The Founding Father's Real Reason for the Second Amendment
And remember the words of Thomas Jefferson "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." See Video of Suzanna Gratia-Hupp’s Congressional Testimony: What the Second Amendment is REALLY For, below (u-tube HERE).
The Leaders Are Here... Palin, Cruz, Lee, Paul, Chaffetz....
T'S A WONDERFUL LIFE
Can You Really Still Believe That None of These People Would Have Done a Better Job???
Well well… Perhaps the attempted assassination scare and the fact that Boehner had competition for his position made the establishment Republicans in Congress think?!? The choice of Joni Ernst to to deliver the GOP response to the State of the Union speech is quite a coup for the right and for the American people.
Newly elected Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), part of Gov. Palin’s Bench but got Mitt Romney’s endorsement as well, will deliver the GOP response to President Barack Obama's 2015 State of the Union address on Tuesday January 20th, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) announced at the House and Senate GOP retreat in Hershey, Pennsylvania.
"Sen. Ernst brings a unique perspective to the Senate. She is a mother, a soldier and an independent leader who serves in Washington because Americans voted for change in the last election, and Joni understands that middle-class Americans want Congress to get back to work and that they want Washington to get refocused on their concerns, instead of those of the political class,” said McConnell in a statement on Thursday.
Ernst who was elected to the Senate in November, becoming the first woman elected to federal office from Iowa and promised to make Washington squeal if she was elected, said she is "truly honored" to deliver the GOP address.
House Speaker John Boehner praised Ernst after the announcement Thursday.
"She knows that our federal government is too big, our spending is too high, and our tax code is broken," Boehner said. “And, she knows first-hand the sacrifices our men and women in uniform make to keep us all safe in a dangerous world," he added.
Republicans who have previously given the GOP response to the State of the Union address include Senator. Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.) and Gov. Bobby Jindal (LA), to name just a few.
For anyone out there who still believes that there isn’t a war on Christmas, religion, or Christianity… It is a battle that has been ramping up for years, but check out this terrific victory in that ‘politically correct’ battle:
Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) has just won a major battle against the politically correct left’s “War on Christmas,” he announced in a press release on (Tuesday)… Christmas Eve.
By Marion Algier – The War on Christmas (and religion) verses the Spirit of Christmas Series at AskMarion – 25
Breitbart: Since 1973, U.S. House rules made it an ethics violation for any official congressional communications to contain the phrase “Merry Christmas.” This month, after battling the system for the more than two years since he took office in 2011, Huelskamp was able to get the House to determine it will not consider use of the phrase “Merry Christmas” an ethics violation.
“For decades the PC Police have intimidated Christians throughout America with their attacks on the symbols and language of Christmas,” Huelskamp said in a statement released midday on Christmas Eve. “From nativity scenes to Christmas trees, those opposed to Christmas has sought to eradicate any reason for the season from the public square. And Congress has not been exempted.”
Huelskamp noted the history of the U.S. House’s War on Christmas before detailing how he has won this battle in the war.
“Amazingly since 1973, the U.S. House of Representatives has forbidden the use of ‘Merry Christmas’ and deemed use of such words in any official mailing or e-mail an ethics violation,” Huelskamp said. “Instead, they demanded the use of ‘Happy Holidays.’ This month, the House Franking Commission accepted the position I have fought for since arriving in Congress — ignore the PC Police and let us use ‘Merry Christmas.’”
Huelskamp added that since 2011, he has fought against the politically correct people in the U.S. Congress who implemented and still attempted to enforce this rule. “In 2011 during an interview on Fox News, I stated my refusal to comply with this decades-old policy, which reflects the continual leftist war on Christmas,” Huelskamp said.
I have continued that refusal through today, even as it has cowered many other public officials and private industry alike. The new refusal of the U.S. House to cater to the PC Police moves us one small step away from that carefully crafted secular society devoid of any reference to our religious and cultural heritage. I am glad that finally Members of Congress can express their holiday joy in a manner that they see fit and consistent with our American history—without an ethics threat.
Huelskamp ended his statement with a warm Christmas greeting for his constituents and all Americans: “As I have done for the past two years, I personally wish you and all of America a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.”
Merry Christmas, folks.
WATCH REP. HUELSKAMP ON FOX NEWS IN 2011 FIGHTING AGAINST 'MERRY CHRISTMAS' BAN IN CONGRESS
For more than 50 years, NORAD and its predecessor, the Continental Air Defense Command (CONAD) have tracked Santa’s flight.
