
“The American people want to see accountability and cooperation in Washington. And they want to see that we’re working to get our fiscal house in order. This legislation doesn’t get us there. But for the first time in a long time, I think we can say to the American people that we’re finally facing in the right direction. And for that, we have them to thank.”
Thanks again to all of you who participated in this debate. And, on a personal note, all of us on the McConnell team appreciate your words of encouragement over the last few days and weeks. Never underestimate the power of a kind word! We are all grateful.
Lanier
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following statement on the Senate floor Tuesday regarding the Senate vote on the Budget Control Act that will prevent default, cut Washington spending:
“Over the past few weeks, Congress been engaged in a very important debate. It may have been messy. It might have appeared to some like their government wasn’t working.
“But, in fact, the opposite was true.
“The push and pull Americans saw in Washington these past few weeks was not gridlock. It was the will of the people working itself out in a political system that was never meant to be pretty.
“You see, one reason America isn’t already facing the kind of crises we see in Europe is that presidents and majority parties here can’t just bring about change on a dime, as much as they might like to from time to time. That’s what checks and balances is all about. And that’s the kind of balance Americans voted for in November.
“The American people sent a wave of new lawmakers to Congress in last November’s election with a very clear mandate: to put our nation’s fiscal house in order. Those of us who’d been fighting the big-government policies of Democrat majorities in Congress welcomed them into our ranks. Together we’ve held the line. And slowly but surely, we’ve started turning things around.
“That’s why those who think that no problem is too big or too small for government to solve are worried right now. They’re afraid the American people may actually win the larger debate we’ve been having around here about the size and scope of government; and that the spending spree may actually be coming to an end. They can’t believe that those who’ve stood up for limited government and accountability have actually changed the terms of the debate in Washington.
“But today, they have no choice but to admit it.
“Now, I know that for some of my colleagues reform isn’t coming as fast as they would like. I understand their frustration. I too wish we could stand here today enacting something much more ambitious. But I’m encouraged by the thought that these new leaders will help lead this fight until we finish the job. And I want to assure you today that although you may not see it this way, you’ve won this debate.
“In a few minutes, the Senate will vote on legislation that represents a new way of doing business in Washington.
“First, it creates an entirely new template for raising the nation’s debt limit. One of the most important things about this legislation is the fact that never again will any President, from either party, be allowed to raise the debt ceiling without being held accountable for it by the American people and without having to engage in the kind of debate we’ve just come through.
“This kind of discussion isn’t something to dread; it’s something to welcome. And while the President may not have particularly enjoyed this debate, it was a debate that Washington needed to have.
“As for the particulars, this legislation caps spending over the next 10 years, with a mechanism that ensures that these cuts stick. It protects the American people from a government default that would have affected every single one of them in one way or another. It puts in place a committee that will recommend further cuts and much-needed reforms. It doesn’t include a dime in job-killing tax hikes at a moment when our economy can least afford them. And, crucially, it ensures the debate over a balanced budget amendment continues, and that it gets a vote.
“This is no small feat when you consider that just last week the President was still demanding tax hikes as a part of any debt ceiling increase, and that as recently as May, the President’s top economic advisor said it was `insane’ for anybody to even consider tying the debt ceiling to spending cuts. It’s worth noting that two and a half months later, that advisor is longer working at the White House and the President is now agreeing, as a condition of raising the debt ceiling, to trillions of dollars in spending cuts.
“Let me be clear: the legislation the Senate is about to vote on is just a first step. But it’s a crucial step toward fiscal sanity, and it’s a potentially remarkable achievement given the lengths to which some in Washington have gone to ensure a status quo that’s suffocating growth, crippling the economy, and imperiling entitlements.
“We’ve had to settle for less than we wanted, but what we’ve achieved is in no way insignificant. And we did it because we had something Democrats didn’t. Republicans may only control one half of one third of the government in Washington. But the American people agreed with us on the nature of the problem. They know that government didn’t accumulate $14.5 trillion in debt because it didn’t tax enough.
“And if you’re spending yourself into oblivion, the solution isn’t to spend more, it’s to spend less.
“Neither side got everything it wanted in these negotiations. But I think it was the view of those in my party that we’d try to get as much spending cuts as we could from a government we didn’t control. And that’s what we’ve done with this bipartisan agreement.
“This is not the deficit reduction package I would have written. The fact that we’re on pace to add another $7 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years is nothing to celebrate. But getting it there from more than $9 trillion the President continued to defend until recently, is no defeat either. And slowing down the big-government freight train from its current trajectory will give us the time we need to work toward a real solution, or give the American people the time they need to have their voices heard.
“So much more work remains. And to that end, our first step will be to make sure that the Republicans who sit on the powerful cost-cutting committee are serious people who put the best interests of the American people, and the principles that we’ve fought for throughout this debate, first.
“But before we move on to the next steps, I would like to say a word about some of those who made today’s vote possible.
“I’ll start with Speaker Boehner.
“It should be noted that he helped set the terms of this debate by insisting early on that he’d oppose any debt limit that didn’t include cuts that were greater than the amount the debt limit would be raised. And he stuck to his guns. The Speaker and I have worked shoulder to shoulder over the past few months, and it’s been a pleasure. He’s been a real partner. We wouldn’t be here without him.
“So I want to thank the Speaker and the entire Republican Leadership in the House for standing on principle, and I want to thank my Republican colleagues in the Senate for their determination and their ideas and their support. We wouldn’t be here without them either. And I want to thank my friend, the Majority Leader, for his work in getting this agreement over the finish line. We may disagree a lot, but I hope everyone realizes it’s never personal. And I think today we can prove that when it comes down to it we’ll come together when a larger good is at stake.
