Tuesday, February 26, 2013

As Obama Wails & Screams 
That A 2.2% Cut To 
The Federal Budget Is
'Huge", 'Massive' & 'Painful' 
To His Beloved Federal 
Government, Which Must
Only & Ever Always Grow,
I've Got Just One Thing To Say 
To Him: 


Maybe Obama hasn't bothered to notice, but the REST of the country outside Washington has been tightening it's belt and making do with less for FIVE F**KING YEARS NOW.  

But when Federal bureaucrats up there in Washington are FINALLY coming face to face with a REDUCTION to the amount of money they get to spend, all of a sudden we're treated to hysterical wailing about how this threatens the very foundation of the Republic. 

These sequester 'cuts' aren't even real cuts to begin with.  Federal spending was slated to grow by over 5% this year, just like it has every year Obama has been in office.  Instead of growing the federal budget this year by 5%+, the sequester's automatic 'cuts' trims 2.2% from the spending INCREASE.  

That's right.  Federal spending is STILL going up over what it was last year by almost 3%.  Yet from the way Obama & the Democrats have scare-mongered on this issue, you'd think trimming this spending INCREASE puts the country on the verge of collapse or something.  

Let's get a couple of facts on the table before we go further.  

If trimming 2.2% from a spending INCREASE to a $3.8 trillion budget has Obama in a four alarm FREAK OUT, what's going to happen when real cuts have to be done?  

We've known all along we can't continue to carry trillion dollar deficits.  Yet we've just done it 4 years in a row and are getting read for year #5.  Barack Obama hasn't proposed any spending cuts of his own and is now back out there demanding more tax increases after he just got $600 billion in new tax increases just a few months ago.  And let's remember he got that $600 billion in new taxes without A SINGLE SPENDING CUT. 

Government will never shrink under this President.  He's shown time and again what his true colors are.  He's demonstrated his commitment to Bigger Government at every opportunity.  If the answer wasn't Bigger Government, more spending, more centralized control & planning, then he wasn't interested in the question.  

Reality keeps TRYING to assert itself on Washington, but thus far the bureaucrats up there have been pretty darn successful at shielding themselves from it with our money.  Despite the shrinking of the labor force, the decline in tax revenue, and every other signal that should have told Washington to slow down, since 2007 it's done nothing but ramp it's spending up like a V-2 rocket climbing for the stratosphere.  

From Day 1 Obama insisted we were going to SPEND our way out of this financial crisis. It's now the 5th year of his Presidency and he remains as committed to this insanity as ever.  He can't cut spending because he sees the problem as being too little revenue from taxation.  This is why he insists we don't have a spending problem, and that if the rich would just 'contribute' a little more, we can solve the problem.  

Well he did get re-elected. So we do get 4 more fun years of watching him try to tax and spend the country into prosperity.  I suspect, however, more people are catching on to the fact his policies don't work.  And the sight of him and his supporters continually fear mongering on spending cuts while shilling relentlessly for more tax increases is likely to backfire.  

More & more Americans, as they struggle to buy food, keep gas in the car, keep and find jobs and just basically survive, are going to notice Washington is hysterically carrying on about having to get by on less.  For over 5 years Washington insulated itself from the effects of the recession & 'recovery' as it ramped up it's spending to insane levels.  But now the reality is starting to hit.  

And we're supposed to be all 'boo-hoo-hoo!' for Federal workers and bureaucrats up there in Washington who kept spending like drunken sailors for the past 5 years?  

You know what plenty of Americans are going to say to that?  

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Three Facts To Remember In The
Coming Week As Obama
Scare-Mongers Relentlessly On
The Sequester He Demanded: 

As you listen to all the hysteria in Washington peak over the next couple of days as the March 1st deadline for Obama's sequester draws closer, let's go over some facts: 

Fact #1. $85 billion dollars is less than 1% of a $3.6 trillion dollar budget. It is the equivalent of what the Government spends in 7 1/2 days.  In 2012 the Federal Government was spending $11 billion per day. 


