CajunWin4's Blog

Recently,  the White House released  a photo of the president shooting skeet.  But where's the snap of him  fishing for bass?  Apparently the White House felt compelled to portray  Obama as a marksman in light of the widespread pushback over the  administration's gun control agenda but felt no urgency to defend the prospect  of the EPA's potential regulation of lead in fishing weights.  Yet the  agency seriously entertained just such a ban last year.  What's next?   The lead in barbells?

For  hundreds of years, human beings have used lead for many purposes, and life  on earth has not exactly come to an end.  Now we are told that the lead  used in hunting and fishing is harming animals and fish, and it may just have to  stop.  The scary thing is that one individual, an appointed bureaucrat  directing the Environmental Protection Agency, has the power to impose such a  ban.

The  pattern is familiar with this administration.  A small cadre of elite  administrators, czars, judges, or politicians -- often just one person -- thinks  it (or he or she) has the right to decide what's best for 320 million Americans.  Without adequate information, debate, or cost analysis, regulations are written  and imposed, and no one, not even the people's representatives in the House of  Representatives, has the right to influence them.

Political  elites have always existed in America, and during the past 100 years they have  gravitated toward the Democratic Party.  FDR's "brain trust," which  included Guy Tugwell and Hugh Johnson, was just one example.  But perhaps  no administration in our history has been controlled by elites to the extent  that the Obama presidency has.  With academics like Cass Sunstein and crony  capitalists like those backing green energy projects calling the shots, the  elite have stepped in, determined to rule in place of the public  will.

What  is now happening was predicted -- and celebrated -- over forty years ago by  Robert L. Heilbroner, one of the darlings of the New Left.  In The  Limits of American Capitalism, Heilbroner laid out a plan by which the  innately conservative leanings of the American people could be quashed and  replaced by the centralized control of a political elite.  Heilbroner's  book concludes with a chilling vision of the way forward.  What he  advocates is, in effect, a socialist totalitarian state, where the government  controls every aspect of human life.  In the name of reform, this statist  system would regulate if not nationalize all major industries -- but it would  also go farther than that.

What  Heilbroner envisaged was the rise of a ruling elite centralized in government,  media, and the universities.  This group of decision-makers would operate  "on behalf of" the public and on the basis of "scientific principles" of social  control.  As Heilbroner writes, "[n]ot alone economic affairs ... but the  numbers and location of the population, its genetic quality, the manner of  social domestication of children, the choice of lifework -- even the duration of  life itself -- are all apt to become subjects for scientific investigation and  control" (The Limits of American Capitalism, New York, 1966, pp.  129-130).

Heilbroner's  books were bestsellers in the 1960s, widely read and admired by liberals  everywhere.  They were, in effect, neo-Keynesian, pro-statist instruction  manuals studied by the likes of Bill Ayers and Cass Sunstein, President Obama's  tutors in state control and regulation.

Heibroner's  books popularized the liberal premise that the political elite has the right and  obligation to make fundamental decisions on behalf of the mass of citizens.   In doing so, Heilbroner understood, the elite must find ways to subvert  the naturally conservative inclinations of the people -- especially those  lumpen-headed businessmen whom Heilbroner so despised.  Decision-making  must be shifted from individuals and elected representatives to bureaucrats and  judges appointed by leftist politicians.  Public opinion must be shaped and  molded by elitist academics and journalists.  The will of the state must be  imposed, by violence if necessary.  This was the future of America,  according to Robert L. Heilbroner, and it is the vision of America adopted by  those young activists in the 1960s and 1970s who now constitute the leadership  of the Democratic Party.

Heilbroner  believed that it would take hundreds of years to overturn democracy in America,  in part because of the nation's widespread support of capitalism and the  country's pesky tradition of individual rights.  He noted, however, that  the process could be speeded up in the event of a severe economic crisis.   Another great national depression or prolonged recession would make it  possible for government to enact a series of "reforms" that would shift control  from the private sector to government.  Government would then control not  just major sectors of the economy, but the personal lives of all citizens.   Their incomes, their health care, their educations, their home mortgages,  their communications and entertainment, their access to news and information  would all fall under the control of the political elite.  At that point,  Heilbroner believed, utopia would be at hand.

Everything  that Heilbroner predicted is now coming to pass.  Attorney General Holder  has waged a virtual war against Arizona's attempt to defend itself against  unchecked immigration.  Congress has created an office of consumer affairs  with broad powers to regulate financial transactions. A European-style  bureaucrat has been appointed to direct the rationing of medical services.   And the EPA believes that it has the authority not just to police hunting  and fishing supplies, but to regulate carbon dioxide, a natural product of the  act of breathing.

The  preferred modus operandi, in fact, is to appoint a single individual with the  power to control some large part of American life.  So much power has now  been concentrated in the hands of a handful of appointees, most of them  reporting directly to the president, that it is now doubtful whether America can  still be considered a democratic nation.  Government has become the enemy  of the people, because it is now in the hands of left-wing elitists who are  opposed to traditional American values and who have only contempt for the  democratic process.

Fortunately,  Americans are becoming more aware of the concentration of power within the new  political elite and more skeptical of the elite's ability to govern.  While  the president's job approval rating has for the moment risen following his  election victory, a  growing number of Americans "strongly disapprove" of his performance.   An even larger percentage finds that Congress, with leaders like Democrat  Harry Reid in charge of the Senate, is incapable of governing.

What's  needed is to make 2014 another 2010 and throw the rascals out -- all of them who  support Obama's unconstitutional "recess" appointments and agency power  grabs.

by Bryan Preston

February 26, 2013 - 9:34 am

Shortly before U.S. troops stormed Iraq to oust its dictator, Saddam Hussein released thousands of prisoners from Iraqi jails. Some were petty criminals, some were hardcore, some were terrorists. Hussein unleashed them to build his own popularity and to sow chaos.

Today, Barack H. Obama’s Department of Homeland Security is doing this:

The sequester is officially still three days away, but the Obama administration already is making the first cuts, with officials confirming that the Homeland Security Department has begun to release what it deems low-priority illegal immigrants from detention.

