Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Interesting Comments on the McChrystal Episode

No postings for the past several days as I went to visit my Dad in California to help him celebrate his 90th birthday.

This is an interesting take on the McChrystal flap.  I have to agree with the author in that these folks all knew that the reporter for Rolling Stone would report everything that he heard.  I think that I can count on one hand the number of former/current military members that I know that think Zero and his staff are good for America.


A4 Driver

The General and the Community Organizer

by Paul R. Hollrah
June 24, 2010

Channel-surfing from ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN through MSNBC and Fox News, the inside-the-beltway pundits had a field day trying to get inside the heads of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, General Stanley McChrystal, and McChrystal's top aides.  The one thing common to all of the analyses, by the most famous and highly-paid talking heads in the Western World, was that they are all wrong… dead wrong.  What is certain is that they all owe General McChrystal and his senior aides an apology for assuming that they are lame-brained numbskulls.

The facts of the McChrystal case are not in dispute.  General McChrystal and his senior officers allowed a reporter for Rolling Stone Magazine, Michael Hastings, to have almost unprecedented access during an extended stay in Paris.  The extended stay was due, in part, to an excess of atmospheric ash from Iceland's Eyjafjallajokull volcano, keeping the McChrystal party grounded for days.

In an interview with CNN, Hastings reported that he had a tape recorder in his hand most of the time and that McChrystal was "very aware" that his comments would find their way into print.  He said, "McChrystal and his people set no ground rules for their conversations, although they did ask that some parts of their conversations were off the record."  Hastings subsequently published a lengthy profile of General McChrystal on June 22, titled, The Runaway General.

As Hastings wrote in his profile, McChrystal thought that Obama looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" by the roomful of military brass during their first meeting.  Of their second meeting, an advisor to McChrystal quoted the general as saying that it was "a 10-minute photo op."  He went on to say, "Obama clearly didn't know anything about (McChrystal), who he was.  Here's the guy who's going to run his f_ _ _ing war, but he didn't seem very engaged.  The Boss was pretty disappointed."

As General McChrystal flew from Afghanistan to Washington to face Obama in the Oval Office, the almost unanimous opinion of the talking heads was that the comments made by McChrystal and his staff were off the cuff and inadvertent.  But to believe that is to totally ignore who these men are. 

General McChrystal and his top officers are not simple-minded, knuckle-dragging brutes.  To the contrary, they are intelligent, thoughtful, highly educated, patriots… graduates of West Point and other fine universities… who are dedicated to duty, honor, and country.  To think that such men would be so careless as to speak unflatteringly of Obama, Biden, and other top administration figures, in the presence of a reporter for a notoriously left wing publication, defies logic… at the very least.  To think that men who are trained to be careful and deliberate in everything they do, could do something so careless and so unguarded is simply beyond comprehension. 

I would argue that McChrystal and his aides knew exactly what they were doing. 

From the day that he became the handpicked "spear carrier" for Obama's unique brand of warfare… playing at being Commander in Chief while playing to his far left constituency… McChrystal's life had been one of constant frustration.  After telling Obama exactly how many troops he needed to carry out his mission, Obama dithered for months before deciding to give him just half the troops he requested.  McChrystal could not have been happy about that.

The Obama team insisted on new Rules of Engagement designed to reduce collateral damage (civilian casualties).  Obama's ROE required that U.S. troops must be able to see the enemy with weapon in hand before they were allowed to return fire.  One videotape circulated on the Internet showed a platoon of Marines pinned down by enemy sniper fire.  But since the enemy was firing from some distance behind the open window of a building, the Marines could not actually see the weapon being fired.  Although they were taking deadly fire, they were prohibited by the ROE from putting small arms fire or an RPG through the window opening. 

Under Obama's politically correct ROE, our soldiers and Marines were required to fight with one hand tied behind their backs.  McChrystal could not have been happy about that.

A strict new interrogation policy, dictated by Attorney General Eric Holder, required that prisoners must be delivered to an Interrogation Center within twenty-four hours of being captured or be released.  A great deal of actionable intelligence was lost as a result and battle-hardened enemy fighters were returned to the field to kill Americans.  McChrystal must have found that to be incomprehensible.

But the greatest insult to our troops in the field, and to the officers who lead them, may be a new battlefield medal designed by the Obama team.  It is called the Courageous Restraint Medal and is awarded to soldiers and Marines who demonstrate uncommon restrain in combat by not firing their weapons even when they feel threatened by the enemy.  Would we be surprised to learn that the preponderance of these medals were awarded posthumously?  McChrystal must have found that to be an insanity. 

I suggest that, having his best military judgments subjected to the White House political sieve for nearly a year and a half, McChrystal decided that he'd had enough.  And when he announced to his senior staff that he was prepared to retire they decided to push back… to make the most of a bad situation.  It was clear that, if McChrystal were to simply take off his uniform and walk away, his retirement would be page-twenty news for a day or two before the mainstream media and the American people forgot all about him. 

They had to make the most of his retirement because it provided a one-time opportunity to show the American people, as well as our enemies and our allies, that the man who claims the title of Commander in Chief of the U.S. military does not command the respect of our men and women in uniform.  To make the most of that opportunity they had to choose their messenger very carefully. 
 
They knew that, by openly showing their disrespect for Obama in front of just any newsman, they may not attract the attention they desired.  Like any astute observer of the MSM, they knew that most reporters would turn on their own mothers if it meant a good story.  But they could not take a chance that a mainstream media reporter might suffer a rare pang of conscience when confronted with the prospect of ruining the careers of some of the most senior officers in the War on Terror.  They had to fix the odds as much as possible in their favor so they chose to use Michael Hastings and Rolling Stone Magazine.

During the long hours that General McChrystal was in the air between Kabul and Washington, Obama knew that he had just two choices… both bad.  He could declare McChrystal to be an irreplaceable asset in the war effort, give him a public reprimand, and send him back to Kabul.  Or he could fire McChrystal, sending a clear message that, at least in his own mind, he was the Commander in Chief.

In the former case, he was certain to appear weak and ineffectual… a man not totally in charge.  In the latter case, he might at least win a few rave reviews from the Kool-Ade drinkers in the mainstream media.  He chose the latter of the two options. 

But what is now lost in all of the hand-wringing and speculation is the fact that McChrystal and his people have succeeded in doing exactly what they set out to do.  They wanted to plant the seed in the minds of the American people that Obama is not up to the task of being Commander in Chief and that he does not command the respect of the men and women of the uniformed services… from the newest Private E-1 up to the top four-star generals and admirals.

That seed is now firmly planted and it cannot be unplanted. 

From this day forward, no one will have to tell the American people that Stanley McChrystal is a true warrior, a man's man, and that Barack Obama is nothing more than a… community organizer.  Well done, General!  

Monday, June 21, 2010

What's Wrong With This Picture?

This is an article by Bob Livingston from Personal Liberty Digest.  He has included some pro and con response posts with editorial comments.  The Beltway Bozos just don't get it.  Why do we even have a Homeland Security Department other than to harass people at security checkpoints at airports?  YGBSM!.  Watch out for the illegals who have illegally crossed the border to illegally live in the US?  Thank God for people like Governor Jan Brewer for hanging in there and demanding action by the Feds.  BTW, how can Janet Nopalitano, after having just left the Arizona Governor's job, remain incredibly silent about this whole problem?  Unbelievable!!!!!

