|
Labels: blackfive, uncle jimbo
|
Labels: Barack Obama, birth certificate
|
Stealing services??? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?!?!?!? What about all those illegals stealing services?"Tanya McDowell, a homeless single mother from Bridgeport, is charged with first-degree larceny and conspiracy to commit first-degree larceny for signing up her 5-year-old son to attend nearby Norwalk schools under the address of a friend," reports Yahoo!'s Lookout blog.
The friend was booted from public housing for helping McDowell, and McDowell's son was kicked out of his Nowalk school. The homeless mother of one now faces up to 20 years in prison and a $15,000 fine.
Ironically, McDowell occasionally stays in a Nowalk homeless shelter, and could've registered that address to qualify her son. When asked about the merits of punishing a homeless woman for trying to save her son from a life of poverty, Norwalk school board president Jack Chiaramonte said, "There has to be a penalty for stealing our services."
Labels: Connecticut, daily caller, race hustling poverty pimps
|
|
Many scholars believe our founding fathers envisioned America being the land of the free based off a very unique principle; free will. What this means is that men and women have the “free will” to choose based off their own morally driven social and cultural ideologies between right and wrong without any constraints. The oldest script depicting the truest and most pure sense of “free will” can be found in the Christian Bible. What is right for one person is not necessarily the same as what is right for another though, making the concept even more complex.
As long as you don't criticize a religion for being misogynistic, violent and barbaric you can pretty much do whatever you want.
Labels: Andrew Breitbart, Bible, big peace, christian nation, free will, freedom
|
Terrorist operations are active in the U.S. and are being operated/financed by Al Qaeda throughout the U.S.
U.S. citizens need to understand there are people trained and prepared to carry our suicide missions in the U.S. and nothing are off limits. Churches, malls, and even the schools our children attend are not off limits to suicide bombers. It is only a relatively short time before the U.S. will begin seeing suicide terrorist missions.
|
|
From Attorney General Eric Holder down to Code Pink, from George Soros to the spring-butt arch-liberals of Hollywood, nobody takes treason seriously anymore. Oh, our Justice Department may go after a leaker who embarrasses President Obama. But those who steal hundreds of thousands of classified documents, accept the stolen goods, publicize them—and then print them in newspapers “in the public interest” are safe from serious consequences.
Labels: code pink, family security matters, George Soros, Ralph Peters, traitors, treasonous bastards
|
Democrats have apparently forgotten about the harsh rhetoric that they claim sparked the Tucson shooting in January during which Rep. Gabrielle Gifford and more than a dozen others were shot. What else could explain Democrats' efforts to enrage sensitive walker-reliant and wheelchair-bound Americans with the following "harsh" and "vitriolic" rhetoric: "Make no mistake about it, the Ryan budget is a war on seniors"; "Republicans are literally trying to kill Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid"; "This Republican path to poverty passes like a tornado through seniors' nursing homes." That's called "new tone," folks. How it differs from "old tone," we haven't the slightest.
Labels: 2011 budget, blood sucking heartless dhimmicrats, dcexaminer, greedy manipulative coniving democrats, medicare, Paul Ryan, sneaky devious evil dhimmicrats, social security, The Hill
|
Gas wars: The battle lines are drawn for this summer’s gas price blame game. Sen. Richard Blumentahal (D-Conn.) told Face the Nation that Obama should issue subpoenas and convene a grand jury to “uncover the potential wrongdoing” by oil companies. GOPers, meanwhile, are going to pin the blame squarely on Obama’s offshore oil drilling moratorium which has already decreased domestic offshore oil production by 13% this year. The wild card, however, will be Libya. A plurality of Americans blames unrest in the Middle East for high gas pries. If Obama continues to look clueless on Libya, expect these issues to blend together.Issue subpeonas; drag their asses in front of Congress. Make them confess. Typical marxist drivel. Its those eeeeeevulllll oil companies.
Labels: bad oil, big oil, dcexaminer, domestic energy, domestic oil production, domestic security, Libya, petroleum
|
Labels: 2nd Amendment, ammo, Lucky Gunner, machine guns
|
Lenin once said that, "It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed." Environmentalists second this wholeheartedly when they restrict the ownership and control of private property through the guise of saving the environment.Of the 365 days in the year, perhaps THIS one would have been a better choice for Earth Day. Yesterday would have been a much better day. The struggle between the ideas of "conservation" and "preservation" strike a balance between the needs of humanity both physically and spiritually. John Muir was a true champion of preservation. Gifford Pinchot developed the idea of "sustainable resource developement."
Lenin's political philosophy knew nothing of morality, he once said that, "There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel." Some environmentalists take this to heart as well, placing metal spikes in trees so that when these trees get to lumber mills the spike will ruin the saws and have in some cases injured or even killed mill workers.
Noted environmental genius, former Vice-President Al Gore, said in his book Earth in the Balance, "Adopting a central organizing principle means embarking on an all-out effort to use every policy and program, every law and institution, every treaty and alliance, every tactic and strategy, every plan and course of action to use, in short, every means to halt the destruction of the environment."
The phase-out of incandescent light is to begin with the 100-watt bulb in 2012 and end in 2014 with the 40-watt.So now we get to import mercury filled Chinese light bulbs, built in EPA exempt, slave labor factories, powered by dirty coal, in the the great environmental paradise of Communist China and transported to the USA using huge ships powered by oil. So, we have that going for us......
Labels: Earth Day, Lenin's birthday
|
It's nice to know that Rankin County, Mississippi, returned Staff Sgt. Jason Rogers "SEMPER FI!"A couple of days before, one of them ran his mouth at a Brandon gas station and got his ass waxed. Police were called and the beaten man could not give much of a description of who beat him. When they canvassed the station and spoke to the large crowd that had gathered around, no one seemed to remember anything about what had happened.