Fact #2.  Spending on our Federal Government doubled from 2000 to 2011.  The Federal Budget in 2000 was $1.7 trillion.  The Federal Budget in 2011 was $3.6 trillion.  In 11 years the amount of money spent on the Federal government doubled.  


Fact #3.  It's estimated Washington wastes anywhere from $125 billion/yr to $1 trillion/yr.  Yet the usual suspects are wailing that tax increases and new spending are the only way out of this crisis.  Those evil spending cuts need to keep being put off indefinitely.  



It depends on how you define 'waste'. As long as no fraud is involved, some people don't count programs such as the ones you'll find in the link below as 'waste' , since all the money was earmarked for those programs and it all went where it was supposed to.  


However spending $175 million taxpayers bucks per year to maintain hundreds of buildings that aren't even being used for anything would qualify as 'waste' in most people's books.  

Remember these 3 facts as Obama spends the next 8 days claiming a budget cut of less than 1% is going to end life on Earth as we presently know it.  

Apparently just going back to 2011 levels of Federal spending is A AWFUL FATE THAT MUST BE AVOIDED AT ALL COSTS. 

The only way we can all be saved is if these evil spending cuts are averted and Obama gets the new tax increases he wants so he can spend new revenue. 

So here he is, getting ready to spend the next week pretending the sequester he demanded and signed into law is some evil cross he has to bear that has been put there by the Republicans.  

UPDATE: Krauthammer on why Obama isn't proffering any solutions of his own to the sequester: 


KRAUTHAMMER: This is the ridiculously hyped armageddon since the Mayan calendar. In fact, it looks worse than the Mayan disaster. Look, this, as you say, can be solved in a day, in an hour by allowing a transfer of funds. It’s incredibly soluble, easily soluble. And the president is the one who ought to propose it. He won’t, of course, because he is looking for a fight and not a solution. But secondly, look at this in perspective. 
In terms of the gross domestic product of our economy this is .03, it’s a third of 1% of our domestic economy. On the domestic side, overall, it’s 2.5 cents on the dollar. And overall, on the non-defense side, it’s a penny-and-a-half on the dollar of reductions. Here we are with a debt of $16 trillion and the argument today is if we cut a penny-and-a-half on non-defense spending in one year it’s the end of the world. If so, we are hopelessly in debt and we’re going to end up like Greece.

Friday, February 15, 2013

Having Just Caused A Wave Of 
Mass Layoffs In January With 
New Tax Increases &
Obamacare, President Obama
Proposes Hiking The Minimum
Wage $1.75 To $9/hr

Alternate Headline: If You've Ever Suspected Washington Shields Itself From the Results Of The Policies It Wants The Rest Of Us To Live Under, You Were, In Fact, Correct

Anyone with 2 cents worth of business sense knows what would happen if already struggling businesses in the present economy suddenly had to face a new increase in their business costs.  Like say, having to pay each and every minimum wage worker an extra $1.75 an hour.  

But since a lot of people out there apparently don't have 2 cents worth of business sense, I'll spell it out:  businesses will shed a lot of minimum wage workers.  Those that remain will end up working reduced hours.  

Now I never went to Harvard. I'm not super smart like many people seem to think Obama is.  If I can see what the real world consequence of this new policy would be if it was enacted, why can't he?  

That brings up an interesting point that was the subject of my latest Twitter rant: People in Washington spend A LOT of time - and a lot of OUR MONEY - shielding themselves from the results of their own polices.  

They truly do come to believe they are this super-special elite class that needs to be exempt from many of the laws they want to make the rest of us live under.  And because the job of being up there and dictating how us serfs should live our lives is such a huge burden, they deserve to be EXTREMELY WELL COMPENSATED for this, as we're going to see.  

Several times in that Twitter rant, I refer to a chart I posted as a photo. Here it is: 

Like all Twitter reading, you start at the bottom waaaay down there and read your way up. 