A4 Driver

 

Ceding Arizona To Mexico

June 21, 2010 by Bob Livingston
Ceding Arizona To Mexico
America is losing the battle along the border with Mexico—apparently without a fight. As proof, a swatch of Arizona 80 miles wide that runs from the Mexican border about three counties deep into the state (encompassing about 3,500 acres) has been ceded to Mexicans.
Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu told Fox News that armed paramilitary elements control a portion of the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge and other parts of Arizona. But rather than try and reclaim it, signs have been posted marking the area as off limits to Americans.
It was closed in October 2006, due to human safety concerns, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The signs read: “Danger—Public Warning. Travel Not Recommended.” To see a clip of Babeu’s interview click here.

The squad-sized (in American military parlance a squad refers to two teams of four or five soldiers each) armed paramilitary elements Babeu referred to are drug smugglers and human traffickers out of Mexico. And violence there has increased the last fourth months.

He conceded that neither he nor other local sheriff’s departments and city police forces had the manpower to take the area back. It’s going to take the U.S. military, he said, and that’s why Babeu, his fellow law enforcement heads and Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) recently asked Obama for 3,000 National Guard troops.

Obama responded by promising Arizona Governor Jan Brewer he’d get back to her. He hasn’t.

As I wrote last week in Breaking Their Oath, this is not the only place armed elements have crossed the Mexican border in the U.S. There have been many sightings reported—and several videos made to back them up—of either elements of the Mexican military or police forces crossing the border in force. There have also been shootouts with U.S. Border agents.

 Just recently a young smuggler was killed by U.S. Border agents and armed agents from Mexico fired on them as they investigated the scene of the shooting.

Breaking Their Oath demonstrated how Obama and the current Congress, as well as Presidents and Congresses past, have failed to live up to their oath of office and protect America from invasion.

The situation in the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge demonstrates that the fascist elected elites are either feckless and weak or they have an agenda that is contrary to the best interests of our nation. It also demonstrates why Arizona’s recently passed immigration law was necessary.
  There were a lot of interesting comments to last week’s article. The vast majority agreed with Arizona’s soon-to-be-enacted immigration law which will make it a crime to be an illegal alien in the state.

Many were like this one from a person calling himself American Citizen who said,
“The only pertinent word about all of this is ‘illegal.’ They are criminals as soon as they step foot on our territory. Nationality means nothing here.”
Al Seiber is very familiar with what’s going on in Arizona. He has friends near the border. He posted,
“My friends live 1200′ from the border, out of Sierra Vista, Ariz. they told me they find more prayer mats then anything. I find lot’s of back packs, with tortillas and water bottles in them.”
Some commenters think the answer is a fence along the border: a fence that Washington obviously has no interest in completing. Typical of that line of thinking comes from someone calling himself bp who wrote,
“People are WALKING over the border with their backpacks long before they stand on the street corner for a day job! Fences, we need SERIOUS fences (like the ones we build around our prisons) and the kind of armored vehicles that the Mexican Polizia showed us last week (when one of their smugglers was killed on U.S. soil)! Who knew they had these?!”
Not all agree. A regular liberal commenter who calls himself Denniso had this to say:
“Bob Livingston says ‘we are being invaded and the gov’t is doing nothing to stop it’. Is that supposed to be a joke? I just drove along a part of the border and the highway was full of border patrol vehicles, driving back and forth. We have thousands more border patrol agents than we’ve ever had all along the border, at a cost of billions of dollars per year…what is that? doing nothing?
Come on Bob, don’t twist the facts just to stir up the hotheads in the country more than they already are. If thousands of agents swarming the border is doing nothing and building a ridiculous and multi billion $$ wall is nothing, then I wonder what it is you would consider doing something?”
No Denniso. Unfortunately it is no joke. Usually you provide coherent dissenting commentary. Not this time.
There are places—like the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge and surrounding territory—where agents don’t go, but armed insurgents from across the border do. And ask the residents of some of the border towns about the armed Mexican helicopters—sometimes seen hovering over houses and shining spotlights at night as if searching for someone or something—and how they feel about what is being done to protect them.
Certainly more could be done by the Federal government if the fascist elites in power wanted something done. Big John in Virginia had a good suggestion. He wrote,
“Why do we have 37,000 troops on the border between North and South Korea, but we can’t put enough on our borders to protect us? Let’s all go to Arizona for vacations this year. I am. I’ve always wanted to see the Grand Canyon!! Help make up for the boycotts. See ya there!!!”
Or, we could reduce the size of Empire America and just bring those troops home and put them along our border. But visiting Arizona is always a good idea.
And refuse2lose commented, sarcastically I suppose,
“I would like to challenge any person that is against the Arizona immigration bill to call your representatives in congress, also write a letter to Obama and tell them that the federal immigration law needs to be shredded and a new one needs to be written up. Because, in case you are like Obama, Holder and Napolitano who didn’t take time to read the bill but got on tv and condemned it, I have actually read the bill and it is EXACTLY like the federal bill. So if you are accusing Arizonians of being profilers then you are in fact accusing your liberal icons of profiling.”
The grammar’s not great, but you get the drift. Actually, letting your fascist elected representative know how you feel about the illegal immigration situation is not a bad idea. So we’ve come up with a way you can do that. First, you can go here and vote in our Immigration Reform Poll.
So far 97 percent of those who’ve voted believe America should follow Arizona’s lead when it comes to immigration reform. And a whopping 92 percent of respondents would like to see their state pass a similar immigration law.

After you’ve voted, send the link to your friends and family and ask them to vote as well. The results will be shared with major media outlets across the country, so the more votes cast the better.
You can also contact your Congressweasel (or Congressman if his or her name happens to be Ron Paul or Michelle Bachman or one or two others) and let him or her know how you feel. If you don’t know how to contact your Senator or Representative you can find him or her by going here.
As rob posted:
“’We the People’ need to start being seen in ‘GREATER’ numbers and heard from in masses. We need to see and hear from candidates where they stand on major issues and hold them accountable. Why is it we are not asking our candidates or elected officials outright on their stance with major issues as immigration. Quit hiding….. NOW is our opportunity to be heard….NOW is our opportunity to be seen…. November is coming soon…. don’t pass it up.”
Why indeed? What better way to know where they stand than by asking them yourself? We’ve done the hard part for you. You no longer have an excuse.

Friday, June 18, 2010

When Will This Stop? The Internet is Next

Do you think that there could be any more attacks on free speech?  Evidently we haven't seen the last of them. People were bitching about the Patriot Act.  If this goes down, the potential is far worse and you ain't seen nothing yet.  The potential to shut down blogs like this and conservative talk radio under the guise of national security is for real.  I am totally disgusted with the inside-the-beltway mentality.


A4 Driver

 

New Bill Gives Obama ‘Kill Switch’ To Shut Down The Internet








Government would have “absolute power” to seize control of the world wide web under Lieberman legislation


Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, June 16, 2010

The federal government would have “absolute power” to shut down the Internet under the terms of a new US Senate bill being pushed by Joe Lieberman, legislation which would hand President Obama a figurative “kill switch” to seize control of the world wide web in response to a Homeland Security directive.

Lieberman has been pushing for government regulation of the Internet for years under the guise of cybersecurity, but this new bill goes even further in handing emergency powers over to the feds which could be used to silence free speech under the pretext of a national emergency.

“The legislation says that companies such as broadband providers, search engines or software firms that the US Government selects “shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed” by the Department of Homeland Security. Anyone failing to comply would be fined,” reports ZDNet’s Declan McCullagh.

The 197-page bill (PDF) is entitled Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, or PCNAA.

Technology lobbying group TechAmerica warned that the legislation created “the potential for absolute power,” while the Center for Democracy and Technology worried that the bill’s emergency powers “include authority to shut down or limit internet traffic on private systems.”

