Clarification of FACT: The Amendments to the Constitution, ie, the Bill of Rights, that guaranteed citizens' rights and freedoms, are not rights granted to the individual FROM government, rather they are expressly the individual's inalienable rights! In other words, these are rights that can only be transferred with the consent of the person possessing those rights. A result of the Founding Fathers exhaustive study of history, the ancient civilizations of Greece and Rome, the Protestant Reformation, thinkers such as Voltaire, Montesquieu, and Rousseau and the single most important influence that shaped the founding of the United States, the writings from John Locke. Remember, in the view of many colonists, British rule suppressed political, economic, and religious freedoms. Many of those that hesitated to support independence were soon convinced by the passionate words of Thomas Paine, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, and eventually John Adams and Thomas Jefferson (The Federalist Papers). The Bill of Rights helps to define the American political system and the government's relationship to its citizens. Do not easily surrender you rights because of a horrific incident. Think. Learn. Decisions made today can and will have major impact on future generations. Did you study history enough to usurp the intentions of the Founders? Perhaps a major issue with society today is that we have moved too far away from the intent of the Founders?

Thoughts on the Connecicut tragedy

OK< thought long and hard about this tragedy over the weekend. Really hard to get my thoughts around insanity but here is what I think: HEARTBREAKING. The american media are more propagandists than investigative journalists...at least what I remember from being a very young boy in line with Woodward & Bernstein, ie Deep Throat. But I remember...here is the most informative, fact based recap I have found... http://bit.ly/V1Ohiu Again, has to come from overseas, sadly.

As is always the case with the insane, there is MUCH more to it than the inanimate object, the gun, in this case handguns. sad, sad. sad. God Bless these innocent souls. Turns out (why I said Friday let us not comment until the facts are clear) the Mom, well, she was a wacker too!! A loon, survivalist....and he (son) was too, they knew. Daddy, too busy being corporate for GE (I worked for them, it's is all consuming, but no excuse, you should have been more involved, you would have seen your son was NOT NORMAL), mom a survivalist with a dysfunctional "brilliant" kid...where have we heard this before? Hmm?

I believe this administration will have a knee jerk reaction with bad policy, (why change) but let me offer contrary view. No-one is happy there has been a spat of these loons of late. But, we "outlawed" illegal drugs how many years ago? Well, under Pres Nixon in 1972. How's that working? Any improvement? At a cost of how much? For what result? Money well spent? .....the crazy, the criminal, the insane, those with no morals, no values, no sense of right or wrong will always find a way.

I think the real question is, ....Remember the good old days when little kids played cowboys and indians with cap guns then grew up to be law abiding, non-violent citizens? What has changed in our society? That is something to look at, no??? That is the core issue IMO.

As to the comments on Germany under the Nazi regime, sorry, factually wrong. The laws adopted by the Weimar Republic intended to disarm Nazis and Communists were sufficiently discretionary that the Nazis managed to use them against their enemies once they were in power. In other words, they didn't need to pass additional laws. Hitler didn't need to impose gun control because gun laws were already in effect (ironically, those original laws were in part designed to disarm the Nazis). Gun control helped the Nazis keep weapons out of the hands of their enemies, but it wasn't a major factor in Hitler's success. BUT, the fact the enimies of the state had no weapons can not be discussed.

Correlation does not imply causation is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that a correlation between two variables does not necessarily imply that one causes the other. (insanity vs guns) just saying.

I think back of the words of the great German Lutheran Pastor, and disodent, Dietrich Bonhoeffer : “We have been silent witnesses of evil deeds; we have been drenched by many storms; we have learnt the arts of equivocation and pretence; experience has made us suspicious of others and kept us from being truthful and open; intolerable conflicts have worn us down and even made us cynical. Are we still of any use? What we shall need is not geniuses, or cynics, or misanthropes, or clever tacticians, but plain, honest, and straightforward men. Will our inward power of resistance be strong enough, and our honesty with ourselves remorseless enough, for us to find our way back to simplicity and straightforwardness?” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Priso

The Buff Doctrine

The Buff Doctrine. 

Political and economic thoughts for revitalizing and energizing America for the 21st Century and beyond.

  

I am not naive. Both political parties running candidates today are part and parcel to the runaway spending binge problem we as a nation face. Pandering for votes, then taking from the public trough to secure these votes. “Bringing home the bacon” those in office call it. Yet borrowing 40 cents of every Federal Dollar being spent is unconscionable. At some point, the insanity must stop, adults must come in to the room and say, “NO”! At some point, unfunded liabilities must be addressed. At some point, the American people, “We the People” must be told the truth about what government can and cannot do. Equality under the law, YES; equality of outcome, NO! I say that day has come. I say “NO”! Today we kick the can down the road no more. We DEAL WITH REALITY!!