Rankin County handled this thing perfectly. There were many things that were put into place that most will never know about and at great expense to the county.
Most of the morons never made it out of their hotel parking lot. It seems that certain Rankin county pickup trucks were parked directly behind any car that had Kansas plates in the hotel parking lot and the drivers mysteriously disappeared until after the funeral was over. Police were called but their wrecker service was running behind and it was going to be a few hours before they could tow the trucks so the Kansas plated cars could get out.
A few made it to the funeral but were ushered away to be questioned about a crime they might have possibly been involved in. Turns out, after a few hours of questioning, that they were not involved and they were allowed to go on about their business.
Ranking deserves a hand in how they handled this situation.
Labels: mississippi, USMC HEROES, Westboro, Westboro Baathist Cult
|
Labels: Richmond VA
|
...taking part in ROTC gave him second thoughts about the military. "He said, 'I don't want people to follow me because I frighten them.' He said, 'I want people to follow me because of the example I set,' " Andrew Goddard said.If that's his view of the military, we are fortunate that he dropped out. However, that training should have taught him that hiding in a room is useless and that the "orders" given by the teacher, however well intentioned, were dangerous.
Labels: 2nd Amendment, brady campaign, students for concealed carry
|
Labels: afp, America, americans for prosperity, free speech, madison, Tax Day Tea Party, The Blaze, wisconsin, youtube
|
Labels: 2nd Amendment, brady campaign
|
It's a profession in high demand in Georgia-Carolina. Both Augusta and Aiken technical colleges say they've had an increase in students signing up to become welders. Demand for the program is so great at Augusta Tech that there is a year long waiting list to be accepted to the program. "With the advent of the energy industry in our area and with their development and crying out for employees, we have waiting lists," said James Price of Augusta Technical College. School officials say projects at Plant Vogle and Savanah River Site will create an increased demand for welders in the coming years.
Labels: education, Georgia, jobs, training, virginia jobs
|
Labels: Buy a Gun Day
|
Accordingly, it is my opinion that carrying a weapon for personal protection constitutes a goodThe Times Dispatch quoted Del. McEachin of Henrico and Rabbi Romer of Congregation Or Ami in their protestation of the opinion.
and sufficient reason under the statute to carry a weapon into a place of worship while a meeting for religious purposes is being held there and it is further my opinion that places of worship can restrict or ban firearms from their premises.
What Del. McEachin and Rabbi Romer refuse to accept is that houses of worship, though they are supposed to be peaceful places, can still be scenes of violence. "...faith communities......will be forced to..... ensure that guns are not present."Calling it "an extreme legal opinion," the group Virginians for Responsible Gun Laws blasted the opinion with statements from state Sen. A. Donald McEachin, D-Henrico and Rabbi Ben Romer of Congregation Or Ami.
"As a faith leader and retired United States Army chaplain, I am appalled at Attorney General Cuccinelli's reckless personal opinion that guns are allowed in houses of worship," said Romer.
"I never allowed them in my synagogue or while a military chaplain in any chapel, even when deployed to combat zones in Panama, Iraq, Bosnia and Kosovo. Our houses of worship are intentional spiritual places of sanctity and safety. Allowing weapons into a holy location devoted to wellness and healing is morally reprehensible."
McEachin, a lawyer and an ordained minister, said faith communities that don't want weapons in services will be forced to post signs and expend funds to ensure guns are not present.
"The assumption will be that guns can be there, even if they are contrary to the spirit of the religious service and the desires of the congregants."
Labels: 2nd Amendment, self defense
|
Remarks of President Barack Obama – As Prepared for Delivery
The Country We Believe In
The George Washington University
Washington, DC
April 13, 2011
As Prepared for Delivery—
Good afternoon. It’s great to be back at GW. I want you to know that one of the reasons I kept the government open was so I could be here today with all of you. I wanted to make sure you had one more excuse to skip class. You’re welcome.
Of course, what we’ve been debating here in Washington for the last few weeks will affect your lives in ways that are potentially (POTENTIALLY? HE CAN'T EVEN COMMIT HERE?)profound. This debate over budgets and deficits is about more than just numbers on a page, more than just cutting and spending. It’s about the kind of future we want. It’s about the kind of country we believe in. And that’s what I want to talk about today.
From our first days as a nation, we have put our faith in free markets and free enterprise as the engine of America’s wealth and prosperity. More than citizens of any other country, we are rugged individualists, a self-reliant people with a healthy skepticism of too much government. (AND YET HE WANTS TO FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORM AMERICA.)
But there has always been another thread running throughout our history – a belief that we are all connected; and that there are some things we can only do together, as a nation. We believe, in the words of our first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, that through government, we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves. (TOO BAD HE DIDN'T REMEMBER THIS QUOTE: Let us then turn this government back into the channel in which the framers of the Constitution originally placed it. --July 10, 1858 Speech at Chicago) And so we’ve built a strong military to keep us secure, and public schools and universities to educate our citizens. We’ve laid down railroads(PRIVATE) and highways to facilitate travel and commerce. We’ve supported the work of scientists and researchers (WHO DID COLT, EDISON, AND WHITNEY WORK FOR?) whose discoveries have saved lives, unleashed repeated technological revolutions, and led to countless new jobs and entire industries. Each of us has benefitted from these investments, and we are a more prosperous country as a result.