The move is proving controversial. Immigrant-rights groups say it shows the administration was detaining folks it never should have gone after in the first place, while Republicans questioned the decision-making.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency that runs the detention facilities, said in a statement that the “current fiscal climate” has forced it to do a review of spending, and part of that is taking a look at who is being detained.

“As a result of this review, a number of detained aliens have been released around the country and placed on an appropriate, more cost-effective form of supervised release,” ICE said in a statement.

The cynicism of the move is breathtaking, even for this cynical administration. The “current fiscal climate” is one in which we are spending more than a trillion dollars per year than we take in. The 2009 stimulus spending is locked in. The sequestration threatens just $22 billion this year — and the president gets to choose where to cut. If the sky falls, it’s being brought down on our heads by this unethical rogue president.

So these releases are his choice. And he’s choosing them for pure racial politics and demagoguery. He’ll blame it all on Republicans, while shoring himself up with the amnesty chorus.

More: The president is also threatening to drop our border guard. In a rational age, these acts would be impeachable. Not too many years ago Californians recalled a governor for offering drivers licences to illegal aliens, and here we have a president flagrantly violating his oath to defend the nation.

 

 

            Feb 24,  2013

It’s one thing for a politician to “massage” the truth ... it happens all the time. But it’s quite another for one to so brazenly repeat an easily disprovable lie.
But, as in the case of President Obama and sequestration, when the fear of being caught in a lie is removed because those charged with being “watchdogs” are active participants, brazenly lying carries no more risk than saying “hello.”
Sequester, automatic across-the-board reductions in the rate of increase in government spending – commonly and lazily called “spending cuts” by the media – was the spawn of the Obama administration. You’d never know it to hear him talk about it. During the campaign the president lied repeatedly about the origin of this monster, but he was the Dr. Frankenstein here.
The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward, in a piece not posted to the Internet until a time generally reserved for incriminating government document dumps (5:59 pm Friday), reminded the world, “The automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House and were the brainchild of Lew and White House congressional relations chief Rob Nabors...”
The president approved the plan put forth by his employees and, in direct contrast to his current rhetoric, agreed to a deal with Republicans that “included an agreement that there would be no tax increases in the sequester in exchange for what the president was insisting on: an agreement that the nation’s debt ceiling would be increased for 18 months, so Obama would not have to go through another such negotiation in 2012, when he was running for reelection.”
He has since won re-election, which apparently means any agreement made beforehand is not only no longer valid, but never happened. The media, too busy focusing on the important issues facing the country such as complaining about not getting a picture of the president with Tiger Woods, haven’t bothered to point out any of this.
Rather than the tough medicine President Obama created to begin, on a miniscule scale, addressing our ballooning government spending, he treats sequester as a Frankenstein’s monster birthed by Republicans. But, as Woodward reminds us, paternity lies firmly at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
I’m not one who is concerned with sequestration. The federal government is spending $1 trillion more per year now than it did in 2008. That’s an astronomical increase in government in four years. The idea that shaving what amounts to a rounding error off the budget will bring about Armageddon is worthy of mockery. If, that is, we had an honest media doing the job it is supposed to do.
But we don’t have an honest media, and as such we have a president predicting things that make doomsday preppers seem like mellow pot smokers.
Should this slight slowing of the increase in future government spending come to pass, Obama told the world, “Border Patrol agents will see their hours reduced. FBI agents will be furloughed. Federal prosecutors will have to close cases and let criminals go. Air traffic controllers and airport security will see cutbacks, which means more delays at airports across the country. Thousands of teachers and educators will be laid off. Tens of thousands of parents will have to scramble to find childcare for their kids. Hundreds of thousands of Americans will lose access to primary care and preventive care like flu vaccinations and cancer screenings.”
In what seems more like a rejected flashback storyline for “The Walking Dead” TV show, the president of the United States wants the American people to believe a less than 2 percent “cut” in government spending, after increasing it by more than a third in four years, will bring about end times. Criminals will roam the countryside as unattended children consume rancid uninspected meats, airports become bumper-car worlds and everyone dies, uneducated, of cancer.
Yet Republicans in the House have passed two alternatives to across-the-board cuts, which are collecting dust in the Democrat-controlled Senate. If Democrats really want compromise they simply have to pass their own alternative and hammer out the differences in a conference committee, the way legislation is passed in Congress. But they haven’t, and they won’t.
Democrats, in spite of their panicked protestations, aren’t seeking a “deal;” they’re pre-emptively assigning blame.
The last quarter of 2012 saw the economy shrink .01 percent. If the economy shrinks again in the first quarter of 2013 we will officially be back in a recession. That would be the Obama recession. They can’t have that. The blame, that is, not the recession. That’s why we had the president on Al Sharpton’s radio show saying Republicans would rather harm the economy than “close loopholes” on the rich.
In an attempt to preemptively shift blame, we get the “We’re all gonna die if Republicans don’t stop being so uncooperative” press event we saw from the president last Tuesday.
But since Google exists, anyone – except, it seems, journalists – can find this quote from President Obama in 2011 on this very subject saying, “Already, some in Congress are trying to undo these automatic spending cuts. My message to them is simple: No. I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending. There will be no easy off ramps on this one.”
If we were truly facing the Thunderdome-esque future he is now claiming, why would President Obama threaten to veto “ANY EFFORT” to replace the “meat cleaver” with a scalpel just 15 months ago?
The answer is obvious – he, as Bob Woodward pointed out, is lying.
There’s an old episode of The Simpsons where Bart becomes famous for causing a disaster on television then looking into the camera and saying, “I didn’t do it.” President Obama is employing this strategy with his economy and sequester. While the audience was in on the joke when Bart did it, we’re the butt of it now. And the throne-sniffing media is only too happy to help.

Five Harsh Realities About Mass Immigration Facing Americans

Monday, February 25, 2013

 

 

By Frosty Wooldridge

While Americans see their country inundated by mass immigration, they don’t understand why our U.S. Congress continues a steady flow of 100,000 legal immigrants every 30 days.  With our 47.7 million Americans subsisting on food stamps, why import that many people every month?  Why allow them into our country when we already suffer millions of our black and Hispanic minorities out of work and living below the poverty line?

Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, www.FairUS.org , presents a sobering reality check to mass immigration.

“Few people want to be seen as racist or xenophobic,” said FAIR. “Few people want to risk being on the wrong side of history. This means that a broad swath of decent Americans who are uncomfortable about rewarding and encouraging illegal immigration keep their views to themselves.  In recent years, immigration advocates have moved to calling the millions of people who cross the southern border or arrive on our shores illegally, simply “immigrants” as if there were no other path to American citizenship. They draw an equivalency between the tired poor who arrived at Ellis Island after applying and waiting for the privilege, and those who paid criminals to falsify visas, modify stolen passports, or sneak them into cargo shipments.

“Do nation states have the right to regulate immigration and citizenship? It could be argued that human beings and even other species should be free to live where they will. But unless and until that agreement is reached and we find ways to adapt to the implications, there are solid, non-racist reasons to be concerned about granting citizenship to those who arrive in the United States under false pretexts. I would argue that there are also reasons for every American citizen to want thoughtful policies that limit the flow of even legal immigration and that are enforced rather than ignored.”

Five consequences of mass immigration

Growth doesn’t equal family prosperity. Economists and pundits talk as if growth and prosperity were synonymous. By this accounting if immigrants produce or buy anything, immigration is a net positive. That is because major economic indicators like GDP measure aggregate wealth rather than what we care about—the wellbeing of individual families. Parents want to provide for their children: young people just want a decent start in life. If we remember what the economy is for, to promote well-being, then we are confronted with the fact that more money divided between more people doesn’t necessarily make individuals better off. In fact, GDP can grow when quality of life is declining.

America’s savings account is being subdivided. Americans have a kind of inherited wealth that people in most countries don’t share—our vast natural assets. Natural resources are like a savings account, one that we can keep drawing interest off of for generations if we are careful. So are the infrastructure investments that have been made by our forefathers. But like any inheritance or bank account, the more people have to share it the less each has. Our inheritance is finite, and whether we are talking about forests or minerals or farmland or natural recreational attractions and wonders like the Grand Canyon, at some point dividing them among more people means each American child inherits a little less of the vast natural bank account that has fed generations of prosperity.

Crowding deteriorates quality of life. Not long ago one of my friends, a physician, bought a little row house with just enough room for her two kids. It was about the same size and quality as the houses that company towns built for their workers 100 years ago—only farther from town, because she couldn’t afford to live in close. She’s not alone. White collar professionals pay exorbitant prices for houses that once belonged to mechanics. Mechanics are forced to make long drives on stop-and-go freeways.  What has changed? Well, a lot of things, but the bottom line is that crowding drives up land and house prices and means that we all have to pay more or drive farther and sit in more traffic and keep building more roads just to get home.  And the price is real, even if we don’t usually measure it.  Economists Bruno Frey and Alois Stutzer found that a commuter who drives an hour each way has to earn 40 percent more to have the same level of life satisfaction as a non-commuter.

Economics are changing. In the late 1970’s, China’s southern neighbors were promoting high birthrates, encouraging women to produce foot soldiers so that they could fend off the northern threat. But today winning a war depends on smart technology, not “cannon fodder,” and they have reversed course. They realized that the combination of large population and scarce resources was a disadvantage. Like warfare, economics are changing. Most jobs that were once done by human or nonhuman slaves are now done by machines. So are many of the jobs that were once done by economic foot soldiers. If we are to compete internationally and to thrive here, we don’t need more grunt labor, we need smarter, more efficient, more productive labor.

Rewarding bad behavior increases bad behavior. The amnesty that Ronald Regan granted to illegal immigrants sent a message around the world: Get to the United States—somehow, anyhow—and if you can just hold on long enough you will get to stay. The current round of conversations about “comprehensive” immigration reform proves the point. Right now illegal immigration is down because of economic conditions, but once conditions improve the message will once again echo loud and clear. All of the same arguments that have been made for why we should grant citizenship status to those who are already here now will be as relevant in the future as they are today. Rewarding illegal immigration now sets up conditions for repeated cycles of amnesty.

“Cycles of poorly regulated immigration followed by amnesties disadvantage people who try to play by the rules,” said FAIR. “ They reward an underbelly of traffickers and employers who rely on shady dealings and make honest competition virtually impossible in some sectors.  They obscure important conversations about thoughtful, legal immigration, which can play a critical role in innovation, and in protecting human rights, both at home and abroad.

“Each political party in its own way benefits from having more people at the bottom of the American economic pyramid. Democrats benefit because poor, powerless people tend to vote Left because of their need for a social safety net. Republicans benefit because well-heeled corporations who fund them benefit from a glut of laborers, which drives down wages and benefits. Immigrants in particular are often grateful for what they can get, and illegal immigrants are in no position to negotiate, which puts the bosses in the power position. This means that neither party—not the one that is scrabbling for votes at the bottom nor the one that has been bought by big business—can be trusted to represent the interests of ordinary middle-class and working class Americans in the current immigration debate. Nor can they be counted on to acknowledge the inconvenient truth that what serves the Democratic and Republican leadership and their corporate funders in the short-term may not serve our children and grandchildren.”

You may contact Dan Stein at FAIR at www.fairus.org. Frosty Wooldridge is a member of the Board of Directors at FAIR.

##

In a five minute astoundingly simple yet brilliant video, “Immigration, Poverty, and Gum Balls”, Roy Beck, director of www.numbersusa.ORG, graphically illustrates the impact of overpopulation.  Take five minutes to see for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE&feature=player_embedded

 

“Immigration by the numbers—off the chart” by Roy Beck

This 10 minute demonstration shows Americans the results of unending mass immigration on the quality of life and sustainability for future generations: in a few words, “Mind boggling!”  www.NumbersUSA.org

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muw22wTePqQ

 

This is the best website to start:  www.numbersusa.org ; watch Roy Beck’s “Immigration by the Numbers” at 14 minutes. Bi-partisan and very effective. Become a faxer of pre-written letters to your reps to make positive  change.

 

Visit www.TheSocialContract.com for the best information on what we face as a civilization as to overpopulation, energy, immigration and much more.

