Stop it with the 800,000 a month job losses already

Real close to the top of my list of pet-peeves is half-truths. People repeat half-truths time and time again to make a point, and most of the time that point is fiction. I understand why they do it – to bend the truth to make it fit their narrative, but they are none-the-less half-truths. I guess they think if thee say it enough times, it will magically become the truth, making half-truths dangerous.

One I’m sick of hearing, which I heard Bernie Sanders use in the last Democratic debate, is the half-truth about job losses in 2009.

How many times have you heard the phrase ‘we were losing 800,000 jobs a month when Obama took over?’ I’ve heard it far too many times over the last 7 years.

The Progressives love to use that line. It seems Socialists, like Bernie Sanders, love to use it too.  Generally they use it to expound another myth, how Obama saved us from another depression and it was all Bush’s fault. Well the myth of ‘how Obama saved us from another depression,’ is for another time. Let’s just stick with the first lie.

The trick is in how you say it: if you say “we were losing 800,000 jobs a month,” and leave it there, it sounds really bad – which it what it was intended to do. It makes you believe we were losing 800,000 jobs a month, every month, for a long period of time, doesn’t it? The truth is, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there was only one month where the job loses reached the 800k mark during 2009. That was March of 2009.

One month!

Loosing 800,000 jobs in one month doesn’t sound as bad as 800,000 a month, does it?

Let’s say it this way using the same 800k figure: “we lost 800,000 jobs in March of 2009,” which was the low point of the recession. Just doesn’t carry the same drama saying it like that.

The housing bubble burst and the recession took its toll in late 2008 and early 2009. There were job losses in every month of that year, but not 800k every month. The Progressive leadership doesn’t like to confess their efforts to ‘fix’ the economy was a blend of charging $Trillions to the National Debt, removing millions from the counted unemployed workforce, and everyone else taking a pay cut. All they want you to believe is ‘things were awful but we fixed them.’ Does your financial situation feel like the Progressives ‘fixed’ anything?

Politicians are very good at manipulating facts, bending the truth, all to support their narrative, but it’s time we force those same politicians to expound the truth, the whole truth, not just what supports their ideology or worse, their campaign.

Half-truths are dangerous, because they are lies. Half-truths are half-lies, and half lies can never be truth. It is sometimes difficult to separate the two, and it is exactly what politicians are hoping you won’t take the time to do. They would rather have you accept the truth as they define it.

Con men for generations have made living espousing half-truths. They wouldn’t be able to deceive people by telling the truth about their intentions, nor would they be able to con them if everything they said was an obvious lie. They skillfully blend the truth with lies until it is difficult to tell the difference. Then they keep telling you the same half-truth until you think it’s all true. By then, it’s too late for the mark.

So Bernie Sanders and everyone else who likes to parrot the line; stop it with the “we were losing 800,000 jobs a month when Obama took office” nonsense. It’s old, it’s a lie, and it’s tiring. Here’s a thought – tell the whole truth for a change.

 

 

The Myth of Corporate Welfare

Corporate Welfare is a catch-phrase you are likely to hear tossed into discussions involving welfare in general. The catch phrase is used by the left to defend Social Welfare programs they support, as if social welfare was some kind of moral high-ground and corporate welfare was some kind of dastardly activity. There are numerous articles and graphs describing the evils of Corporate Welfare, but most are not totally factual. If you were to ask the average tax-paying citizen what Corporate Welfare was, their answer would most likely be a vague reference to overpaid CEO’s riding around in their corporate jets, receiving tax breaks they don’t deserve. You mean like Social Welfare, where the recipients receive something they didn’t earn?

What is corporate welfare?

Once you cut through the noise, corporate welfare, as it’s called, can be broken down into two categories: One, tax write-off’s (what you and I would refer to as deductions, or income exclusions), and two, subsidies.

When you do your personal tax return at the end of the year there are certain things that you can claim as deductions. Every deduction has a dollar value, and that dollar value is referred to as adjustments to income. In other words the dollar value of that adjustment is removed from your total taxable income. Children, or dependents are adjustments to income, as well as:

Health care costs, state and local income taxes, Interest paid on a home mortgage, cash contributions to charities and churches, even gambling losses, just to name a few.

Most Americans claim the standard deduction, which is an IRS pre-determined amount covering most of the deductions you would otherwise itemize (list individually). The standard deduction is $6300 for individuals. The amount of income which is taxable or non-taxable is based on the IRS tax code.

Corporations can claim similar deductions as adjustments to their taxable income. In the business world taxable income is referred to as profits. Now here is where Progressives take issue with tax code (legal deductions to deductions) and decry Corporate Welfare; they are unhappy with the deductions allowed in the corporate tax code. Some rightfully so. They like to highlight rare instances where corporate jets were claimed as deductions and so on.

On the flip-side: If a couple decides to have a child, that child is considered an exemption having a dollar value of $1050. So if you or I decide we don’t want to have a child we have to pay more income tax than those who do have a child. The exemption is quite a bit higher for low income families who can claim up to $3250, based solely on the fact they earn less money. Looking at this, it be fair to say if you have a middle class income and don’t have children you have to pay more in taxes than those who have a lower income and a house full of children. Is that fair?

The origin of the term “Corporate Welfare” is traceable to 1990-1995. For most of those years Democrats (Progressives) controlled the Senate and/or the Whitehouse. Which means they could have easily modified the tax code, limiting or eliminating those corporate deductions. But they didn’t. They cried foul, but were themselves guilty of supporting corporate deductions.

Kind ‘a like political double-speak wouldn’t you say? Crying about corporate welfare and refusing to do anything about it.

Now, on to another form of Corporate Welfare, subsidies.

What is a subsidy?

There are two definitions, so let’s consider both.

First; “money that is paid usually by a government to keep the price of a product or service low or to help a business or organization to continue to function.”

Where do subsidies come from? The government! Yet all of the Progressive banter would have you believe it is a creation of those evil corporations. Corporations take advantage of the tax code available – don’t you do the same on a personal level?

The point is; subsidies keep the price of a product or service low enough to be affordable to the general public. Who do products and services benefit? The public of course. You and I are consumers, rich or poor, no matter where our income comes from, we all buy products and employ services.