Personal

I live in the real world, where there are all sorts of people who believe in all sorts of things. Socially, I lean Libertarian and am HIGHLY UNINTERESTED in minding every body's business. I think I am correct in my core beliefs but, I know I am not God so I do not KNOW I am correct. Thus, as a Christian I still believe in a woman's fundamental right to choose, I believe Roe v Wade was the correct decision. There are choices we must reflect on, make our best decision and then live with the choices we make. Fiscally, I am a staunch Constitutional Conservative and want my government as small as possible. Being conservative doesn't mean one must be an archaic bigot. I want to help those that need it with a hand up, not hand outs. I do not support intolerance and suspect if those that peach intolerance were to live where I live in the NYC metropolis, they may well learn more tolerance.  

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. “~ Matthew 7,1:2 

OVERVIEW

Fundamentally, this election is less about the two candidates than it is about their respective core beliefs: 

 

Let me say that again, it's that important: 

Fundamentally, this election is less about the two candidates than it is about their respective core beliefs!!

Do you stand for limited government, fiscal responsibility, individual liberty, economic freedom, free markets and personal responsibility or do you support the massive, unprecedented growth and reach of the federal government, fiscal malfeasance, crony capitalism, reduced liberty, economic dependence, and the concurrent reduction in our standard of living and the purposeful reduction of American exceptional-ism??

Well?

 

The Federal Government already borrows 40 cents of every dollar it spends. In my view this is immoral and UN-American. Both Republicans and Democrats are responsible for this mess we are in. They both pander to the uninformed and or ideologues. So how to solve it when both are beholden to special interests if not with a responsible, independent, core belief driven grass roots movement?

“A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.” ~ George Bernard Shaw

Again, the question is not “Who are you for?” but “WHAT are you for?” I believe:

Private individuals, entrepreneurs, and companies innovate.

Private individuals, entrepreneurs, and companies are the take risks.

Private individuals, entrepreneurs, and companies create jobs. Create capital. Create wealth and prosperity.

To grow this economy we need to keep taxes low while taking an chainsaw and a scalpel to the waste, fraud, abuse, and the redundant wasteful and inefficient programs unauthorized by the Constitution and slowly ruining our great nation. (When is the last time you heard a government program was cancelled because it wasn't effective, meeting it's stated objectives? Ah, never is indeed correct.) The fact of the matter is that the estimated $16. trillion and growing debt is a hidden tax on future generations. It needs to be attacked.

We are for the most part not "unawares". We simply lack the will and the courage to learn from the failure of Socialist economic experiments around the world. 

To have sustainable consumption you must either create wealth or borrow it. We are borrowing it. Of coarse, it must be paid back. Who or which political party will piss off their core constituency and tell the truth. Socialism offers the prospect of "equality" in consumption, but fails to create wealth. Equal misery is the inevitable outcome, historically proven FACT!! Continue on our current path and we end up indebted to the point we are unable to revive the engine of wealth creation, our economy. 

Let's remember, Capitalism has done more to reduce poverty than any other “-ism" in the history of the world. Fact! Capitalism did not after all create poverty -- it inherited it and had been steadily reducing it.

I reiterate: the question is not “Who are you for?” but “WHAT are you for?” I suggest a return to the core beliefs that made us the wealthiest, most successful nation in history is well past due: Abiding by the Constitution, Promoting Civic and Individual Responsibility, Reducing the Overall Size of Government, Removing lobbyists and special interests with an undue influence, Eliminating the National Debt and Eliminating Deficit Spending. 

 

We are most certainly at a turning point in our history. “Forward” to unchecked Federal control over most of your life or a return to what our brilliant Founder's envisioned- meaningful Constitutional protections for individual freedom.

Knowledge is power. Watch, Read, Listen, Learn, Think. Use your mind to make the most informed decision possible. Let's do everything we can to ensure We the People make the right choice.

Remember

"One of the most important reasons for studying history is that virtually every stupid idea that is in vogue today has been tried before and proved disastrous before, time and again." -- Dr. Thomas Sowell

ISSUES

Immigration

We are a country blessed by immigration, and I am the child of an immigrant. However, do not patronize me with the ridiculous term “undocumented immigrant” when we are discussing “Illegal Immigration”. No country on the planet has as dysfunctional an immigration policy as the United States. Borders, Language and shared Culture are what define a country.

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, 57 percent of all immigrant households in the US. get cash, Medicaid, housing or food benefits from the government -- compared with 39 percent of native households. The highest rates are for immigrants from the Dominican Republic (82 percent), Mexico and Guatemala (tied at 75 percent). The inmates are truly running the asylum in Washington. We've learned that the USDA was pimping food stamps with "novellas" on Spanish-language radio - which they yanked after public pressure. NOW we learn that the USDA has been “partnering” with the Mexican Government itself in order to increase food stamp participation among MEXICANS living in the United States - including ILLEGAL ALIENS! Mexico already uses us as their outsourced welfare state, and now we are HELPING them do it? Despicable!