The tradition began in 1955 after a Colorado Springs-based Sears Roebuck & Co. advertisement for children to call Santa misprinted the telephone number. Instead of reaching Santa, the phone number put kids through to the CONAD Commander-in-Chief’s operations “hotline.” The Director of Operations at the time, Colonel Harry Shoup, had his staff check the radar for indications of Santa making his way south from the North Pole. Children who called were given updates on his location, and a tradition was born. LINK: NORAD tracks Santa on Facebook
In 1958, the governments of Canada and the United States created a bi-national air defense command for North America called the North American Aerospace Defense Command, also known as NORAD, which then took on the tradition of tracking Santa.
Since that time, NORAD men, women, family and friends have selflessly volunteered their time to personally respond to phone calls and emails from children all around the world. In addition, we now track Santa using the internet. Millions of people who want to know Santa’s whereabouts now visit the NORAD Tracks Santa website.
Finally, media from all over the world rely on NORAD as a trusted source to provide updates on Santa’s journey.
Would you really eat in a restaurant, trusting their food or service, where the owners, chefs, workers and their families refuse to eat? Of course you wouldn’t. Nobody would, but that is what the Democrats, some GOP establishment career politicians and the Obama administration and their staffs are asking you to do.
They are asking, no mandating, that you to sign up and subject yourself and your family’s health, and in many cases losing better coverage, for healthcare coverage that they refuse to sign up for and be covered by themselves.
The so-called tea party Republicans, who are following their constituents wishes, but have now pretty much backed away from all their demands about the budget and upcoming debt ceiling raise, in what seems like their 20th compromise when the left has refused to negotiate or compromise on anything, were willing to pass and extend the budget and debt ceiling negotiations for several months with a clean bill, except for one provision… The Republicans attached the Vitter amendment (DeSantis bill in the House) which would demand that the House of Representatives, the Senate, the White House and their staffs and federal appointees would have to sign up for and live under the same ObamaCare bill that we all will have to suffer under, without any extra provisions or exemptions. The Democrats’, RINOs’ and administration’s response: NO…!
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) (KEVIN DIETSCH/UPI/Newscom)
The Vitter Amendment on Obamacare: Senate Liberals’ Curious Complaint
Last week (mid-September) Senator David Vitter (R–LA) proposed an amendment that would end exemptions for White House political appointees and stop illegal taxpayer subsidies for Congress and staff enrolled in Obamacare’s new health insurance exchanges. In other words, political appointees, Members of Congress, and their staffs would receive the same coverage and be eligible for subsidies available to every other American enrolled in the exchanges. No special deals.
On September 17, Senator Dick Durbin (D–IL) charged that Vitter’s proposed amendment was “unfair” because it would eliminate the employer payment for Members of Congress and 16,000 congressional staffers.
But this is a curious complaint. In 2010, Senator Durbin and all other Senate Democrats voted—lockstep—for final passage of Obamacare, which included Section 1312, which ended Members’ access to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and instead placed them into the Obamacare health insurance exchanges. Without access to employer coverage, there is no employer subsidy—not for Congress and not for any other worker dumped out of job-based coverage into the exchanges. That’s the law.
Durbin also tries to use Vitter’s vote for an amendment (Amendment No. 3564) offered by Senator Chuck Grassley (R–IA) during debate over Obamacare to undermine his current efforts. Yes, Vitter voted for the amendment. The amendment would have put the President, his appointees, Congress, and staff into the exchanges but would have preserved the government contributions for Congress and staff in the new exchanges.
Here’s the catch: Senator Durbin voted against the Grassley amendment, as did Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D–NV), Senator Barbara Boxer (D–CA), and 53 other Senate Democrats. (See The Congressional Record, March 24, 2010, p. S1996.) In other words, these Senators voted to protect the President and his appointees from their own law but also voted to remove the employer contribution to Congress and their staff. Yet these Senators now oppose it.
Senate liberals say they like Obamacare. If that’s the case, it is only reasonable for them to want to make sure they get what they like on the same exact terms and conditions as every other American enrolled in the exchanges, as put forth by Senator Vitter.
So why wouldn’t the Democrats from both Houses of Congress (as well as the Establishment RINO GOP) vote for the Republican’s compromise and embrace ObamaCare on the same terms the American people are getting… the terms they voted for? And if they aren’t why should the American people?
Why? Because our politicians know it is a bad plan, bad coverage, certainly worse and more expensive if you compare apples to apples, than they have now, and it opens them up to the same IRS mandates and access into all their records and information. It also opens them up to having a non-medically trained review board tell them which services they will and will not get… essentially death panels. But although they don’t want it, it is good enough for the rest of us in their book. After all what better advertisement for his signature program would there have been than President Obama and Vice President Biden signing themselves and their families up for all to see for the ObamaCare exchanges the day the program opened on October 1st?
Don’t be fooled by the propaganda being fed us through the mainstream media. ObamaCare was never about healthcare, and definitely not about better healthcare, it was always about ideology and control… about the federal government controlling you… all of us!