 

Canada www.immigrationwatchcanada.org ; in Australia www.population.org.au andPublicPopForum@yahoogroups.com; in Great Britain www.populationmatters.org ; and dozens of other sites accessed at www.frostywooldridge.com.   In Florida, www.flimen.org .

 

 

 

 

More Evidence Of High Treason In The U.S. Government. Keep in mind, pealty for treason is life in prison or death penalty

Saturday, February 23, 2013

 

 

From: Joan Swirsky Subject: Whistleblower: ‘The information is STAGGERING!” What we didn’t know for 4 years! To: “Joan Swirsky” Date: Saturday, February 23, 2013,

 

          It is time to speak plainly for the good citizens  and patriots of this nation who believe unbendingly in the Constitution of the  United States of America.  Though foreign governments may disarm their subjects,  we will not go down that road. We will not disarm and see our freedoms stripped  away. The lessons of history are numerous, clear, and bloody. A disarmed  population inevitably becomes an enslaved population. A disarmed population is  without power, reduced to childlike obedience to-and dependence upon – the  organs of a parental state.

A disarmed population will lose-either piecemeal or in one sweeping act – those basic rights for which the citizens of America gave their lives, fortunes,  and sacred honor over 200 years ago.

We will not disarm. The right to self-protection, the internal directive of  every living creature, be it mouse or man, is the most fundamental right of all.  It is a right that must be exercised against the predators of the streets,  against the predators hidden within agencies of law enforcement, and against the  most dangerous predators of all – those to be found in government, whose  insidious grasping for power is relentless and never-ending.

We will not disarm. Not in the face of robbers, rapists, and murderers who  prey upon our families and friends; nor in the face of police and bureau agents  who would turn a blind eye to the Constitution, who would betray the birthright  of their countrymen; nor in the face of politicians of the lowest order-those  who pander to the ignorant, the weak, the fearful, the naive; those indebted to  a virulent strain of the rich who insulate themselves from the dangers imposed  upon other Americans and then preach disarmament.

• We will not surrender our handguns.
• We will not surrender our hunting arms.
• And we will not surrender our firearms of military pattern or military  utility, nor their proper furnishings, nor the right to buy, to sell, or to  manufacture such items.

Firearms of military utility, which serve well and nobly in times of social  disturbance as tools of defense for the law-abiding, serve also in the quiet  role of prevention, against both the criminal and the tyrannical. An armed  citizenry, the well-regulated militia of the Second Amendment, properly armed  with military firearms – is a powerful deterrent, on both conscious and  subconscious levels, to those inclined toward governmental usurpation.

An armed citizenry stands as a constant reminder to those in power that,  though they may violate our rights temporarily, they will not do so endlessly  and without consequence.

Should Americans again be confronted with the necessity of, may God forbid  it, throwing off the chains of a tyrannical and suffocating regime, firearms  designed to answer the particular demands of warfare will provide the swiftest  and most decisive means to this end. Any law which prohibits or limits a  citizen’s possession of firearms of military utility or their proper  furnishings, provides an open window through which a corrupt government will  crawl to steal away the remainder of our firearms and our liberties.

Any law which prohibits or limits a citizen’s possession of firearms of  military utility or their proper furnishings, being directly contrary to the  letter and spirit of the Second Amendment, is inimical to the Constitution, to  the United States of America, and to its citizens. Now-today-we are witnessing  the perilous times foreseen by the architects of the Constitution. These are  times when our government is demanding – in the guise of measures for the common  good – the relinquishment of several rights guaranteed to Americans in the  Constitution, foremost among which is the right to keep and bear arms for our  own defense.

These are times when our government has abdicated its primary  responsibility-to provide for the security of its citizens. Swift and sure  punishment of outlaws is absent, and in its place is offered the false remedy of  disarming the law-abiding. Where this unconstitutional action has been given the  force of law, it has failed to provide relief and has produced greater social  discord. This discord in turn now serves as the false basis for the demand that  we give up other rights, and for the demand for more police, more agents of  bureaucratic control to enforce the revocation of these rights. Legislators,  justices and law officers must bear in mind that the foundation of their duties  is to uphold the fundamental law of the land-the Constitution.

They must bear in mind that the unconstitutional act of disarming one’s  fellow citizens will also disarm one’s parents, spouse, brothers, sisters,  children and children’s children. They must bear in mind that there are good  citizens who, taking heed of George Washington’s belief that arms are the  liberty teeth of the people, will not passively allow these teeth to be torn  out.

There are good citizens who, taking heed of Benjamin Franklin’s admonition  that those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary  safety deserve neither liberty nor safety, will surrender not one of their  rights. Those who eat away at our right to own and use firearms are feeding on  the roots of a plant over two centuries old, a plant whose blossom is the most  free, most powerful nation ever to exist on the face of this planet. The right  to keep and bear arms is the tap root of this plant. All other rights were won  at the point of a gun and will endure only at the point of a gun. Could they  speak, millions upon millions of this world’s dead souls would testify to this  truth. Millions upon millions of the living can so testify today. Today is a  critical moment in our history.

       Will we Americans passively lie down before a  government that has grown disdainful of its best citizens?  Or will we again  declare, “We are the government, government functions at our behest, and it may  not rescind our sacred rights?”

Will we place our faith in public servants who behave like our masters?  Or  will we place our faith in the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ and  remember the words and deeds of the daring, far-seeing men and women whose  blood, sweat and tears brought forth this great nation?

Will we believe those who assure us that the police officer will shield us  from the criminal?  Or will we believe our eyes and ears, presented every day  with news of our unarmed neighbors falling prey in their homes, on our streets,  in our places of work and play? 

Will we bow our heads to cowards and fools who will not learn and do not  understand the lessons of human history?  Or will we stand straight and assume  the daily tasks and risks that liberty entails?

Will we ignore even the lessons of this present era-which has seen the cruel  oppression of millions on the continents of Europe, Asia, Africa and South  America-and believe that the continent of North America is immune to such  political disease?  Or will we wisely accept the realities of this world, wisely  listen to and make use of the precautions provided by our ancestors?

Will we be deceived by shameless liars who say that disarmament equals  safety, helplessness equals strength, patriotism equals criminality?  Or will we  mark the words of our forefathers, who wrote in plain language: The right of the  people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

Let us make known: We will choose the latter option in every  case.