The bill has the vehement support of Senator Jay Rockefeller, who last year asked during a congressional hearing, “Would it had been better if we’d have never invented the Internet?” while fearmongering about cyber-terrorists preparing attacks.

The largest Internet-based corporations are seemingly happy with the bill, primarily because it contains language that will give them immunity from civil lawsuits and also reimburse them for any costs incurred if the Internet is shut down for a period of time.

“If there’s an “incident related to a cyber vulnerability” after the President has declared an emergency and the affected company has followed federal standards, plaintiffs’ lawyers cannot collect damages for economic harm. And if the harm is caused by an emergency order from the Feds, not only does the possibility of damages virtually disappear, but the US Treasury will even pick up the private company’s tab,” writes McCullagh.



Tom Gann, McAfee’s vice president for government relations, described the bill as a “very important piece of legislation”.

As we have repeatedly warned for years, the federal government is desperate to seize control of the Internet because the establishment is petrified at the fact that alternative and independent media outlets are now eclipsing corporate media outlets in terms of audience share, trust, and influence.

We witnessed another example of this on Monday when establishment Congressman Bob Etheridge was publicly shamed after he was shown on video assaulting two college students who asked him a question. Two kids with a flip cam and a You Tube account could very well have changed the course of a state election, another startling reminder of the power of the Internet and independent media, and why the establishment is desperate to take that power away.

The government has been searching for any avenue possible through which to regulate free speech on the Internet and strangle alternative media outlets, with the FTC recently proposing a “Drudge Tax” that would force independent media organizations to pay fees that would be used to fund mainstream newspapers.

Similar legislation aimed at imposing Chinese-style censorship of the Internet and giving the state the power to shut down networks has already been passed globally, including in the UK, New Zealand and Australia.

We have extensively covered efforts to scrap the internet as we know it and move toward a greatly restricted “internet 2″ system. Handing government the power to control the Internet would only be the first step towards this system, whereby individual ID’s and government permission would be required simply to operate a website.

The Lieberman bill needs to be met with fierce opposition at every level and from across the political spectrum. Regulation of the Internet would not only represent a massive assault on free speech, it would also create new roadblocks for e-commerce and as a consequence further devastate the economy.

Thursday, June 17, 2010

What Does Your Financial Planner Think About This?

As you know by now I use the 10% rule---if I believe only 10% of what I learn and it's still bad, then it really must be bad.  Our pals in Zero's administration are literally going to try to tax us to death by simply waving a wand and, Voila!, all of the previous laws that you and your financial planner have been using for your retirement plans are, POOF, gone. Think about what is happening here.  VAT will be contemplated soon, nationalization of the auto industry, banks, mortgage industry, health care industry has occurred and now a nationalization of retirement accounts is being considered?  This is so out of control that it should be beyond belief but, unfortunately, it is reality in Zero's eyes.  This administration is walking on real thin ice and needs to sit still for a while before the ice cracks and----we all sink because they have put all of us in jeopardy with this idiotic taxing and spending.

A4 Driver 

Your Money or Your life
Big Media has been trying to keep this under wraps, but the U.S. government has been exploring options for seizing all the money in America's IRAs and 401(k)s...
In order to pay for its health care and other spending obligations (let's not forget Social Security), the Obama administration is now desperately trying to figure out the best way to force Americans to turn over their retirement nest-eggs in exchange for annuities that pay a government-guaranteed stream of income.
I'm not making this up (get more information here). One of the front-running proposals focuses on what's called "Guaranteed Retirement Accounts" that:
                Pay you only an inflation-adjusted 3% on your money
                Strip you of all tax breaks on traditional IRA and 401(k) accounts
                Don't allow you early access to your money, except for disability
                Prohibit your voluntary opt-out — participation is mandatory
                Seize as much as half of your accrued assets upon your death

This last little bullet-point here is the one that's got me worried...
Think about it: If such a proposal passes (and with our government's mounting debt and drunken-sailor spending, it's only a matter of time), it means that the bean counters in charge of my health care will make more money the earlier I die after retirement.
The exact language of the Guaranteed Retirement Accounts proposal reads:
"Participants who die before retiring can bequeath half their account balances to heirs; those who die after retiring can bequeath half their final account balance minus benefits received..."
You see that? No matter what it says in any will of mine, the government will pocket fully half my money if I die before reaching benefits age...
But if I die, say, 20 years after my retirement, they'll only pocket half of what's left of my money after making two decades of annuity payments out if it.
In other words: The best-case scenario for THEIR bottom line would be if I kick the bucket the day I retire...
That way they get more money in their pockets, faster.
Now do you see what's got me worried here?
If this proposal becomes law, the people who are responsible for deciding whether or not my life is worth the cost of the health care I need are the SAME PEOPLE who stand to gain the most from my early demise...
The fiscally responsible elected officials of the benevolent U.S. government. 
Bottom line: I'm 41 right now. And call me paranoid, but I'm certain that by the time I reach retirement age, the bean counters in charge of rationing my health care will evaluate not only my prognosis, odds of survival, and expected post-care quality of life when I go in for treatment...
But also how much they can pocket by pulling the plug on me.
Jim Amrhein
Contributing Editor, Wealth Daily
P.S. I didn't have nearly enough space here to reveal everything I've found out about this coming War on American Retirement. You can find out more by clicking here...

And You Wonder Why Arizonans Are Fed Up With Federal Government Inaction?

2010 Threat Assessment by the Justice Department that includes some pretty disturbing info and stats for Arizona. 


A4 Driver

The violence associated with drug smuggling has spilled across the Mexican border to such an extent that last year there was a drug-related kidnapping every 33 hours in the city of Phoenix alone.

That’s one of the eye-opening disclosures from the National Drug Threat Assessment for 2010, published by the National Drug Intelligence Center, a division of the U.S. Justice Department.

“Although much of the violence attributed to conflict over control of smuggling routes has been confined to Mexico, some has occurred in the United States,” according to the Justice Department report, issued shortly before Arizona passed a tough new immigration law targeting illegal aliens in the state.

“Violence in the United States has been limited primarily to attacks against alien smuggling organization members and their families — some of whom have sought refuge from the violence in Mexico by moving to U.S. border communities such as Phoenix.

“For example, in recent years, kidnappings in Phoenix have numbered in the hundreds, with 260 in 2007, 299 in 2008, and 267 in 2009.”

The 267 kidnappings in Phoenix last year equal one kidnapping every 1.4 days, or every 33 hours.

The kidnapping victims often have a connection to drug trafficking activities or are innocent relatives of traffickers, the report states.

“An individual or individuals may be kidnapping because of a lost drug load or failure to pay a drug debt.

“The number of U.S kidnapping incidents is most likely underreported because many victims’ families are unwilling to report the crime for fear that the victim will be killed, the kidnappers will retaliate against the family, or law enforcement will discover the family’s drug trafficking activities or illegal alien status.”

Other disclosures of the threat assessment:
  • On average, three Border Patrol agents are assaulted each day at or near the Mexican border.
  • Last year, mid-level and retail drug distribution in the U.S. was dominated by more than 900,000 criminally active gang members, representing approximately 20,000 gangs in more than 2,500 cities.
  • In addition to vehicles, Mexico drug smugglers use “cross-border tunnels, subterranean passageways, and low-flying or ultralight aircraft to move drugs from Mexico into the United States.”
  • Mexican drug trafficking organizations (DTOs) smuggled tens of billions of dollars from the U.S. through the Southwest border into Mexico in 2009.
  • Mexican DTO members or associates acquire thousands of weapons each year in Arizona, California, and Texas and smuggle them into Mexico.
The outlook, according to the report: “Without a significant increase in drug interdictions, seizures, arrests, and investigations that apply sustained pressure on major DTOs, availability of most drugs will increase in 2010, primarily because drug production in Mexico is increasing.”