“I also want to thank the President, the Vice President, and everyone on their staffs who believed, as we did, that despite our many differences, we could all agree that America would not default on its obligations. It’s a testament to the good will of those on both sides that we were able to reach this agreement in time. Neither side wanted to see a government default. I’m pleased we were able to work together to avoid it.
“This bill does not solve the problem. But it forces Washington to admit that it has one. And it puts us on the path to recovery. We’re nowhere near where we need to be in terms of restoring balance. But there should be absolutely no doubt about this: we have changed the debate. We’re headed in the right direction.
“How’d it happen? Because the American people demanded it.
“So, in the end, we’re back to where we started. The only reason we’re talking about passing legislation that reins in the size of Washington instead of growing it is because the American people believed that they could have a real impact on the direction of their government. They spoke out, and we heard them. And it’s only through their continued participation in this process, and lawmakers who are willing to listen to them, that we’ll complete the work we’ve begun. As Winston Churchill once said, `Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; [and] courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen.’
“I can’t think of a better way to sum up this last year and, in particular, these last few months, in Washington than that.
“The American people want to see accountability and cooperation in Washington. And they want to see that we’re working to get our fiscal house in order. This legislation doesn’t get us there. But for the first time in a long time, I think we can say to the American people that we’re finally facing in the right direction. And for that, we have them to thank.”
First published Aug 06 2011 01:01AM
Updated Aug 6, 2011 01:01AM
With less than 24 hours before the United States faced default on its financial obligations, I joined a bipartisan majority of 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats in the U.S. House in support of the Budget Control Act of 2011. The Senate vote was also strongly bipartisan—74 to 26. For the first time in a very long time, Congress passed legislation that reflects compromise and offers a path forward to address our unsustainable debt.
This legislation is far from perfect, but it is time for us to rise above petty politics and to do what is right for the country. Like many of you, I felt frustrated, disgusted and at times angry at the political posturing at our country’s expense.
It was wrong that the extreme left and right in Congress bickered and fought over ways to trap each other in the rhetoric of campaign pledges while we were teetering on the edge of a default that would compromise Americans’ ability to purchase homes and cars and would deal another blow to retirement and education savings.
I listened to your emails and countless calls to stand for reason and put country first. One such message I received from a constituent read: “I appreciate your common sense and your refusal to be held hostage by ideologues trying to make a point at the expense of the country’s well-being.”
I believe Utahns expect and deserve an end to the squabbling and shortsighted political games in Washington and that they demand a real solution — one that cuts and caps spending, as well as provides economic stability for the future.
This bill offers $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction, as certified by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. It initially produces $900 billion in savings, primarily by capping discretionary spending each year. It creates a 12-member committee composed of members from both parties in the House and Senate to develop a plan for an additional $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction that Congress must vote on by the end of this year.
As insurance, should Congress fail to enact that level of savings, a “trigger” would force automatic spending cuts in both national defense and mandatory spending. Finally, it requires both chambers to vote on a balanced-budget amendment by the end of this year. Together, the package reflects my long-standing deficit-reduction principles of cutting spending, capping spending and support for a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution.
It does not increase taxes and it does not harm Social Security.
Business groups and others who supported this bill include: The Business Roundtable (an association of CEOs of leading U.S. companies with more than 13 million employees), the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Real Estate Roundtable, the National Association of Homebuilders, the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste and the AARP.
Following the vote, U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue said the White House and Congress had done “the right thing by passing bipartisan legislation to cut federal spending.” A Utah constituent provided his thanks as well in this email: “Your vote hopefully will help spare our country from a first-ever default on our debt which would have created an irreversible tax on anyone through higher interest rates for everything.”
There is much more work to be done before we adequately lower our debt and achieve fiscal balance. But this is an important first step — a crucial break in the partisan gridlock that prevents progress.
Rep. Jim Matheson , D-Utah, represents the 2nd Congressional District.
Friday, August 5, 2011
Compassion can’t be paid for
AS I SEE IT
By Kenneth Mandile
172 comments | Add a comment
Forcing someone else to pay more for government programs is not compassion. It is lazy, greedy selfishness.
The word compassion has Greek and Latin roots meaning “to suffer with.” It is an emotion caused by awareness of someone else’s suffering. It is an emotion so strong that we actually feel another person’s pain. A compassionate person will sacrifice time, effort, goods, money, and maybe even his life to alleviate the suffering of a fellow human being. Governments do not have emotions. They cannot share the suffering and the pleasure that make us human. Governments do not love, hate, laugh or smile, so why should we expect them to be compassionate? By pretending that we can have compassion by government proxy we are made less human. A truly compassionate society would not relinquish compassion to a soulless entity.
There is a popular television show on ABC called “What Would You Do?” It puts people in ethical situations where they witness some form of abuse or injustice. Hidden cameras record the reaction of strangers to the situations created by the show. Sometimes it is hard to watch, even knowing that the people being abused are really actors. What makes the show worth watching is that in almost every situation someone steps forward to intervene to aid the victim.
What would make a total stranger step forward to help a person who is being abused? Wouldn’t it be easier to ignore the situation and let someone else take care of the problem? Perhaps, but by personally witnessing the abuse, the good Samaritans have a tenuous, but real, relationship with the victim. Compassion is relational. Witnessing the abuse causes the witness to suffer along with the victim.
Supporters of unlimited social programs want us to have a compassionate government, but compassion is a human trait, and expecting our government to be compassionate for us is a copout. Is a tea party member less compassionate than a big government advocate? Perhaps it is the statists, who would use the government to seize the property of one person to give to another who are the ones who lack compassion.