Thursday, February 7, 2013

Two Examples Of How Lefty Outrage
Depends On WHO'S Doing It,
Not WHAT They're Doing

Alternate Headline: If You Ever Suspected It Wasn't About Principle At All, You Were Correct

I'm President Awesome. I'm above that petty Constitution thing.

EXAMPLE #1: It was revealed 4 days ago that the Obama Administration has in place a policy in which the President can put American citizens on his drone strike kill list and kill them without due process. 


We only found out this was official policy because someone leaded the documents to NBC News. 

In fact, at least 2 American citizens that we know of have ALREADY been killed without due process because of this policy. One was a 17 year old boy with no real ties to terrorist activity besides having terrorists for relatives: 

This 17 year old American was summarily executed by a drone strike 
on our President's direct orders because he lacked a 'more responsible father'. 


If this was George W. Bush's administration being found to have this drone strike  policy targeting Americans with no due process, do you really need ME to point out what a four-alarm, full scale, maximum volume FREAKOUT this would have caused on the Left and in the MSM? 

It's day 4 of this scandal and Obama hasn't even had to address it yet because the MSM isn't making it an issue. They are not DEMANDING he respond to it.  
Look, I already said these drone strikes that kill American citizens
without due process are legal, ethical and wise.  Why would you need
to hear that from my boss? I'm not good enough for you? 

Do you think the MSM would content itself with hearing a mild denial from Press Secretary Ari Fleischer on behalf of George Bush?  Hell no they wouldn't.  They would DEMAND Bush drag his sorry ass over to a microphone and answer himself.  But Obama won't have to do this because the MSM is not going to press him on it.  

They'll let Obama make his case through his spokespersons, ask a question or two, and then DROP IT as fast as they can.  

EXAMPLE #2:  The MSM & the Left browbeat Palin & Conservatives over the head about the Tucson Arizona mass shooting last year in which a crazy Jared Loughner shot Rep. Gabby Giffords and 6 other people, making wild, unsubstantiated claims that Palin and the Tea Party had 'inspired' Loughner's deadly attack.  

Jared Loughner: Obvious Tea Party Member, right?

They did everything they could think of for several months to keep this meme alive that somehow Loughner had been 'influenced' to do this mass shooting by a woman he didn't follow and a map he never saw and a movement he never joined or talked about.  

As I said in a blog post last April: 
Old Media didn't even wait a day to begin charging that gunman Jared Loughner must have been a right-wing Tea Party-type driven to finally act because of an 'atmosphere of hate' supposedly created by people like Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh. When the facts came out, it was revealed that Loughner wasn't Conservative, was politically Leftist, didn't listen to talk radio, and had had mental problems for years before the Tea Party even existed.
Here's Ed Schultz, Bill Press & Howard Kurtz, then Debbie Wasserman Schultz all laboriously...oh so very laboriously...attempting to connect the dots: 


Jacob Weisberg's tortured reasoning was pretty standard for the kind of stuff that appeared on Lefty blogs for weeks afterward: 

Newsbusters called the MSM out for engaging in this wish-fulfillment slander: 

Last August a man named Floyd Corkins II entered the headquarters of The Family Research Council intending on committing a mass murder.  Unfortunately FRC is one of those icky places that has an armed security guard, so ol' Floyd didn't get very far in his attempt at the whole mass murder thing.  He shot the guard, but only hit him in the arm. The armed guard then tackled him and disarmed him.  

In court yesterday Corkins dropped this bombshell:  


That's right. This hate-filled Lefty went to  the website of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a hate group that tends to label every OTHER group it disagrees with as a 'hate group'.  You follow that sentence correctly?  OK.  

As it so happens, because FRC opposes gay marriage, SPLC calls it a 'hate group', right up there with Westboro Baptist Church of Fred 'God Hates Gays!' Phelps fame.  

So ol' Floyd had decided to shoot some anti-gay people but he needed help picking a target.  It was REALLY AWESOME of the SPLC to have this whole HATE MAP thing on their website, because he said in court it aided him in choosing where to launch his homicidal one man crusade.  