Part of this American belief that we are all connected also expresses itself in a conviction that each one of us deserves some basic measure of security. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, hard times or bad luck, a crippling illness or a layoff, may strike any one of us. “There but for the grace of God go I,” we say to ourselves, and so we contribute to (TO CHARITY. WE ARE TAXED TO SUPPORT) programs like Medicare (WHICH DROVE OUT PRIVATE INSURANCE) and Social Security (WHICH IS A PONZI SCHEME), which guarantee us health care and a measure of basic income after a lifetime of hard work (EXCEPT THAT ITS BROKE OR YOU MAY DIE BEFORE YOU GET IT); unemployment insurance, which protects us against unexpected job loss; and Medicaid, which provides care for millions of seniors in nursing homes, poor children, and those with disabilities. We are a better country because of these commitments. I’ll go further – we would not be a great country without those commitments.
For much of the last century, our nation found a way to afford these investments and priorities with the taxes paid by its citizens (AND MASSIVE BORROWING). As a country that values fairness, wealthier individuals have traditionally (BEEN FORCED TO BEAR SINCE 1913) born a greater share of this burden than the middle class or those less fortunate. This is not because we begrudge those who’ve done well – we rightly celebrate their success. Rather, it is a basic reflection of our belief that those who have benefited most from our way of life can afford to give a bit more back. Moreover, this belief has not hindered the success of those at the top of the income scale, who continue to do better and better with each passing year.
Now, at certain times – particularly during periods of war or recession – our nation has had to borrow money (THEN HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN EVERY YEAR BESIDE THOSE) to pay for some of our priorities (WHEN HAS CONGRESS EVER PRIORITIZED?). And as most families understand, a little credit card debt isn’t going to hurt if it’s temporary (TEMPORARY IS THE KEY WORD. WE'VE BEEN IN DEBT FOR HOW LONG?)
But as far back as the 1980s, America started amassing debt at more alarming levels, and our leaders began to realize that a larger challenge was on the horizon. They knew that eventually, the Baby Boom generation would retire, which meant a much bigger portion of our citizens would be relying on programs like Medicare, Social Security, and possibly Medicaid. Like parents with young children who know they have to start saving for the college years, America had to start borrowing less and saving more to prepare for the retirement of an entire generation. (AND YET YOU CONGRESSMEN STILL DID NOTHING)
To meet this challenge, our leaders came together three times during the 1990s to reduce our nation’s deficit. They forged historic agreements that required tough decisions made by the first President Bush and President Clinton; by Democratic Congresses and a Republican Congress. All three agreements asked for shared responsibility and shared sacrifice, but they largely protected the middle class, our commitments to seniors, and key investments in our future. (REALLY, WHAT AGREEMENTS. OUR DEBT CONTINUED TO GROW EVEN DURING THE SO-CALLED SURPLUS).
As a result of these bipartisan efforts, America’s finances were in great shape by the year 2000. We went from deficit to surplus. America was actually on track to becoming completely debt-free, and we were prepared for the retirement of the Baby Boomers.
But after Democrats and Republicans committed to fiscal discipline during the 1990s, we lost our way in the decade that followed. We increased spending dramatically for two wars and an expensive prescription drug program – but we didn’t pay for any of this new spending. Instead, we made the problem worse with trillions of dollars in unpaid-for tax cuts – tax cuts that went to every millionaire and billionaire in the country; tax cuts that will force us to borrow an average of $500 billion every year over the next decade. (TAX CUTS DON'T NEED TO BE PAID FOR. IT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO SPEND WITHIN YOUR MEANS. AND CONSERVATIVES DIDN'T LIKE THAT LIBERAL DRUG PLAN EITHER. AND PAST CUTS DON'T FORCE FUTURE SPENDING.)
To give you an idea of how much damage this caused to our national checkbook, consider this: in the last decade, if we had simply found a way to pay for the tax cuts and the prescription drug benefit, our deficit would currently be at low historical levels in the coming years. (IF YOU HADN'T SPENT ALL THIS MONEY, WE'D ALSO BE IN GOOD SHAPE, STIMULUS BOY.)
Of course, that’s not what happened. And so, by the time I took office (AS A SENATOR? OH WAIT, YOU VOTED PRESENT.), we once again found ourselves deeply in debt and unprepared for a Baby Boom retirement that is now starting to take place. When I took office, our projected deficit was more than $1 trillion (PROPOSED BY NANCY PELOSI AND NOT SUBMITTED TO BUSH SHE WAITED FOR YOU.). On top of that, we faced a terrible financial crisis and a recession that, like most recessions, led us to temporarily borrow even more. In this case, we took a series of emergency steps that saved (BUT DIDN'T CREATE?) millions of jobs (9.8% UNEMPLOYMENT. REALLY?), kept credit flowing (NO ONE CAN GET LOANS FOR BUSINESSES OR HOMES...OH,YOU MEANT FOR GOLDMAN SACHS.), and provided working families extra money in their pockets (THAT THEY HAD TO PAY TAXES ON). It was the right thing to do, but these steps were expensive, and added to our deficits in the short term.(SHORT TERM? OUR DEFICITS ARE EXPECTED TO BE 1 TRILLION FOR YEARS TO COME.)
So that’s how our fiscal challenge was created. This is how we got here (OF COURSE, NONE OF IT WAS YOUR FAULT). And now that our economic recovery is gaining strength (PROVE IT. INFLATION IS UP, JOBS ARE GONE, AND HOUSING IS A BUST), Democrats and Republicans must come together and restore the fiscal responsibility that served us so well in the 1990s (YEAH, NOW THAT THE GOP IS IN CHARGE ITS ALL ABOUT BIPARTISANSHIP. WHERE WAS THIS LAST YEAR WHEN YOU REFUSED TO SUBMIT A BUDGET?). We have to live within our means, reduce our deficit, and get back on a path that will allow us to pay down our debt (YOU GO FIRST.). And we have to do it in a way that protects the recovery, and protects the investments we need to grow, create jobs, and win the future. (SO, IN OTHER WORDS, YOU'RE JUST GOING TO CUT DEFENSE. AGAIN.)