Just like President Obama and Harry Reid’s refusal to negotiate with the Republicans has nothing to do with what is good for the country or even the budget, or even the truth for that matter, it is about demonizing the Republicans so that the Progressive Democrats win the next election… so they can maintain their control of you!!
Do your homework and then you be the judge… But in my kitchen, the cook eats his own food and no matter how the present shutdown ends… Our politicians still don’t want to eat theirs!
Joshua Pundit: Here's a smoking gun for you. Attorney General Holder is speaking to Democrat Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia of the oversight committee about the AP scandal...and at 5:00 Holder says clearly, under oath that he never had anything to do with signing off on spying on the press:
"In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material. This is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy."
And who was the DOJ attorney who filed in district court to keep the illegal surveillance ongoing and secret for years even though they hadn't found anything? That would be U.S. Attorney Ronald Machen - the same attorney who was charged with deciding whether to pursue the House’s contempt citation against his boss, Eric Holder, over Fast and Furious. And - what a coincidence - he just happens to be leading the FBI investigation into the leak that involved the DOJ subpoenaing AP reporters’ phone records.
And who appointed him to that position? None other than James Cole, Holder's deputy, who took over after Holder recused himself.
Even more disgusting, President Obama acted socked, just shocked about all this and proclaimed yesterday in that faux sincere baritone of his that he had ordered the Attorney General to review the DOJ’s guidelines for spying on reporters.
In other words, Eric Holder will be in charge of investigating what Eric Holder did. And in the areas where he recused himself , he has a couple of loyal, dependable soldiers to take care of things.
Yet the fact remains that Holder committing perjury and likely obstruction of justice, and that particular cat is now out of the bag.
According to Joe DiGenova the Obama State Department has blocked lawyers from representing Benghazi whistle-blowers. WMAL reported:
The State Department is blocking local lawyer Victoria Toensing from representing whistleblowers on the 2012 Benghazi attacks, according to her legal partner and husband Joe DiGenova. Teonsing wants to represent such whistleblowers at the upcoming Congressional hearings about the Benghazi case.
“The Department of State is refusing to grant clearances to Victoria and other people who want to represent the whistleblowers in an attempt to prevent the testimony,” DiGenova said.
Does the following sound familiar? The budget sequester Obama opposed will hurt the economy, arbitrarily cut $85 billion in spending, and put hundreds of thousands of federal employees out of work; yet Republicans refuse to compromise. There are nine lies right there. Let’s break them down for the low-information voter:
The sequester will hurt the economy. Spending cuts don’t hurt the economy; they show investors and employers that we’re trying to resolve our debt crisis. They also pave the way for tax cuts, which—from JFK to Reagan to Clinton to Bush—have stimulated the economy.
Obama opposed the sequester. Obama swore to veto attempts to repeal the sequester his party stuck into the Budget Control Act. Democrats bet that in the sequester game of chicken, Republicans would flinch, because they wouldn’t be able to stomach defense cuts. Democrats bet wrong.
Hundreds of thousands of federal employees will lose their jobs. Whatever time these workers spend off the job, they will most likely be paid for via furlough appeals or unemployment benefits. No furloughs even begin until April, which gives negotiators a month to work things out.
Fires won’t be put out, crime won’t be stopped, air traffic will halt, etc. All the essential functions of government will continue during a sequester. Most agencies have ballooned since Obama took office; a return to 2009 levels isn’t going to send them into a tailspin.
The cuts are arbitrary. The bipartisan supercommittee hashed out the cuts in the sequester, half each from domestic and military spending. Yet propagandists make it sound as though lawmakers opened the federal registry and randomly targeted hapless employees to fire.
Republicans won’t compromise. Republicans didn’t consider the sequester ideal, but realized it might be the only way to force Democrats to cut spending. Republicans are willing to take a haircut on defense if Democrats will trim a whisker off the leviathan entitlement state.
There will be large budget cuts. The sequester will yield cuts of $85 billion—a whopping three percent of the projected $3.6 trillion 2013 spending (also known as a “budget” before Democrats came to power). The Washington Post admitted, “[S]ome White House allies worry the slow-moving sequester may fail to live up to the hype.”
The sequester will cut $85 billion out of the 2013 budget. Actually, it will cut only $44 billion. The $85 billion figure references the cut in “spending authority,” the other half of which Congress will merely postpone indefinitely until voters have forgotten about it.
The sequester will cut spending. Actually, the sequester will merely slow spending increases. Even with the sequester, the 2013 budget will be larger than in 2012. The sequester will no more cut spending than shooting a bullet through shrubbery will reverse its course.