Note that this is EXACTLY what the MSM and the Left accused Palin & the Tea Party of doing in the Tucson Massacre without A SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE.  

If you were waiting for the major network news shows to report that fact to you, you were waiting in vain: 


It was huge news. A map targeting those with opposing viewpoints led to a tragic attack. Partisan rhetoric was out of control and fringe-types were being driven to commit gun crimes. Except that, in the case of the Gabby Giffords shooting two years ago, none of those things were even remotely true. But that didn’t stop the media from breathlessly conjecturing that a target-festooned map on Sarah Palin’s website had pointed Jared Loughnerto Rep. Giffords, and that Palin’s “reload” rhetoric made him shoot.
But now we have a case in which a politically motivated shooter has confessed to choosing his targets according to a map. In fact, it was a “hate map” created by the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). But ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN aren’t talking.

They have a narrative. They are just waiting for an excuse to use it. And when a case even remotely close to what they 'need' for their narrative comes along, they shoehorn it to fit even if it means trying to pound a square peg into a round hole. 

But there's also the OPPOSITE: a case that comes along that DOESN'T fit their narrative. In fact, there are things that HURT the narrative they'd like to be telling you.  So they just drop those inconvenient facts out of their story.

And when you point out what they are doing, they keep telling you what an awful person YOU are.

How about stopping the partisan political games in your 'news coverage' and just admitting you're nothing but propaganda shills?  That you'll drop facts from your reporting if it's gonna hurt The Glorious Cause?  

UPDATE: MSNBC host Toure already made it clear he's flipped 180 degrees on this drone strike thing.  Wouldn't tolerate it under Bush, but hey, Obama's the Commander in Chief, baby! 

Now Krystal Ball [yes, that's her real name], the host of MSNBC's The Cycle, joins him in '180 Degree Flopville': 


MSNBC’s co-host of The Cycle, Krystal Ball, took on the notion circulating in the media that liberal supporters of President Barack Obama are engaging in hypocrisy when they defend the executive’s authority to execute drone strikes on Americans overseas. Some claim that they would never support this power if the president were a Republican. Ball agreed with this point, conceding that she would not support President George W. Bush having this authority. However, she said that Obama is a “fundamentally responsible actor” while Bush regularly “displayed extraordinarily lapses in judgment.”
Ball said that she did harbor some reservations about the way in which the drone program has been administered by the Obama administration. Overall, however, she said that she is comfortable with Obama having the authority to execute American citizens overseas extra-judicially.
So this is how it's going to go. All the Lefty talking heads will admit they 'trust' Obama with this kinda extra-Constitutional power that circumvents due process, while at the same time admitting they'd TOTALLY FREAK OUT if this kind of power had been in Bush's hands.  The media will take a few lame defenses of this from Jay Carney and then everybody will move on next week to the new topic du jour.  

They keep demonstrating they believe in an elite class that can 'trusted' with these kinds of  contra-Constitutional powers just as long as these elites are the 'right' kind of people - Leftists. They're totally cool with it.  But their palms get sweaty and their knuckles turn white if they think about some goddamn Conservative or Republican holding that kind of unConstitutional powers.  

They don't want rule of law. They want rule of men. And that is PRECISELY what our system of government is set up to AVOID and PREVENT.   There can be no real excuse for deliberately undermining the very foundational principle of American government. 

Tuesday, February 5, 2013

We Need To Remember What
The Lapdog Media Considers
The OTHER Half Of It's Job

It's not just slanting the news they DO cover with fancy edits - like those that just got NBC News President Steve Capus fired.

No, there's another whole side to how the Lapdog Media goes about being the propaganda arm of the DNC & the White House.  It's by how they decide what ISN'T news.

And the past week has provided several sterling examples of this:

1. Where are the Benghazi survivors? - The pre-planned, organized terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi on 9/11/12 was over four months ago.  Congress convened hearings 2 1/2 months ago on how Benghazi happened, who was responsible and what can be done to prevent it's happening again. 