When did subsidies begin? The first U.S. subsidies were Farm Subsidies. They were offered briefly in the late 1800’s and were quickly withdrawn on a constitutional basis, but re-appeared and took permanent root in the 1930’s under a Democratic President, Franklin Roosevelt. Since then government subsidies have only increased in number and cost.

We can argue about the worth of various subsidies all day long, but subsidies are subsidies no matter if they are corporate or individual.

Let’s consider this:

A gallon of milk today retails for $3.32 (national average). According to the govt. the production cost of a gallon of milk in 2015 was $3.21 and the retail value was $3.11.

If you wanted to buy raw milk at cost, you would need to provide your own jugs, drive to the nearest dairy, and find a dairy farmer willing to sell you a gallon of milk at cost ($3.21 a gallon). Would you be willing to do that? No, you would rather go to the local grocery store and pick up that gallon of milk for $3.32.

According to government information, in 2015 dairy farmers lost an average of .11 cents a gallon on what they produced. Just for the record dairy farmers lost about .57 cents a gallon in 2013. How long would you run a fairy farm if you lost money every year without someone making up the difference? Now add in pasteurization, packaging, transportation, storing, and retailing the true cost of that gallon of milk is now about $8.00 a gallon. Would you continue to buy the same amount of milk at $8.00 a gallon that you currently buy for $3.32? Probably not.

Let’s assume you are on a $50.00 a week food stamp allowance (social welfare), and the price of milk rose from $3.32 to $8.00 a gallon, will you continue to buy the same amount of milk? You couldn’t without cutting back on something else.

But you can still buy your gallon of milk for $3.32 a gallon because the government is subsidizing the dairy industry, or you personally – subsidies allow you to buy milk for $3.32 instead of $8.00. Corporate Welfare in action. So who benefits from this again?

Government welfare programs such as SNAP (food stamps) are managed under the same government agency as farm subsidies; the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). Corporate and social welfare is managed by the same government agency. So the lines of social and corporate welfare become intertwined and at times indistinguishable.

We can dissect any industry and wind up at the same conclusion- corporate and social welfare working hand-in-hand.

The favorite evil industry target seems to be oil companies, which brings us to the second definition of subsidies; “a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public.” Would you admit oil companies are advantageous to the public? Absolutely; virtually every technological advance made in the last 100 years is connected, in some way, to the oil industry.  Plastics, medicine, medical care, fertilizers, insecticides, cars, computers, cell phones and so on, none of which would exist with the oil industry.

You see, the oil industry is absolutely advantageous to the public, and absolutely necessary to our way of life

The Oil industry is a popular target because of the shear dollars involved, $multi-million companies garnering millions in subsidies.

Let’s use the same dissection we used in the gallon of milk to see the subsidies involved: The cost of production of a gallon of oil in Nov of 2015 in the United States was about .86 cents a gallon (at barrel price of $36) according to the government.  The yield of gasoline from a 42 gallon barrel of oil is 19 gallons, which means a gallon of gasoline cost $1.89 to produce.

The average retail price of gasoline in 2015 was $2.26 a gallon. So far we are at .37 cents a gallon above production cost before we add in transportation, storage, and retail cost of making gasoline available at the pump (which is about .16 cents per gallon). Now subtract the federal and state taxes (which average .47 cents a gallon), and we are selling gasoline for a $1.63 a gallon retail, which is selling gasoline at a loss of .26 cents a gallon. That loss is made up by government subsidies (or tax breaks, whichever you prefer).

While the oil industry enjoys large subsidies, it’s products are a huge source of tax revenue for the same government who issued subsidies for the production of the same product.

In 2013 gasoline sales generated over $30 Billion in tax revenue (which was supposed to fund infrastructure repairs).

Consider this: if the price of gasoline goes up, people purchase less, decreasing the federal revenue, and if the price goes down, people buy more and federal revenue goes up.

Once heralded as the green energy answer to fossil fuels, ethanol has turned out to be an over-priced flop; costing taxpayers twice as much as fossil fuels in tax-credits (subsidies), and because it is made from corn, which is subsidized as well, ethanol companies receive two subsidies.

The green energy crowd was gut-punched when it discovered ethanol damages the atmosphere more than fossil fuel do.  Not to mention, it is far less efficient than gasoline.

In the end, everyone screams about the profits made by oil companies, the years when things go right, but you never hear anything from the same crowd when those same companies break even or lose money in a given year. A gallon of gasoline is like a gallon of milk, the subsidies, or tax breaks issued by the government, benefit you and I the consumer as well as the oil companies.

Are corporations guilty of exploiting loop-holes in the tax code? Absolutely! Are individuals guilty of exploiting loop-holes in the tax code? Absolutely! Are individuals guilty of exploiting the social welfare system in this country? Absolutely!

So who’s fault is it the tax code allows ridiculous corporate deductions? The corporations? Or the politicians? The truth is, politicians make mucho-dinaro from the tax codes as is.

Maybe we should focus on political welfare – you know the subsidies those politicians receive.

Originally corporate subsidies were intended to protect the public from extreme price fluctuation and shortages in basic food stuffs; i.e. milk being $1.00 one year and $10.00 the next, and there being no milk at all the next, much like social subsidies were intended to be a temporary helping hand for those in need, not a full time occupation.

There is little distinction between social and corporate welfare. Call it what you will; tax breaks, deductions, subsidies, earned income credit, or school lunch programs, it’s either all or none. One cannot exist without the other. Not without serious re-thinking and an adjustment period which would cause untold social upheaval for half a decade.

But, alas, maybe we should have heeded the warning of President Calvin Coolidge when he vetoed the McNary-Haugen bill, saying: “I do not believe, that upon serious consideration the farmers of America would tolerate the precedent of a body of men chosen solely by one industry who, acting in the name of the Government, shall arrange for contracts which determine prices, secure the buying and selling of commodities, the levying of taxes on that industry, and pay losses on foreign dumping of any surplus.”

His reason for doing so, and an unheeded prophetic warning: “There is no reason why other industries— copper, coal, lumber, textiles, and others—in every occasional difficulty should not receive the same treatment by the Government. Such action would establish bureaucracy on such a scale as to dominate not only the economic life but the moral, social, and political future of our people.”