Republicans can win the sequester fight. Republicans can win the sequester fight… only if they stand up and make the above points—in easy-to-digest language, with concrete examples, refutations of fear-mongering quotes, and relentless attacks on Obama for lying to Americans and treating them like children.
The ‘Sequester’ is a pittance and a distraction; another distraction to divert the attention of the low-informed populace from what is important and what is really going on in Washington and the world, flamed by the complicit mainstream media (MSM) that keeps the average American misinformed, if not uninformed, as Team Obama, RINO’s in both parties and the Progressive Left work their agenda. It is part of the Cloward and Piven strategy and Saul Alinsky’s tactics of blaming your enemies, the Republicans and patriotic Americans dubbed the Tea Party in this case, for everything… even your (the left’s) own unpopular ideas and policies. Make your opponent the enemy in the public’s eyes and twist the conversation, with the help of the MSM, to make yourself (your side) the hero or at least the good guy is the strategy. Pay attention America, that is exactly what is happening and President Obama, his team and his handlers are governing… And we, the American people, are being played. The sequester (Sequestration) is not only a diversion and a pittance but it was Obama’s idea!
Historically, Inaugural Ceremonies are not held on a Sunday because Courts and other public institutions are not open. This year, in accordance with the requirements of the United States Constitution, President Obama and Vice President Biden will officially be sworn-in on Sunday, January 20, 2013.
Swearing-In Ceremony - MONDAY, JANUARY 21
Ceremonial Swearing-In Ceremony
Location: Capitol Hill
Start Time: 11:30 AM ET
On Monday, the President and Vice President will be sworn in the traditional ceremonial swearing in ceremony at the U.S. Capitol that is open to the public. Note: Per tradition, the event is hosted by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies and media credentials for this event are issued by the Senate Media Galleries.
Inaugural Parade
Location: Viewing stands and bleachers are lined along Pennsylvania Avenue
Estimated Start Time: 2:35 PM ET
President Obama, Vice President Biden, First Lady Michelle Obama, Second Lady Dr. Jill Biden will participate in the Inaugural Parade following the public swearing-in ceremony at the Capitol. This year’s parade features participants, floats and vehicles representing more than 58 groups.
Many either don’t know what the “fiscal cliff” is, or believe this problem is something that it’s not.
Although America ’s economic crisis is not rocket science, the media and politicians have done a good job of keeping the truth hidden so that our focus isn’t on the real problem. After all, if we, the people, understood the real problem, we would demand that they fix it and we are smart enough to know the real fix that’s needed.
To prevent this from happening, politicians and media conjured up this catchy phrase called “the fiscal cliff.” Then they established a narrative that gave us a false target to blame – the so-called “rich.”
In other words, keeping the people’s attention on class warfare directs our anger and rhetoric onto the false target they’ve fed us and off of ‘what’ and ‘who’ created the problem in the first place. This distracts us from formulating and voicing the real solution to the true problem.
So, what is the real problem that created this crisis?
In a nut shell, our elected politicians have continued to spend trillions more in the past four years than taxpayers have given them. Thus, they have brought America ’s economy to the point of near collapse. It’s that simple.
Three of the broader consequences of what they’ve done are:
For the first time in the history of our nation, America ’s credit rating has been downgraded – twice.
Our national debt now exceeds its yearly gross domestic product (GDP).
The value of the dollar continues to decline, which makes prices rise on the things we need and want (i.e. inflation).
Right now on Capitol Hill, politicians claim to have a deal in the works whereby they will:
“…raise the tax rates on family income over $450,000 and individual income over $400,000 from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, the same level as under former President Bill Clinton. Also, estates would be taxed at 40 percent after the first $5 million for an individual and $10 million for a couple, up from 35 percent to 40 percent. Unemployment benefits would be extended for one year.”
While politicians and media are in lock-step focusing everyone’s attention on whom the government can take more money from, who realizes that this simply allows the politicians to continue to spend trillions more at our expense?
Taking more money from the people will result in less growth of the economy, which leads to greater loss of jobs, which leads to increasing the number of people plunged into poverty.
For those buying into the class warfare narrative, know that you are supporting your own demise. How so? The trickle down effect most people don’t realize is that, whether you’re a car mechanic, a retailer, a construction worker, a car dealership, a waiter, a grocery store cashier, etc., these businesses are negatively impacted when customers have less money to spend; therefore, employers will have less income with which to pay employees. Jobs will be eliminated and some businesses will have to shut down altogether.
It’s not rocket science, it is economic reality.
So let’s cut through the political spin, false narratives and diversions and give you the simple truth about the economic crisis and the real solution, which can be found in a “real world” example of what people have to do when they’ve created this same kind of financial mess for themselves.