Why aren't we using incentive to get the immigrants we want, we need; those with special skills? Canada does this, as does Germany and Australia just to name a few. 

Take a look at Canada which offers many of the same things that America does – a very high standard of living, the rule of law, peace, safety.

To determine whom it should let in to live and work, Canada uses a point system. You don't even need a job or employer, just skills. Applicants are awarded points for proficiency in education, languages and job experience. Just why is Canada so ready to accept immigrants with open arms? Because it has to be. The nation is sparsely populated, has a low birth rate, and needs immigrants for population growth – and economic growth. In Canada, almost two-thirds of permanent visas last year were given for economic needs – Canada's economic needs, that is. The country brings in the majority of foreigners to fill labor holes. Only 22% of its immigration was for family reasons: reuniting mothers with children, brothers with sisters, grandparents with grandchildren. In the US., the opposite is true. Only 13% of green cards last year were doled out for economic reasons, while two-thirds were for family reunions.

To continue to not secure the borders, thereby allowing unfettered access to unlimited unskilled, uneducated masses, for which in today's global economy there are no darn jobs that they can support themselves with, let alone a family on, is simply put- MADNESS and national suicide. 

“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.” ― Adrian Rogers

Civilization is fragile. Its continuance requires respect for the law, tough-minded education, collective thrift, private investment, individual self-reliance, and common codes of behavior and civility -- and exempts no one from those rules. Such knowledge and patterns of civilized behavior, slowly accrued over centuries, can be lost in a single generation.

Voter I.D. Laws

Every citizen should be required to possess valid, legal ID; election year or not. And it should be required to vote, and everything else. No excuses! State Governments can provide assistance as needed to those folks who need transportation, or have any other issues so they may get this I.D. Furthermore, it must be free. There is no logical reason whatsoever a non citizen should be able to vote. There is no logical reason a person should be able to vote more than once. There is no logical reason a dead person should be able to vote. In today's computerized world, with database management and spreadsheet management, this is a relatively simple process. My goodness, it's common sense. For YOUR or MY vote to matter there must be rules that are enforceable and not free wheeling chaos. 

Entitlements

"One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results." - Milton Friedman

Simply put, the measure of success for our social safety net programs should be that fewer and fewer Americans must rely on them, not more and more. Helping those who have been struck by unforeseeable misfortunes is fundamentally different from making dependency a way of life. The issue is not merely how much we spend, but how wisely, how effectively.

After 60 years, starting with Lyndon Johnson we're waged our "war on poverty". How's that working out you ask? Well, although the big word on the left is "compassion," the big agenda on the left is dependency. The more people who are dependent on government handouts, the more votes the left can depend on for an ever-expanding welfare state. Not true you say? Give it some thought. 

FACT: America suffers the worst recovery of any recession since WWII. Time to recovery under Obama’s economic plan has now exceeded four times the average rate of recovery for all other recessions and counting. At present signs are that we are regressing rather than moving forward.
Twenty-five million Americans are unemployed or underemployed, we have record numbers in poverty, deep poverty, on welfare and food stamps, on disability. Less people are in the labor pool. Less people are working today than were working on the day Obama took the oath of office. Manufacturing is sputtering, hiring is slowing, housing has never recovered, all while Obama adds crushing debt killing future growth. The US economy is at a juncture and it’s no laughing matter. BHO signed a stimulus bill that even supporters admit was poorly crafted. He passed a health-care bill by buying off special-interest groups and abusing the legislative process; it remains unpopular, cuts costs not one penny and in fact raises taxes on the lower and middle classes significantly all the while degrading the system as a whole. Fact after fact after fact.

So let's change coarse and follow the JFK, Ronald Reagan model I say. Policies that worked, Fact!! It's my opinion that in order for the US to recapture their glorious past, it will be dependent on the ability for the Government to realign their policies with the Constitution. There is no revenue problem, we have a spending problem. Put simply so all understand, The Debt is too damn high!! Germany's debt is 83 percent of GDP, France's, 87 percent. The U.S. debt -- using similar assumptions -- is 100 percent of GDP. Too many people on the take, not enough working people to pay for it all.  Ah, Liberalism, the cancer of a nation. Lord, what fools these mortals be!

FDR said:

"The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fibre. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of sound policy. It is in violation of the traditions of America. Work must be found for able-bodied but destitute workers. "The Federal Government must and shall quit this business of relief."