When Are People Going to Understand That the Government Does Not Create Jobs?

This is from the May 15th Agora Finanacial Daily Reckoning weekend recap.  Some of the comments are tongue in cheek but the point of US voters being afflicted with the Stockholm Syndrome is valid.  This is a great article.


A4 Driver

Reporting from Taipei, Taiwan...

"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them."

The Nazarene borrows from Aesop's fable, as relayed in the Gospel of Matthew (7:15-16)

It's a strange freedom indeed when the cost of attainment is freedom itself.

In a misguided effort to rescue the economy from the untold horrors of the "abyss," the prophets of modern central planning seek to transfer society's means of production from the most to the least productive class; from private fist to public mouth; from worker to moocher; host to parasite, as Mr. Bonner likes to say. In doing so, these charlatans shackle generation upon generation of those they affect to represent to a life of drudgery and servitude. A strange brand of freedom this is, indeed.

Who in their right mind would go in for this twisted arrangement? Many of whom do so voluntarily, no less! More on that in a second, but first, a brief recap of the vile trend afoot.

We got a whiff of it earlier this week, when the government posted what should have been widely viewed as another gross misallocation of (taxed/begged/borrowed/stolen) resources. For the 19th consecutive month, the national budget fell disastrously short of anything close to balanced. According to the Treasury Department's own figures (itself a highly suspect data origin) April's $82.7 billion deficit was almost four times the shortfall registered in the same month last year. Addison put it thus in Thursday's edition of The 5-Minute Forecast, "[T]his year, the bleeding is nearly four times as bad."

As you might expect, the official tally only tells part of the story. Sadly, it was the "best" part. Continued Addison, "That figure of $82.7 billion is merely the BS figure Treasury puts out there when it reports the deficit. The real tell is how much the national debt grew. And in April, that figure was twice the size of the 'official' monthly deficit - $175.6 billion.

"Don't look now," Addison went on, "but we're just a couple of weeks away from the national debt breaking $13 trillion. If you must know, the exact number this morning is $12,931,157,737,293.42."

The "official" monthly deficit figure was also more than double what a handful of Wall Street economists surveyed by the newswire Reuters had forecast, as if we needed any further evidence that these pillars of certainty were incapable of anything beyond extrapolating two dots on a graph into the future.

Historically, April tends to produce a modest surplus (or at least a mitigated deficit), thanks largely to the influx of tax receipts due around the 15th of that month. But despite the administration's assurances that the employment landscape is steadily improving, receipts were down more than $20 billion from the same month last year (2010: $245.27 billion; 2009 $266.21). Outlays, meanwhile, rose to a record level of $327.96 billion, up sharply from $218.75 billion in March and $287.11 billion in April 2009.

Rising from 9.7% to 9.9% last month, the unemployment situation is clearly NOT improving. The government's own Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that the number of long-term unemployed individuals (defined as those without work for at least 27 weeks) continued trending higher, reaching 6.7 million last month. 45.9% of all unemployed people in the US now fall into this category. Those sometimes referred to as "involuntary part-time workers" (workers whose hours had been cut, for example) still stands at 9.2 million. Again, not counted in the unemployment figure are another 2.4 million "marginally attached" workers, including 1.2 million "discouraged" workers who, for all intents and purposes, have simply given up looking for employment. That figure is up 457,000 from a year earlier. That a supposedly benevolent Big Brother can merely define these destitute individuals out of existence is nothing short of a disgrace of the highest order and should, at the very least, give some indication as to the real motivations of those supposedly acting as public "servants."

But isn't that just the point? To return to the question we posed earlier, who are those among us who still expect the government to fix all of our problems? Surely by now we must realize that state coddling is not the solution. Quite the opposite, in fact.

As the Big Brother in Chief himself rolled into Buffalo, NY, on Thursday afternoon to cheerlead his administration's "success" on the jobs front, he must have seen a giant billboard by the side of the road. The sign, erected by a group of unemployed locals, read: "Dear Mr. President, I need a freakin' job. Period. Sincerely, INAFJ.org."

What these unfortunate people don't seem to grasp is not that Mr. Obama doesn't want to give them a job (something that would surely help his southbound popularity rating come the next election)...but that he can't; not a productive one worth counting, anyway. The best he can promise is a job at the IRS, whereby employees police legalized theft from their fellow citizens, or a desk at the census bureau, whereby they sit around counting each other's fingers and toes for a few months. Far from helping improve the cancerous debt crisis spreading to the nation's vital organs, such phony make-work programs only exacerbate the dying patient's condition.

Contrary to popular belief, the achievement of the parasitic welfare state is not that it confers necessary services on the governed, or that it provides a magical safety net for the underprivileged and unwashed among its masses. Instead, like the wolf in Aesop's fable, its greatest accomplishment is one of cunning deception. To wit, the welfare state manages to convince - on a grand scale, no less - otherwise reasonable voters that it is not in the business of peddling unnecessary disservices at great taxpayer expense when that, in a nutshell, is its very essence of being. The fact that voters willingly support those who hold their prosperity and freedom hostage demonstrates a curious and alarming case of mass political Stockholm Syndrome, and on a national scale.

Beware these wolves, fellow reckoner. By their rotting fruit you will recognize them.

Monday, June 14, 2010

"There Is a Sense Out There of Discomfort"

This interview with Wynn International CEO, Steve Wynn, is an excellent, concise portrayal of all that is wrong in Washington, DC.  He articulates everything that is affecting every business owner in the US.  Not only is he absolutely on the money with everything he says, but perhaps, finally, MSNBC may actually be starting to understand why so many people are pissed off.


A4 Driver


Friday, June 11, 2010

"Come Out of the Cave, America, It's Dark in There"

This young man does a great job of describing the thought process of the Muslim community.  It's something I have felt all along but was never able to put my finger on it as I had never read the Koran/Quran/Qu'ran.  He uses quotes from that book and it all makes sense now.

A4 Driver

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Finally People May Be Getting It

The Wall Street Journal has the most effective and articulate op-ed writers. Ms Rabinowitz has captured the essence of why Zero is such a poor leader and why he cannot fathom the way most of the rest of America thinks.  This is a little long but it is spot on.


A4 Driver

The Alien in the White House

The distance between the president and the people is beginning to be revealed.

The deepening notes of disenchantment with Barack Obama now issuing from commentators across the political spectrum were predictable. So, too, were the charges from some of the president's earliest enthusiasts about his failure to reflect a powerful sense of urgency about the oil spill.

There should have been nothing puzzling about his response to anyone who has paid even modest critical attention to Mr. Obama's pronouncements. For it was clear from the first that this president—single-minded, ever-visible, confident in his program for a reformed America saved from darkness by his arrival—was wanting in certain qualities citizens have until now taken for granted in their presidents. Namely, a tone and presence that said: This is the Americans' leader, a man of them, for them, the nation's voice and champion. Mr. Obama wasn't lacking in concern about the oil spill. What he lacked was that voice—and for good reason.

Those qualities to be expected in a president were never about rhetoric; Mr. Obama had proved himself a dab hand at that on the campaign trail. They were a matter of identification with the nation and to all that binds its people together in pride and allegiance. These are feelings held deep in American hearts, unvoiced mostly, but unmistakably there and not only on the Fourth of July.