Welfare is welfare; corporate or social. You cannot justify the one and defend the other since they come from the same government.

 

 

 

 

Obama Admin To Map Every Neighborhood By Race To Force Desegregation Using His Minions At HUD

The American Dream; some say its dead yet many Americans still strive daily to achieve it. What is the American Dream? The answer will vary some, depending on who you ask, but the most common similarity would be; having the freedom to legally do what you wish to make your current life situation better.

The opportunity to get a better job is a form of freedom. Better jobs mean better income; better income means increased opportunity to choose where you want to live, to move to a better neighborhood, a safer place to raise a family. Living in a more desirable neighborhood normally means you are able to send your children to better school.  Moving from the poor house, to middle class, to wherever your hard work and sacrifice affords you the opportunity to be is the American Dream in a nut-shell.

The neighborhood you choose to live in as the result of your hard work and sacrifice, for the most part finds you with like-minded neighbors who have followed the same path as you. They want to live in the same type of environment for their families that you have chosen. Your neighbors enjoy the shared environment and they try to protect that environment by neighborhood associations which set down certain agreed upon rules to those who currently live there and those who would seek to move there.

The rules most associations agree on are designed to protect the appearance and unity of the neighborhood by enacting building restrictions and the like, which protect the lifestyle of the area, and to some degree, protect the investment you have made in a residence there.

No one wants to pay $250,000 for a house, only to have the neighborhood deteriorate around them making their home, their largest single financial investment, decrease in value along with the lifestyle they sought when moving in.

To this point in our discussion, there has been no mention of race only social status.

The separation of groups of people by financial status is a natural result of the free market, i.e. the American Dream. If you can afford to live in a nice place, you don’t choose to live in a ghetto and you don’t want ghetto type people living in your neighborhood. It’s a simple fact most ghetto people bring the ghetto with them when they move into a nicer neighborhood, usually destroying the unity and safety of that neighborhood.

People in the same income group usually gravitate together because they share similarities in what they want out of life; hence they naturally gravitate to the same type or dollar value neighborhoods. The common phrase to describe a neighborhood is – it’s a $250,000 neighborhood or a $100,000 neighborhood. People know what you’re talking about when neighborhoods are described this way.

If you want to live in a $500,000 subdivision and can afford it that is your right, it’s also your right to protect that way of life as well as your investment, otherwise what is the point of the American Dream? You sacrificed and worked hard to get where you are and you don’t want drug addicts, thieves, punks, wanna-be gang-bangers, or any other form of deviants, living across the street, threatening your safety and financial investment; it’s your right to protect it.

Some would scream ‘discrimination’ at this type of thought pattern – but how is it discriminatory for people of shared ideals to ban together to protect those ideals?

There are laws protecting potential home buyers against discrimination. If people can afford to live in $500,000 subdivision, and there is a house for sale they cannot be denied to purchase that home based on race. It does not relieve them of the requirement to adhere to the association rules set down by the current occupants and most prospective buyers welcome those rules.

Now along comes HUD – it has been decided by the Obama Administration that in order to represent minorities more fairly zip codes must be altered to be more diverse in their makeup. You can no longer have areas that are all white or all black in the makeup, they must be mixed, and that by force if necessary. This time not by busing as was done in the 70’s desegregation policy, but by monetary handouts. By redistribution of wealth – HUD intends to take your tax money and fund a created neighbor for you the choice of which is based only on race.

If your zip code, your neighborhood, is found to have an all-one-race makeup or too few minorities, and a prospective home buyer cannot afford to live in an upper middle class area, no problem, the government will make up the monetary difference, they will subsidize what cannot be afforded and wah-lah racial diversity is achieved.

Forget the fact that you worked and sacrificed to get where you are, your new neighbor has been given a helping hand by the government, and given what you struggled for. And what was the qualification for this generosity? Race. The neighborhood needed racial diversity so the government forced it and financed it all with your tax money.

The freedom of choice you had, to live where you are, has just been undermined by the government. What good is freedom of choice in places to live and raise a family if the government can suddenly alter the place you chose by placing people in the area you chose not to socialize with? It is destruction of freedom by subversion.

Some may say that is silly; HUD remapping will not turn your neighborhood into a section 8 area like lower middle-class areas of the past; the government will not transplant a ghetto occupant to be your next door neighbor. In some cases yes they will. It will depend on the social make-up of your zip code. If your zip code is made up of affluent predominantly white subdivisions then it’s coming. The ghetto is coming to your neighborhood, possibly right next door.

Others will insist that my stand against such is racist and crass, to which I answer “it is the government who has created this plan to infringe on my rights based solely on race.” Which is crasser; forced racial integration, or my stand against such?

When the population sparsity of a zip code is almost entirely lacking in minority population, and land can be obtained, an even more dastardly plan is being implemented by the Obama Administration through HUD; entire housing projects are torn down and rebuilt anew in the targeted zip code. Suddenly racial make-up of zip codes has been altered just that quickly.

Most project neighborhoods turn into ghettos because the occupants have not had to earn their homes, they were given to them. It is a fact when people are continually given to; they develop a lack appreciation for what was given. Homes, buildings, and the surrounding grounds are destroyed because the people that live there don’t care. It didn’t cost them anything, so who cares if it’s destroyed. If it gets bad enough the government will come and fix it at no cost to them.

I have witnessed two such sub plantings of entire project subdivisions in my own zip code. Brand new apartment complexes with all the amenities, close to shopping centers, and in sought after school districts, built and funded by taxpayers. One of which was constructed across the highway from a $500,000 + neighborhood. The projects that were not sub planted were the ones occupied by whites.

To add insult to injury, one such project complex that was almost completely destroyed by a tornado, was rebuilt using construction materials usually reserved for very expensive homes.  It was an older complex and it proved cost effective to rebuild it rather than remodel it. What was rebuilt was lavish to say the least. The apartments now have such amenities as granite counter tops and stained oak trim throughout. Amenities most middle class Americans could scarcely afford where given freely to the new building occupants at the taxpayers’ expense.