Legislators: Do your duty to your country. Uphold the Constitution as you  swore to do. Do not shame yourselves by knocking loose the mighty keystone of  this great republic – the right to bear arms.

Justices: Do your duty to your country. Examine the origins of our right to  weaponry and uphold the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

Lawmen: Do your duty to your country. Do not be misguided and misused. Your  task is to serve and to protect-not to oppress, to disarm and to make helpless  your countrymen. To the blind, the ignorant, the apathetic, the safe and  sheltered, these may seem to be concerns of another age. They are not. They are  as vital as they ever have been through history. For times may change but human  nature does not. And it is to protect forever against the evil in human nature  that the Founding Fathers set aside certain rights as inviolable.

For these reasons we must now make known:  We will not passively take the  path that leads to tyranny. We will not go down that road. We Will Not  Disarm.

Where was the media hiding Mama Obama’s Porn Escapades ?

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

 

 

DHS/FEMA Raising an Army

Take a good look at this picture. The US government is training Latino youth as a kind of Hitler Youth or Communist Red Guard to put down American resistance to NWO/Communist tyranny.
By Bruce Lazarus
On September 13, 2012, the Dept of Homeland Security graduated its first class of FEMA Corps youth, aka the Homeland Youth.
The federal government calls them FEMA Corps. But they conjure up memories of the Hitler Youth of 1930's Germany . Regardless of their name, Obama's Dept of Homeland Security has just graduated its first class of 231 Homeland Youth! Kids, aged 18-24 and recruited from the President's AmeriCorp volunteers, they represent the first wave of DHS's "Youth Corps", designed specifically to create a full time, paid, standing army of FEMA Youth across the country!
On September 13, 2012, the Department of Homeland Security graduated its first class of FEMA Corps first-responders, "Homeland Youth". While the idea of having a volunteer force of tens of thousands of volunteers scattered across the country to aid in times of natural disasters sounds great, the details and timing of this new government army is somewhat curious, if not disturbing!
DHS raising an armed army!
The first problem one finds with this 'new army' is the fact that they are mere children. Yes, 18 is generally the legal age a person can sign a contract, join the military or be tried as an adult. But ask any parent - an 18, 20 or even a 24 year-old is still a naïve, readily-influenced kid.
The second problem with this announcement and program is its timing. Over the past two years, Obama has signed a number of Executive Orders suspending all civil and Constitutional rights and turning over management of an America under Martial Law to FEMA!
Also in that time, domestic federal agencies under DHS, including FEMA, have ordered billions of rounds of ammunition as well as the corresponding firearms. Admittedly, these new weapons and ammunition are not to be used in some far-off war or to fight forest fires in California , but right here on the streets of America !
Strange Armored Fighting Vehicles
Individuals around the US have begun reporting the site of strange, new, heavily-armed FEMA fighting vehicles.What would a disaster relief agency like FEMA need with 2,500 brand new GLS armored fighting vehicles? According to the agency's own mandate, as well as Obama's recent Executive Order, the answer is 'population control' during a time of Martial Law.
---
Welcome to the FEMA Corps Inaugural Class  Of course, they mask it as "disaster relief" - So why the guns? This puts gun control and illegal immigration into perspective.

 

New article for PolicyMic.

In his 2013 State of the Union address, President Obama unveiled his hopes for a second term in a speech riddled with incredibly collectivist language. The president's answer to nearly every issue he addressed was to advocate for the expansion of government power, the creation of new programs and legislation, and a highly militarized and aggressive foreign policy.

While it would take far too long to correct the president's many fallacies and errors, his desire to raise the minimum wage to $9 per hour stood out as one of his most damaging proposals. This would massively increase unemployment, hurt an already stagnant economy, and further prove that like nearly all presidents before him, he is completely ignorant of economics.

Minimum-wage laws enjoy a bipartisan support in Washington. Both Democrat and Republican administrations have raised it whenever they got the chance, and any opposition to these increases is seen as cold and heartless. This is thanks to one of the biggest economic myths that exists today; namely, that the poor are helped thanks to government intervention, led by noble public servants against big, bad capitalists.

But an understanding of basic economics should cast much doubt on this pervasive myth. In the free market, demand is a function of price; the higher the price, the lower the demand. By creating a price floor with minimum-wage laws, governments make it illegal for anyone to hire anyone else below an arbitrary amount. This not only violates freedom of association and contracts, but essentially creates a situation of compulsory unemployment.

Wages, like prices, are not arbitrary numbers but are the result of millions of individuals' economic choices in the marketplace and their subjective values they place on services and products. In order for an employer to hire an employee, they have to believe that the value created by an employee is greater than the cost. But if the state, using the threat of force, bars wages below a certain arbitrary number (in Obama's case, $9 per hour), the individuals who would add value at $6, $7, or $8 but not at $9 are prevented from being hired.

This is ironically also why minimum-wage laws receive such bipartisan support. Everyone sees the posters and decals in workplaces advertising the minimum wage, and the emotional appeal is understandable. But economics is the study of cause-and-effect, and what politicians don't have to answer for is the unseen amount of jobs, and thus economic production, that would exist were it not for this type of legislation.

And despite what advocates claim, like nearly all government programs and legislation advertised as helping the poor, the minimum wage does the exact opposite.

According to a study by Professors William Even and David McPherson, increases in the minimum wage in the last decade have resulted in huge increases in unemployment for those in society it is supposed to help: the poor, minorities, those with little education, and 16-to-24 year olds. This shouldn't come as a surprise; simple logic would suggest that making it more difficult and expensive to hire low-skilled labor will result in fewer hirings among those that need it the most.

Low-paying jobs are great opportunities to earn the basics of keeping and maintaining a job and building a résumé. One of the best ways to destroy the chances for upward mobility for those liberals and progressives love to speak for is to make it unprofitable for any employer to hire them. It's no wonder that too many see criminal activity or helping the Pentagon occupy the world as their only option out of poverty.