A great part of America now understands that this president's sense of identification lies elsewhere, and is in profound ways unlike theirs. He is hard put to sound convincingly like the leader of the nation, because he is, at heart and by instinct, the voice mainly of his ideological class. He is the alien in the White House, a matter having nothing to do with delusions about his birthplace cherished by the demented fringe.
One of his first reforms was to rid the White House of the bust of Winston Churchill—a gift from Tony Blair—by packing it back off to 10 Downing Street. A cloudlet of mystery has surrounded the subject ever since, but the central fact stands clear. The new administration had apparently found no place in our national house of many rooms for the British leader who lives on so vividly in the American mind. Churchill, face of our shared wartime struggle, dauntless rallier of his nation who continues, so remarkably, to speak to ours. For a president to whom such associations are alien, ridding the White House of Churchill would, of course, have raised no second thoughts.

Far greater strangeness has since flowed steadily from Washington. The president's appointees, transmitters of policy, go forth with singular passion week after week, delivering the latest inversion of reality. Their work is not easy, focused as it is on a current prime preoccupation of this White House—that is, finding ways to avoid any public mention of the indisputable Islamist identity of the enemy at war with us. No small trick that, but their efforts go forward in public spectacles matchless in their absurdity—unnerving in what they confirm about our current guardians of law and national security.

Consider the hapless Eric Holder, America's attorney general, confronting the question put to him by Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Texas) of the House Judicary Committee on May 13.

Did Mr. Holder think that in the last three terrorist attempts on this soil, one of them successful (Maj. Nidal Hasan's murder of 13 soldiers at Fort Hood, preceded by his shout of "Allahu Akbar!"), that radical Islam might have played any role at all? Mr. Holder seemed puzzled by the question. "People have different reasons" he finally answered—a response he repeated three times. He didn't want "to say anything negative about any religion."

And who can forget the exhortations on jihad by John Brennan, Mr. Obama's chief adviser on counterterrorism? Mr. Brennan has in the past charged that Americans lack sensitivity to the Muslim world, and that we have particularly failed to credit its peace-loving disposition. In a May 26 speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Mr. Brennan held forth fervently, if not quite comprehensibly, on who our enemy was not: "Our enemy is not terrorism because terrorism is just a tactic. Our enemy is not terror because terror is a state of mind, and as Americans we refuse to live in fear."

He went on to announce, sternly, that we do not refer to our enemies as Islamists or jihadists because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam. How then might we be permitted to describe our enemies? One hint comes from another of Mr. Brennan's pronouncements in that speech: That "violent extremists are victims of political, economic and social forces."

Yes, that would work. Consider the news bulletins we could have read: "Police have arrested Faisal Shahzad, victim of political, economic and social forces living in Connecticut, for efforts to set off a car bomb explosion in Times Square." Plotters in Afghanistan and Yemen, preparing for their next attempt at mass murder in America, could only have listened in wonderment. They must have marvelled in particular on learning that this was the chief counterterrorism adviser to the president of the United States.

Long after Mr. Obama leaves office, it will be this parade of explicators, laboring mightily to sell each new piece of official reality revisionism—Janet Napolitano and her immortal "man-caused disasters'' among them—that will stand most memorably as the face of this administration.

It is a White House that has focused consistently on the sensitivities of the world community—as it is euphemistically known—a body of which the president of the United States frequently appears to view himself as a representative at large.

It is what has caused this president and his counterterrorist brain trust to deem it acceptable to insult Americans with nonsensical evasions concerning the enemy we face. It is this focus that caused Mr. Holder to insist on holding the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in lower Manhattan, despite the rage this decision induced in New Yorkers, and later to insist if not there, then elsewhere in New York. This was all to be a dazzling exhibition for that world community—proof of Mr. Obama's moral reclamation program and that America had been delivered from the darkness of the Bush years.

It was why this administration tapped officials like Michael Posner, assistant secretary of state for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Among his better known contributions to political discourse was a 2005 address in which he compared the treatment of Muslim-Americans in the United States after 9/11 with the plight of the Japanese-Americans interned in camps after Pearl Harbor. During a human-rights conference held in China this May, Mr. Posner cited the new Arizona immigration law by way of assuring the Chinese, those exemplary guardians of freedom, that the United States too had its problems with discrimination.

So there we were: America and China, in the same boat on human rights, two buddies struggling for reform. For this view of reality, which brought withering criticism in Congress and calls for his resignation, Mr. Posner has been roundly embraced in the State Department as a superbly effective representative.

It is no surprise that Mr. Posner—like numerous of his kind—has found a natural home in this administration. His is a sensibility and political disposition with which Mr. Obama is at home. The beliefs and attitudes that this president has internalized are to be found everywhere—in the salons of the left the world over—and, above all, in the academic establishment, stuffed with tenured radicals and their political progeny. The places where it is held as revealed truth that the United States is now, and has been throughout its history, the chief engine of injustice and oppression in the world.

They are attitudes to be found everywhere, but never before in a president of the United States. Mr. Obama may not hold all, or the more extreme, of these views. But there can be no doubt by now of the influences that have shaped him. They account for his grand apology tour through the capitals of Europe and to the Muslim world, during which he decried America's moral failures—her arrogance, insensitivity. They were the words of a man to whom reasons for American guilt came naturally. Americans were shocked by this behavior in their newly elected president. But he was telling them something from those lecterns in foreign lands—something about his distant relation to the country he was about to lead.

The truth about that distance is now sinking in, which is all to the good. A country governed by leaders too principled to speak the name of its mortal enemy needs every infusion of reality it can get.
 
Ms. Rabinowitz is a member of the Journal's editorial board.

Here Is Some Simple Arithmetic - A Trillion $

I heard several months ago that the amount for TARP, Lehman Bros, etc (all of the items prior to the early 2009 $787B Stimulus plan) was $1.28T which, if in $100 denominations, would weigh 7000 tons or the same weight as all of the steel used to build the Eiffel Tower.  Absolutely incredible and difficult for the Average Joe to comprehend.  Sorry, not just the Average Joe, but the average college-educated, lawyerly Congress Person who obviously does not have an inkling about what a $1T is.


And this from the May 10, 2010 Agora Financial Daily Reckoning:

"The Congressional Budget Office's latest numbers reveal that America's national indebtedness will increase by $9.7 trillion over the next 10 years. Further, the CBO projects the national debt will be 90% of GDP by the end of this decade. This projection seems very optimistic, as America's national debt has already reached 86% of GDP."


The CBO has a specious record when projecting anything. Remember, this $9.7T is only the indebtedness and it's only the increase for 10 years.


So let me go through some simple arithmetic according to numbers furnished by Google:

$1,000,000 ($1M) in $100 bills weighs 22 pounds and is 1.24 Meters in height when stacked. (Google numbers)

$1,000,000,000 ($1B) in $100 bills weighs 22,000 ponds and is 1240 Meters in height when stacked.

$1,000,000,000,000 ($1T) - which just happens to be 1 million $1M - weighs 22,000,000 pounds and is 1,240,000 Meters in height when stacked.

     22,000,000 pounds = 11,000 tons which is the displacement of an Independence Class WWII aircraft carrier.  1,240,000 Meters = 770 miles. Lay the stack down on its side and it reaches from the Oregon/California border to the California/Mexico border.

Guess what?  That's only $1T!