I ran into one of the contractors who was involved with the construction and I asked him why there replacement buildings had granite counter-tops and stained oak trim and he replied “it was decided these would be harder to tear up than conventional laminate and pine painted trim.”

Harder to tear up? Once again, we find laziness and lack of appreciation for welfare being rewarded. If you didn’t have to pay for it, and torn it up previously; here we will give you something that is harder to tear up. Reward for destruction at the hands of welfare recipients is what three generations of welfare has created.

This latest government plan; the brain-child of the Obama Administration and implemented by HUD has only one purpose in mind; forced racial integration. If you or I, or any business, developed and implemented this very same plan, based entirely on race, we would be breaking the law and would quickly face prosecution both federal and civil. So how to you justify HUD’s actions which are in violation of those same laws.

This plan was formally announced by Shaun Donovan at the NAACP annual convention in Orlando Florida on July 16,2013. It was presented as a noble plan to rectify past injustices of minorities at the hands of the majority. However noble the presentation, it was a contrived justification for the governments curtailing of our freedoms. Ironically it was presented to the most racist organization today, the NAACP.

This redistribution of taxpayer funds in this mapping project by HUD is in the Billions of dollars. And while politicians and government cronies stand to gain, we the taxpayers only stand to lose. This remapping affectionately calls the new areas promise zones – the only promise is failure and destruction of once nice subdivisions.

We need to put a stop to this violation of our freedom to live where we damn well please and still have a say so in the choice or what kind of neighborhood we choose to live in. And time is running out. The hearing and implementation of this plan is to begin in September 2013

Has Our Flag Lost Its Meaning?

American Flag Memorial Day is a day we have set aside to remember our fallen and the ultimate price those Americans paid for the freedom and liberty we enjoy today. Hero’s all, in their own way – some died in far away lands answering their country’s call, others knowingly sacrificed their lives in defense of their brothers in arms, and some in between.

There is a symbol in the center of the common ground all of these men and women share, not merely a symbol, but a symbol which represents a way of life those brave men and women sacrificed for – the American flag. Our flag represents many things to many people – liberty, freedom, peace, hope, prosperity, and family just to name a few. Our flag stands for all of these things and more.

But beyond that, the American flag represents who we are as a people, or who we once were. The flag is not just a symbol – it’s a memory, it’s a rally point, it invokes pride and humility. Our flag is not just a symbol of a nation or a lifestyle; it is symbolic of 3 things that should comprise the very core of our beliefs.

We are all somewhat familiar with what the flags historic design represents, the 50 stars represent the 50 states that comprise our union, the 13 stripe represent the original 13 colonies comprising a fledgling nation who would fight and finally gain independence from a tyrannical king.

The flag has gone through many changes since the revolutionary war to become what it is today and even though we may know what the flags design represents historically, I fear the meaning; the philosophy of its design is being lost.

The old saying “THESE COLORS MAY BLEED, BUT THEY NEVER RUNgives insight to the true depth of symbolism of our flag and the moral implications of that symbolism.

The 50 stars do represent the 50 states that comprise our union. They share commonality in the blue background of the flag – a new thing, a new constellation is represented. The states are united in their defense of this nation and in their core beliefs or vigilance, perseverance, and justice; those beliefs being best represented in the Constitution of the United States.

But while they are united by a blue background, they are all individual stars, the founders realized the states, being occupied by peoples of different backgrounds and ethnicities should have their own autonomy or governing to a great extent. This would foster freedom and co-operation between the states by mutual respect for each other.

We also find depth of symbolism in the strips of our flag.

Charles Thompson, the Secretary of the Continental Congress stated it best; “White signifies purity and innocence; red, hardiness and valor; and blue, vigilance, perseverance and justice.”

Considering Charles Thompson’s definition – the statement “These Colors may bleed, but they never runtakes on a whole new meaning and a warning.

How far have we drifted from the philosophy represented by our flag? The “purity and innocence” represented by the flag’s white stripes is rapidly being replaced by a moral depravity that has bled into every fabric of our society, all the while hiding behind the banner of freedom.

Freedom is not freedom to do what ever the hell you what, it is being able to do whatever you want in purity of purpose and in the innocence of motive.

The “hardiness and valor” represented by the red strips is succumbing to laziness and cowardess. We have allowed our government to construct a framework in which laziness is encouraged and where hard work and valor are minimized.

We are allowing an entire generation to become cowards, refusing to stand up for themselves, their neighbors, and their beliefs, and instead are being blown about by the wind of popularity.

The meaning of the blue background surrounding the 50 stars – “vigilance, perseverance and justice,” are under attack by a people who’s concept of justice is whatever they determine to be in the best interest of the people, under the deceptive banner of ‘Social Justice.’

The founders possessed the foresight to realize “vigilance” was a necessary safeguard to keep the core beliefs of our nation strong; to keep the colors of the flag from ‘running,’ allowing our nation to become something altogether different than its original intent. Runined flag

Unless our vigilance is restored soon, we will loose our country. It’s time to fully comprehend what our flag represents, restore our core beliefs, break with those who are destroying our country by intent or omission, remaining vigilant, realizing that it’s takes just as much hard work, perseverance, and sacrifice to maintain a country as it does to build one.

Only then will we understand fully what our flag represents and be truly thankful for the price paid by those who we honor on this Memorial Day.

The IRS Investigation – You’re Doing It Wrong!

irs

 

 

 

 

 

 

President Obama, during a news conference this week, with the Turkish Prime minister in tow, and making reference to the ongoing IRS scandal said:

“I think we’re going to be able to fix it.”

It was an empty statement. Complaints about IRS targeting of Conservative groups have been in the news since 2010 yet Obama’s position has been one of being entirely unaware of the scandal. How are you going to fix it, Mr. President?

Are you going to fix it from here on out, Mr. President, so it doesn’t happen again? Since the damage is done and you’ve won re-election that isn’t good enough.

Are you going to allow a full investigation to find those responsible and hold them accountable even if it involves prosecution? I think it is very unlikely, especially since you denied even knowing about it, Mr. President.