And yet today, those who say "incentives matter" are branded as heartless and/or racist. Sixty Years of the war on poverty and we have more people dependent upon government support today under Obama than ever before. But each and every program is effective right? None can be cut because they are ineffective, right?We are winning the war on poverty, right? Or perhaps we need to look at each program, drill down, find out what is working and what is not. Then assess why somethings are not working and address them with proactive policy initiatives.

If you don't want to be poor, do three things...
1) Finish High School
2) Don't have a child out of wedlock
3) Don't have a child before you are 21.

That is a start.

Economics and the Economy

We have a system that increasingly taxes work and subsidizes non-work. ~ Milton Friedman

To have sustainable consumption, you must either create wealth or borrow it. We chose to borrow it. Socialism offers the prospect of "equality" in consumption, but fails to create wealth. So, we end up indebted and unable to revive the engine of wealth creation. Who's surprised?

Socialism, no matter how alluring it may sound, leads to one place, and one place only. The equal sharing of misery. Open your eyes people, the history is right there for you to read and learn from.

No country on earth has ever borrowed, spent or taxed it’s way to recovery, let alone prosperity. Fact! This needs to be repeated: No country on earth has ever borrowed, spent or taxed it’s way to recovery, let alone prosperity.

The two parties have a conflict of visions. Republicans view the current levels of spending - an astonishing 24 percent of GDP - as a bizarre exception to peacetime norms in America. Democrats view it as the new normal. For them, any reduction in the inexorable growth of the entitlement state is a cruel betrayal.Truth be told, because entitlement spending has tripled while defense spending declined as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), entitlement spending (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security) is now 10 percent of GDP, whereas defense spending is only 5 percent.

During President Reagan’s two terms, debt as a share of GDP averaged 35 percent. Under President Obama’s recent budget , it would average 71 percent of GDP! Hello, Hello!!!!

A some point, leaders need to lead....blame and class warfare are not solutions.

The figure of 4.5 million jobs created that the Dem's spout is accurate if you look at the most favorable period and category for the administration. However, they failed to use BO’s first year in office. Isn't that rather disingenuous??? When one does that, look at his entire tenure, the facts show a NET gain of only 300000-450000 over the entire course of the Obama administration to date! Further, there are still fewer people working now than when Obama took office at the height of the recession. So basic math equals ZERO NET JOBS CREATED. The USA requires 150000 new jobs created monthly just to keep up with population growth. Reagan, in the last big recession was averaging 300000 to 500000 new jobs per month. 

Consider how policies effect results: that is the issue, not the cult of personality, not the like-ability factor, but which policies benefit the nation, and the people? Facts are funny things aren't they?

What made Americans who we are is a historically unprecedented level of freedom and responsibility. The real danger today is not merely a loss of prosperity, but a loss of the kind of character on which prosperity is based. Are "we the people" already irreversibly addicted to entitlements?

So let's fix it!! 

The starting point is here: Laffer curve explained http://tinyurl.com/86wpypv

I would promote growth through flat-fair tax reform, but certainly even tax reform of the existing system is welcome and long overdue. A regulatory rollback is in order yet that maintains regulations in the public interest for the public good, lower spending is a must, and a steady King Dollar, perhaps even linked to gold. In other words, more incentives for private-sector entrepreneurs and small businesses!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deficits and the Debt

Can someone please explain the need for government to borrow money in the first place. The same question applies to the US, UK, Germany, Greece, Spain and the rest of the world.

There is no "need", there is only political expediency of vote-buying promises that cannot be met with money that will never be paid back (by inflation or default). This is what happens when there are no fiscal constraints anywhere. This is what happens when currencies are backed by nothing and can be borrowed into existence at will by central banks in response to out-of-control spending by politicians.

What we need is sound money, perhaps backed by gold, coupled with balanced budget amendments, and an end to fractional reserve lending.

Tax Reform  

Tax reform is long overdue in this country, I was in favor of Steve Forbes and his Flat tax ideas in the mid 90's. I still favor the concept, or the similar "flat"" or fair" tax plans today. 17&, 13%, whatever, all equal with a pre-qualifier for those at the bottom income brackets....... At 72500 pages, full of loop holes, exemptions, etc..the current tax code is bullshit.

The tax rate matters not when it's collected tax revenue that matters. There are more paid tax preparers in this country than there are police and firefighters combined. “A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues.” ~– John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963 No country on earth has ever borrowed, spent or taxed it’s way to recovery, let alone prosperity. These elected officials on all sides of the aisle better get their shit together before it's too late.

Thee issue politicians constantly forget; that higher tax rates do not necessarily result in higher tax revenues. It is increased revenues that should be the goal. Spending needs to be prioritized (like a business, one just can't raise your rates with impunity) gov't needs to streamline, stop pandering for votes with the taxpayers efforts! Spending cuts now, tax rate cuts, now!