This might be a helpful way to explain it to family and friends who aren’t aware.
We already know that when a person, family or business continues to spend a lot more than they take in, eventually they find themselves in pretty serious financial trouble. Why? Because they’ve amassed an unsustainable amount of debt that they cannot realistically repay. (Same goes for a country, and that’s exactly what our politicians have done.)
Think of a family that takes home $50,000 a year. If they spend 25% more than they take in each year (say they’re spending $62,500 each year even though they only bring home $50,000 a year), after four years, they’ve accumulated $50,000 in new debt, plus interest, which they owe to creditors.
What happens to this family? Interest on the debt continues to accrue, their FICO score (credit rating) declines and their creditors warn that action will be taken against them to recover what is owed.
The family now has to solve the financial mess they created for themselves.
If they’re serious about solving the problem, what’s one of the first things they have to do? Cut spending.
In addition to cutting their spending down to what they take in ($50K/year), they’ll cut even more spending so they can begin to pay off the debt and interest they racked up.
In most cases, when creditors start receiving regular monthly payments on the debt, things will stabilize as long as the family continues to pay. It becomes apparent to creditors that the family has created a budget that reduces spending and frees up money to start paying down their debt.
When we look at the typical things this family will cut, first to go are luxury purchases, trips, gifts, costly entertainment/hobbies, sending money overseas… basically, non-essentials that they couldn’t afford to be spending on in the first place. Next might be things like having meals at home instead of eating out at restaurants, sack lunches for the kids instead of the daily school cafeteria expense, trading in the fancier car for one that’s half the cost, driving less, using less in utilities, etc.
If that’s not enough, they may start selling non-essential possessions/assets to raise more cash to pay toward their debt. Taking on another job would be good, but in this Obama-economy it’s probably not a realistic possibility. Some families may even need to downsize their residence; move to a two-bedroom apartment instead of maintaining the cost of the four-bedroom home they’ve been renting.
But politicians refuse to cut spending. They want to continue spending trillions more than they take from us each year.
What is their solution?
Create a faux fight over how much MORE they will take from us so they can keep over-spending.
Keep spinning it as class warfare to give us a false ‘target’ to blame.
Keep us fighting among ourselves as we get behind one of the political party’s ‘plans’ (so that we’re actually rooting for their solutions to take MORE from hard-working taxpayers).
Divert our attention away from the real problem and the politicians who actually created the problem.
Remain blind to the fact that politicians want to perpetuate the problem, not solve it.
Insidiously brilliant, isn’t it? It is masterful propaganda and it’s what they always do.
Investopedia explains what will happen if politicians don’t act, but don’t forget that all the ‘expirations,’ sequestration and triggers were put in place/enacted by them.
“If Congress and President Obama do not act to avert this perfect storm of legislative changes, America will, in the media’s terms, “fall over the cliff.” Among other things, it will mean a tax increase the size of which has not been seen by Americans in 60 years.”
So you see, it is our elected politicians who set the stage for this crisis in order to dupe the American people and carry out the political theater now on display so they can get away with taking more from taxpayers, continue the massive over-spending and avert the possibility of torches and pitchforks outside the Capitol.
When these politicians conclude this round of theater, American’s will unwittingly breathe a sigh of relief that they reached a ‘deal’ and saved us.
In reality, the cold hard truth is that we, the taxpayers, continue to serve at the feet of these politicians. As long as they can take more from us – and they surely can – that’s exactly what they’ll continue to do until we have no more for them to take.
The truth about the fiscal cliff, in simple terms, is that the President and Congress deliberately created the economic crisis our country faces. Their massive spending is intentional and, clearly, it hasn’t helped us; it has hurt us. Their intention all along was to continue to take more and more from the people, thereby increasing their power and wealth – and extinguishing ours. How better to expand the ranks of the poor, further de-industrialize America and destroy, from within, a once-great and prosperous nation?
After all, isn’t that what the Progressives’ hundred-year journey to institute “social justice” in America, from both sides of the aisle, has been all about? Of course it has.
Tyranny comes when the people of a nation can no longer do what they did when they were free. Are we there yet?
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is recovering after sustaining a concussion, a State Department spokesman said on Saturday.
“While suffering from a stomach virus, Secretary Clinton became dehydrated and fainted, sustaining a concussion,” Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines said in a statement.
“She has been recovering at home and will continue to be monitored regularly by her doctors. At their recommendation, she will continue to work from home next week, staying in regular contact with department and other officials. She is looking forward to being back in the office soon,” Reines added.
Clinton fell ill with a stomach virus last weekend and was forced to cancel a planned trip to the Middle East and North Africa.