Professor of philosophy William B. Irving of Wright State University makes an interesting analogy in his essay “The Politics of Compassion”: “... it would be absurd to take a person’s willingness to increase Federal defense spending as evidence that the person is himself brave, or to take a person’s willingness to spend government money on athletic programs as evidence that the person is himself physically fit. In the same way as it is possible for a ‘couch potato’ to favor government funding of athletic teams, it is possible for a person who lacks compassion to favor various government aid programs; and conversely, it is possible for a compassionate person to oppose these programs.”
Professor Irving differentiates between the Mother Teresa theory of compassion and the liberal theory of compassion. The first requires personal suffering and sacrifice. The second requires that a third party sacrifice to relieve suffering.
I’m sorry, but forcing someone else to pay more for government programs is not compassion. It is lazy, greedy selfishness. Perhaps you can look and feel compassionate, but you have made no sacrifice and have not shared in the pain of your fellow citizens.
I am offended when statists claim that conservatives lack compassion. I also cringe when fellow conservatives fail to show compassion toward the poor and disabled, to illegal immigrants, to gays and lesbians, the homeless and others who do not fit their concept of ordinary. Compassion is not a political philosophy, though. It is a human trait that we share and that we sometimes have trouble practicing.
Our society cannot thrive without compassion. We are all dependent upon others for survival. Witness the many volunteers who recently came out to help area tornado victims.
The role of government in a crisis of that nature is to provide emergency services. The government cannot provide a shoulder to lean on, hands to help sort through personal possessions or an ear to hear the stories of sorrow. The government cannot relieve the emotional suffering of the victims.
Instead, hundreds of people sacrificed time and energy to help strangers.
Let’s not fool ourselves into the belief that any amount of government aid could replace this kind of compassion. When we attempt to use the government as our proxy in the role of compassion, we distance ourselves from those we are trying to help, and our society is the poorer for it.
Kenneth Mandile is a resident of Webster and president of the Worcester Tea Party.
172 comments | Add a comment
McConnell and Jim Jordan statements on the Debt Deal
- Posted by Asst Natl Dir Mellie B on August 2, 2011 at 4:06pm in Patriot Action Alerts
- View Discussions
A couple of emails I have received. One is from the Republican Study Committee and the other is from Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's office. ~Mellie
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
RSC Update: The Debt Deal Gets Done
From the Chairman
After months of debate, the House and Senate have reached a deal to raise the debt limit (read about the planhere). In the end, I could not support the legislation. While it contains cuts and caps, they should be much more robust. Additionally, the framework of “triggers” and a new 12-member House-Senate committee opens the door to dangerous national security cuts and raises the possibility that six Democrats and one misguided Republican could rush tax increases to the House and Senate floors.
Most importantly, this deal is not a solution. The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act remains the only plan that protects our AAA credit rating from the risk of a downgrade.
Our debt is a permanent, long-term problem, and it requires a permanent solution in the form of a Balanced Budget Amendment. While the House and Senate will be required to vote on one this fall, there is no requirement that it pass and be sent to the states for ratification. Unless we send a Balanced Budget Amendment to the states, however, promises to cut spending today can always disappear tomorrow. (Watch our quick video onWashington Spending 101).
Just a few weeks ago, the Balanced Budget Amendment wasn’t even a part of the conversation, despite the overwhelming support it has among the American public. The growing momentum toward requiring Washington to actually balance its budget is encouraging, but there’s still a lot of work to be done.
God Bless,
Congressman Jim Jordan
Chairman, Republican Study Committee
RSC Media Activity – RSC members work hard to ensure that the conservative viewpoint is well-represented in all corners of the media. Visit our Media Center for more.
- Reps. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA-05) and Phil Gingrey (GA-11): Preventing State Bankruptcy: Why Medicaid Reform Matters; The Daily Caller, July 27.
- Rep. Mike Turner (OH-03): Time for a Balanced Budget Amendment; Highland County Press, July 27.
- Rep. Rob Woodall (GA-07): We Have to Fight for Every Inch of Reform; Gwinnett Daily Post, Aug 1.
- Rep. Gus Bilirakis (FL-09): The Case for a Balanced Federal Budget; The Tampa Tribune, Aug 1.
RSC Member Activity – RSC members make it a priority to introduce productive, conservative solutions for America’s future.
- Rep. David Schweikert (AZ-05), a member of the House Financial Services Committee, introduced the Ensuring the Full Faith and Credit of the United States and Protecting America’s Seniors and Soldiers Act. This bill will codify the Treasury's authority to pay military, Social Security, and our bond coupons in the event the debt ceiling is not increased.
House Floor Activity – The following key legislation came through the House of Representatives recently.
- On Tuesday, the House passed H.R. 1938, the North American-Made Energy Security Act.
- On Tuesday, the House passed Senate Amendments to H.R. 1383, the GI Fairness Act of 2011.
- On Friday, the House passed S. 627 (as amended), Speaker Boehner’s version of the Budget Control Act of 2011. It was tabled in the Senate.
- On Saturday, the House rejected H.R. 2693, Senator Harry Reid’s version of the Budget Control Act of 2011.
- On Monday, the House passed S. 365, the version of the Budget Control Act of 2011 negotiated by President Obama and Congressional leaders. It passed the Senate today and was sent to the President to sign.
Outlook – A quick look at what’s on the horizon.
- The House has recessed until September 7, though it will hold pro forma sessions throughout the month of August to prevent presidential recess appointments.
RSC Reports
- Each week the House is in session, the RSC Budget and Spending Taskforce compiles a weekly report on the latest budget and spending news. Additionally, the RSC Money Monitor tracks how bills passed by the House affect authorizations, mandatory spending, and federal government revenue.