President Obama told Charlie Gibson of ABC News in 2008, whether or not a higher tax rate raises more revenue is irrelevant to him. He wants a higher rate as a matter of "fairness."

Yet history proves soaking the rich by raising tax rates generally does not work. And, there can be collateral damage in that high tax rates almost always reduce economic activity which hurts everyone. (Another fantastic Obama policy, right?)

In my view the ideal tax rate is one that leads to the most capital investment, jobs and wealth gains for American workers as well as the most collected tax revenue. It’s a delicate balancing act but by stimulating the economy visa-vie Reagan more people working naturally means more people paying taxes and less people receiving government assistance. It there therefore a clear, logical conclusion that growth can be a key driver of reducing both deficit spending and the debt, but, but- only if the gov’t then spends less. If they simply redirect what is saved in depart a to department, well, back to square one.

Unions

I believe unions have done much to our benefit when we discuss unions in the private sector. If a private buniness' workers unionize, and management and Union leadership bargain and agree to terms in good faith, then those terms must be honored.

I do not however believe it is in our best interests when local or national politicians (again, pandering for votes for short term political gain, damn the long term consequences), support “living wage” legislation or “prevailing wage” laws that force contractors to pay more than they might otherwise need to in the open, free market. Competition, yes, even for unions, is a founding principle of capitalism.

I do not support the unionization of Federal or State Employees. Public sector unions have successfully redefined key relationships in our economic and civic life. The unions provide politicians with campaign funds and volunteers and votes, and the politicians pay for what the unions demand in return with public money!! So, the elected politicians who represent us at the negotiating table are not in fact management, that our taxing and spending decisions at the city and state level are in practice decided by our public sector contracts, and that when you put this all together, what emerges is a completely different picture of the modern civil servant. In short, we work for him, not the other way around. You and I make spending decisions the way all households do. We take our income, and we live within our means. In sharp contrast, public employee unions have introduced a whole new dynamic: They negotiate pay and benefits in contracts we can’t rewrite. When the revenues to meet these obligations fall short, they push to raise taxes to make up the difference. Tail wagging the dog, right?

Representative democracy cannot subsist if a great part of the voters are on the government pay roll. If the members of parliament no longer consider themselves mandatories of the taxpayers but deputies of those receiving salaries, wages, subsidies, doles, and other benefits from the treasury, democracy is done for.~ Ludwig Von Mises

"The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service," Yes, public workers may demand fair treatment, but, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place" in the public sector. A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government." ~ FDR

English as  the Official Language of the United States of America

Yes. Does this even need further discussion?

Link Federal Spending as a percentage to GDP

Yes, THRU CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. 18-20% Exception for War, then War Bonds must be sold to Public.

Energy

Build the Keystone pipeline. This is a must. We have millions of miles of pipeline in this country already. Who would you rather import oil from, a staunch ally like Canada or Venezuela, Saudi Arabia? A sound national energy policy must enable Amer­ica to obtain energy supplies from a wide range of sources in a way that is best for the economy and at the same time addresses homeland and national secu­rity considerations. An abundant, diverse energy sup­ply is central to America's freedom and prosperity.

My Obama Report Card:

 
A Guide to the Obama Administration’s Five Major Scandals for Mainstream Media Dummies

1. Fast and Furious.
   
2. Kathleen Sebelius breaks federal law, keeps her job.
   
3. Obama administration leaks sensitive national security information for political purposes.
   
4. Obama administration tells defense contractors to violate federal law. Bonus: Obama administration says it will use taxpayer dollars to pay any government fines incurred.
   
5. Libya.
   

An excellent synopsis on the particulars of each of the aforementioned scandals can be found here: 

a-guide-to-the-obama-administrations-five-major-scandals-for-mainstream-media-dummies/
Domestic Policy-

Sigh. GDP growth was 2.8% in 2010, 1.8% in 2011 and an average of 1.7% this year. We have 47 MILLION people on food stamps - the combined populations of Australia and Canada. The unemployment rate has declined due to the millions of folks who have given up looking for work. What makes this numbers particularly damning is the fact that we were told if the "stimulus" passed, unemployment would be under 6%, yet it hasn't come close to that number while we've seen billions of taxpayer dollars appropriated to now-bankrupt businesses, essentially throwing taxpayer and borrowed money down the drain. Further, if we tracked inflation as we did back in the 70's and 80's - including the price of oil and housing - it would be greater than 15%. But if you have to buy gas or groceries, you already knew that.
Well, we are still standing, trying, so grade- D.