Simply put, wages, employment, and prosperity increase not by employing government force but by increases in production, savings, capital, and private investment in machinery and other tools that increase the productivity of labor and therefore the output that the economy is able to produce. When workers are able to, say, stack pallets with forklifts instead of their hands, each individual's productivity, and thus his added value and wages, is vastly increased.

This is why between 1860 and 1890, when barely 3% of the labor force was unionized and federal regulations virtually non-existent, manufacturing wages in America increased by 50% and another 37% from 1890 to 1914, which was also much, much higher than there heavily unionized European counterparts.

A sound currency as well contributed to the growth of the middle class, giving them an increasingly strengthening purchasing power to go along with a rise in wages. Unfortunately, thanks to central banking and a fiat currency, wages for the last few decades have not corresponded with increases in production.

In others words, sound money, free markets, and peace are what create prosperity, not the use of government force to dictate the terms of voluntary contracts and free exchange.

After all, if minimum-wage laws were as effective as their advocates claim they are, why stop at $9 per hour? Why not $20, $50, or $100 per hour? The results would obviously be catastrophic. To claim that forcibly raising the price floor will not create unemployment is exposed when you take the minimum wage law to its logical conclusion.

Authoritarian states know this, of course, which is why Apartheid South Africa and supporters of the U.S. 1931 David-Bacon Act heavily supported minimum wage laws for the correct fear that free market competition in labor prices would employ and empower minorities at the expense of whites' artificially inflated wages.

Either President Obama is ignorant of economics and history or apparently thinks that the current unemployment rate, especially among the poor, minorities, and 18-to-24 year olds, is much too low. Either way, in combination with an expansion of the warfare state and trillions of dollars in "quantitative easing" strangling real economic recovery, Americans will continue to suffer if the president gets his way.

The Beast Is On The Prowl

Thursday, February 21, 2013

 

Monty Pelerin / EconomicNoise.com

As the economic collapse approaches, be aware that government will become more desperate and resort to measure(s) that will enable it to survive. The myth of government as a good, necessary and positive force in society is coming unraveled. To understand how we got to this point, it is useful to review some economic history..

The US has gone through many boom-bust cycles in its history. In every case excessive liquidity has triggered a boom which inevitably ended in a bust. Ludwig von Mises expressed the relationship thusly:

Credit expansion can bring about a temporary boom. But such a fictitious prosperity must end in a general depression of trade, a slump.

In the 1960s the arrogance of government led it to believe that it had obsoleted the business cycle. Keynesian economics provided the means to manage the economy in a way that would prevent downturns. Government convinced the population of this fallacy.

Initially government’s belief was sincere but based on an incorrect economic theory. The naive belief didn’t hold for long, but it was never renounced. Politicians liked the new-found power it afforded them. As a result, they promoted this new tool and role for government. A wrong theory can still be valuable if it furthers other aims, like the accumulation of additional power.

  Keynesian economics was never correct in any long-run sense. This fact was seemingly understood by Lord Keynes himself. He focused only the short-term. When a critic questioned him about the long-run, he famously brushed aside the objection with the curt reply: “In the long-run we are all dead.” Keynes died during his short-run. The rest of us are living with the long-run consequences he was unwilling to address.

Keynesian economics appeared to work in the short-run because of the liquidity created by government efforts. This liquidity provided the basis for a new boom, but not a correction of the weaknesses in the economy that produced the recession. Its “solution” was similar to a drunk continuing to drink to avoid a hangover. Mises and others observed that any relief was temporary and the ultimate outcome would result in a bigger and unavoidable correction.

 

The political class repeated the Keynesian myth so often that it became accepted. That enabled them to increase control and power over the economy. For a while it worked as a short-term palliative. It did so by avoiding the pain associated with a recession. However, each application of the medicine was like the drunk and imbibing another drink. The cure was prevented from occurring, but the ultimate hangover was not avoidable and would become much bigger when it happened.

More harm (long-term) is done by “solving” the short-term problem with the same poison that brought it on. Each economic intervention was intended to prevent the economy from undergoing the inevitable hangover. Both the drunk and the economy only cure their problems by allowing the dry-out period to run its course. Government wants to prevent this from happening.

In the early stages, before the distortions had multiplied, government interventions could either eliminate the recession or make it milder. However good this might be in the political arena, it is bad, bad economics. While matters appear calm on the surface under the surface price distortions and mis-allocations of resources are not corrected and are increased with each intervention. They are suppressed, but at the cost of making them worse.

For the last decade, our recessions have become worse and our economy weaker as a result of the build-up in these unseen distortions. The dot-com boom was triggered by the loose money injected into the system prior to Y2K. At that point, the economic system should have entered a big recession, possibly depression. Government options were limited, at least in the traditional sense of interventions. Rather than admitting defeat, in desperation, they chose loose credit applied to the housing market. They literally created a Potemkin economy which eventually collapsed.

This collapse threatened the world’s financial system. Again, in even more desperation, government stepped in to bail out an insolvent banking system. This bailout was done on the backs of taxpayers who will have to pay back the massive amounts of government debt raised to accomplish the task. The financial system did not fall (yet!), but neither did the economy recover. We are four years after the problem and there are no signs of a recovery.

The economic system cannot recover. It s racked with cancers that will keep popping up. It needs serious treatment, but the political class cannot admit that or allow it to happen. As a result, they desperately milk what few options and resources they have left. We have reached the point where everything is failing. Whether it be Fannie and Freddie, the Post Office, social security, our healthcare system, etc. Government is virtually out of options other than massive printing of money in order to be able to pay their bills.

As we slide toward economic ruin, one system or structure after another comes under stress. Jim Quinn tells us about the next likely high profile collapse and that involves student loans:

Delinquency rates on student loans made in the past two years stand at 15%, according to FICO, versus 12.4% for loans made from 2005 to 2007. This is proof that loans doled out since the Federal government took control of the market have been distributed willy-nilly in a frantic effort to artificially reduce the unemployment rate. Average student- loan debt last year rose to $27,253 from $17,233 in 2005, with almost 605 of bank managers surveyed in December expecting delinquencies to worsen in six months, according to FICO. Andrew Jennings, chief analytics officer of Fair Issac, said in a statement:

“This situation is simply unsustainable and we’re already suffering the consequences. When wage growth is slow and jobs are not as plentiful as they once were, it is impossible for individuals to continue taking out ever-larger student loans without greatly increasing the risk of default.”