###
House Republican Study Committee
Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman
Paul Teller, Executive Director
Brad Watson, Policy Director
Bruce “Fez” Miller, Professional Policy Staff
Joe Murray, Professional Policy Staff
Curtis Rhyne, Professional Policy Staff
Ja’Ron Smith, Professional Policy Staff
Wesley Goodman, Director of Conservative Coalitions and State Outreach
Yong Choe, Director of Business Outreach and Member Services
Brian Straessle, Communications Director
Ben Miller, Deputy Communications Director
Cyrus Artz, Research Assistant
1524 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 226-9717
twitter.com/republicanstudy______________________________
Today the Senate agreed on the motion to concur in the House amendment to S. 365 by a vote of 74-26.
We have now entered into a period of morning business on the floor until 4:00pm.
I wanted to share Leader McConnell’s speech prior to the vote. You can also find it here.
A few of my favorite points:
“The American people sent a wave of new lawmakers to Congress in last November’s election with a very clear mandate: to put our nation’s fiscal house in order. Those of us who’d been fighting the big-government policies of Democrat majorities in Congress welcomed them into our ranks. Together we’ve held the line. And slowly but surely, we’ve started turning things around.”
“Now, I know that for some of my colleagues reform isn’t coming as fast as they would like. I understand their frustration. I too wish we could stand here today enacting something much more ambitious. But I’m encouraged by the thought that these new leaders will help lead this fight until we finish the job. And I want to assure you today that although you may not see it this way, you’ve won this debate.
In a few minutes, the Senate will vote on legislation that represents a new way of doing business in Washington.”
“The American people want to see accountability and cooperation in Washington. And they want to see that we’re working to get our fiscal house in order. This legislation doesn’t get us there. But for the first time in a long time, I think we can say to the American people that we’re finally facing in the right direction. And for that, we have them to thank.”
Thanks again to all of you who participated in this debate. And, on a personal note, all of us on the McConnell team appreciate your words of encouragement over the last few days and weeks. Never underestimate the power of a kind word! We are all grateful.
Lanier
McConnell: Bipartisan Agreement Will Slow Down the ‘Big Government Freight Train’
`The only reason we’re talking about passing legislation that reins in the size of Washington instead of growing it is because the American people believed that they could have a real impact on the direction of their government. They spoke out, and we heard them. And it’s only through their continued participation in this process, and lawmakers who are willing to listen to them, that we’ll complete the work we’ve begun.’
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following statement on the Senate floor Tuesday regarding the Senate vote on the Budget Control Act that will prevent default, cut Washington spending:
“Over the past few weeks, Congress been engaged in a very important debate. It may have been messy. It might have appeared to some like their government wasn’t working.
“But, in fact, the opposite was true.
“The push and pull Americans saw in Washington these past few weeks was not gridlock. It was the will of the people working itself out in a political system that was never meant to be pretty.
“You see, one reason America isn’t already facing the kind of crises we see in Europe is that presidents and majority parties here can’t just bring about change on a dime, as much as they might like to from time to time. That’s what checks and balances is all about. And that’s the kind of balance Americans voted for in November.
“The American people sent a wave of new lawmakers to Congress in last November’s election with a very clear mandate: to put our nation’s fiscal house in order. Those of us who’d been fighting the big-government policies of Democrat majorities in Congress welcomed them into our ranks. Together we’ve held the line. And slowly but surely, we’ve started turning things around.
“That’s why those who think that no problem is too big or too small for government to solve are worried right now. They’re afraid the American people may actually win the larger debate we’ve been having around here about the size and scope of government; and that the spending spree may actually be coming to an end. They can’t believe that those who’ve stood up for limited government and accountability have actually changed the terms of the debate in Washington.
“But today, they have no choice but to admit it.
“Now, I know that for some of my colleagues reform isn’t coming as fast as they would like. I understand their frustration. I too wish we could stand here today enacting something much more ambitious. But I’m encouraged by the thought that these new leaders will help lead this fight until we finish the job. And I want to assure you today that although you may not see it this way, you’ve won this debate.
“In a few minutes, the Senate will vote on legislation that represents a new way of doing business in Washington.
“First, it creates an entirely new template for raising the nation’s debt limit. One of the most important things about this legislation is the fact that never again will any President, from either party, be allowed to raise the debt ceiling without being held accountable for it by the American people and without having to engage in the kind of debate we’ve just come through.
“This kind of discussion isn’t something to dread; it’s something to welcome. And while the President may not have particularly enjoyed this debate, it was a debate that Washington needed to have.
“As for the particulars, this legislation caps spending over the next 10 years, with a mechanism that ensures that these cuts stick. It protects the American people from a government default that would have affected every single one of them in one way or another. It puts in place a committee that will recommend further cuts and much-needed reforms. It doesn’t include a dime in job-killing tax hikes at a moment when our economy can least afford them. And, crucially, it ensures the debate over a balanced budget amendment continues, and that it gets a vote.
“This is no small feat when you consider that just last week the President was still demanding tax hikes as a part of any debt ceiling increase, and that as recently as May, the President’s top economic advisor said it was `insane’ for anybody to even consider tying the debt ceiling to spending cuts. It’s worth noting that two and a half months later, that advisor is longer working at the White House and the President is now agreeing, as a condition of raising the debt ceiling, to trillions of dollars in spending cuts.
“Let me be clear: the legislation the Senate is about to vote on is just a first step. But it’s a crucial step toward fiscal sanity, and it’s a potentially remarkable achievement given the lengths to which some in Washington have gone to ensure a status quo that’s suffocating growth, crippling the economy, and imperiling entitlements.