The bravado Obama displayed saying, “I will not tolerate this kind of behavior in any agency, but particularly the IRS given the power that it has and the reach that it has in all of our lives,” is a joke.

What is the likelihood that members of the Obama Re-election team, the Obama Administration, or President Obama himself knew about this targeting practice? I would suggest it is very likely.

The manner in which this investigation (thus far) is being conducted is nothing short of a dog-and-pony show and being conducted entirely wrong.

The head of the IRS (Steven Miller) was asked to resign, but he was going to leave in June anyway.

And Lois Lerner, the head of the division that examines nonprofit claims, has crawled under a rock.

Attorney General Eric Holder acts as if he doesn’t give a crap or is totally clueless.

Sarah Hall Ingram, the previous head of the dept responsible for tax-exempt organizations between 2009 and 2012 has been rewarded by the Obama Administration for her excellent work and has been moved to be in charge of the newly created IRS Obamacare department.

Her replacement, Joseph Grant, gets the job just in time to be thrown into the street and run over by the Obama bus; then fired.

This is not going to get the results needed. As a manager, when I am faced with a problem involving one of my staff, I don’t go through 2 or 3 supervisors to get the details of the problem, I go right to the person that was directly involved with the problem.

You work from the ground floor up; you don’t start where the ‘buck stops’; you go to where the ‘buck started.’

Every case in which a conservative organization was submitted to this ridiculous scrutiny, has an IRS case number assigned to it and a case worker assigned to it.

Get that case worker or case workers one at the time and let them testify before a congressional hearing under oath. Ask them this question:

“Did you intentionally target certain conservative groups on your own volition or were you instructed to do so by a supervisor?” Point blank!

If they say it was on their own, then that is where the ‘buck stops’ and they must face the consequences.

Since everyone connected with the Obama administration insists this abuse of power was isolated to ‘lower level’ employees, then the investigation should be wrapped up fairly quickly and the violators fired and/or prosecuted.

Given the number of groups targeted since 2010; a number of IRS employees were involved. That adds doubt that these IRS case workers did this targeting on their own.

If the answer to the question “Did you intentionally target certain conservative groups on your own volition or were you instructed to do so by a supervisor?” produces the answer “I was instructed to,’ then the next natural question would be “Who was the person who instructed you to do so?” Point blank!

Next, you subpoena that supervisor and ask them the same question. Climb up the ladder until you get to where the ‘buck started’ no matter how far up the ladder it goes. Then it’s up to the prosecutor to occupy the place where the ‘buck stops.’

Listening in on the hearings today my accusation still stands – You are doing it wrong. They are asking the wrong questions to the wrong people. The report read by J. Russell George — the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration

Contains NO NAMES so what’s the point.

Until the individual caseworkers are called to testify, this is a waste of time. Don’t get your hopes up on anyone in the Obama farm house being named in the investigation; remember Current members of his staff owe back taxes.

We must press every member of government until we have every name of every person involved in this; they are allowed to testify under oath in the open, and they are fired and/or prosecuted.

So with the fresh memory of Benghazi, forgive me, Mr. President, if your ‘lack of tolerance’ speech ‘for this abuse of power’ sounds empty.

We must not allow anyone involved in this to just get away with it, keeping their pensions and positions like those involved in Fast & Furious managed to do.

Ultimately we will be the guilty if we allow those who are guilty to walk away again.

 

demand-investigation-irs

 

Why Are Liberals So Angry?

Reading comments posted following a news story, as I often do, I was struck at the level of hateful anger being expressed. No doubt profanity would abound (as is so often the case on social media rants) if it were allowed in these comments. These comments contain few facts – most of them just angry rants where the authors resorted to name calling when their comments were challenged by anyone with facts.

I enjoy reading the comments of the readers from many sources because it gives me a more accurate picture of the mindset of the country than those endless polls with their cleverly crafted questions. The comment section of MSNBC, the most liberally biased of all major media outlets, is full of the vilest and most hate-filled commentary one can possibly find. Conservative outlets have their share of hateful commentators, but their numbers pale in comparison to the liberals. In the last few years these comments have become more hateful than at any time I can recall.

I asked myself; why are the liberals so angry?

Obama has won his second term, they still control the Senate, they control most of the media outlets, you would think they’d be happy, so why the hate? Why are the liberals so angry?

The answer came as an epiphany – liberals were angry because their leadership is a failure. The hope and change Obama promised was not the hope and change the liberals hoped for.

The country was tiring of war, the housing bubble was about to pop, and the liberal give-away party had been kept in check for almost two terms under George Bush. The liberal movement was gaining strength the last two years under Bush, and by the end of 2006 the liberals controlled both houses of Congress – all they needed now was to get the White House. Along comes Barack Obama, the cult hero who would finally give the liberals what they wanted – full control.

Now they had full control and were eager to show those stuffy Conservatives how to get this country back on track and drive off into peace and prosperity. There were endless tears of celebration and parties to mark the historic occasion when Obama took office, he was young and black, a cult hero and a liberal dream come true – who was Barack Obama – the liberals didn’t care – so who he really was didn’t matter as long as they had full control.

Yes it was only a matter of time, things were going to go back to the days of Bill Clinton- no major wars and federal budget surpluses, happy days were here again so they thought; nothing could have been further from the truth. Among Barack Obama’s many campaign promises was “to cut the deficit in half in his first term” and if he didn’t “he would be a one term president.” Neither promise was kept (along with dozens of others) it was a sign of things to come but the liberals didn’t care – it was all Bush’s fault – so Obama got a pass (for two years anyway).

But reality soon appeared, the economy was not improving, jobs were not to be had and the government charge card was in fast forward. At the same time the liberals were becoming angrier, the blame-Bush-card was getting old, and things were going so badly that many Americans (both Democrat and Republican) realized Obama’s liberal agenda was a train wreck on a fast track to disaster. There was no need for the right to say “I told you so” the liberals knew it all too well. They couldn’t take it, someone had to be blamed for this, someone, anyone but their liberal hero Obama. So the hate grew.

The fact is Obama is a failure, except to the most extreme of liberal followers and anyone who hates America. The Democrats had complete control the first 2 years of Obama’s first term; so what did they accomplish with complete control?