Foreign Policy- There is so much here that I hardly know where to begin, but I shall be brief. History has shown time and again the difference between strength and weakness (Chamberlain vs Churchill), clarity and ambiguity (Reagan vs Carter), ideology and pragmatism (Carter vs Reagan). Our allies don't know where they stand, Czech Republic and Poland after BO unilaterally cancelled agreed to signed missile defense (100% defensive) treaty. Israel, the lone democratic nation in the turmoil that is the middle east where he negotiates in public before negotiations even commence. Jeez, spend a week, just a week in business and let your customers know your negotiating position, see how that works when you go home without your wallet or pants. Our enemies sense weakness, lack of conviction. Make no mistake, we have enemies. Don't hide your head in the sand like Ostriches, pull your big boy, big girl undies up, realize it. Understand, the West is  in a cultural was with radical Islam. Radical Islam is dedicated to the conquest of the world, by any means possible. Radical Islam draws on widely accepted Islamic religious philosophy and customs. However the movement also draws heavily on dangerous ideas that negate basic human rights and freedoms of expression. Not all Muslims are radical, and not all Muslims are politically motivated. In fact, most are not. However, when Muslims adopt a politically motivated, radical ideology, the whole world is at risk. Terrorism is only one of the tactics used by radicals, with new tactics arising everyday. Some are more subtle such as the use of textbooks, while others are outright violent, such as terrorizing those who embrace freedom of speech. We are at a crucial juncture. We can continue "hoping for change", but we must KNOW that by doing so, we risk losing the freedoms for which our forefathers have fought so hard.
Get  involved, educated to the threat and stop Radical Islam's march on our civilization.One last example: Can you ever imagine an American administration returning the bust of Winston Churchill, one of the five greatest statesman ever of the 20th Century to the Embassy of the United Kingdom? No right, would never happen. Yet, it did under the administration of BO. Then they LIED and DENIED. Then the truth was brought to light by the Ambassador of Britain. Then the main stream media refused to cover it further. Then BO visits the Queen of England and as a gift, a gift representing a gift from the American people, gives Her Majesty an ipod filled with his speeches. WTF is going on. The Hubris!! And then, the BO, Medvedev open mic gaffe: BO: “This is my last election,”  “After my election, I have more flexibility.” Medvedev: “I understand,” “I will transmit this information to Vladimir.   ”HUH??? WTF????
 BO did authorize SEAL raid to kill OBL, congrats. Who would not have? 
Grade- C--

Leadership-

I find BO to be overly smug, disrespectful to those who disagree, condescending, and he's shown us time and again thru word and deed why the Obama/Biden administration has been so ineffective in finding bipartisan solutions for our Country. That attitude will never, ever foster bipartisan solutions. I further find him disingenuous on many occasions (kindly using this word) on Libya (really, still sticking to the spin, “We didn’t know”?, REALLY?? I call B.S.!!!) as well as on the “ 5 Trillion dollar tax cut to 120 thousand RICH PEOPLE”. REALLY REALLY??? Do a bit of math and see if it makes any sense.

(P.S.- Debunked by the left itself; see Robert J. Samuelson, Published: October 4th- The Washington Post- here: http://tinyurl.com/8apmt25 )

BO's "thing" is based upon class warfare, divisiveness, and fear mongering. Since when is being successful in America a bad thing???

Grade- F (How can it not be?)

Conclusion

Still thinking of voting for BO? Well I ask: How bad does he have to be before you change your mind?

We are, in my opinion, somewhere between steps 6 and 8, as follows, sadly.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years.
During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: 1. from bondage to spiritual faith; 2. from spiritual faith to great courage; 3. from courage to liberty; 4. from liberty to abundance; 5. from abundance to selfishness; 6. from selfishness to complacency; 7. from complacency to apathy; 8. from apathy to dependency; 9. from dependency back again to bondage."
--Attributed to Scottish History Professor at University of Edinburgh Sir Alexander Fraser Tytler (1747-1813)

"Will you join in our crusade? Who will be strong and stand with me?
Somewhere beyond the baricade is there a world you long to see?
Do you hear the people sing? Say do you hear the distant drums
It is the future that they bring when tomorrow comes

Prayer of Saint Francis

Lord, make me a channel of thy peace;

that where there is hatred, I may bring love;

that where there is wrong, I may bring the spirit of forgiveness;

that where there is discord, I may bring harmony;

that where there is error, I may bring truth;

that where there is doubt, I may bring faith;

that where there is despair, I may bring hope;

that where there are shadows, I may bring light;

that where there is sadness, I may bring joy.

Lord, grant that I may seek rather to comfort than to be comforted;

to understand, than to be understood;

to love, than to be loved.

For it is by self-forgetting that one finds.

It is by forgiving that one is forgiven.

It is by dying that one awakens to eternal life.

Amen.

Excellent pre election reading

Kessler: The U.S. Needs More i-Side Economics- The misallocation of capital is one reason the recovery is stuck between lack and luster.