Here's what you get for $9.7T:

106,700 tons and 7469 miles.  The weight of the 13 story, 1379 stateroom, 2758 passenger, 1100 crew, 893 foot long Carnival Cruise Lines ship Carnival Victory is 101,509 tons.  To reach 106,700 tons you would have to load an additional 5191 Volkswagen Bugs.  Lay the stack down and it goes from Denver to Hong Kong.

Do you think these people representing us have a clue?  I certainly don't.  One of these days I'll write about what I learned of the mental state of staffers for Congressional members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees from 25 years ago.

A4 Driver 

Did the Jewish Voting Bloc Shoot Itself in the Foot?

This is interesting.  From a strictly US strategic military view of things, Israel is an absolute necessity in the Muddle East.  There may be some other arguments in relation to how the state of Israel came about and the occupation of Palestine but from Israel's perspective they cannot allow a port to be established to allow Iran/Syria to import more weapons in both quantity and destructive power.  The Jewish population in the US is predominantly Liberal and voted for Zero by a large percentage.  So now he and Hillary are treating Israel as a second class country and are dis-respecting its ability to use its government and courts to hold a "credible, transparent" investigation of the recent flotilla incident.  It will be interesting to see how the Jewish voting bloc in the US reacts.


First the article and then an embedded video clip of Netanyahu discussing the flotilla incident.  These voters better re-evaluate how/who they vote in the future.


A4 Driver

Obama's chutzpah to Israel must stop
By Anne Bayefsky







http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | In a first from a
US president, Barack Obama has now lectured Israel how it must conduct an investigation into actions taken by the IDF to defend the Jewish state. In response to a question from CNN's Larry King on June 3 about the blockade-busting endeavor by Turkish-backed extremists, Obama said: "We are calling for an effective investigation of everything that happened. I think the Israelis are going to agree to that — an investigation of international standards — because they recognize that this can't be good for Israel's long-term security."

The statement marks a new low in the president's moves on impairing US-Israel relations.
Israel is a fully-free democratic society with an unparalleled, independent and accessible judicial system fully governed by the rule of law. The idea that it needs to be told by the president how to conduct an investigation into military operations taken in self-defense is an extraordinary insult. How dare the president suggest that its standards are not good enough?

The Israeli Supreme Court makes generous use — far more than the US Supreme Court — of decisions of national courts of other states, regional human rights courts, as well as international human rights treaties. The independent judiciary, to the frequent consternation of many political actors, is far more involved in oversight of the government and the military than is the judiciary in the US, where the political questions doctrine and other barriers frequently preclude judicial oversight.

Furthermore, as Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has made clear, defending the maritime blockade of Hamas-run Gaza and preventing the creation of an Iranian Mediterranean port are good for Israel's long-term security. They are also good for American security, given that Israel is seeking to defeat the same rejectionist Islamic forces that threaten America and democracy more generally.

The president's attempt at gross interference in Israeli sovereignty started with his rush to judgment last Monday, when he permitted a unanimous UN Security Council presidential statement calling for "a prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation conforming to international standards."

Predictably, within 24 hours that call was duly translated by the UN Human Rights Council into a call for an international investigation of what it had already condemned as "the outrageous attack by the Israeli forces."

The HRC is now engaged, in other words, in an effort to mimic the libelous Goldstone Report.

Though the US finally voted against the HRC resolution (after first suggesting it was open to a decision reproducing the Security Council statement), by that point the damage done by the president leaping on the Security Council bandwagon had been done. Moreover, since the Obama administration decided to join the HRC and to pay for it, American taxpayers will cover 22 percent of the $530,000 estimated costs of the HRC-sponsored investigation.

The president's assault on the credibility of the Israeli democratic system is coming from all sides of his administration. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton indicated on June 1 that international participants might be necessary to bolster the legitimacy of an Israeli probe. Israelis won't do. In her words, the US wants "a prompt, impartial, credible, and transparent investigation... We are open to different ways of assuring a credible investigation, including international participation…"

Assistant Secretary of State Philip J. Crowley made the insult even more grotesque — the goal wasn't a credible probe in objective terms, it was credible in the eyes of the UN mob. On June 2 he said that Israel must produce "an investigation that is broadly viewed as credible by the international community."

Just a week ago, the Obama administration made another move to undermine Israel's stature by way of international intervention. It undertook in writing at the conclusion of the Nuclear Nonproliferation conference to co-sponsor a 2012 international meeting having the goal of removing Israel's nuclear deterrence capacity without concomitant security guarantees having been realized. This increasingly brazen intimidation is not going to evaporate if Israel decides to subject itself to any kind of international oversight of its military forces, political decision-makers or judicial authorities.

Nor, of course, would anything satisfy UN players short of a UN team which was handpicked to assure a predetermined outcome finding Israel guilty on all counts. Israel should, therefore, strongly reject President Obama's latest endeavor to erode its sovereignty and well-being.

Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.


Anne Bayefsky is a senior fellow of the Hudson Institute, director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust and editor of www.EYEontheUN.org.

 
 

What Doesn't Congress, Holder or Zero Get?

I just took an MSNBC (the most liberal TV news organization) poll regarding the Arizona immigration bill.  I was expecting the results to biased towards the Left and to be some wimpy, wah-wah, hand-wringing results.  Boy, was I wrong!  Perhaps there is a message there for the Zero Administration, what do you think?


Check out what the American people say!


A4 Driver

http://world-news.newsvine.com/_question/2010/05/12/4274124-do-you-support-arizonas-tough-new-law-on-illegal-immigration

Do you support Arizona's tough new law on illegal immigration?

In July, Arizona will begin enforcing a new law that requires law enforcement officers to check someone’s immigration status if they have reason to suspect that he or she is in the country illegally. Do you think this is a good idea?

How you voted



Thanks for voting! View other people's answers below.

Results
Total of 953,950 votes


95.9%
Yes
914,867 votes
4.1%
No
39,083 votes

Monday, June 7, 2010

Arrogance and Elitism at Its Worst

I had heard the term "Tea-Baggers" used by Zero in a condescending manner a few weeks after the Tea Party rallies were held.  I didn't pay much attention to it until I read this article.  The definition of Tea-Bagging is a act performed by homosexual men---this President, in his elitist and arrogant manner chides Tea Party members as Tea Baggers.  Now you know why I refer to him as "Zero".  He knew exactly what he was saying and he has no class in classifying his opponents of his out of control spending and socialism of America as homosexuals performing a sex act.  This is elitism and arrogance at its worst.  The Left always uses mocking or derogatory names to describe those who oppose their plans instead of engaging in thoughtful and comprehensive debate.  I had little respect for him and now I am definitely at the "Zero" level.


Fear And Loathing Of The Tea Party

May 10, 2010 by Bob Livingston
 
With all that’s going on in America and in the world it’s a shame that yet another article defending the Tea Party movement needs to be written. But three incidents over the last couple of weeks prove that the corrupt, unfounded and ridiculous notion that people who oppose the actions of an increasingly fascist regime and a corporatist Congress are fomenting terror continues to gain traction.

First it was an item sent to the website, Patriot Post, from a military source. That source provided a briefing paper for an upcoming exercise at Ft. Knox, Ky., that sought to prepare for a possible protest at the Ft. Knox, United States Gold Depository by “Local Militia Groups/Anti-Government Protesters/TEA Party.”