Let’s see:

“Obama kept the country from financial collapse” – no TARP did that (TARP was created under Bush by a joint effort with a Democratic Congress).

“Obama saved GM and millions of jobs” – no the funds for the auto bailout were available in the TARP package. Obama only managed to jamb GM and Chrysler through a crony bankruptcy court that saved the union, left investors with nothing, and the taxpayers holding GM stock worth half of what it cost.

“Obama ended the war in Iraq” –  He did but he did it within a month of the withdrawal timetable preset by the Bush Administration, but the withdrawal was done in such a reckless manor our efforts there may turn out to be a waste.

With complete control the only legislation Obama and the liberals managed to pass was Obamacare and the Stimulus package. Sadly many realized these ‘victories’ were not victories at all, the Stimulus was a complete failure and Obamacare is in certain peril, we were going the wrong way and fast. Obama was running up the Federal Deficit faster than any president in history (other than Roosevelt, but he had WWII to deal with), so after two years the House Of Representatives was given back to the Republicans to try and at least slow down this bankrupting of America.

About the same time a grass roots movement sprang up – the Constitution was being trampled by Obama and hard-earned tax money was being thrown away – the Tea Party was born. States that were on the verge of bankruptcy were tossing out liberal governors and giving state congressional control back to conservatives so fast the liberal dream-team was in full panic mode.

No wonder the liberals are angry, their agenda was failing but they couldn’t bring themselves to blame their cult hero president, and the blame-Bush-card was worn out, so what to do? Hate needed an outlet – It was time to blame the conservatives! Those bible-thumping rednecks were to blame for Obama’s failures, standing in the way of progress. Those conservatives are hateful redneck bigots and racists who hate minorities, immigrants, homosexuals, but love their guns – sound familiar?

Yes their hero Obama had tried ‘common sense’ reform and ‘compromise’ the liberals decried, but those evil Republicans won’t compromise. The truth is Obama has not compromised on any bill save one. He moved the higher tax rate line from 250k to 400k knowing he didn’t have the votes to ram it through without compromise placing the entire bill in jeopardy. To Obama Common sense, balanced approach, and compromise meant my way or you are making the American people suffer.

Nancy Pelosi stirred the pot calling the Tea Party “a terrorist organization” which was an outright lie; at Tea Party rallies there are no signs of racism or bigotry – the liberal media could not find even one instance of such (and believe me they have tried). There have been no arrests at any Tea Party rallies. Compare that behavior to the movements on the liberal side – Occupy Wall Street, the New Black Panthers, and Union rallies where lawlessness abounds.

The anger of the liberals was blinding their reasoning and they were being sucked into aligning themselves with lawlessness and perversion, turning a blind eye to corrupt organizations ACORN and Family Planning, and coming out in support of movements like Occupy Wall Street. The democratic leadership realized verbal hatred was becoming such a problem (as early as two years into Obama’s first term) calls for ‘civility’ came out in the main-stream media (of course it was those evil Republicans that weren’t being civil).

Fast forward to today. The liberals have tried (in vain) to tie the recent tragedies to the conservatives – Congresswoman Gifford, the Sandy Hook killings, the Aurora movie theater shootings – but none of these perpetrators were bible-thumpers, rednecks, or Tea Party members, they were nuts. Meanwhile the liberal hate continued to grow.

Why are the liberals so angry?

Because their cult-hero president is a failure, the liberal leadership is destroying the country; the liberals know it and are looking for someone to blame, anyone, anyone except who they elected. This hatred has spawned a radical liberal party who align themselves with questionable groups, supporting racist, communist, and those who would love nothing better than to see the United States fail.

This kind of hatred is dangerous; it gives rise to dangerous radicals like Van Jones – an avowed communist and more recently Rashad Robinson, a racist himself, and leader of Colorofchange.org, a racist organization that sets up shop in swing states creating straw-man (fictitious) injustices like voter suppression. They easily convince the already angry liberals that conservatives are trying to rig voting when in fact the exact opposite is true.

The liberals should ask themselves where people like this are getting their funding from. Just a hint – Jeremiah Wright has become a multimillionaire by preaching racial hatred. Sadly, these men and others like them want to see this country fail and the liberals are funding their efforts. Is this what liberals really want, people and organizations like this to become powerful because of their blind hatred? One can only hope not.

It’s time the Republicans and Democrats begin again  to work together, tossing aside radical liberal ideas and returning this country to its founding principles. Putting away hatred and allowing reason to become the language of compromise is the path that needs to be followed, only then will we be able to stem the tide of destruction this president has started and become prosperous, God willing.

Why are the liberals so angry?

Well if the leadership I voted for failed as miserably as this Administration has…..I would be angry too.

Preparedness For A Financial Crisis In 5 Simple Steps

FINANCE imagesWhen the nation of Cyprus raided its depositor’s savings accounts to pay for national debt it struck a cord of fear in the citizens of the United States. Many of us were already feeling uneasy about the way the economy is struggling and those fears were brought to a head with the ‘bank raid’ in Cyprus.

After a few days the crisis seemed to be averted and the monies returned. However for those few days a financial crisis was created that left many citizens of Cyprus wondering about the security of their deposits as well as a shortage of cash on hand forcing a run on ATM’s.

The reaction by the citizens in Cyprus left me wondering what would I do if there was a financial crisis like this in this country and what can I do to protect myself in those days following? Going a step further, what could I do if there was suddenly a financial crisis that caused banking and credit to be suspended?

Well one extreme would be to do nothing. The old saying “doing nothing is not a plan” is still true. I’m amazed at the number of people who have the attitude “there is nothing I can do so why bother” or “I will deal with it if and when it happens.” This is not a plan and a bad idea.

The other extreme would be to go all-in like the Doomsday Preppers. Now if this is the route you want to take, who am I to persuade you to alter your plans, however the fact remains this level of disaster preparation is just not logistically practical for most people.

So obviously a balance must be struck between the two extremes and it must be something we all can do.

This is not a dissertation or lesson in financial planning. There are plenty of resources available for that. What this plan does do is give you 5 simple things that everyone can do and should do to be ready should a minor financial crisis happen.

