Stimulus #1 cost $787 billion and left us with 10.1% national unemployment, an additional $4 trillion in debt, and 14 million people still out of work. Tonight, Obama will try to sell us on another $400 billion Stimulus plan. Who is REALLY getting that money?

Read More →

If we are going to cut taxes AND spending, that means many existing government programs will need to be massively altered and trimmed. This means Welfare, Medicare, Social Security, Postal Service and more.

Plastered all over todays photo op sections of the major news media outlets are photos of The Obama family, and more specifically Michelle Obama and her “simply stunning fashion“. They go on to proclaim about how her beauty rivals that of the British prime minister’s wife, Samantha Cameron and the Duchess of Cambridge Kate Middleton with their fashionista styles and beauty. Typical media hypocrisy as well as a blind eye to real beauty!

The main problem here is that Michelle literally looks like one of Michael Vick’s pit bulls with the attitude to match.  Yet as easy as it is for the media to forget the past, when there was someone of real beauty that spent a small chunk of money on their classy and beautiful outfits that had real purpose, because they were of a conservative leaning, she was blasted for it, ignoring the purpose, fashion and beauty.

There we had the beautiful Sarah Palin that spent a little bit of money on purposeful outfits using a mix of her campaign and personal money, yet because of her stance in the political arena, she was made out as some sort of wasteful government puppet of the right that will not serve the people if she is elected simply because of the cost of her wardrobe. If we look at some of her recent appearances, she is still wearing some of the same outfits that were purchased a few years ago. When, if ever, do we expect to see Michelle wearing ANY of the dresses seen during this European trip again?

Fast forward a few years and here we have Michelle spending almost as much on a few outfits that Palin did for her entire reported wardrobe spending spree (which included makeup, makeup people and staff), yet there is no official mention of how much more of our taxpayer money was spent on Michelle’s traveling outfits for this ONE trip, not to mention how much the rest of the trip, flights, travel, security and everything else being spent on this Obama trip. Don’t forget to add in the cost of how these women like Obama typically have some outfits flown in just for the purpose of wearing them once.  Thousands spent on a single dress, thousands spent on a flight which has one purpose of flying in said dress(es)…. Hypocritical Obamas on display for sure.

One source points to this trip costing in the range of £10m (approx. US$16.5 Million) and will most likely cost much more once everything is added up if you add in the several hundred thousand on Michelle’s wardrobe and wasteful expenditures.  Here we see Michelle wearing $5,000 outfits while Kate Middleton is wearing outfits that cost around $340 retail. A stark contrast when you see just how the media is handling this. Not to mention the foreign media having a feast on how Americans need to spend mass amounts of money on designer dresses to appear beautiful, while Europeans can do so with cost effective and retail available outfits. I see it as trying to put a dress on a pit bull versus the already beautiful European women looking good in almost anything whether it cost $20, $340 or $5,000.

So remember when reading these news stories:

Ultra liberal Michelle Obama spends (aka wastes) loads of our taxpayer money on a few outfits and she is beautiful;

Moderate conservative Palin spends a little bit of our money on entire wardrobes, makeup, makeup people and not only is her beauty ignored, she is blasted for the cost.

The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Yet on a daily basis people are subject to blatant and ignorant violations of this Constitutional Amendment. Its funny how the US has gone to all these lengths with airport security, yet Israel airport security isn’t this intrusive. They might shoot your laptop, but at least you are treated like a human-being. They are in the middle of territory and religious disputes on a daily basis that involves weapons of all kinds. Yet us Americans have to be subject to blatant violations of our rights and freedoms in the name of “security”?

One such violation had been denied by John Tyner who took cell phone pictures, videos and posts on his blog about his denial to be subject to these violations. With all the publicity, the TSA has decided to investigate this person, and we all know this is just another way that the government is using scare tactics to prevent other people from standing up for their rights.

For 2 years and over 254,000 views, Youtube had a video of a 3 year old being hand groped and violated under the guise of “airport security”, yet as soon as it started getting popular recently, it had been removed conveniently for “copyright infringement”, when it was broadcast on public television and thus became the public domain. Fortunately the comments have not been cleared out yet, and the sad part is some of the sheep are DEFENDING this process.

This video contains content from Tribune, who has blocked it on copyright grounds.

Unfortunately because all the posts online linked back to the same YouTube video, it took quite a while before I was able to find another location for this video. Since the video refuses to embed in this blog, please try THIS LINK.