“We’ve had to settle for less than we wanted, but what we’ve achieved is in no way insignificant. And we did it because we had something Democrats didn’t. Republicans may only control one half of one third of the government in Washington. But the American people agreed with us on the nature of the problem. They know that government didn’t accumulate $14.5 trillion in debt because it didn’t tax enough.
“And if you’re spending yourself into oblivion, the solution isn’t to spend more, it’s to spend less.
“Neither side got everything it wanted in these negotiations. But I think it was the view of those in my party that we’d try to get as much spending cuts as we could from a government we didn’t control. And that’s what we’ve done with this bipartisan agreement.
“This is not the deficit reduction package I would have written. The fact that we’re on pace to add another $7 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years is nothing to celebrate. But getting it there from more than $9 trillion the President continued to defend until recently, is no defeat either. And slowing down the big-government freight train from its current trajectory will give us the time we need to work toward a real solution, or give the American people the time they need to have their voices heard.
“So much more work remains. And to that end, our first step will be to make sure that the Republicans who sit on the powerful cost-cutting committee are serious people who put the best interests of the American people, and the principles that we’ve fought for throughout this debate, first.
“But before we move on to the next steps, I would like to say a word about some of those who made today’s vote possible.
“I’ll start with Speaker Boehner.
“It should be noted that he helped set the terms of this debate by insisting early on that he’d oppose any debt limit that didn’t include cuts that were greater than the amount the debt limit would be raised. And he stuck to his guns. The Speaker and I have worked shoulder to shoulder over the past few months, and it’s been a pleasure. He’s been a real partner. We wouldn’t be here without him.
“So I want to thank the Speaker and the entire Republican Leadership in the House for standing on principle, and I want to thank my Republican colleagues in the Senate for their determination and their ideas and their support. We wouldn’t be here without them either. And I want to thank my friend, the Majority Leader, for his work in getting this agreement over the finish line. We may disagree a lot, but I hope everyone realizes it’s never personal. And I think today we can prove that when it comes down to it we’ll come together when a larger good is at stake.
“I also want to thank the President, the Vice President, and everyone on their staffs who believed, as we did, that despite our many differences, we could all agree that America would not default on its obligations. It’s a testament to the good will of those on both sides that we were able to reach this agreement in time. Neither side wanted to see a government default. I’m pleased we were able to work together to avoid it.
“This bill does not solve the problem. But it forces Washington to admit that it has one. And it puts us on the path to recovery. We’re nowhere near where we need to be in terms of restoring balance. But there should be absolutely no doubt about this: we have changed the debate. We’re headed in the right direction.
“How’d it happen? Because the American people demanded it.
“So, in the end, we’re back to where we started. The only reason we’re talking about passing legislation that reins in the size of Washington instead of growing it is because the American people believed that they could have a real impact on the direction of their government. They spoke out, and we heard them. And it’s only through their continued participation in this process, and lawmakers who are willing to listen to them, that we’ll complete the work we’ve begun. As Winston Churchill once said, `Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; [and] courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen.’
“I can’t think of a better way to sum up this last year and, in particular, these last few months, in Washington than that.
“The American people want to see accountability and cooperation in Washington. And they want to see that we’re working to get our fiscal house in order. This legislation doesn’t get us there. But for the first time in a long time, I think we can say to the American people that we’re finally facing in the right direction. And for that, we have them to thank.”
####
_______________________
Lanier Swann
Policy Advisor
Office of the Republican Leader
Senator Mitch McConnell
S-230, Capitol
202.224.3135How did your Senator Vote?
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 112th Congress - 1st Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
| Question: On the Motion (Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to S. 365 ) | |||
| Vote Number: | 123 | Vote Date: | August 2, 2011, 12:16 PM |
| Required For Majority: | 3/5 | Vote Result: | Motion Agreed to |
| Measure Number: | S. 365 | ||
| Measure Title: | An act to provide for budget control. |
| Vote Counts: | YEAs | 74 |
| NAYs | 26 |
CREDIT DOWNGRADE…The Ripple Effect & Who’s at Fault
By Craig Andresen
Before we get to the dodge and weave being suggested by many pundits, in regard to how Obama should react to this news, we should look at what this means to the average American consumer.
If you have a mortgage, a car loan, or you’re thinking of such in the near future, expect to pay a higher interest rate. Those who have a locked in mortgage are safe in that regard but those with variable rate mortgages, will find their interest rates going up.
Those with mortgages or loans are not the only ones who will have their cost of living go up…we all will. Businesses who have loans on their businesses, property loans or vehicle loans or equipment loans or who will be needed those things in the future WILL be
That means if you intend to purchase anything from a loaf of bread to pair of slacks…expect those prices to rise. Rising prices will have a ripple effect all their own. As the cost of living goes up, consumers will have less disposable income. Less disposable income means less spending and that will further slow an already sluggish economy.
To say the U.S. economy is sluggish already is a gross understatement.
Add to all of this, and what is being presented here is a simplified version admittedly, the added oncoming costs to businesses of Obamacare over the next couple of years. The ripple effect there is that hiring will remain low and it is quite likely that unemployment will rise between now and the 2012 elections. Added Obamacare costs will also be passed along to consumers by businesses as yet another ripple effect causing yet more of a downturn in spending spreading more ripples throughout the economic future.
If you think the last couple of days on Wall Street were bad…chances are…you ain’t seen NOTHING yet and as 401K’s drop, investments drop, selling will
Ripple after ripple overlapping ripple after ripple and on and on it goes.
More examples could well be given here but you get the point. The outlook is not rosy. It’s bleak.
Now, the political end of the spectrum.