Now, before I get into how we can achieve this goal, some of you might be wondering, “Why is this so important? Why does this matter to me?” (NO, I'M WONDERING HOW YOU CAN LIE LIKE THIS WITHOUT LIGHTENING STRIKING YOU DEAD.)
Here’s why. Even after our economy recovers, our government will still be on track to spend more money than it takes in throughout this decade and beyond. That means we’ll have to keep borrowing more from countries like China. And that means more of your tax dollars will go toward paying off the interest on all the loans we keep taking out. By the end of this decade, the interest we owe on our debt could rise to nearly $1 trillion. Just the interest payments. (I'M GLAD THAT YOU FINALLY READ THE TEA PARTY FLYERS WE LEFT ON YOUR CAR.)
Then, as the Baby Boomers start to retire and health care costs continue to rise, the situation will get even worse (THAT WOULD BE MEDICARE). By 2025, the amount of taxes we currently pay will only be enough to finance our health care programs, Social Security, and the interest we owe on our debt. (2025? YOU ARE LYING. WE BORROW 42%. HEALTHCARE/SS/ETC ARE 56%. WE ARE THERE NOW.) That’s it. Every other national priority – education, transportation, even national security – will have to be paid for with borrowed money. (OR...YOU COULD CUT OUT SOME OF THESE PROGRAMS. WHAT AN IDEA!)
Ultimately, all this rising debt will cost us jobs and damage our economy. It will prevent us from making the investments we need to win the future. (HAS NO ONE TOLD YOU HOW STUPID THAT PHRASE IS? STOP SPENDING IF ITS THIS BAD.) We won’t be able to afford good schools (LOCAL TAXES OR PRIVATE), new research (PRIVATE OR NONPROFIT), or the repair of roads and bridges (WHAT HAPPENED TO THE STIMULUS?) – all the things that will create new jobs and businesses here in America (WELL, EXCEPT FOR, YOU KNOW, BUSINESSES. THEY'LL STILL BE THERE.). Businesses will be less likely to invest and open up shop in a country that seems unwilling or unable to balance its books (STILL READING THAT TEA PARTY FLYER). And if our creditors start worrying that we may be unable to pay back our debts, it could drive up interest rates for everyone who borrows money – making it harder for businesses to expand and hire, or families to take out a mortgage.
The good news is, this doesn’t have to be our future. This doesn’t have to be the country we leave to our children. We can solve this problem. We came together as Democrats and Republicans to meet this challenge before, and we can do it again.
But that starts by being honest about what’s causing our deficit(SO WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO START BEING HONEST?). You see, most Americans tend to dislike government spending in the abstract, but they like the stuff it buys (THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THIS PROBLEM. THE POLITICIANS DON'T HAVE THE GUTS TO STOP THE FREE ICE CREAM.). Most of us, regardless of party affiliation, believe that we should have a strong military and a strong defense (COULD HAVE FOOLED ME. DIDN'T YOU SEE YOUR PARTY DURING THE LAST 20 YEARS?). Most Americans believe we should invest in education and medical research (AND PRIVATE ENTERPRISE DOES QUITE WELL). Most Americans think we should protect commitments like Social Security and Medicare (MOST AMERICANS DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT WILL BE THERE.). And without even looking at a poll, my finely honed political skills tell me that almost no one believes they should be paying higher taxes.
Because all this spending is popular with both Republicans and Democrats alike, and because nobody wants to pay higher taxes, politicians are often eager to feed the impression that solving the problem is just a matter of eliminating waste and abuse (THAT WOULD BE YOUR PARTY) –that tackling the deficit issue won’t require tough choices. Or they suggest that we can somehow close our entire deficit by eliminating things like foreign aid, even though foreign aid makes up about 1% of our entire budget.
So here’s the truth. Around two-thirds of our budget is spent on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and national security. Programs like unemployment insurance, student loans, veterans’ benefits, and tax credits for working families take up another 20%. What’s left, after interest on the debt, is just 12 percent for everything else. That’s 12 percent for all of our other national priorities like education and clean energy; medical research and transportation; food safety and keeping our air and water clean.
Up until now, the cuts proposed by a lot of folks in Washington have focused almost exclusively on that 12%. But cuts to that 12% alone won’t solve the problem. So any serious plan to tackle our deficit will require us to put everything on the table (I TRIPLE DOG DARE YOU.), and take on excess (THAT'S JUST IT. YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE IS EXCESS. IT IS THE BUDGET) spending wherever it exists in the budget. A serious plan doesn’t require us to balance our budget overnight – in fact, economists think that with the economy just starting to grow again, we will need a phased-in approach – but it does require tough decisions and support from leaders in both parties. And above all, it will require us to choose a vision of the America we want to see five and ten and twenty years down the road.
One vision has been championed by Republicans in the House of Representatives and embraced by several of their party’s presidential candidates. It’s a plan that aims to reduce our deficit by $4 trillion over the next ten years, and one that addresses the challenge of Medicare and Medicaid in the years after that.
Those are both worthy goals for us to achieve. But the way this plan achieves those goals would lead to a fundamentally different America than the one we’ve known throughout most of our history. (YEP. A BETTER ONE.)
A 70% cut to clean energy (THAT WOULD BE THE UNICORN FARM). A 25% cut in education(THAT WOULD BE THE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT). A 30% cut in transportation (AMTRAK). Cuts in college Pell Grants that will grow to more than $1,000 per year. That’s what they’re proposing. These aren’t the kind of cuts you make when you’re trying to get rid of some waste or find extra savings in the budget. These aren’t the kind of cuts that Republicans and Democrats on the Fiscal Commission proposed (OH, YOU REMEMBER THAT, EVEN THOUGH YOU IGNORED IT.). These are the kind of cuts that tell us we can’t afford the America we believe in. And they paint a vision of our future that’s deeply pessimistic. (BUELLER? BUELLER? WE'VE BEEN PESSIMISTIC SINCE YOU SHOWED UP WITH PELOSI.)