Just when this bloated Machashaifeh (Yiddish for Witch) was about to be subpoenaed to testify under oath before a Senate committee concerning her specific knowledge about the Benghazi affair, she becomes incapacitated, so someone else will have to testify in her place, how convenient.
Again I say the denizens of Washington D.C. Have more slither than a bag of snakes.
The entire country has known for years that Hillary is as big a phony and liar as Bill going as far back as White Water and the Rose Law firm in Arkansas.
Just as an example, in case you have forgotten, the Rose Law Firm records were subpoenaed and couldn’t be found for two years and then lo and behold they were found in cardboard cartons under a table in Hillary’s white house office, but she didn’t know where they were.
Does anyone begin to detect the odor of the Fulton Street Fish Market?
I think this dizzy broad has some idea that she actually has a good shot at running for President in 2016.
In your friggin dreams!!!
In the aftermath of the Connecticut school shooting, not only do we have all kinds of politicians coming out of the woodwork to try and ram tighter gun regulations down our throats, we even have an idiot journalist by the name of Piers Morgan demanding tighter gun regulations, and this schmuck is a British Subject (this is none of your business you pompous jackass) go back to the U.K. and peddle your papers.
Just so all of you idiots in D.C. who are so full of yourself and your supposed superior intellect are concerned, I will again remind you that the 2nd Amendment in order to be changed in any way shape or form, requires a constitutional convention which then needs to be ratified by ¾ of the Legislatures of the several states (both Houses), and that has not happened in 234 years, so you Ganefs (in Case you are interested, the word ganef means a thief, a robber, or a swindler in Yiddish) take your Law Degrees and stuff them where the sun don’t shine, Farshtaist?
In case you idiots need a copy of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (you know that which your oath requires you to uphold, protect and defend against all enemies both foreign and domestic) you can obtain pocket sized copies from The Cato Institute
Real Clear Politics: Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) says if would be better for Republicans to vote present on President Obama's proposal to raise tax rates and allow it to pass than to go off the "fiscal cliff." Paul says that would force Democrats to take ownership of the economy's reaction to a tax hike.
Sen. Paul: If they surprise me and they call me up tonight and say, "what should we do?" Here's what we should do: We should, tomorrow, in the House, vote for what we believe in. Keeping the Bush tax rates as they are for everybody permanently, and cutting spending. Significant cuts in spending and reform entitlements. I have a bill that saves social security and saves Social Security and saves Medicare by reforming them. Let's pass some of those bills and then when the Democrats won't accept it, then let's vote present and let them raise the taxes in the House, and then when it comes to the Senate, the Republican senators vote no, and it becomes like ObamaCare: A Democrat juggernaut. They get what they want, but it will be bad for the economy. But, their fingerprints will be on it and ours won't.
Cavuto: The polls say it will be the Republicans' fingerprints on it; do you buy that?
Paul: That depends on what happens. If the Republicans all decide, let's vote for raising the taxes half as much as Obama wants, and we still have a tax increase and Republicans are for it, it kinda ruins what we stand for. What we stand for is limited government and less taxation, so I think if we go halfway and split the difference with him, I think, then, both parties have their hands on it.
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: Senator Rand Paul says let Democrats dig their own grave. He says let Democrats raise taxes on everybody. Senator Paul is telling Republican colleagues senator to vote present on a deal, allowing Democrats to push through their tax hikes. Why would Senator Rand Paul want to take that tactic? The senator joins us. Good evening, sir.
VAN SUSTEREN: Explain to me why you think that's a good tactic.
PAUL: I think what we should do first of all is put forward what we are for. So if they are in the House, the House leadership should put something forward that extends the Bush tax cuts forever and has significant spending cuts. And I think they passed that.
The Democrats won't accept that and were unwilling to stay by our position. Then I would say let them pass a tax increase on the upper increase folks, but let it do it with their votes, not our votes. Republicans vote present in the House. Democrats can pass the tack increase with only democrat votes and then the Democrats are the parties of high taxes and the Republicans are the party of lower taxes. And I think that's the way it should be.
VAN SUSTEREN: Well, House is not going to go for that. Do you agree? The House isn't going to vote for the Democrats deal.
PAUL: I'm not saying vote for the bill to raise taxes, I'm saying that we vote first on a Bill that says we will not raise the taxes, and that is our true position. That's what we stand for. We think that you stimulate the economy by leaving more money in the economy, actually lowering taxes. That's our philosophy. That's who we are as Republican.
So I would pass that. The House has passed that previously. I would pass that again now, and that if we cannot get the president to negotiate from that position, and if they are going give in, don't give in by splitting the baby. Give in by voting present, let the Democrats pass an increase in the upper tax brackets, comes over to the Senate, Republicans vote no, and it becomes a Democrat tax increase but not a Republican/Democrat tax increase, which I think is a mistake for the Republicans.