1. Accumulate and keep 3-4 days worth of cash on hand.

If there is a financial crisis that created a run on banks or disrupted credit card and debit card transactions you will need cash. Why 3 -4 days’ worth? History has shown most disruptions of this sort would be brought under control within 3 to 4 days (unless it’s a meltdown of almost biblical proportions).

There are things you may need to buy in that time span and most every business is going to try and continue to do business, but without credit and debit transactions they will be forced to be cash only; those with that cash will be able to get what they need, those without wont.

2. Keep enough food on hand to last for 7- 10 days.

Why 10 days worth? Are we talking about financial crisis or natural disaster? Well, when it comes to food I would reply by asking; what’s the difference?

From a financial prospective, 7 to 10 days is about the disruption time created by a 3 day financial crisis. The food supply chain we have in this country is remarkable, we have access to fruits and vegetables all year round that were once only seasonally available.

But for the marvel that it is you cannot just turn it off and on, once it stops (in the event of a financial problem) it will take 3 or 4 days to restart the supply line and while this is happening, the stores will run out of items, which will require additional stocking times, etc.

Unfortunately, people that are not prepared will panic and rush the stores to get what they can. Anyone who has observed the aftermath of a natural disaster will have a clear picture of what this is like. Now imagine this scenario where people cannot use credit and debit cards.

It would be better to have 7 to 10 days of supplies on hand and avoid the chaos. The best thing about this step of preparedness is that should there be a natural disaster you will likewise already be prepared.

3. Personal protection is a must.

I’m not suggesting you go out and buy a gun (that is entirely up to you) but I am telling you that you need to have some kind of personal protection. If you decide to choose a gun, then learn how to use it properly. If you are not comfortable with a gun there are alternatives; handheld mace or pepper spray dispensers are some examples. Others could be a taser or even a small nightstick.

However your best form of personal protection is your mind. Don’t put yourself in situations that increase your odds of having to defend yourself during times of unrest.

When people are unprepared or do not know how to provide for themselves wind up with no money or gas, they’re alternative may be to try to take what someone else has. Don’t let that someone be you.

4. Keep your car on full.

There is a saying and a truth; “it doesn’t cost any more to keep a car’s fuel tank full than it does to run it empty.” In your preparations make it a habit to fill your vehicle up when you get to a half a tank. Remember any financial crisis is going to create supply shortages, so right after food a fuel shortage will not be far behind.

5. First aid supplies and prescription medicine.

I wonder how many of us have a fully stocked first aid kit at home. How many of us have a first aid kit in our vehicle? Probably fewer than you might think. We have become so accustomed to being able to get whatever we need whenever we need it; it has made us lax in our planning.

Anyone who has gone through a natural disaster will be quick to tell you how important things like a first aid kit can be.

A financial panic may just interrupt your ability to ‘get what you need when you need it.’ First aid kits are inexpensive and there is no reason not to have one.

Having several days’ worth of your prescription medication on hand is another must. For some daily prescription medications are a necessity. You know what your prescription requirements are, and how important they are; don’t wait until you are on your last dose before you act.

These 5 things are simple precautions that everyone can take and the best part is they won’t cost you anything. I’m not suggesting you purchase anything that you shouldn’t already have; you don’t need, or won’t use.

FINANCE 2 images

“An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Ben Franklin

 

And The Clueless Award Of The Month Goes To

Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) who’s in-depth knowledge of guns of all types makes her the perfect recipient for this month’s Clueless award.

 

When you see footage like this it leaves you at a loss for words and little need to comment.

Sen Greg Brophy (R) summed it up best saying “it was stunningly stupid.

This was not Ms. DeGette’s first display of genius, this is a another one when she was asked about personal protection.

 

This woman is an elected official, a lawyer………..and apparently brain-dead when it comes to guns and the 2nd amendment or on a”rocky mountain high.”

One can only hope this will be her last term.

Schumer’s Immigration Shell-Game

schumerIt seems that Chuck Schumer couldn’t wait to pat himself on the back for almost passing landmark Immigration reform. Landmark to him maybe, to me there is nothing landmark about it. In fact it’s just the opposite, its bad legislation.

Mr. Schumer, one of the members of what is now referred to “The Gang of Eight,” announced that a working bi-partisan deal had been reached and would soon be presented to the public.

 The legislative details of this “deal” have not been hammered out but the highlights are:

A deal had been struck between labor and business whereby a limited number of guest workers would be allowed to work in the U.S under a program called the “W-Visa.”

It would allow 20,000 low skilled workers into the country beginning April 2015 and then increase to a maximum of 200,000 workers per year while maintaining a 20,000 per year minimum. 15,000 of those jobs would be allocated to construction work.

“We have created a new model, a modern visa system that includes both a bureau to collect and analyze labor market data, as well as significant worker protections,” said AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka in a statement.

 You all know Mr. Trumka, a loud-mouth thug who is the current head of the AFL-CIO; the man who was cussing and talking about “busting heads” on television during a campaign rally in the last presidential election.

 What is this “modern visa system” Mr. Trumka is referring to? It is the creation of a government department named the “Bureau of Immigration and Market Research” whose head would be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

 Mr. Trumka seemed o.k. with the deal since it would “protect workers rights” and the Chamber of Commerce seemed o.k. with the deal since these low-skilled positions are jobs that Americans think they are too good to do anyway and these workers would be compensated at the “prevailing wage” of the industry in which they are employed.

Hold the phone! We have business and labor hashing out an immigration reform bill? What about the American people and the law of the land?

 Thankfully Sen. Marco Rubio stated the “deal” was not as close to the finish line as Schumer has indicated.

This whole deal stinks already, and is reminiscent of the failed “Gang of 12” which resulted in government sequester.

Apart from being leery of anything Sen. Chuck Schumer is a part of, this agreement leaves many questions unanswered.

1. Agreement between Labor and Business?  Who decided these 8 would negotiate an immigration bill for the American people while only consulting business and labor?  

2. Why is the Union involved in any immigration deal? There are no labor contracts to negotiate, certainly for jobs that don’t exist, so what is their interest in this deal?