The paper, entitled “Exercise” and dated April 23, stated:
“TEA Party organizers have stated that they will protest at the Gold Vault at a future date. Mint Police are on a heightened alert status to deal with a large crowd on the grounds. Anti-Government-Health Care Protesters have stated that they would join the TEA Party as a sign of solidarity.
“Threats against the US Bullion Depository and Fort Knox have been made. Type of event is unknown, except that it will be ‘significant.’ The ‘significant’ event is a concern to local and Federal Law Enforcement Organizations, as these groups are armed, have combat training and some are former Military Snipers. Some may have explosives training/experience.”
A follow-up intel update paper, dated April 26, warned of viable threats “against the US Bullion Depository and Ft. Knox.” It stated:
“Many members were extremely agitated at what they referred to as Government Intervention and over taxation in Their (sic) lives. Alcohol use ‘fanned the flames’. (sic) Many Military grade firearms were openly carried. An ad hoc “shoot the Govt. Agent” event was held with prizes (alcohol) given for the best shot placement. Components for bomb making are reported to have been on the site. Some members have criminal records relating to explosive and weapons violations.
“Also (sic)
In defiance to (sic) Regulations, the TEA Party Activists along with Anti-Health Care Demonstrators have stated that they will protest at the US Bullion Depository, ‘Stating that it is their right to demonstrate against the Government for redress of wrongs.’
“Local detention centers are being made ready for mass arrests.”
After Patriot Post’s Mark Alexander wrote about the exercise and posted the two intel updates on his site he was contacted by senior command staff at Ft. Knox. Alexander then wrote:
“There was a security exercise at Ft. Knox this week, but an officer in the security loop altered the scenario ‘in order to make it look more realistic.’ Those alterations were described in my essay, exactly as they appeared. The command staff informed me that the alterations were not approved at the command level and that the individual who circulated the scenario through official channels will ‘receive appropriate counsel.’ I was assured that Command staff would not have authorized such a scenario.”
Alexander also wrote that he removed the two intel reports* from his site at the request of Command staff.

The second incident occurred in Quincy, Ill., on April 28. With President Barack Obama arriving to speak nearby on the subject of Wall Street greed, the Quincy Tea Party was out in force. The gray haired grannies and grandpas were all ramped up and armed—with signs and a bullhorn or two—to protest the president’s visit. While they stood peacefully on the sidewalk, a police riot squad—decked out in helmets with face masks and other heavy protective gear—marched in lockstep in the street in front of them, ordering them back on the sidewalk. It was an obvious—and utterly ridiculous—attempt at intimidation from the regime.

The third was a quote by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg in the days after a car bomb was found and defused in Times Square. Rather than point the finger toward the obvious choice—Muslim extremist followers of radical Islam—Bloomberg told CBS’s Katie Couric: “If I had to guess—25 cents—this would be exactly that, somebody home-grown, maybe a mentally deranged person or somebody with a political agenda that doesn’t like the health care bill or something. It could be anything.” [Emphasis added]

This is how the regime quashes dissent. It started as soon as the Tea Party began to grow a little more than a year ago, with those who head up the regime calling Americans names like Nazi, un-American, radical and dangerous. Leftist groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center (better described as the Southern Preposterous Lie Center) used their typical tactics of linking Tea partiers with Skinheads, the Ku Klux Klan and the militia movement.

The sycophantic Obama-fawning media followed suit by associating a disgusting homosexual practice called tea-bagging with people who were exercising their uniquely American right of free speech and peaceful assembly. (If you need to find out what tea-bagging is, Google it.)

These terms and messages spread through the blogosphere and are now in common usage by liberals and progressives.

Using such derogatory terms about their fellow citizens provides leftists, progressives and fascists an air of superiority. It allows them to dehumanize those they disagree with, which then gives them the justification to oppose them. But in doing so they only belittle themselves. They show themselves as devoid of morals, ideas and class—without the ability to engage in rational discussion.

Much like when the President—with his smug elitist arrogance—told an audience: “So I’ve been a little amused over the last couple of days where people have been having these rallies about taxes. You would think they would be saying thank you.”

Not hardly, Mr. President. Not hardly. And you are not so dumb that you don’t know why they’re protesting. And we know why you, your fawning media acolytes and the elitist corporatist elected class in Washington (from both the Left and Right and hereafter known as the collective “They”) treat Tea partiers with such arrogant disdain.

They do it because They fear the Tea Party protestors are a threat to their power. They understand that their policies are opposed by the majority of Americans who have finally… finally awakened to their abuses.

And Tea partiers, They fear you because they understand their big money donations from their corporate sponsors, the illegal votes that community organizations like the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) drum up, and the thuggish activities of the unions will not be enough to overcome your moral drive and determination.

A recent poll by Gallup found that 28 percent of those surveyed identified with the Tea Party movement. That means you number in the dozens of millions—despite the attacks on your movement. Understand that is a large number, no matter what They say. Although Tea partiers skew right politically, its members broke out demographically much like the rest of the U.S.

That means that Tea partiers are husbands and wives, grandfathers and grandmothers. That means Tea partiers are homemakers and business owners. That means Tea partiers are blue collar workers and white collar workers. That means Tea partiers are employed and unemployed. That means Tea partiers are veterans of World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf Wars, and military operations in between. And it means Tea partiers are self-reliant.

And that’s what They fear. Tea partiers aren’t ready to bow down to the altar of big government like so many of the elitists want and expect… and have sought to foster for these many years.

But if the regime has managed to convince—without any evidence or any instances of violence—even some in the military that it is “realistic” to pose Tea partiers as dangerous and that opposition to a government takeover of the economy and the businesses that made America prosperous is evidence of a crime worthy of imprisonment in local detention centers, then it’s not just the Tea partiers who need to worry.

(Editor’s note: To prove their existence screen shots of the intel papers posted on Patriot Post have been saved, but Personal Liberty Digest will respect command staff’s request that they not be posted.)

The "Lecturer-In-Chief" Tells Us to Be Civil

This article from The Patriot Update is interesting from the viewpoint that an article is being written countering Zero's remarks about working together.  This is not the main stream media and seems to be one of the few places that you will hear contra arguments or statements that don't agree with the administration.  I have given up on any in-depth look from the main stream media on Zero's administration and how it is further dividing America.


A4 Driver

Exclusive: May 10, 2010
Obama: Civility for Thee but Not for Me

By: Floyd Brown

Our Lecturer-in-Chief demands we do as he says, not as he does. During his University of Michigan commencement address, Barack Obama assumed the professorial role and began lecturing Americans on how to behave: “Now, the second way to keep our democracy healthy is to maintain a basic level of civility in our public debate. … But we can’t expect to solve our problems if all we do is tear each other down. You can disagree with a certain policy without demonizing the person who espouses it.”

While the idea of a civil debate is certainly appealing, Barack Obama has done more to damage civility in public discourse than any presidency in 40 years. Obama is the first president since Richard Nixon to personally launch verbal assaults on his enemies. His administration is willing to attack anyone who dares to stand up against them. They employ the shockingly un-presidential strategy of going after their critics by name. Robert Gibbs, the president’s acid tongue spokesman, attacked CNBC reporter Rick Santelli after less than a month in office.

Obama then joins Gibbs by personally lashing out at critics. Obama is even willing to go after his allies that don’t fall in line. “Don’t think we’re not keeping score, brother,” Obama famously told Rep. Peter DeFazio, a Democrat from Oregon.

Obama has issued scores of scathing personal attacks. He attacked Mitch McConnell as being in bed with Wall Street. He claimed John Boehner was a healthcare Chicken Little. He said Sarah Palin is “not exactly an expert on nuclear issues,” and called Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh a “troublesome” twosome spreading “vitriol.”

Obama’s comedy also has a political bite to it. Rather than employing the strategy of most recent presidents of engaging in self-deprecating humor, Obama makes fun of others. He tells jokes mocking Sarah Palin, Scott Brown, John Boehner, Charlie Crist and Mitt Romney.