VAN SUSTEREN: Republican Senator Ron Johnson from Wisconsin says it's not the end of the world if we go over the fiscal cliff, although there are some economists who say it could thrust us back into recession. What do you think will happen if we go over the fiscal cliff?
PAUL: I don't think there is a cliff in the sense that all of a sudden tomorrow something dramatic happens. I think stock markets sometimes react quickly, but for the most part, whether it's going to be a recession or not is a much more long, drawn-out process.
But I would say that it's not a good idea to raise anyone taxes, and that the marketplace does not differentiate whether you take the money from rich people, poor people, or middle class. The marketplace says if you are going to take $800 billion, are you taking it out of the private sector, the productive sector, and are you going to give it to the nonproductive sector in Washington, basically the sector of people who are always messing up things in the marketplace? Are you going to do that? If you are going to do that, it's a bad idea no matter whether it's rich people, middle class, or poor. It doesn't matter. If you take money out of the private sector, it's a bad idea.
VAN SUSTEREN: Well, it's not as though the taxes around going to go up on the wealthiest Americans come January 1. Maybe not to the extent the Democrats want in the income tax bracket, but certainly it's going to go up. They will pay more in Medicare under the Obama healthcare. They will pay more on their investment income, 3.8 percent if you are a high earner. So there will be additional taxes. I realize you will pay for other things besides. Taxes are going to go up for the wealthiest Americans on January 1, just not as much as Democrats want. Would you agree?
PAUL: Yes. And here's the question. How much is enough? When will they have enough? The thing is most people in a lot of these high tax states are already pagan excessive amount of their income. Look at companies now trying to get away from the tax collectors. Look at Google taking their money to Bermuda. Look at all the corporations who can't stand to pay 35 percent income tax in America that won't bring their money home. Money goes where it is welcome.
VAN SUSTEREN: Let me ask you about Google. Google managed to do tax avoidance, which is not illegal, by putting money in Bermuda and I think they saved $2 billion in tax avoid dance. What efforts are being done by the Democrats or the Republicans to discourage that type of lawful avoidance, but nonetheless a huge amount of money for a very wealthy company?
PAUL: I'm not against them doing that. In fact, I compliment them because that money stayed in the private marketplace. But I would say to folks who are doing that, don't come to Washington and agitate for higher taxes if you are avoiding taxes. By all means, continue to legally avoid as many taxes as you can because that keeps money in the private marketplace and helps to create jobs. I'm all for that. But don't at the same time come agitate for higher taxes, because we need lower taxes.
Countries around the world are finding out that this is a mistake. England raised their upper rate, and they got lower tax revenue. When the Bush tax cuts came into play we lowered tax rates and we got more revenue. So the main reason I'm opposed to what the president is doing is it's not going to work, and it may give us less revenue and less economic growth. So I'm completely opposed to the president. I was before the election and I still am after the election.
VAN SUSTEREN: If you look at Google, you say you're not opposed to that. But if you take, let's take the category, $250,000 to $3 million a year, that category, they don't hide their money, but they don't avoid taxes by using Bermuda because they don't have the structure to do that, number one. And number two is that they don't have all these lobbyists that create these payroll tax codes so that they can do that. So there's actually sort of a wealthy class that just is the billionaire class --
PAUL: That's true, and it isn't a fair tax code. The way you get a fair tax code is to lower rates and get rid of deductions so people don't have to avoid their taxes. But I will say in Google's defense, the corporate income tax in our country is 35 percent. In Canada it's 15 percent. In Bermuda I think it's nine percent. All across Europe it's in the 20s. Money goes to where it's welcome. Money is not welcome in the United States, or the president is trying to make it worse so money and people will flee. People will flee if you raise their taxes. They also won't work as hard and you'll be getting less revenue, not more, exactly the opposite of what the president wants.
VAN SUSTEREN: For years I've been hearing tax code reform. That's all I've been hearing, and maybe we'll get it sometime, but I'm not holding my breath. Senator, thank you, sir.
PAUL: Thank you.
The Political Class Base Line Budgeting Scam
TPN: “The Federal Government is like a treasure that a man discovered hidden in a field. In his excitement, he hid it again and sold everything he owned and raised as much legal or illegal campaign money to get enough money to buy the field—and to get the treasure, too!
This explanation below and above just frames perfectly what we're up against far as our debt goes. You have a central government that has welded and cemented procedures and strategies in place to forever grow the size and scope of government. A political class that directs it, and since it is not in the best interest of the political class and their families to cut their own influence and paychecks you find them spending billions every election cycle to 'keep” and “grow” their inheritance. As you read the news headlines these days you will see how people will resort to all kinds of violence if you dare to go near that field that has that self perpetuating treasure in it. And in reality that "treasure" is really a "flimsy white washed wall' and when the next strong wind comes along it's going down. So since those that are awake, know that it is a white washed wall, and we can see that their is a political class that is enriching themselves along with their supporting minions maybe we should seriously start looking back to the governments that do not have a printing press in their basements...our own states! Shouldn't we be encouraging our states to start saying "No" to what was supposedly to be a limited referee to the "Union" of states that has now become brazenly ":Unconstitutional” and has now transformed itself back into the Symbolic Manifestation of King George and Lord North or maybe more fittingly Joseph Stalin?. ...here comes another (3) $ trillion added to the political classes Inheritance....I can hear Yessss! Echoing powerfully through out Washington and reverberating through the Halls of our most "Honorable" Congress now as I hear the "Yea" votes carrying the day as we add that $3 trillion!
"Baseline budgeting" is one of those Washington terms that sounds very dry and boring. In reality, baseline budgeting is one of the most sinister ways that politicians claim to cut spending when they are actually increasing spending. The Congressional Budget Office defines the baseline as a benchmark for measuring the budgetary effects of proposed changes in federal revenue or spending, with the assumption that current budgetary policies or current services are continued without change. The baseline includes automatic adjustments for inflation and anticipated increases in program participation. Baseline, or current services, budgeting, therefore builds automatic, future spending increases into Congress's budgetary forecasts.
Baseline budgeting tilts the budget process in favor of increased spending and taxes. For example, if an agency's budget is projected to grow by $100 million, but only grows by $75 million, according to baseline budgeting, that agency sustained a $25 million cut. That is analogous to a person who expects to gain 100 pounds only gaining 75 pounds, and taking credit for losing 25 pounds. The federal government is the only place this absurd logic is employed.
Politicians often like to have it both ways. Baseline budgeting gives politicians an opportunity to deceive taxpayers by allowing them to claim that they are holding the line on spending while providing more services.
Baseline budgeting seems like a technicality and should not be such a hotbed of contention, but every round of budget negotiations involves baseline budgeting with both sides of the aisle complaining that the other side is using the process to mask spending increases. Baseline budgeting is an issue that truly separates the deficit hawks from the budget chickens.
Eliminating the inflated budget baseline will force Congress to justify and account for increased spending instead of hiding behind automatic increases. Through commonsense accounting, taxpayers would learn that spending in Washington is not under control. (Citizens against Government Waste)
thecommunists, I remained silent; I was not a communist.
Then they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat.
Then they came for the trade unionists, I did not protest; I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics, I did not protest; I was a Protestant.
Then they came for the Jews, I did not speak out; I was not a Jew.
When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.
Election 2014 - What Is Really At Stake
Help Stop Voter Fraud!! Stand for the Constitution and God
Time to remember that: "We Surround Them", not the other way!
Stand Up Against Voter Fraud... Demand Re-Counts and Verification Until It is Right!! A Little Ink Goes a Long Way Toward Honesty... 1 Person 1 Vote... No More Mickey Mouse or Dead People Voting
"The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about IT! --Albert Einstein
Call Congress Today and Tell Them To Vote Against Cap and Trade
The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis, maintain their neutrality -- Dante Alighieri / Often Quoted by Mark Twain
Thanks for calling the Congressional switchboard. Keep up the pressure: "NO on Cap and Trade"!!! "NO Vote on Obamacare", NO on another Stimulus Bill, NO to the never ending parade of "Power Grab Bills", and ABSOLUTELY NO on the Climate Change Treaty in Copenhagen!!
"No" on Cap and Trade and "No" on Government Controlled Healthcare!!! And Keep up the good fight! Keep up the Pressure on both the House and Senate! These are 2-fights the American People cannot afford to lose!!!
If you choose not to go this route… call and fax your Senator and as many of them on the list yourself, but don’t sit idly by!!
United States Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121
We apologize in advance for any Videos or links that are not functioning in these or other older posts. Internet information... like 'true' history in our student's textbooks are under constant attack by the Progressive Movement and even more so under the present administration. Try to save what you can to your own computer.
"...there comes a time, ladies and gentlemen, when ideology can cause death. I am so tired, so tired, of zealots, primarily on the left, putting their insane personal agendas above the safety of fellow Americans. Do you think the brave soldiers and Marines operating in dangerous areas right now want [unreleased photos of alleged abuse of prisoners] all over al-Jazeera and the terror websites? So let's look out for the military, OK? Nancy Pelosi has an obligation to get the loons in her party under control. If the Speaker can't do that, she doesn't deserve her position." ... Bill O'Reilly
Updated:If you'd like to contact Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, here's the contact information that you'll need.