Synopsis: 
With the right investment-side rather than handout policy, the economy will act like a coiled spring or a super ball—the rebound will be a huge bounce. 

 Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444100404577641280041366306.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

x

Obamanomics Has Failed Dismally
And Ben Bernanke can’t bail it out.

Synopsis: 
Bernanke’s desperate money-pumping plan to rescue the economy is a very blunt admission that Obamanomics has completely failed.

Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/320904/obamanomics-has-failed-dismally-larry-kudlow

The Magnitude of the Mess We're In

The next Treasury secretary will confront problems so daunting that even Alexander Hamilton would have trouble preserving the full faith and credit of the United States.

 Synopsis: This is all bad enough, but where we are headed is even worse. 

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303561504577497442109193610.html?mod=rss_opinion_main 

Mainstream media needs to accept, own its liberal bias

Source: http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2012/09/05/jacoby/wDrjO3kelodOSnF33wDSiK/story.html?camp=pm 

 

 

The 10% President 

Synopsis: The hubris and hypocrisy of the the President.

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444358804578016270614705726.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

For any Liberals reading this, you will have to know basic math to figure this out.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100 and if they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would

...pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.)

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." So drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free...but what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share’? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $15 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before...and the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

P.S,- What is forgotten here is the beer company has their taxes increased and the healthcare cost increased until 3 of the people are laid off so now it is down to 6. Since 5 of them are used to not paying for beer they sue the country, beer company, and the bar for their "right" to have free beer. A liberal judge that has ties to the bar down the street awards the 6 guys free beer at the bar's expense. Since he cannot afford to give the guys free beer, he files with the government for "beverage assistance program". Now the government steps in and subsidizes the beer consumption. Since it is now under the government control, there is a new commission made to determine where the money will come from for the program. Tax the rich!! So, the original guy that dropped out is charged an additional 15% taxes. But since that is not enough to cover the new program and "administrative" costs, the government goes to the Chinese for a loan. Now the guys are drunk, the rich guy is paying for half the beer they drank, and the rest is financed at a 12% interest.

Are Entitlements Corrupting Us? Yes, American Character Is at Stake

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444914904577619671931313542.html

The American republic has endured for well over two centuries, but over the past 50 years, the apparatus of American governance has undergone a radical transformation. In some basic respects—its scale, its preoccupations, even many of its purposes—the U.S. government today would be scarcely recognizable to Franklin D. Roosevelt, much less to Abraham Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson.

Since 1960, entitlement programs have come to dominate the federal budget. Worse, says Nicholas Eberstadt in a conversation with WSJ's Gary Rosen, they have undermined our national character.

What is monumentally new about the American state today is the vast empire of entitlement payments that it protects, manages and finances. Within living memory, the federal government has become an entitlements machine. As a day-to-day operation, it devotes more attention and resources to the public transfer of money, goods and services to individual citizens than to any other objective, spending more than for all other ends combined.
The growth of entitlement payments over the past half-century has been breathtaking. In 1960, U.S. government transfers to individuals totaled about $24 billion in current dollars, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. By 2010 that total was almost 100 times as large. Even after adjusting for inflation and population growth, entitlement transfers to individuals have grown 727% over the past half-century, rising at an average rate of about 4% a year.
In 2010 alone, government at all levels oversaw a transfer of over $2.2 trillion in money, goods and services. The burden of these entitlements came to slightly more than $7,200 for every person in America. Scaled against a notional family of four, the average entitlements burden for that year alone approached $29,000.

Our national character 'may be sacrificed long before the credibility of the U.S. economy,' says Nicholas Eberstadt

A half-century of unfettered expansion of entitlement outlays has completely inverted the priorities, structure and functions of federal administration as these were understood by all previous generations. Until 1960 the accepted task of the federal government, in keeping with its constitutional charge, was governing. The overwhelming share of federal expenditures was allocated to some limited public services and infrastructure investments and to defending the republic against enemies foreign and domestic.
In 1960, entitlement payments accounted for well under a third of the federal government's total outlays—about the same fraction as in 1940, when the Great Depression was still shaping American life. But over subsequent decades, entitlements as a percentage of total federal spending soared. By 2010 they accounted for just about two-thirds of all federal spending, with all other responsibilities of the federal government making up barely one-third. In a very real sense, entitlements have turned American governance upside-down.
Government data on public transfers can be used to divide entitlement spending into six baskets: income maintenance, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, unemployment insurance and all the others. Broadly speaking, the first two baskets concern entitlements based on poverty or income status; the second two, entitlements attendant on aging or old-age status; and the next, entitlements based on employment status. These entitlements account for about 90% of total government transfers to individuals, and the first four categories comprise about five-sixths of all such spending. These four bear closest consideration.