 It looks as if the Union is playing the game very well; the Union will have a potential increase in union membership of up to 200,000 a year, while blaming the government for those lost positions once held by American union members. It’s a win-win for them.

 3. Since the Union has agreed to the basic number of workers, will all “W-visa” holders forced to be union members? And if that is the case, how many American workers will be displaced by these incoming workers?

 4. If these “W-visa” holders become legitimate workers in the U.S. what kind of benefits will this automatically entitle them to; unemployment, workers compensation, Food Stamps, union benefits, Obamacare, to name just a few, and all at the expense of the taxpayers.

 These are just a few questions this proposed legislation provokes while ignoring the real problem of immigration.

 This deal does nothing to address border security, which even at best estimates is non-existent (although Mr. Schumer will try to defend that it is based on some far-fetch metrics from a report on immigration), nor does it address the millions of illegals who are already in the U.S. 

What is does do is create yet another Department of Government which we neither need nor can afford.

How about enforcing the current law, before any more “deals” are made.

The Dangers of HR808

GunGrab_200When I heard the news announcement about the creation of a new Department known as the Department of Peacebuilding, I thought to myself you can’t be serious, thinking that this was just another attempt to increase the size of the nanny-state.

I decided to look up the proposed legislation, as I read it I realized they are serious, and the proposed legislation (HR808) known as the ‘‘Department of Peacebuilding Act of 2013,” has serious implications.

This gun rights grabbing, waste of money bill was re-introduced by Congresswoman Barbara Lee of California (The original bill is actually a rehash of the bill introduced by Rep Dennis Kucinich in2007). In short, this legislation is a wolf-in-sheep’s clothing piece of deceptive legislation.

If your initial assessment of this bill was based simply on the title of the legislation, it would lead you to believe what I did when I first heard about it; that it was a pointless nanny state waste of money.

After reading this bill I find it is dangerous; it not only attempts to link gun control legislation to left wing organizations like the UN, the Institute for Economics and Peace, and the Earth Charter, but it interjects itself into just about every other department of the Government.

Beginning in Section 2, line 23:

“We must address the multiple causes of this public health epidemic by reinstating the ban on assault weapons, prohibiting high-capacity magazines, improving mental health services, supporting comprehensive violence prevention efforts, establishing a Federal gun buy-back program, and enforcing existing laws by investing in our law enforcement agencies to help get guns off the streets.”

None of this proposed legislation is necessary with the exception of “enforcing existing laws,” which this government has failed to do.

It’s clear from the outset what the point of this bill is; an attack on the 2nd amendment right to bear arms. This is almost verbatim what the liberals have been saying in almost every news outlet in the country of late, but this bill takes it 2 steps further. One, by instituting a Federal gun buy-back program, and two, it creates an agency that will ultimately have a say on almost any gun transaction inside and outside the U.S.

The justification of this legislation (according to hr808 supporters) is supported by determinations made by the following organizations:

A 2004 World Health Organization report, the Institute for Economics and Peace, and The Earth Charter, none of which are organizations founded in the U.S.

The bill sights the UN program Action on a Culture of Peace, whose stated purpose is among other things “the free flow of information and disarmament.”

I might mention just a couple other points of interest surrounding these organizations mentioned in this bill: First, the Institute for Economics and Peace is an organization founded by Steve Killelea a philanthropist from Australia whose stated mission is “dedicated to promoting a better understanding of the social and economic factors that develop a more peaceful society. It achieves its goals by developing new conceptual frameworks to define peace; providing metrics for measuring peace; and, uncovering the relationship between peace, business and prosperity.”

In short, creating links between social and economic factors, peace and guns.

All of the leadership members reside outside of the U.S. with exception of Michelle Breslauer, their Program Manager of US Operations, who now resides in New York, transferring from her previous location in Brazil. It would appear that they are setting up shop in the U.S. Firing their first scathing report of U.S. violence (which is mentioned in this bill and entitled “The U.S. Peace index”).

Of course they tried to illustrate the cost of domestic violence to the taxpayer, but the index included “affairs such as offshore military activities,” which kind of skews their findings.

They also determine “Violence prevention is cost effective. For every dollar spent in violence prevention and peacebuilding, many lives and many dollars are saved,” even though they would be hard pressed to produce any evidence to support these claims.

Another hidden agenda in this legislation is mentioned in the charter of the other organization of note, The Earth Charter;  which includes the following “We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace.’’

I think this socialistic statement speaks for itself.

The purpose of this bill not only creates an entire new department of government, it also creates a cabinet level position, which would inherently be allowed a budget and legal authority to carry out its stated purpose. The head of this new department would be appointed by the president thereby BYPASSING Congressional confirmation. It does this by modifying the National Security Act of 1947, which is another danger of this legislation.

The limits of the far-reaching authority of this proposed department are difficult to calculate totally, but its stated responsibilities are alarming.

Just to highlight a few sections under Responsibilities and Powers:

“developing new policies and supporting existing policies that effectively address personal and family violence, including suicide, domestic violence, spousal abuse, child abuse, and mistreatment of the elderly;”

“policies and programs that effectively reduce drug and alcohol abuse;”

“address crime, punishment, and rehabilitation,”

“approaches for dealing with the tools of violence, including handguns,”

“societal challenges of school violence, gangs, racial or ethnic violence, violence against gays and lesbians, and police-community relations disputes;”

“providing for public education programs addressing diversity of the people of the United States with regard to race, religion, creed, gender and gender identification, sexual orientation, age, ethnicity, and other perceived difference;”

“advise the Secretary of Defense”

“establish and administer a budget designated for the training and deployment of unarmed civilian peacekeepers”

“work jointly with the Secretary of the Treasury,”

“submit to the President recommendations for reductions in weapons of mass destruction, and make annual reports to the President on the sale of arms from the United States to other nations,”

And on it goes. The power and influence transferred to the President trough the powers vested in this department are alarming especially “establishing and administering a budget designated for the training and deployment of unarmed civilian peacekeepers,” all outside the control and oversight of the Congress.

I think the dangers hidden in this legislation are obvious. This is but part one of the examination of HR808.

But this should be enough to get you to contact your representatives and express your displeasure over this bill, but don’t wait too long because the bill is in committee now.