It’s a vision that says if our roads crumble and our bridges collapse, we can’t afford to fix them (UH, NO. IT SAYS THAT YOU PRIORITIZE TO THE BASICS AND NECESSARY, IE, NO EDUCATION DEP'T). If there are bright young Americans who have the drive and the will but not the money to go to college, we can’t afford to send them (THEY CAN JOIN THE MILITARY,WORK, OR GET SCHOLARSHIPS.). Go to China and you’ll see businesses opening research labs and solar facilities. South Korean children are outpacing our kids in math and science. Brazil is investing billions in new infrastructure and can run half their cars not on high-priced gasoline, but biofuels.(YEP BECAUSE THOSE COUNTRIES DON'T HAMSTRING THEIR BUSINESSES. AND BRAZIL HAS A FRACTION OF OUR CARS AND ALMOST ALL OF THE SUGAR CANE. BUT, YOU SURE ARE WILLING TO LOAN THEM MONEY TO DESPOIL THE EARTH FOR OIL AND BUY SOME, AREN'T YOU?) And yet, we are presented with a vision that says the United States of America – the greatest nation on Earth – can’t afford any of this. (UM, NOPE. 1.5 TRILLION IN DEFICIT SPENDING ON YOUR CRAP MEANS THAT WE CAN'T.)
It’s a vision that says America can’t afford to keep the promise we’ve made to care for our seniors. It says that ten years from now, if you’re a 65 year old who’s eligible for Medicare, you should have to pay nearly $6,400 more than you would today. It says instead of guaranteed health care, you will get a voucher. And if that voucher isn’t worth enough to buy insurance, tough luck – you’re on your own. Put simply, it ends Medicare as we know it. (WELCOME TO MY WORLD. EVEN IF YOU DO KEEP IT, WE'LL BE BROKE. BY YOUR VERY WORDS ABOVE. DON'T YOU REMEMBER?)
This is a vision that says up to 50 million Americans have to lose their health insurance in order for us to reduce the deficit (REALLY? THEIR INSURANCE. PAID FOR BY THEM.). And who are those 50 million Americans? Many are someone’s grandparents who wouldn’t be able afford nursing home care without Medicaid. Many are poor children. Some are middle-class families who have children with autism or Down’s syndrome. Some are kids with disabilities so severe that they require 24-hour care. These are the Americans we’d be telling to fend for themselves.
Worst of all, this is a vision that says even though America can’t afford to invest in education or clean energy; even though we can’t afford to care for seniors and poor children, we can somehow afford more than $1 trillion in new tax breaks for the wealthy (ITS THEIR MONEY. HOW COME YOU STILL HAVE YOUR MILLIONS?). Think about it. In the last decade, the average income of the bottom 90% of all working Americans actually declined. The top 1% saw their income rise by an average of more than a quarter of a million dollars each. And that’s who needs to pay less taxes? (AND THAT TOP 1% PAYS 41% OF TAXES.) They want to give people like me a two hundred thousand dollar tax cut that’s paid for by asking thirty three seniors to each pay six thousand dollars more in health costs? That’s not right, and it’s not going to happen as long as I’m President.
The fact is, their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social(IST) compact in America. As Ronald Reagan’s own budget director said, there’s nothing “serious” or “courageous” about this plan. There’s nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. There’s nothing courageous about asking for sacrifice from those who can least afford it and don’t have any clout on Capitol Hill. And this is not a vision of the America I know.
The America I know is generous and compassionate; a land of opportunity and optimism. We take responsibility for ourselves and each other; for the country we want and the future we share. We are the nation that built a railroad across a continent and brought light to communities shrouded in darkness. We sent a generation to college on the GI bill and saved millions of seniors from poverty with Social Security and Medicare. We have led the world in scientific research and technological breakthroughs that have transformed millions of lives.
This is who we are. This is the America I know. We don’t have to choose between a future of spiraling debt and one where we forfeit investments in our people and our country. To meet our fiscal challenge, we will need to make reforms. We will all need to make sacrifices. But we do not have to sacrifice the America we believe in. And as long as I’m President, we won’t.
Today, I’m proposing a more balanced approach to achieve $4 trillion in deficit reduction over twelve years. It’s an approach that borrows from the recommendations of the bipartisan Fiscal Commission I appointed last year, and builds on the roughly $1 trillion in deficit reduction I already proposed in my 2012 budget. It’s an approach that puts every kind of spending on the table, but one that protects the middle-class, our promise to seniors, and our investments in the future. (TELL ME AGAIN....YOU EXPECT TO HAVE A $1.5 TRILLION IN 2011 AND 2012 EACH, BUT YOU'RE CUTTING OUT $1 TRILLION?)
The first step in our approach is to keep annual domestic spending low by building on the savings that both parties agreed to last week – a step that will save us about $750 billion over twelve years (ROUNDING ERROR. OBAMACARE IS 100 BILLION EVERY YEAR IF ENACTED.) We will make the tough cuts necessary to achieve these savings, including in programs I care about, but I will not sacrifice the core investments we need to grow and create jobs. (GOV'T DOESN'T CREATE JOBS.) We’ll invest in medical research and clean energy technology (UNICORN FARTS AGAIN.). We’ll invest in new roads and airports and broadband access (AGAIN, WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT STIMULUS MONEY?). We will invest in education and job training. We will do what we need to compete and we will win the future. (SO, MORE OF THE SAME....)