When subprime mortgages blew up, at least there was collateral to alleviate some of the losses. When the subprime auto loans blow up, at least there will be vehicles to repossess. Student loan debts are the ultimate in subprime, with no collateral and millions of jobless debtors. The situation is much worse than the delinquency numbers reveal. More than half of the student loans are in deferment, grace periods, or forbearance, meaning they are not currently requiring repayment. This means the true delinquency rates are twice as high as the reported figure of 15%. What happens next can be succinctly summed up by the esteemed economist John Kenneth Galbraith:

“Then the <snip> hit the fan.” – John Kenneth Galbraith

The involuntary taxpayer bailout for this Federal Government created disaster will exceed $200 billion after the <snip> is done hitting the fan.

The Emperor has no clothes, but he is doing everything he can to prevent citizens from recognizing that fact. The issue of student loans is a prime example of government’s true concern. Most kids coming out of high school (under-educated) are incapable of understanding the ramifications of student debt. They don’t know they are being lured into debt from which the declaration of bankruptcy is not an escape. It is offered to these novices in the same fashion that sub-prime mortgages were offered to home-buyers who had no chance of qualifying under normal standards and no chance of ever paying back the loans.

These are acts of desperation. They are cruel acts. They show that government will do anything to survive, no matter who it has to hurt in the process. Government is nearly out of options, but that only means they will try to create new ones. The trial balloon of confiscating IRAs, a technique used by Banana Republics before, has already been floated.

Be assured, government has run out of legal options, but that will not stop them. They are thinking in terms of the unthinkable and the illegal. Government has might and power. No law will stand in its way of survival. “We don’t need no stinking badges” has replaced the Rule of Law and our Constitution.

 

20 Signs That The U.S. Economy Is Heading For Big Trouble In The Months Ahead

By Michael, on February 20th, 2013

                  Is the U.S. economy about to experience a major downturn?  Unfortunately, there are a whole bunch of signs that economic activity in the United States is really slowing down right now.  Freight volumes and freight expenditures are way down, consumer confidence has declined sharply, major retail chains all over America are closing hundreds of stores, and the "sequester" threatens to give the American people their first significant opportunity to experience what "austerity" tastes like.  Gas prices are going up rapidly, corporate insiders are dumping massive amounts of stock and there are high profile corporate bankruptcies in the news almost every single day now.  In many ways, what we are going through right now feels very similar to 2008 before the crash happened.  Back then the warning signs of economic trouble were very obvious, but our politicians and the mainstream media insisted that everything was just fine, and the stock market was very much detached from reality.  When the stock market did finally catch up with reality, it happened very, very rapidly.  Sadly, most people do not appear to have learned any lessons from the crisis of 2008.  Americans continue to rack up staggering amounts of debt, and Wall Street is more reckless than ever.  As a society, we seem to have concluded that 2008 was just a temporary malfunction rather than an indication that our entire system was fundamentally flawed.  In the end, we will pay a great price for our overconfidence and our recklessness.

So what will the rest of 2013 bring?

Hopefully the economy will remain stable for as long as possible, but right now things do not look particularly promising.

The following are 20 signs that the U.S. economy is heading for big trouble in the months ahead...

#1 Freight shipment volumes have hit their lowest level in two years, and freight expenditures have gone negative for the first time since the last recession.

#2 The average price of a gallon of gasoline has risen by more than 50 cents over the past two months.  This is making things tougher on our economy, because nearly every form of economic activity involves moving people or goods around.

#3 Reader's Digest, once one of the most popular magazines in the world, has filed for bankruptcy.

#4 Atlantic City's newest casino, Revel, has just filed for bankruptcy.  It had been hoped that Revel would help lead a turnaround for Atlantic City.

#5 A state-appointed review board has determined that there is "no satisfactory plan" to solve Detroit's financial emergency, and many believe that bankruptcy is imminent.  If Detroit does declare bankruptcy, it will be the largest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history.

#6 David Gallagher, the CEO of Town Sports International, recently said that his company is struggling right now because consumers simply do not have as much disposable income anymore...

"As we moved into January membership trends were tracking to expectations in the first half of the month, but fell off track and did not meet our expectations in the second half of the month. We believe the driver of this was the rapid decline in consumer sentiment that has been reported and is connected to the reduction in net pay consumers earn given the changes in tax rates that went into effect in January."

#7 According to the Conference Board, consumer confidence in the U.S. has hit its lowest level in more than a year.

#8 Sales of the Apple iPhone have been slower than projected, and as a result Chinese manufacturing giant FoxConn has instituted a hiring freeze.  The following is from a CNET report that was posted on Wednesday...

The Financial Times noted that it was the first time since a 2009 downturn that the company opted to halt hiring in all of its facilities across the country. The publication talked to multiple recruiters.

The actions taken by Foxconn fuel the concern over the perceived weakened demand for the iPhone 5 and slumping sentiment around Apple in general, with production activity a leading indicator of interest in the product.

#9 In 2012, global cell phone sales posted their first decline since the end of the last recession.

#10 We appear to be in the midst of a "retail apocalypse".  It is being projected that Sears, J.C. Penney, Best Buy and RadioShack will also close hundreds of stores by the end of 2013.

#11 An internal memo authored by a Wal-Mart executive that was recently leaked to the press said that February sales were a "total disaster" and that the beginning of February was the "worst start to a month I have seen in my ~7 years with the company."

#12 If Congress does not do anything and "sequestration" goes into effect on March 1st, the Pentagon says that approximately 800,000 civilian employees will be facing mandatory furloughs.

#13 Barack Obama is admitting that the "sequester" could have a crippling impact on the U.S. economy.  The following is from a recent CNBC article...

Obama cautioned that if the $85 billion in immediate cuts -- known as the sequester -- occur, the full range of government would feel the effects. Among those he listed: furloughed FBI agents, reductions in spending for communities to pay police and fire personnel and teachers, and decreased ability to respond to threats around the world.

He said the consequences would be felt across the economy.

"People will lose their jobs," he said. "The unemployment rate might tick up again."

#14 If the "sequester" is allowed to go into effect, the CBO is projecting that it will cause U.S. GDP growth to go down by at least 0.6 percent and that it will "reduce job growth by 750,000 jobs".

#15 According to a recent Gallup survey, 65 percent of all Americans believe that 2013 will be a year of "economic difficulty", and 50 percent of all Americans believe that the "best days" of America are now in the past.

#16 U.S. GDP actually contracted at an annual rate of 0.1 percent during the fourth quarter of 2012.  This was the first GDP contraction that the official numbers have shown in more than three years.

#17 For the entire year of 2012, U.S. GDP growth was only about 1.5 percent.  According to Art Cashin, every time GDP growth has fallen this low for an entire year, the U.S. economy has always ended up going into a recession.

#18 The global economy overall is really starting to slow down...

The world's richest countries saw their economies contract for the first time in almost four years during the final three months of 2012, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development said.

The Paris-based thinktank said gross domestic product across its 34 member states fell by 0.2% – breaking a period of rising activity stretching back to a 2.3% slump in output in the first quarter of 2009.

All the major economies of the OECD – the US, Japan, Germany, France, Italy and the UK – have already reported falls in output at the end of 2012, with the thinktank noting that the steepest declines had been seen in the European Union, where GDP fell by 0.5%. Canada is the only member of the G7 currently on course to register an increase in national output.

#19 Corporate insiders are dumping enormous amounts of stock right now.  Do they know something that we don't?

#20 Even some of the biggest names on Wall Street are warning that we are heading for an economic collapse.  For example, Seth Klarman, one of the most respected investors on Wall Street, said in his year-end letter that the collapse of the U.S. financial system could happen at any time...

"Investing today may well be harder than it has been at any time in our three decades of existence," writes Seth Klarman in his year-end letter. The Fed's "relentless interventions and manipulations" have left few purchase targets for Baupost, he laments. "(The) underpinnings of our economy and financial system are so precarious that the un-abating risks of collapse dwarf all other factors."

So what do you think is going to happen to the U.S. economy in the months ahead?

            Feb 20,  2013

    The ultimate purpose of the U.S. military is simple: Defend the God-given liberty of Americans. Yet today we have a president who is using his power as commander in chief to wage war against the moral truth that makes liberty possible.

 

Last week, outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta executed a directive from President Obama that requires the military to treat cohabitating homosexuals as if they were married couples.

Panetta did so in a memorandum he sent to the secretaries of the military departments and to the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness.

"At the direction of the president, the department has conducted a careful and deliberative review of the benefits currently provided to the families of service members," Panetta wrote. "We have now identified additional family member and dependent benefits that we can lawfully provide to same-sex domestic partners of Military Service members and their children through changes in Department of Defense policies and regulations."

"These benefits shall be extended to the same-sex domestic partners and, where applicable, children of same-sex domestic partners, once the service member and their same-sex domestic partner have signed a declaration attesting to the existence of their committed relationship," said Panetta.

Panetta attached to his memo a copy of the "Declaration of Domestic Partnership" that cohabitating homosexuals must use to attest to the U.S. government they are in fact in the kind of "committed relationship" Panetta and Obama have in mind.

"For purposes of this declaration," it says, "the following definitions apply: Domestic Partner means a person in a domestic partnership with a service member of the same sex. Domestic Partnership means a committed relationship between two adults, of the same sex, that meets all of the requirements below."

One of the requirements is: "Neither of us is married (legally or by common law), joined in civil union with, or domestic partners with anyone else." Instead of taking unbreakable vows before God -- as married people do -- domestic partners in Obama's military will attest to the commander in chief that they are "two adults of the same sex."

Once cohabitating homosexuals have certified this, the military will grant them benefits that include joint duty assignments, space-available travel on DOD aircraft, child care, legal assistance, dependent ID cards, commissary privileges, exchange privileges, welfare and recreation programs, youth programs, transportation to and from primary and secondary school for minor dependents, "family center programs" and participation in surveys of military "families."

What happens if the cohabitating homosexuals break up? Their declaration to Obama says: "We must inform my service not later than 30 days after (a) the date of the dissolution of the domestic partnership, (b) the date the partnership no longer meets the eligibility requirements, or (c) termination of the domestic partnership by death."

Obama is not offering cohabitating heterosexuals the same deal -- yet.

In his memorandum, Panetta conceded there are some benefits the Obama administration cannot yet extend to cohabitating homosexuals because the Defense of Marriage Act is still in force. But he indicated he wants the military to act as quickly as possible in accommodating same-sex cohabitators.

"Implementation of these benefit changes will require substantial policy revision, training and, in the case of identification cards, technical upgrades," he said.

Training? Clearly, under this new directive, the armed services will need to "train" their personnel to treat cohabitating homosexuals as if they were married heads of families. In the armed services, at least, unless Congress does something to stop him, Obama can command people to do this.

As he did in his opposition to an Illinois bill that would simply have defined born babies as persons, and in his regulation requiring Catholics to act against their faith by buying or providing health care plans that cover sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs, Obama here has put himself again in direct conflict with the natural law.

In 1937, Pope Pius XI, in an encyclical letter condemning the German Reich, spelled out the implications of a government that flouts the unchanging moral rules that govern all men and nations.

"To hand over the moral law to man's subjective opinion, which changes with the times, instead of anchoring it in the holy will of the eternal God and His commandments, is to open wide every door to the forces of destruction," said the pope. "The resulting dereliction of the eternal principles of an objective morality, which educates conscience and ennobles every department and organization of life, is a sin against the destiny of a nation, a sin whose bitter fruit will poison future generations."

"We are especially referring to what is called the natural law, written by the Creator's hand on the tablet of the heart and which reason, not blinded by sin or passion, can easily read," said the pope. "It is in the light of the commands of this natural law, that all positive law, whoever be the lawgiver, can be gauged in its moral content, and hence, in the authority it wields over conscience. Human laws in flagrant contradiction with the natural law are vitiated with a taint which no force, no power can mend."

America's commander in chief today is trying to finally and utterly uproot our society from a true understanding of the right to life, the nature of family and the freedom of conscience.