Liberals will do everything they can for the next 15 months to paint the conservatives, the republicans and more than any other entity, the Tea Party as the culprits in this fiasco/economic disaster. They have already started. They have labeled the Tea Party as hostage takers, terrorists, suicide bombers, anarchists, vampires and more.
One should ask, why did they start this line of attack days BEFORE the downgrade? Simple…they knew it was coming and clearly, their rhetoric was a preemptive strike.
The fact is plainly clear that liberals have no one to HONESTLY blame but Obama and Obama HONESTLY has no one to blame but himself but then, honesty is rarely a part of the liberal political talking points.
The blame is squarely on the shoulders of the democrats regardless of what they have said or will say over the months leading to the election. S&P for all their faults, and there are many, had to have taken several things into account in making their decision to downgrade the United States credit rating for the first time in history.
Among those things would be the fact that this administration has for more than 825 days, FAILED to pass a budget. Not only have
In the debt talks over the last several weeks, the republicans of the House offered Cut Cap and Balance…which the democrats promptly TABLED not even allowing it to see the light of day on the Senate floor much less a vote. The republicans in the House then offered the Boehner plan which ALSO was promptly tabled and not given a vote by the democrats in the Senate.
Did the democrats of the Senate offer any plan at all? Finally, they tossed up the Reid plan which FAILED to get the necessary votes even in the democrat controlled Senate to pass on a straight majority vote much less the 60 votes it would have needed.
DEMOCRATS killed 2 republican plans and failed to pass their OWN plan and THAT TOO would have weighed on the S&P decision to downgrade our credit rating.
The plan that WAS finally passed, the ONLY plan which democrats agreed to fell far short of what S&P has stated it needed in regard to spending cuts. S&P said 4 trillion and the democrats would ONLY agree to 2.4 trillion in cuts.
Further, in the plan which was passed, a PASSAGE of a balanced budget amendment is NOT mandatory before the second tronch of
Throughout the entire process Obama lectured the congress, lectured the American people, called for tax hikes, harped on corporate jet owners and offered no plan whatsoever. His administration engaged in rhetoric and name calling, the killing of budgets and proposals and yet offered no leadership whatsoever.
At one point, when he actually DID engage in discussions, Obama, reportedly, was asked to LEAVE the room so others in the talks MIGHT actually do something…SOMETHING…
As soon as the deal was signed, Obama headed off to Chicago for a fund raising birthday dinner and announced his plans to tour the Midwest by bus campaigning for reelection. He even stated in a speech that when he said “Change” he didn’t mean change today…or change tomorrow.
In HIS own words, “We knew this was going to take time because we’ve got this big, messy, tough democracy.”
This downgrade, this economic mess, this, whatever you wish to call it is EXACTLY, I submit, what Obama and his administration and those who pull their strings have been hoping for, wanting and working toward. THEY WANT economic disaster. THEY WAT all these ripple effects. Why? Simple.
Their ideology is to create a nation which is FORCED to depend on
IF our economy was strong…IF our credit rating remained at AAA status, IF unemployment was low…IF gas prices were low, IF investments were increasing…would government be in a position to dictate terms of everyday life to the people? Would government be able to create an entitlement society?
No. HELL no.
The ONLY way THAT would be possible is with a complete economic collapse and THIS is exactly how such a collapse BEGINS and for it to happen this quickly it MUST be engineered.
Liberals will, without a shadow of a doubt, rile at this line of thought and be dismissive of it claiming anyone who would begin to espouse such ideas is clearly insane but it is THEIR candidate, Obama, who decries “…this big, messy, tough democracy” as a primary stumbling block to his vision AND…just received the endorsement of the COMMUNIST PARTY USA for reelection.
Pundits on the right are calling for Obama to accept the resignation of Tim Geithner over this shameful downgrade. I believe this is the wrong thing to do. First, and importantly, Geithner offered to resign days BEFORE the downgrade was announced. What did he know and when did he know it? It seems obvious that Geithner KNEW this was coming and I submit if HE knew…so did Obama.
IF Obama accepts a resignation from Geithner it provides Obama with yet another scapegoat. If Obama FIRES Geithner… scapegoat. I believe the resignation of Tim Geihtner is again forthcoming and this time WILL be accepted because, if Geithner is allowed to stay…that’s a roadblock in Obama’s reelection bid.
Using Geithner as a scapegoat will allow Obama to attempt to deflect blame but republicans must not allow that to go
Are the democrats and the Obama administration solely to blame? No. Both parties have for decades been running up the debt but…no administration has run it up faster or more that the Obama administration and it has been the democrats who, even while they controlled all 3 branches, failed to provide a budget and have since blocked any attempt by the republican Tea Party backed freshman class to take substantial steps to avert this crisis.
Economically, bad things have happened and more bad things are going to happen, that much is clear but is this the end of our nation as we’ve known it? No. Should we consider ourselves lucky? Yes…in a way.
We ARE lucky that it has taken until August of 2011 for this to happen BECAUSE that “…big, messy, tough democracy” got in the way. Now, there is just over a year before the next election and while more damage COULD be done in that time, the 2012 election IS the way OUT of this crisis. Imagine how much worse the outlook or the effect would have been had not republicans taken the House in 2010.
The Tea Party MUST stop blaming those republicans who voted FOR the debt deal and step ever so slightly OFF their ideological
HAD the republicans, all of them, voted NAY…the liberals would SURELY use THAT as ammo saying the Tea Party BLOCKED our only hope. As it stands…it is the DEMOCRATS who blocked any hope of averting the downgrade and regardless of their whining, name calling and rhetoric…THEY MUST BE HELD TO ACCOUNT for it and the ONLY way that will happen is IF the Tea Party becomes cohesive…and FAST!