The second step in our approach is to find additional savings in our defense budget (TA-DAAA! YEP. KNEW IT.). As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than protecting our national security, and I will never accept cuts that compromise our ability to defend our homeland or America’s interests around the world. But as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, has said, the greatest long-term threat to America’s national security is America’s debt.
Just as we must find more savings in domestic programs, we must do the same in defense. Over the last two years, Secretary Gates has courageously taken on wasteful spending, saving $400 billion in current and future spending. I believe we can do that again. We need to not only eliminate waste and improve efficiency and effectiveness, but conduct a fundamental review of America’s missions, capabilities, and our role in a changing world. I intend to work with Secretary Gates and the Joint Chiefs on this review, and I will make specific decisions about spending after it’s complete.
The third step in our approach is to further reduce health care spending in our budget. Here, the difference with the House Republican plan could not be clearer: their plan lowers the government’s health care bills by asking seniors and poor families to pay them instead. Our approach lowers the government’s health care bills by reducing the cost of health care itself. (RATIONING IS COMING.)
Already, the reforms we passed in the (UNCONSTITUTIONAL) health care law will reduce our deficit by $1 trillion (LIE. IT DOUBLE COUNTS SUPPOSED MEDICARE SAVINGS. THAT'S RIGHT IT TAKES MONEY FROM MEDICARE.). My approach would build on these reforms. We will reduce wasteful subsidies and erroneous payments. We will cut spending on prescription drugs by using Medicare’s purchasing power to drive greater efficiency and speed generic brands of medicine onto the market. We will work with governors of both parties to demand more efficiency and accountability from Medicaid. We will change the way we pay for health care – not by procedure or the number of days spent in a hospital, but with new incentives for doctors and hospitals to prevent injuries and improve results. And we will slow the growth of Medicare costs by strengthening an independent commission of doctors, nurses, medical experts and consumers who will look at all the evidence and recommend the best ways to reduce unnecessary spending while protecting access to the services seniors need. (WHAT A LOAD OF BS. GOING TO PAY DOCTORS TO PREVENT INJURIES, STOP WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE, ETC. YOU JUST SAID THAT THIS TYPE OF THING IS NOT ENOUGH.)
Now, we believe the reforms we’ve proposed to strengthen Medicare and Medicaid will enable us to keep these commitments to our citizens while saving us $500 billion by 2023 (WE'RE SPENDING THAT MUCH EVERY SIX MONTHS.), and an additional one trillion dollars in the decade after that (RIIIIGHT....HOW DID THOSE MULTIYEAR PROJECTIONS WORK OUT WHEN WE HAD SURPLUSES FOREVER?). And if we’re wrong, and Medicare costs rise faster than we expect (YA THNK?), this approach will give the independent commission the authority to make additional savings by further improving Medicare. (RATIONING MEDICARE...FIXED IT.)
But let me be absolutely clear (WHY START NOW?): I will preserve these health care programs as a promise we make to each other in this society. I will not allow Medicare to become a voucher program that leaves seniors at the mercy of the insurance industry, with a shrinking benefit to pay for rising costs. I will not tell families with children who have disabilities that they have to fend for themselves. We will reform these programs, but we will not abandon the fundamental commitment this country has kept for generations.
That includes, by the way, our commitment to Social Security. While Social Security is not the cause of our deficit (OF COURSE IT IS, ITS PAID OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND BECAUSE IT WAS RAIDED TO INVENT THE SURPLUS.), it faces real long-term challenges in a country that is growing older. As I said in the State of the Union, both parties should work together now to strengthen Social Security for future generations. But we must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market. (IN OTHER WORDS, SAVE IT, FIX IT, BUT DON'T CHANGE A THING.)
The fourth step in our approach is to reduce spending in the tax code. In December, I agreed to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans because it was the only way I could prevent a tax hike on middle-class Americans. But we cannot afford $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society. And I refuse to renew them again. (OK. LET'S SEE WHAT HAPPENS. AND IF THE ECONOMY TANKS AGAIN, ITS ALL ON YOU.)
Beyond that, the tax code is also loaded up with spending on things like itemized deductions. And while I agree with the goals of many of these deductions, like homeownership or charitable giving, we cannot ignore the fact that they provide millionaires an average tax break of $75,000 while doing nothing for the typical middle-class family that doesn’t itemize. (MILLIONAIRES, AGAIN. SO NO BUSINESS OWNERS ITEMIZE....YOU KNOW THE ONES THAT BUILD JOBS?)
My budget calls for limiting itemized deductions for the wealthiest 2% of Americans – a reform that would reduce the deficit by $320 billion over ten years. But to reduce the deficit, I believe we should go further. That’s why I’m calling on Congress to reform our individual tax code so that it is fair and simple – so that the amount of taxes you pay isn’t determined by what kind of accountant you can afford. I believe reform should protect the middle class, promote economic growth, and build on the Fiscal Commission’s model of reducing tax expenditures so that there is enough savings to both lower rates and lower the deficit. And as I called for in the State of the Union, we should reform our corporate tax code as well, to make our businesses and our economy more competitive. (GREAT! GET RID OF THE INCOME TAX. FAIR TAX! OR NATIONAL SALE TAX! IF WE MUST, A FLAT TAX!)
This is my approach to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the next twelve years. It’s an approach that achieves about $2 trillion in spending cuts across the budget. It will lower our interest payments on the debt by $1 trillion. It calls for tax reform to cut about $1 trillion in spending from the tax code. And it achieves these goals while protecting the middle class, our commitment to seniors, and our investments in the future. (HOW DOES ONE ACHIEVE CUTS WHEN SPENDING IS NOT ACTUALLY REDUCED? HE'S PROJECTED $TRILLION DEFICITS FOR YEARS TO COME.)