Enlarge Image

Poverty- or income-related entitlements—transfers of money, goods or services, including health-care services—accounted for over $650 billion in government outlays in 2010. Between 1960 and 2010, inflation-adjusted transfers for these objectives increased by over 30-fold, or by over 7% a year. Significantly, however, income and benefit transfers associated with traditional safety-net programs comprised only about a third of entitlements granted on income status, with two-thirds of those allocations absorbed by the health-care guarantees offered through the Medicaid program.
For their part, entitlements for older Americans—Medicare, Social Security and other pension payments—worked out to even more by 2010, about $1.2 trillion. In real terms, these transfers multiplied by a factor of about 12 over that period—or an average growth of more than 5% a year. But in purely arithmetic terms, the most astonishing growth of entitlements has been for health-care guarantees based on claims of age (Medicare) or income (Medicaid). Until the mid-1960s, no such entitlements existed; by 2010, these two programs were absorbing more than $900 billion annually.
In current political discourse, it is common to think of the Democrats as the party of entitlements, but long-term trends seem to tell a somewhat different tale. From a purely statistical standpoint, the growth of entitlement spending over the past half-century has been distinctly greater under Republican administrations than Democratic ones. Between 1960 and 2010, the growth of entitlement spending was exponential, but in any given year, it was on the whole roughly 8% higher if the president happened to be a Republican rather than a Democrat.

This is in keeping with the basic facts of the time: Notwithstanding the criticisms of "big government" that emanated from their Oval Offices from time to time, the administrations of Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and George W. Bush presided over especially lavish expansions of the American entitlement state. Irrespective of the reputations and the rhetoric of the Democratic and Republican parties today, the empirical correspondence between Republican presidencies and turbocharged entitlement expenditures should underscore the unsettling truth that both political parties have, on the whole, been working together in an often unspoken consensus to fuel the explosion of entitlement spending.
From the founding of our nation until quite recently, the U.S. and its citizens were regarded, at home and abroad, as exceptional in a number of deep and important respects. One of these was their fierce and principled independence, which informed not only the design of the political experiment that is the U.S. Constitution but also their approach to everyday affairs.
The proud self-reliance that struck Alexis de Tocqueville in his visit to the U.S. in the early 1830s extended to personal finances. The American "individualism" about which he wrote did not exclude social cooperation—the young nation was a hotbed of civic associations and voluntary organizations. But in an environment bursting with opportunity, American men and women viewed themselves as accountable for their own situation through their own achievements—a novel outlook at that time, markedly different from the prevailing attitudes of the Old World (or at least the Continent).

Enlarge Image

The corollaries of this American ethos were, on the one hand, an affinity for personal enterprise and industry and, on the other, a horror of dependency and contempt for anything that smacked of a mendicant mentality. Although many Americans in earlier times were poor, even people in fairly desperate circumstances were known to refuse help or handouts as an affront to their dignity and independence. People who subsisted on public resources were known as "paupers," and provision for them was a local undertaking. Neither beneficiaries nor recipients held the condition of pauperism in high regard.
Overcoming America's historic cultural resistance to government entitlements has been a long and formidable endeavor. But as we know today, this resistance did not ultimately prove an insurmountable obstacle to establishing mass public entitlements and normalizing the entitlement lifestyle. The U.S. is now on the verge of a symbolic threshold: the point at which more than half of all American households receive and accept transfer benefits from the government. From cradle to grave, a treasure chest of government-supplied benefits is there for the taking for every American citizen—and exercising one's legal rights to these many blandishments is now part of the American way of life.
As Americans opt to reward themselves ever more lavishly with entitlement benefits, the question of how to pay for these government transfers inescapably comes to the fore. Citizens have become ever more broad-minded about the propriety of tapping new sources of finance for supporting their appetite for more entitlements. The taker mentality has thus ineluctably gravitated toward taking from a pool of citizens who can offer no resistance to such schemes: the unborn descendants of today's entitlement-seeking population.

Enlarge Image

Among policy makers in Washington today, it is very close to received wisdom that America's national hunger for entitlement benefits has placed the country on a financially untenable trajectory, with the federal budget generating ultimately unbearable expenditures and levels of public debt. The bipartisan 2010 Bowles/Simpson Commission put this view plainly: "Our nation is on an unsustainable fiscal path."
The prospect of careening along an unsustainable economic road is deeply disturbing. But another possibility is even more frightening—namely, that the present course may in fact be sustainable for far longer than most people today might imagine.
The U.S. is a very wealthy society. If it so chooses, it has vast resources to squander. And internationally, the dollar is still the world's reserve currency; there remains great scope for financial abuse of that privilege.
Such devices might well postpone the day of fiscal judgment: not so the day of reckoning for American character, which may be sacrificed long before the credibility of the U.S. economy. Some would argue that it is an asset already wasting away before our very eyes.