The Tea Party can NOT afford to spend ANY amount of time, energy or resources trying to find replacements for those some are now referring to as defectors. Instead, they MUST put their strict ideology aside, unite and spend ALL their time, energy and resources into replacing 23 democrat Senators and a socialist President in November of 2012.
THAT would be the ONLY ripple from this boulder of a crisis tossed into the economic pond which would have a positive effect!
This entry was posted on Friday, August 5th, 2011 at 11:26 pm and is filed under Congress, Conservative, Craig Andresen, Economy,Entitlements, Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Obama, Tea Party. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Jesse Jackson: BIG Government IS US!!!- Posted by Admin II-Rev. Larry Wallenmeyer on August 3, 2011 at 11:30pm in Patriot Action Alerts
- View Discussions
Well, at least they ADMIT IT... 'Big Government Is Us By Another Name' Jesse Jackson's Epiphany Statement
NakedEmperorNews1 479 videos Subscribe 24,323 
Link to this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?
Aug 3, 2011
'Big Government Is Us By Another Name' Jesse Jackson's Epiphany Statement Reveals Why The Small Government Advocating Tea Party is Falsely Accused of Racism During His Race Baiting Civil War Rant
Top Comments
- A Civil War fight? Out of 653,000 annual deaths in the black community 363,000 of those are from abortions. Planned Parenthood targets black communities and has since it was created by that racist eugenics-loving bitch Margaret Sanger.
- If this is a Civil War fight, why are you fighting for the side that kills hundreds of thousands of black babies every single year?
- This guy is such a clown.
- Amiaworld 1 week ago 14
- Socialism is wrong because it is based on MANIPULATION and COERCION. It doesn't work because government is not supposed to "create" jobs, WE THE PEOPLE create jobs by creating jobs! Don't these people get it???! I think Jackson forgets that he DEMOCRATS were WRONG during the Civil War siding with slavery. And also the Cold War - siding with slavery. And today, trying to make us the servants of the state, losing our productive potential time and energy. Jackson is such a BUM.
- thexcount 1 week ago 11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
******************************
LINK TO FULL ARTICLE & RELATED VIDEOS:
www.breitbart.tv/jesse-
In this video you will hear "Rev." Jesse Jackson say that WE/The Tea Party/Conservatives are fighting the Civil War again...only this time to ENSLAVE!!
[Yeah, this is from the same "Rev." Jackson that said that the WHITE soldiers fighting in Rwanda was the FIRST time whites fought to free BLACKS!!! Uh, what was the Civil War about there "Rev."?!!]
Yeah...I know...OUR calls for Liberty, Freedom, Gov. DE-Regulation, Tax CUTS, SMALL Gov. ...are actually calls for slavery!!
Wow! I didn't know that to a Lib "Liberty=Slavery"!!?
What is it with Liberals?!
To them Gov. regulating every facet of business, education, commerce and, well, life IS "Liberty"...and the FREEDOM to CHOOSE, to be in charge of your own life, job, finances IS "Slavery"!!
Crikey!! It is impossible to reason with a Liberal! Their idea of right IS wrong, their idea of wrong IS right! Up IS down. Down IS up!
Well, what do YOU think of the Leftist "Rev." honesty? Do YOU think Jackson saying that Dems ARE BIG Government will back-fire against them?
Whattaya say?
-Rev. Larry Wallenmeyer.
www.patriotactionnetwork.com/
Also visit us at: www.patriotactionnetwork.com/
An Oasis of Peace, Blessing & Sanity in a World Gone Mad.
Tags: Big+Government, Civil+War, Communism, Conservatism, Constitutionalism, Liberalism, Liberty, Marxism,Rev.+Jesse+Jackosn, Slavery
Views: 1414
▶ Reply to This
REPLIES TO THIS DISCUSSION
Permalink Reply by Antibaryon on August 3, 2011 at 11:41pm
Martin Luther King would be ashamed of his separtism, racism, manipulation of government affirmative action, division and horrid tactics.
Jesse Jackson ruined assimilation among races in our generations along with Sharpton.
He will ROT in the opposite of heaven..
The demons are awaiting his arrival!
obama can bow to him in the same eternity unless they get there at the same time!
Updated: 9:41 p.m. Thursday, Aug. 4, 2011 | Posted: 5:06 p.m. Thursday, Aug. 4, 2011
Dow falls 512 in steepest decline since '08 crisis
Associated Press
Dow falls 512 in steepest decline since '08 crisis
Associated Press
Dow falls 512 in steepest decline since '08 crisis
Associated Press
Dow falls 512 in steepest decline since '08 crisis
By DAVID K. RANDALLThe Associated Press
NEW YORK —
Gripped by fear of a new recession, the stock market suffered its worst day Thursday since the financial crisis in the fall of 2008. The Dow Jones industrial average fell more than 500 points, its ninth-steepest decline.
The sell-off wiped out the Dow's remaining gains for 2011. It put the Dow and broader stock indexes into what investors call a correction — down 10 percent from their highs in the spring.
"We are continuing to be bombarded by worries about the global economy," said Bill Stone, the chief investment strategist for PNC Financial.
Across the financial markets, the day was reminiscent of the wild swings that defined the financial crisis in September and October three years ago. Gold prices briefly hit a record high. Oil fell even more than stocks — 6 percent, or $5.30 a barrel. And frightened investors were so desperate to get into some government bonds that they were willing accept almost no return on their money.
It was the most alarming day yet in the almost uninterrupted selling that has swept Wall Street for two weeks. The Dow has lost more than 1,300 points, or 10.5 percent. By one broad measure kept by Dow Jones, almost $1.9 trillion in market value has disappeared.