In the coming years, if the recovery speeds up and our economy grows faster than our current projections, we can make even greater progress than I have pledged here. But just to hold Washington – and me – accountable and make sure that the debt burden continues to decline, my plan includes a debt fail safe. If, by 2014 (AFTER HE'S OUT OF OFFICE OR RE-ELECTED), our debt is not projected to fall as a share of the economy – or if Congress has failed to act – my plan will require us to come together and make up the additional savings with more spending cuts and more spending reductions in the tax code (SO...IF CONGRESS DOESN'T DO IT THE FIRST TIME, WE'LL ALL GET TOGETHER AGAIN AND LIE ABOUT IT...AGAIN.). That should be an incentive for us to act boldly now, instead of kicking our problems further down the road. (UM, YOU JUST DID.)
So this is (YOUR)our vision for America – a vision where we live within our means (YOU HAVEN'T STARTED YET?) while still investing in our future; where everyone (AS LONG AS THEY'RE "RICH") makes sacrifices but no one bears all the burden; where we provide a basic measure of security for our citizens and rising opportunity for our children.
Of course, there will be those who disagree with my approach. Some will argue we shouldn’t even consider raising taxes, even if only on the wealthiest Americans. It’s just an article of faith for them. I say that at a time when the tax burden on the wealthy is at its lowest level in half a century, the most fortunate among us can afford to pay a little more. I don’t need another tax cut. Warren Buffett doesn’t need another tax cut (HE WOULDN'T BE ELIGIBLE ANYWAY. HIS INCOME IS $100,000). Not if we have to pay for it by making seniors pay more for Medicare. Or by cutting kids from Head Start. Or by taking away college scholarships that I wouldn’t be here without (DAMN. GET RID OF THOSE SCHOLARSHIPS IF IT PREVENTS ANOTHER OBMAMA.). That some of you wouldn’t be here without. And I believe that most wealthy Americans would agree with me (IF THEY DO, NOTHING PREVENTS THEM FROM PAYING MORE. HAVE YOU?). They want to give back to the country that’s done so much for them. Washington just hasn’t asked them to.
Others will say that we shouldn’t even talk about cutting spending until the economy is fully recovered. I’m sympathetic (BS)to this view, which is one of the reasons I supported the payroll tax cuts we passed in December (YOU WERE FORCED KICKING AND CRYING TO IT.). It’s also why we have to use a scalpel and not a machete to reduce the deficit (WHAT PART OF SPENDING 100 BILLION A MONTH DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?) – so that we can keep making the investments that create jobs. But doing nothing on the deficit is just not an option. Our debt has grown so large that we could do real damage to the economy if we don’t begin a process now to get our fiscal house in order.
Finally, there are those who believe we shouldn’t make any reforms to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security out of a fear that any talk of change to these programs will usher in the sort of radical steps that House Republicans have proposed. I understand these fears. But I guarantee that if we don’t make any changes at all, we won’t be able to keep our commitments to a retiring generation that will live longer and face higher health care costs than those who came before.
Indeed, to those in my own party, I say that if we truly believe in a progressive vision of our society, we have the obligation to prove that we can afford our commitments. If we believe that government can make a difference in people’s lives, we have the obligation to prove that it works – by making government smarter, leaner and more effective. (JUST AS LONG AS IT STILL DOESN'T SHRINK.)
Of course, there are those who will simply say that there’s no way we can come together and agree on a solution to this challenge. They’ll say the politics of this city are just too broken; that the choices are just too hard; that the parties are just too far apart. And after a few years in this job, I certainly have some sympathy for this view.
But I also know that we’ve come together and met big challenges before. Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill came together to save Social Security for future generations (HOWEVER, YOU'RE NO RONALD REAGAN AND PELOSI WAS NOT TIP O'NEILL. WHERE WAS THIS CONCERN WHEN PELOSI LOCKED THE GOP OUT OF DISCUSSION OR DIDN'T COOPERATE WITH BUSH, SENATOR?). The first President Bush and a Democratic Congress came together to reduce the deficit. President Clinton and a Republican Congress battled each other ferociously and still found a way to balance the budget. In the last few months, both parties have come together to pass historic tax relief and spending cuts. And I know there are Republicans and Democrats in Congress who want to see a balanced approach to deficit reduction. (AND YET, WHEN DEMOCRATS CONTROLLED BOTH HOUSES, LOOK WHAT HAPPENED! INSANE SPENDING!)
I believe we can and must come together again. This morning, I met with Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress to discuss the approach I laid out today. And in early May, the Vice President will begin regular meetings with leaders in both parties with the aim of reaching a final agreement on a plan to reduce the deficit by the end of June. (THE VP? NOW WE KNOW HE'S NOT SERIOUS.)
I don’t expect the details in any final agreement to look exactly like the approach I laid out today. I’m eager to hear other ideas from all ends of the political spectrum. And though I’m sure the criticism of what I’ve said here today will be fierce in some quarters, and my critique of the House Republican approach has been strong, Americans deserve and will demand that we all bridge our differences, and find common ground.
This larger debate we’re having, about the size and role of government, has been with us since our founding days. And during moments of great challenge and change, like the one we’re living through now, the debate gets sharper and more vigorous. That’s a good thing. As a country that prizes both our individual freedom and our obligations to one another, this is one of the most important debates we can have.
But no matter what we argue or where we stand, we’ve always held certain beliefs as Americans. We believe that in order to preserve our own freedoms and pursue our own happiness, we can’t just think about ourselves. We have to think about the country that made those liberties possible. We have to think about our fellow citizens with whom we share a community. And we have to think about what’s required to preserve the American Dream for future generations.