While 4 Americans died in this terrorist attack, 30+ managed to escape alive - chiefly due to the heroic actions of two men who fell in the attack, Tyrone Woods and Glenn Doherty.  You would think the eyewitness testimony of the survivors of the attack would be pretty pertinent information in figuring out what happened that night.  

Unless of course what happened that night is a story that must never be told because it would contradict the Obama Administration's already quite public version of how Benghazi went down.  

  • They have denied repeatedly that they refused to send any help to Benghazi while the attack was underway while refusing to say if they did in fact receive any communications requesting aid.  
  • They have denied that Woods & Doherty were ordered to stand down and stay at the CIA Annex building, a direct order that Woods & Doherty then disobeyed. 
  • They claimed for almost a month afterwards there was 'no evidence' that Benghazi was a planned terrorist attack while simultaneously blaming a 'YouTube video' for causing a 'spontaneous demonstration' that got out of hand.  This despite the fact not one shred of evidence has ever surfaced there was ANY kind of demonstration anywhere near our consulate on 9/11/12.  

Eyewitness testimony from people under oath who were there day would likely contradict many of the claims Obama & Co. have been making since the event occurred. 

Yet the media can't seem to get interested in why over 4 months after the fact not a single one of the Benghazi survivors has come before Congress to testify about what really happened that awful night.  Senators & House Reps. have complained repeatedly about this, trying to get an answer from both the White House and the State Dept. about why their repeated requests to talk to these Benghazi survivors haven't produced any witnesses.  

According to Google, note it's only the New Media asking where the Benghazi survivors are: 

Which Media Outlets Are Asking Why No Testimony From Benghazi Survivors?

As it stands right now, the complete stonewalling of the White House on this could lead  to the Congressional committee investigating Benghazi subpoenaing  the Administration to discover who these survivors are so they can testify about what happened that night.  

If that happens the sight of the MSM struggling to explain to the people that follow it why Congress is having to FORCE the White House to let these people testify about what happened will be fun to watch.  

2. The Menendez Scandal - a sitting Democratic Senator was revealed to be under investigation by the FBI since June of last year for accepting illegal favors from a big political donor and engaging in sex with prostitutes in the Dominican Republic after being flown down there on this donor's own private jet.  This story actually broke last November when Drudge Report & The Daily Caller revealed it.

Daily Caller Story From November 1, 2012

New allegations surfaced two weeks ago of other illegal favors and the fact the FBI investigation of Menendez was still ongoing.  One new twist was that now the investigation had found evidence several of the prostitutes in this story were underage.  The New Media covered this for two weeks while the Old Media sniffed and ignored it, claiming there was still no story here.  

Despite the fact this news first broke last November, the MSM couldn't get interested in this Menendez scandal until 2 things happened: 

1. The FBI investigation was revealed to ongoing and to have turned up plenty of new allegations besides the DR sex parties with underage girls. 

2. Last week the big donor's business was under FBI surveillance & when a truck from a paper shredding service pulled up out front the building was quickly raided to prevent the destruction of any evidence.  

Readers Of NYT's Go "Prostitution Scandal? What Prostitution Scandal? 1st I've Read Of This In The NYT's!

Forced to cover the scandal at this point, the MSM has limited itself to merely discussing Menendez's denials of any wrong doing.  Had this been a Republican caught doing this, you can rest assure the Lapdog Media would be rushing investigative journalists to the Dominican Republic and New Jersey to start furiously digging.  

Of course, there's no reason to do any furious digging into the story here because the it's the wrong sort of target. 

3. IRS report projects that in 2016 the cheapest family health insurance plan will be $20,000 - When he was selling his Obamacare monstrosity to the American public, Obama was fond of saying his new boondoggle would 'bend the cost curve downward'.   He also threw out the figure $2,085 a few times as being the 'cheapest' family plan's cost.  

Last week the IRS released an official report after crunching all the numbers and said the cheapest family health insurance plan for a family will be $20,000.  


So turns out according to the IRS Obama  was only off by a factor of 10.  

And as yet, over 5 days after the IRS released this report, not one Lapdog Media outlet has breathed a word about it: 

Google Search For 'IRS Report Family Insurance Plan $20,000

Anyone solely trusting the MSM for important news impacting them and their family is gonna be in for one hell of a shock later on while people who surf the net and don't participate exclusively  in the Big Brother Media Complex  will be much better informed.  

Well there  you have it. 

Last week the MSM decided to cover these 3  important stories with the overwhelming sound of......*crickets*.  

The Lapdog Members of the Big Brother Media Complex are VERY well aware of what the OTHER half of their job is, even if plenty of people haven't realized it yet.  

Saturday, February 2, 2013

California Governor Jerry Brown
Tries To Copycat Texas Governor
Rick Perry's Economic Miracle In
Texas By.......................
Waving Around A Piece of Paper
At A Press Conference

At least Perry waited until after a year and a half of belt tightening following billions in across-the-board cuts to state spending & getting to a surplus BEFORE bragging about it.  


Note the negative spin the NYT's puts on Texas' budget surplus.  The article is one long downer - oh no, politicians in TX are arguing over what to do with all this surplus money! 

California?  Look at the marked CONTRAST to how the NYT's handles a state with a $27 billion deficit last month that merely ANNOUNCES it's intention to balance it's budget: 
"I just waved my hands like this and that $27 billion deficit just went 'POOF!'"

“The deficit is gone,” Mr. Brown proclaimed, standing in front of an array of that-was-then and this-is-now charts that illustrated what he said were dramatic changes in California’s fortunes. 
“For the next four years we are talking about a balanced budget,” he said. “We are talking about living within our means. This is new. This is a breakthrough.” 
Mr. Brown was not just talking about a balanced budget. He projected that the state would begin posting surpluses starting next year, leading to a projected surplus of $21.5 million by 2014, a dramatic turnaround from the deficit of $26 billion — billion, not million — he faced when he was elected in 2010.
That's right. Brown called a press conference and announced CA's $27 billion deficit from just last month has now been 'erased'.  Note the deceptive headline of the NYT's, as if this balanced budget has already been achieved.

Back From the Fiscal Abyss, California Balances Its Budget

It needs to be remembered these guys were over $7 billion off in their budget deficit projections last year.  Not only that, they grew their budget deficit from $9 billion at the start of 2012 to over $27 billion in just one year.  They kept jacking up their tax rates then watching the revenues drop as taxpayers and businesses fled the state in droves.  

So one state cut it's budget and went through a brief period of making do with less, and is now reaping the fiscal rewards of that, while the other kept spending like drunken sailors and jacking up their taxes and borrowing to make up the shortfall.  The NYT's sees only silver linings and blue skies for CA, while pointing out TX has a real problem on it's hands.

What I suspect is that Brown is engaging in this Kabuki Theater here to convince the lending institutions that have been threatening to cut off the state's credit & borrowing ability  to continue shoving more money into CA's state treasury so they can spend it. 

It's an attempt to fool credit raters and banks into thinking the politicians in Sacramento have AT LAST gotten serious about dealing with their over-the-top spending problem.  I don't think any of them will be fooled, and they will instead take the wiser 'wait and see' approach to discern if Brown & Co. actually follow through on this proposed budget for 2013-14.  

I'd love to see CA balance it's budget in a year and follow the example of Texas. Nobody wants to see the state fail and end up being bailed out.   The question is if there will be any real, committed follow-through on what Brown announced last week.  

Perry & Texas has demonstrated it IS possible to go from $27 billion in the hole to having a surplus in less than 2 years.  But Texas' attitude towards businesses and taxpayers is MARKEDLY DIFFERENT from CA's.  So I remain skeptical. 

UPDATE:  Thanks to @rdbrewer4 for the link in the sidebar at Ace of Spades HQ! Welcome to my fellow members of the Moron Horde! 

All non-Moron Horde blog readers are encouraged to head over and check out Ace's blog - it's awesome & I read it every day: 

Ace Of Spades Blog