Landon Parvin, an author and speechwriter for Democrats and Republicans, and a joke writer for three Republican presidents (Reagan and both Bushes) says, "With these dinners you want the audience to like you more when you sit down than when you stood up. … Something in [Obama's] humor didn’t do that.”

Even Nancy Pelosi has told Obama to cool his critiques of Washington, D.C. Pelosi and other Democrats in the House are concerned that he is throwing them under the bus to save his own reputation. Obama is more concerned about preserving his own image and re-election prospects than he is about supporting his party in 2010.

Even Obama’s most reliable allies, the formerly dominant mainstream media, are beginning to take notice. Josh Gerstein and Patrick Gavin of Politico report: “Reporters say the White House is thin-skinned, controlling, eager to go over their heads and stingy with even basic information.” When the friendly press takes notice, there must really be a big problem.

It’s easy for the president to lecture about the lack of civility in politics, but when his administration is one of the most vicious voices in modern history those lectures are hypocritical. If Obama really wants to raise the public discourse he ought to start the cleaning in his own White House.

http://impeachobamacampaign.com

Comments About George W's Tax Cuts Going Away -- Scary

This is from Moneynews.com and quotes Arthur Laffer, economist.  With all of the comments recently by Zero of how we are in the mess in the gulf is because of Republicans' tax cuts and lax regulation, you can see the writing on the wall---no way will the Bush tax cuts survive.  I use my 10% rule here for Laffer---if 10% of what he says is bad news then we are really in deep kimchee.


A4 Driver

Laffer: 2011 'Tax' Collapse Coming

By: Julie Crawshaw

Tax hikes expected to hit after the expiration of the Bush tax cuts will cause today's corporate profits to tumble next year — probably right after a stock market collapse, says economist Arthur Laffer, chairman of Laffer Associates and inventor of the Laffer Curve.

“My best guess is that the train goes off the tracks and we get our worst nightmare of a severe 'double dip' recession,” Laffer says.

Laffer warns of these coming tax hikes:

• the highest federal personal income tax rate will go to 39.6 percent from 35 percent;

• the highest federal dividend tax rate pops up to 39.6 percent from 15 percent;

• the capital gains tax rate will hit 20 percent from 15 percent;

• the estate tax rate soars to 55 percent from zero.

“Lots and lots of other changes will also occur as a result of the sunset provision in the Bush tax cuts,” he wrote in the Wall Street Journal. “Tax rate increases next year are everywhere.”

Laffer says the coming hikes — coupled with the prospect of rising prices, higher interest rates and more regulations next year — are causing businesses to shift production and income from 2011 to 2010 to the greatest extent possible.

“As a result, income this year has already been inflated above where it otherwise should be and next year, 2011, income will be lower than it otherwise should be,” Laffer says.

"It shouldn't surprise anyone that the nine states without an income tax are growing far faster and attracting more people than are the nine states with the highest income tax rates,” he says.

"Likewise, who is gobsmacked when they are told that the two wealthiest Americans — Bill Gates and Warren Buffett — hold the bulk of their wealth in the nontaxed form of unrealized capital gains?"

Laffer notes that, according to a 2004 U.S. Treasury report, high income taxpayers accelerated the receipt of wages and year-end bonuses from 1993 to 1992 — more than $15 billion — in order to avoid the effects of the anticipated increase in the top rate from 31 percent to 39.6 percent.

At the end of 1993, taxpayers shifted wages and bonuses yet again to avoid the increase in Medicare taxes that went into effect beginning 1994.

Reagan's delayed tax cuts, Laffer observes — which were passed under the Economic Recovery Tax Act in 1981 but didn’t take effect until 1983 — were the mirror image of President Barack Obama's delayed tax rate increases.

“For 1981 and 1982 people deferred so much economic activity that real GDP was basically flat (i.e., no growth), and the unemployment rate rose to well over 10 percent,” he points out.

However, in 1983, the economy took off like a rocket, with average real growth reaching 7.5 percent in 1983 and 5.5 percent in 1984. Mr. Obama's experience with deferred tax rate increases will be the reverse.

The economy will collapse in 2011.

In 2010, Laffer points out, people can cash in their Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs), Keough deferred income accounts and 401(k) deferred income accounts without prepayment penalties.

After paying their taxes, these deferred income accounts can be rolled into Roth IRAs that provide after-tax income to their owners into the future.

The result will be a crash in tax receipts once the surge is past, Laffer says.

"Incentives matter," Laffer says. “If you thought deficits and unemployment have been bad lately, you ain't seen nothing yet,” adding that if the government taxes people who work and pays people not to work, the result will be that fewer people will work.

According to a survey from the National Association for the Self-Employed, businesses will experience a 1,250 percent increase in the amount of tax-related paperwork required of small-business owners come 2012, making economic progress even more difficult.

"To the mom and pop shop, time is money, and this new regulation is going to require plenty of both," NASE Kristie Arslan told the Earth Times.

"The bottom line is that the Form 1099 expanded reporting requirement affects companies small and large, increasing the number of forms issued and received many times over."

© Moneynews. All rights reserved.

Get Rid of the Gate Crashers

I just got this e-mail.  I don't know who Tom Moody is or if he is real.  I don't care---whoever wrote this is spot on.  All I know is that if Tom Moody is real, I want to shake his hand.  It's about time someone put this whole illegal (again, I ask, as I have for 20 years, doesn't illegal mean unlawful?) immigrant fiasco into a useful analogy that even a smart guy like Zero can understand.

A4 Driver

Subject: TERRIFIC ANALOGY
Terrific analogy!!


 If you had tickets to a sports event, concert, Disneyland, or on an airplane, and when you got to your assigned seat, and someone else was in that seat, what would you do? You would call for a person in charge of ticket checking and have the person in your seat removed.  You would be properly asked to show your ticket, and you would gladly and proudly do so, for you have bought and paid for that seat.  The person in your seat would also be asked for a ticket, and they would not be able to produce one.  They would be
called “gate crashers” and they would be properly removed.

Now in this huge stadium called the USA we have had millions of gate crashers. We have been asking security to check for tickets and remove the gate crashers.  We have been asking security to have better controls in checking at the door.  We have asked security to lock the back doors.  Security has failed us.  They are still looking the other way.  They are afraid to ask to see the tickets.  Many people say
there is unlimited seating, and whether there is or not,  no one should be allowed in for free while the rest of us pay full price!

In section AZ, of Stadium USA, we have had enough of the failures of Security.  We have decided to do our own ticket checking, and properly remove those who do not have tickets.  Now it seems very strange to me
that so many people in the other 49 sections, and even many in our own section do not want tickets checked, or even be asked to show their ticket!  Even the head of Security is chastising us, while not doing his own job which he has sworn to do.

My own ticket has been bought and paid for so I am going to proudly show it when asked to do so.  I have a right to my seat, and I want the gate crashers to be asked to show their tickets too.  The only reason that I can imagine anyone objecting to being asked for their ticket is that they are in favor of gate crashing, and all of the illegal activities that go with it.  Such as drug smuggling, gang wars, murder, human smuggling for profit, and many more illegal and inhumane acts that we are trying to prevent with our new legislation.  Is that what I am hearing from all of the protestors such as Phoenix Mayor Gordon, US Rep. Grijalva, even President
Obama?  If you are not in favor of showing tickets, (proof of citizenship, passport, green card, or other legal document) when asked, as I would proudly do, then you must be condoning those illegal activities.

Tom Moody

United States citizen