Then there is another story where the TSA chose Meg McLain for special screening. Here is a video (well audio only in this “video”, 14 minutes long) where Meg was interviewed by a radio show:

Yet another case, where a mildly attractive female was chosen as the ONLY one to go through the “prono-scanner” which she denied and thus set aside to be made an example of. This story is still developing but I expect another investigation into her in order to make another example of the government scaring people into submission.

Luckily there are more and more satirical videos spreading, such as this one:

The real problem is that as the governments powers expand, our freedoms dwindle one at a time. Since they are introduced one at a time, the younger generations take these new rules as if that is how it is, and do not know of the freedoms we have had even 10 or 20 years ago. Even someone like me in my mid 30s has seen a massive change since Clinton was in office. This liberalism has spread into every tiny crack of our society. If we just sit aside and let them do it, then we are no better than those who support the Socialist ideals this government is forcing on us. What is next? ID scans and vehicle searches at all state crossings? Special permits that allow us to cross state lines? Home scanners to make sure we are not doing anything illegal? Internet scanners to arrest people for talking “bad” about the government?

We need to make a stand NOW! Stand up for our 4th Amendment rights. Police require judge authorized search warrants and so should the TSA.

In February 2010 after Congress failed to agree on actually reversing the debt and continued their unchecked spending, Obama filed an executive order which can and will have more legislative might, overpowering the Legislative branch that much more. Obama was able to get 2 very long time politicians, one from each side of the aisle calling it a “bipartisan” panel, yet many of those selected are either hard right or hard left meaning this is just more party bickering. The structure of the panel requires 14 of 18 members to support the draft for it to move to Congress for consideration.

In the past 7 months since convening, they released a 50 page report, stating “Our economy will not grow and our country will not be able to compete without a plan to get this crushing debt burden off our back.”  The document makes five basic recommendations: First, to “enact tough discretionary spending caps” and find $200 billion in savings by 2015. Second: tax reform “that dramatically reduces rates, simplifies the code, broadens the base and reduces the deficit.” The third step addresses reforms of the health system. Fourth: mandatory savings from farm subsidies and civilian and military retirement costs. And fifth: reforms to Social Security to ensure its solvency “while reducing poverty among seniors.”

Remember, this is just an early draft (although after 7 months it should be much farther along, but that is bureaucracy and red tape for you.

Breaking these down one by one:

1. “enact tough discretionary spending caps” and find $200 billion in savings by 2015.
2. tax reform “that dramatically reduces rates, simplifies the code, broadens the base and reduces the deficit.”
3. reforms of the health system
4. mandatory savings from farm subsidies and civilian and military retirement costs.
5. reforms to Social Security to ensure its solvency “while reducing poverty among seniors.”

While it all sounds good in theory, in reality, getting the hard left liberals to agree to any of this without expanding government programs will be impossible, and getting the hard right republicans to agree without massive tax cuts and reduced spending will also be impossible. This is why they released this report as a sort of “goals” to shoot for. They say these steps could reduce the deficit to 2.2% of gross domestic product by 2015 (yet it went from 1.1% in 2006 under Republican lead to 12% today under Democrat lead), and achieve $4 trillion in deficit reduction by 2020 ($4 Trillion from $14 trillion is still $10 trillion, MUCH higher than it should be).

1. Spending caps would include freezing the military men and women’s basic pay, basic allowance for housing, and basic allowance for subsistence, as well as the tax advantage of those two tax-free allowances. “A three-year freeze at 2011 levels for these compensation categories would save the federal government $7.6 billion in compensation and tax expenditures,” as well as another $1.6 billion in future retirement pay, for a total of $9.2 billion in savings in 2015.” 9.2 billion is still only 0.1% of the deficit.

2. Little is known about the tax reform related recommendations, especially since it is subject to change dramatically now with the split Congress after the mid term elections.

3 and 4. One recommendation calls for the military related health care: adjusting Tricare enrollment fees, co-pays and deductibles, would raise premiums and co-pays by smaller, unspecified amounts and would squeeze most of its cost savings from a new requirement that private-sector employers reimburse the government for the employer share of health care costs for working-age retirees who use Tricare instead of their employer-provided health plan. “To reduce higher-than-average usage of health care by families of service members, the option would also raise co-pays for office visits from their current low levels closer to national averages,” the report said.

Another recommendation would increase out-of-pocket costs for veterans in Priority Group 5 who are enrolled in the Veterans Affairs Department health care system. That category is for veterans who do not have service-connected disabilities and whose income is below a VA-defined threshold. Those patients now pay no fees for inpatient or outpatient medical care.

4. Little is said about the farm subsidies, but this is likely a liberal agenda aimed at extending more money to farm subsidies which would allow the continued used of corn and other farm products for Ethanol and alternative “clean” fuels.

5. Little is said about the Social Security reforms but a few ideas suggests raising the retirement age, altering the formula for cost-of-living increases, and raising the payroll tax threshold. The normal retirement age would rise to 68 by 2050, and 69 by 2075.

Personally, I believe they need to completely restructure the Social Security system. Social Security must be restructured so it is like a bank, the money you pay goes into a secured bank account that only you can touch in the events of disability or retirement. Otherwise NO ONE but you can touch that money and it is removed from being used for the government expense general fund and wasted by the government. After 10 years of paying into the system, you can borrow against it up to 5%, but with interest that is all paid back to the bank itself: they need to pay the administrative fees and reduce the taxes we pay, so those that borrow essentially pay for the service in short term, although everyone pays in the long term. So if you borrow, you actually benefit yourself by reducing the taxes paid.

This is VERY unlikely because both sides know that if we take away their access to that massive hoard of cash, all of their wasteful spending and earmarks would go unfunded, and would likely double the deficit since they do not have a constant stream of extra cash flowing in.

The commission consists of 18 total members, including 12 sitting lawmakers. The leaders of this commission appointed by Obama are co-chairs Erskine Bowles, a Democrat who was White House chief of staff for President Clinton, and Alan Simpson, a former Republican senator from Wyoming. He also named three Democrats: Alice Rivlin, a former vice chair of the Federal Reserve who also served as director of the Congressional Budget Office and the White House budget office; Andrew Stern, retiring president of the 2.2 million-member Service Employees International Union; and Ann Fudge, former head of Young & Rubicam Brands, a global marketing and communications company. He also named one Republican: David Cote, the CEO and chairman of Honeywell, a technology and manufacturing company.

Here are some other members:

Senate Republicans chose Sens. Judd Gregg (NH), Mike Crapo (ID) and Tom Coburn (OK) as their representatives. The three House GOP members are Reps. Paul Ryan (WI), Dave Camp (MI) and Jeb Hensarling (TX).

Senate majority leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi each picked three congressional Democrats: Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., who chairs the Senate Finance Committee; and Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., who chairs the Senate Budget Committee; Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate; Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Calif., a member of the Budget and Ways and Means committees; and Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee; and Rep. John M. Spratt Jr., D-S.C., chairman of the House Budget Committee.

One phrase that is just as important now than ever: “Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it” - George Santayana. With the mid term election for the most part under wraps, it is easy to get cozy knowing that the Republican Majority in the House and a much better balance of the parties in the Senate will hold Obama accountable for his dangerous and obvious change, but for the worse.

The problem we are running into now has been seen before, and it really should stick out in our minds: the mid term election of 1946 where the 80th Congress was elected. The problem is that then, just like now, there is and was a very liberal Democrat president. At the time Truman’s Fair Deal bills were the talk of the government and people, which was essentially more and bigger government stepping up for more social welfare programs. Many news or historical sources credit Truman with the benefits, rather than the Republican Congress, with the progress made over the next few years. This Fair Deal was actually just an expansion of the New Deal from the early 30s, where the earlier parts that were passed in the late 20s actually caused the Great Depression, although many sources choose to claim the New Deal was a result of the Great Depression, not one of the causes.

When Truman ran for re-election in 1948, he coined the 80th Congress as a “Do Nothing Congress”, not because they did not get anything done, but because Truman refused to sign any of the conservative bills sent up for his signature. This got him re-elected and able to continue the partisan politics.  A few of the New Deal reforms that did manage to pass either in the 79th Congress or massively modified by the Republican Congress included some civil rights, housing, expanded Social Security, health care, and a massively bloated welfare system. The same political lies also got people to vote back the Democrat majority for the 81st Congress in both houses. Through 1947 and 1948, almost none of the New Deal components were able to be passed by the Republican majority, so most of them had either already passed in 1945-46, or were brought back up and passed in 1949-50 under the Democrat led Congress.

[Truman] successfully integrated the armed forces, denied government contracts to firms with racially discriminatory practices and named African Americans to federal posts.

This is one common line that many sources share, yet they fail to mention that Truman was racist, as a Senator he stuck with the southern Democrats and fought every civil rights bill that would have given minorities the same rights as whites. It was the 80th Congress under Republican majority that was able to pass these civil rights bills.

The Housing Act of 1949 is a perfect example of Democrats messing with people and really showing their true colors. This led to the allocation of federal funds to go towards new housing projects, urban renewal, and more public housing. This spawned the growth of urban and suburban regions in the post-war United States. Much of the mass urban development that took place during this time can still be seen today. This act also contributed to what is known as “white flight” while simultaneously contributing to the racial wealth gap. As federal funds went into rebuilding and expanding inner cities, essentially creating massive low income areas that the poor (mostly black) flocked to, this pushed the middle and mid-upper classes out into the suburbs. This helped to further segregate cities that had massive ramifications that are even felt today. Expanded Social Security and Welfare allowed the poor inner cities to live off the system and as a long term effect also increased crime. Those who work for a living and moved away from the problems saw more and more of their money going to benefit these inner cities.

As this all pertains to today, we see much of the same from the current administration. Expanded government programs, massively expanded and socialized healthcare requirements, increased social security and welfare benefits, and new Labor laws covering a massive scope of the population. Yet just like every double talking Democrat, the guise of healthcare for all, expanded government benefits only helps to widen the gap between the lazy and the hard working. The Democrat “Robin Hood complex” only helps to expand and and root in the socialist and even some communist policies. This leaves us with one of 2 choices: either leave the system as is now as an Oligarchy with the few in power but we have to ensure there is a balance of power in all branches of the government, no one party can have a full and total power over all branches like we saw from 2007-2010; or we step up with a mass civil war to oust the entire government and revert back to the original Constitution and a Republic of the people, implementing wide sweeping changes that force and require a strong limit of the power of the government.

This is generally the natural progress of governments, start small, they get greedy and expand their own powers over the course of 100-200 years, part way in it stops being a Republic and becomes an Oligarchy which we have been in for the past 100 years. We are following in Romes footsteps: the founding fathers creating a Republic, and in effect built a republic that limited government power, and left the people alone. Since government was limited, the people were free to produce with the understanding that they could keep the fruits of their labor. In time, Rome became wealthy and the envy of the world. Over time the Roman people forgot what freedom entailed. They forgot that the essence of freedom is the proper limitation of government. When government power grows, people’s freedom recedes. Once the Romans dropped their guard power seeking politicians began to exceed the powers granted them in the Romans Constitution. Some learned that they could elect politicians who would use government power to take property from some and give it to others. Agriculture subsidies were introduced, followed by housing and welfare programs. Inevitably taxes rose and controls over the private sector were imposed. Soon a number of Rome’s producers could no longer make ends meet, and they went on the dole. Productivity declined, shortages developed and mobs began rooming the streets demanding bred and services from the government. Many were induced to trade freedom for security. Eventually the whole system came crashing down. They went from a Republic, to a Democracy, and ended up with an Oligarchy under the progression of the seizers.

Thus democracy itself is not a stable form of government, instead it is the gradual transition from limited government to the unlimited rule of an Oligarchy.

This welfare system, each time it is expanded, it punishes the hard working people by taking more money from them, it also puts expansive requirements on all businesses, large and small, to pay into an ever expanding system that has little to no benefit to the general public or the businesses themselves, and causes the lazy and corrupt that take advantage of the system to get more and more benefits. As this continues, it will continue to widen the gap between the races, and give the Democrats more reason to blame others as they always have, and expand the socialist welfare state even more. This is why we need to step up and get these socialized programs removed from our system, most notably the current Obamacare scam. Other points I have come up with over the past few years, and it may be added, changed or altered at any given time, but I believe this is the best way for this system to actually work well for everyone, and get the government out of our pockets.

1) REQUIRED drug testing to ALL applicants over the age of 16 (unless the parent is under this age) for all state/federal benefits of any kind. First test failure requires a retest within 14 business days. Second failure exempts that person from receiving any benefits for minimum 6 months, any hard drugs like Cocaine, crack, meth, etc exempts them for minimum 1 year.

a) All people living in the house is required to test (exemption being unrelated short term *less than 6 months* roommates), this ensures that drugs and bad influences are not being brought into the house or others in the house are negatively impacted by drugs that have children or beneficiaries present.

b) If father/ex-spouse is required to pay child support and/or has any sort of contact with the child, they are required to test even if they do not live in the same residence. This ensures the other parents that may have only visitation rights or partial custody are not under the influence of drugs.

2) REQUIRED minimum hours working, at least 25 hours per week, for minimum 40 weeks per year for ANY benefits. For the single parents, plenty of child care centers can be opened which can help employ many of these same single parents in exchange for their child to attend for free or greatly reduced costs. The only exception would be parent or child that is deemed more than 40% disabled, verified by minimum 2 certified specialists in the field of the disability. The disability has to be a real disability, not these fake illnesses like ADD, ADHD, obesity, etc…

3) Social Security must be restructured so it is like a private bank, the money you pay goes into a secured bank account that only you can touch in the events of disability or retirement. Otherwise NO ONE but you can touch that money and it is removed from being used for the governments general fund and wasted by the government. After 10 years, you can borrow against it up to 5%, but with interest that is all paid back to the bank itself: they need to pay the administrative fees and reduce the taxes we pay, so those that borrow essentially pay for the service in short term, although everyone pays in the long term. So if you borrow, you actually benefit yourself by reducing the taxes paid. This helps reduce the number of social security scam artists that get a corrupt doctor to help them claim disability; this gets the government away from our money and bankrupting the system; everyone only receives the money that they have paid into the system.

4) unrelated to the above but ANY and ALL programs, benefits, scholarships, or financial related benefits that are designed to benefit any one specific group based on RACE, SEX or any other personal feature must be stopped and made illegal. This is the 21st century, we are Americans. If there is a low income benefit, fine. If there is a scholarship to benefit people in low income areas, that is fine.

It is when you segregate and benefit specific races that helps ensure that one group has a better chance at succeeding over another. Equality means race is not an issue and race related benefits must be made illegal. Some low income areas that receive benefits may be mostly black, but targeting them and only giving those benefits to the poor black, cause the poor white to suffer is more dangerous then the very atrocities that all the races have had to deal with in the past.

5) Clear and specific language stating that states rights supersede Federal rights, with no chance of Judges or the courts to force Federal law to overtake state laws. This allows states to pass laws specific to their region. Arizona can pass whatever immigration laws they want without having the federal government stepping in and telling them what they can and cannot do. California can pass (by majority vote I might add) laws stating that legal marriage is between one man and one women, without having some special interest federal judge illegally legislating from the bench, essentially one man overturning the votes of millions of people.

I am sure there will be more as time comes along but these are the main points that the current Republican majority house and almost equally balanced Senate must pass now before Obama and the socialist liberals try to take over again in 2012, just like they did in 1950 and cause a stagnant economy that lasted over a decade and did not recover until the 60s when the Republicans took the majority once again. Of course the Democrats reversed that in the late 60s and early 70s causing another recessionary period including their influence and participation in the oil crisis.

Election time always has me more annoyed than usual. One thing that I have noticed is the tone of the ads used for the months preceding the election.  Some candidates run nothing but attack ads, some avoid the crap and just states what their plans are, no matter how far fetched.

One candidate that has had me close to the annoyance boiling point has been Alex Sink, running for the governor of Florida. Rather than actually step up and say what she is planning to do, she has been running nothing but attack ads against Rick Scott. Claims about the IRS investigating fraudulent use of the Republican Party credit card for personal expenditures. Yet any search online, shows that there is no public record of such, and the only mentions are all liberal media sheep that are taking Alex Sink’s word for it and running it as if it were a factual story. This gives Sink more fodder today because now she can quote those newspapers as sources for her attacks, rather than actual court records, IRS filing or any factual evidence. Yet of ALL of her publicly seen and heard advertisements, NONE of them actually step up and say what she wants to do, plans to do or how she is going to do anything, she just complains about how Rick Scott is painting her as an Obama Liberal (which of course she is).

Yet if you look at Rick Scott supporting advertisements, he says clearly, he has plans to bring back several hundred thousand jobs to Florida, lower property taxes and similar claims.  He backs up the opinions about Sink showing she has been the state treasurer, and as such she has been a part of the state losing some 800,000 jobs, she has voted and been in favor of Obama’s healthcare plan, and stated the way to increase tax rolls for the state is to increase taxes, instead of cutting spending.

Rick Scott could step up and bring up her past as the former president of Florida Operations at Bank of America where she took an active and visible role in buying out small local banks and shutting them down causing tens of thousands of jobs to be lost. She is a multi-millionaire who was a banker for 26 years and has made millions in stock investments. In 2000 as the head of Bank of America’s Florida operations, she made $3.4 million from the bank in salary, pension, deferred compensation and stock grants. During the 2006 campaign, she listed her net worth as $10 million.

When Alex Sink became Florida’s Chief Financial Officer (CFO), the top financial watchdog, “she put her assets in a blind trust, which she said would help her avoid conflicts of interest…since she owned stock in Bank of America, which receives millions in banking, bond and investment fees from Florida every year.” She had investments in other companies and had served on the board of the brokerage firm Raymond James Financial, which “had a stake in her decisions.”  With Sink’s “blind” trust, the only one who ends up blind is the public. Blind trusts are not regulated in Florida and do not require Sink to disclose the specific investments in her blind trust.

Big money, more job losses, special interests in the banking industry… Step up and vote Rick Scott, no one else has the brains to set Florida straight.