This sense of responsibility – to each other and to our country – this isn’t a partisan feeling. It isn’t a Democratic or Republican idea. It’s patriotism.
The other day I received a letter from a man in Florida. (DAMN. I THOUGHT WE'D GET THROUGH THIS WITHOUT ANOTHER FAKE LETTER.) He started off by telling me he didn’t vote for me and he hasn’t always agreed with me. But even though he’s worried about our economy and the state of our politics, he said,
“I still believe. I believe in that great country that my grandfather told me about. I believe that somewhere lost in this quagmire of petty bickering on every news station, the ‘American Dream’ is still alive… (WELL, TELL YOUR MINIONS ON MSNBC TO STOP.)
We need to use our dollars here rebuilding, refurbishing and restoring all that our ancestors struggled to create and maintain…We as a people must do this together, no matter the color of the state one comes from or the side of the aisle one might sit on.”
I still believe as well. And I know that if we can come together, and uphold our responsibilities to one another and to this larger enterprise that is America, we will keep the dream of our founding alive in our time, and pass on to our children the country we believe in. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.Labels: Barack Obama
|
Labels: cspan, democrat senate, dingy harry reid, Nevada, Pledge of Allegiance, video, youtube
|
|
Labels: Barack Obama, hypocrisy, lies
|
Universities continue to demand that their students be defenseless. Universities continue the mantra of "Students are too irresponsible to carry weapons." all the while ignoring the fact that those students are 21 years old or older. They are adults that have qualified to carry a concealed weapon. Virginia Commonwealth University does not allow students or faculty to carry on campus. And we all know where Virginia Tech stands.
Amanda Collins found out the hard way that when seconds count.....the police are minutes away. Even when the station is only 300 yards away:
Arizona has become the 23rd state to allow "campus carry."Amanda Collins, 25, is a wife and new mom, and a concealed weapon permit holder for years. At her father's law office in Reno, she showed us the 9-mm Glock she carries for her safety.
"It's got a pretty standard magazine," she said, "and night sights so you can see in the dark when you're aiming."
However, Collins couldn't aim her gun at the serial rapist who attacked her at the University of Nevada at Reno, where she was a student. That's because, like most public colleges outside of Utah and Colorado, UNR is a "gun free" zone. The rule required her to leave her gun at home, leaving her defenseless the one time she needed its protection most.
23 states. Apparently campus carry DOES NOT result in bloodbaths.
h/t Say Uncle and
Labels: 2nd Amendment, SayUncle
|
Please go vote for us, and ask/beg/whine/cajole/whatever everyone you know or meet to please do the same. This would be a huge help for us as we try to do even more this year than we did in our first (three-quarters) year. Please vote, and please help spread the word. Thank you! LW
Labels: B5, blackfive, Cooking With the Troops, Laughing Wolf, uncle jimbo
|
My brother-in-law retired from the Navy, after 30 years of service to our Nation, as a Master Chief. It was a big deal. I was fine until they started reading "The Watch". That one gets me every time. 
Thank you, Master Chief for the privilege of attending your Retirement Service. Thank you for your service to our Nation.
The Watch For thirty years This sailor has stood the watch While some of us were in our bunks at night This sailor stood the watch While some of us were in school learning our trade This shipmate stood the watch Yes..even before some of us were born into this world This shipmate stood the watch In those years when the storm clouds of war were seen brewing on the horizon of history This shipmate stood the watch Many times he would cast an eye ashore and see his family standing there Needing his guidance and help Needing that hand to hold during those hard times But he still stood the watch He stood the watch for thirty years He stood the watch so that we, our families and Our fellow countrymen could sleep soundly in safety, Each and every night Knowing that a sailor stood the watch Today we are here to say 'Shipmate... the watch stands relieved Relieved by those You have trained ,Guided, and Lead Shipmate you stand relieved.. we have the watch..." "Boatswain..Standby to pipe the side...Shipmate's going Ashore.."
Labels: helicopter, Naval Base Norfolk, Navy, retirement
|
A judge has ruled that forcing people to pay into a benefit that is not guaranteed and can be changed or eliminated by future legislation is unconstitutional.
Can I opt out of Social Security now? I wonder if the judge realized the implications of his ruling?
http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/04/judge_rules_3_percent_wage_hit.html
|
An ex-CIA agent and counter-intelligence expert has revealed in a special report that Barack Obama has quietly appointed individuals who are friendly to radical Islam to key posts within the Administration.
Clare Lopez, former professor at the Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies, wrote a policy paper in February of 2009 entitled, 'The Iran Lobby,' which details the systematic appointment of Sharia-friendly advocates within the State Department and other government agencies. While the paper does not deal specifically with the Muslim Brotherhood, information is presented that shows the growing influence of radical Islam within the U.S. government.
Events which are currently unfolding in the Middle East are a consequence of the behind-the-scenes work of Islamic advocates within the Administration.
According to reports issued by NewsRealBlog, RedState, and LaborUnionReport, secret documents released by Wikileaks indicate that the United States government has been in the process of planning social and political upheaval in the Middle East for at least 2 years--beginning during the waning days of the Bush Administration and continuing under Obama. The goal was to push moderate Muslim dictators out the door in countries such as Egypt, while advocating so-called 'democracy' which would then insure the rise of Muslim Brotherhood-supported Islamists to fill the power-gap.
Labels: creeping sharia, Egypt, Examiner, muslim brotherhood, newsreal, Radical Islam, redstate, sharia law, white house
|
Labels: afghanistan, bigotry, books, florida, Koran, Qu'ran, Radical Islam, Washington Times, Wes Pruden
|
|
|
|
If you think all conservatives wear suits you haven't met the United Conservatives of Virginia!
We go where wingtips fear to tread!