For the day, the Dow closed down 512.76 points, at 11,383.68. It was the steepest point decline since Dec. 1, 2008.
Thursday's decline was the ninth-worst by points for the Dow. In percentage terms, the decline of 4.3 percent does not rank among the worst. On Black Monday in 1987, for example, the Dow fell 22 percent.
Two weeks ago, investors appeared worried about the deadlocked negotiations in Washington over raising the ceiling on government debt. As soon as the ceiling was raised, investors focused on the economy, and the selling accelerated.
On Thursday, growing fear about the weakening U.S. economy was joined by concern in Europe that the troubled economies of Italy and Spain might need help from the European Union.
The European Union has already given financial assistance to Greece and Ireland, two countries that have struggled to pay their debts. A financial rescue package for Italy or Spain might be more than the group of countries can handle.
Traders also unloaded stocks before Friday's release of the government's unemployment report for July, which is expected to show weak job growth and perhaps a rise in the unemployment rate, which is 9.2 percent.
Together, they produced "a perfect storm of selling," said Ryan Larson, head of U.S. equity trading for RBC Global Asset Management.
Until a week ago, Wall Street had mostly convinced itself that the U.S. economy would improve in the second half of the year. Gas prices were falling, and Japanese factories were resuming production after disruptions from the March earthquake.
Then one report after another began to show that the economy was much weaker than first thought.
Manufacturing is barely growing. The service sector, which covers about 90 percent of the American work force, is growing at the slowest rate in a year and a half. People spent less in June than in May, the first decline since September 2009.
And the overall economy is expanding at the slowest pace since the end of the Great Recession. It grew at an annual rate of just 0.8 percent for the first six months of this year, raising the risk of another recession.
In an indication of how frightened investors are, Bank of New York Mellon said it would start charging large investors to hold their cash because they are depositing so much. The bank's clients include pension funds and large investment houses that are selling stock and need to deposit the proceeds.
Mark Luschini, chief investment strategist for Janney Montgomery Scott, an investment firm in Philadelphia, said his clients saw the move from stocks into cash as "a parking lot to sort things out."
"With the scars of 2008 still fresh," he said, "some clients don't want to miss the chance to pre-empt further damage should it come."
Wells Fargo Advisers, a financial management company in St. Louis, said clients were more nervous.
"I wouldn't say they're totally panicking. But obviously nerves are rattled," said Scott Marcouiller, chief technical market strategist there. "And I think that is simply because of the speed of the decline."
Other market indicators reinforced the risk-averse mood. Gold, which is seen as a safe investment when the stock market is turbulent, set a record price, $1,684.90 an ounce, before falling to finish the day at $1,659. Adjusted for inflation, gold is still far below the record reached in 1980.
The yield on the 10-year Treasury note fell to 2.42 percent, its lowest of the year, and the yield on the 2-year Treasury note hit its lowest ever, 0.265 percent. Bond yields fall when demand for bonds increases.
The yield on the one-month Treasury bill fell to almost nothing — 0.008 percent. Investors were willing to accept paltry returns in exchange for holding investments they believed to be stable.
The sell-off was broad. All 10 industry groups in the Standard & Poor's 500 index fell. Energy companies lost almost 7 percent, materials companies were down 6.6 percent, and industrial companies lost more than 5 percent.
For a time, Kraft Foods was the only stock to rise among the 30 that make up the Dow industrials. Kraft announced Thursday that it would split in two, with one company focusing on snacks and the other groceries. But the selling eventually dragged Kraft under, too, and its stock finished down 52 cents, at $33.78.
Steep stock market losses like the ones of the past two weeks can be self-reinforcing. A drop in stocks erodes household wealth and raises doubts about the economic outlook.
The result can be what economists call a vicious cycle. Stock losses take a toll on consumer confidence and make people more reluctant to spend money. Consumer spending makes up 70 percent of economic output in the United States.
Kevin Cook, senior stock strategist for Zacks Investment Research in Chicago, said investors' worst fears probably won't come true.
"This is not 2008 again," he said. "We don't have a liquidity crisis, we don't have a credit crisis — this is just profit taking."
Cook said he believes the S&P 500, which closed Thursday at 1,200.07, will trade between 1,150 and 1,250 between now and Oct. 1, at least until investors have enough information to determine whether the economy is in recession again.
Even taking into account the recent declines, stocks are still considered to be in an impressive bull market that began March 9, 2009, when the market reached its recession low.
The Dow closed that day at 6,547. Since then, it is up about 74 percent.
One year ago, the Dow closed at 10,680. About a month later, the stock market began a rally that took the Dow almost to 13,000. The catalyst was an announcement by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke that the Fed was preparing to launch a program to buy $600 billion in government bonds to keep interest rates low and help stocks rally.
The sell-off now comes at a time when corporate profits are growing. For the S&P 500, a measure called the forward price-to-earnings ratio has fallen to about 12, well below its long-term average of 16. That means that investors who buy now are paying less for each dollar in profits.
Based on what an investor now pays for corporate profits, stocks are now trading at their lowest levels in 20 years, said Tim Courtney, chief investment officer of Burns Advisory Group in Oklahoma City.
But few companies were spared in the sell-off Thursday. Just three of the 500 stocks in the S&P 500 moved higher. General Motors fell 4 percent despite beating analyst estimates for its quarterly earnings.
___
AP Business Writers Dave Carpenter in Chicago, Paul Wiseman in Washington and Pallavi Gogoi and Seth Sutel in New York contributed to this report.
TO CONTINUE READING THE BLOG:
https://docs.google.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment