The Great Deconstruction of big government and public union

/2 Comments/in /by

 

The economic downturn of 2008 – 2009 has been labeled “The Great Recession” for good reason. Eight million Americans lost their jobs compared to six million in the last four recessions combined dating back to 1980. The jobless recovery may trigger a double dip recession in 2011. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York estimates that homeowners’ equity has fallen by over 50 percent, or about six trillion dollars, during this period. Some 22 percent of all mortgages are now under water. And, economists predict that between eight and 13 million homes will have been foreclosed before the crisis ends.

The eight million jobs lost during the Great Recession were primarily in the private sector. While the private sector was ravaged, the public sector was protected and bolstered by the $800 billion Stimulus Bill (3) in 2008 that sent more than $200 billion to the states to keep public sector employees employed. The Stimulus money that California received allowed California to avoid the job cuts demanded by a state budget more that $20 billion out of whack.

Ironically, it will be the actions of the Tea Party, a movement that had no significant affect on California’s 2010 election, that will impact California’s future. While the Tea Party swept more than 60 Democrats out of the Congress in 2010 and replaced them with freshman conservative Republicans, there was no such sweep in California. Democrat Governor Brown easily won his election as did Barbara Boxer and literally every Democrat running for state-wide office.

The vote in the House of Representatives, led by the freshman Republicans, will reduce Federal spending by $2.1 trillion over ten years. The framework would immediately cap domestic and defense spending. These changes will find their way to California and signal the end to Sacramento’s budgetary fiction that the Federal government will bail out the wasteful spending of state politicians. California will be forced to solve its budgetary shortfalls the same way as their federal counterparts – with less money than before.

The period following The Great Recession will be known as “The Great Deconstruction” and will usher in draconian cuts in public sector jobs and a reduction in size of California’ s government. Deconstruction is defined as the wholesale elimination of entire programs, their permanent funding and the jobs involved.

Read More at CA Political Review Robert J. Christiano, California Political Review

Iran says U.S. ‘will be taught the mother of all lessons’

/3 Comments/in /by

Iran is planning to retaliate against the United States for the sabotage against its nuclear program, according to an editorial in the Kayhan newspaper, the mouthpiece of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The U.S. has all of its infrastructure connected to the Internet, the editorial says, and as a result, “it is constantly worried about an unknown player, who they will never be able to identify … sitting in some corner of the world who would launch an attack on a sector of (the Americans’) foundations. They will be taught the mother of all lessons.”

Specifically, Iran is looking into launching a cyber attack against U.S. electrical grid systems.

Iranian officials are furious over the July 23 assassination of nuclear scientist Dariush Rezai-Nejad, who was working on electric detonators for the Iranian nuclear program, which can be used on missiles or nuclear bombs. He was the third Iranian nuclear scientist assassinated since 2009.

The frustration over acts of sabotage started with the computer virus Stuxnet in which 1,000 of Iran’s centrifuges at the Natanzs nuclear facility were destroyed and had to be replaced. The virus also attacked the Bushehr nuclear power plant, which has resulted in repeated delays in it joining the country’s power grid.

Read More at WND By Reza Kahlili, WorldNetDaily

U.S. Credit Downgrade: Another Obama First!

/1 Comment/in /by

Three years ago, many well-meaning Americans suspended concerns about Barack Obama’s experience, judgment, and associations in order to vote for an “historic” president. To paraphrase H.L. Mencken, they got one — good and hard. Friday night, for the first time in history, Standard & Poor’s downgraded the U.S. credit rating from AAA to AA+. The United States earned the top rating the moment such rankings began in 1917 — which means we maintained our AAA rating through the Great Depression, stagflation, malaise, and the 1982 recession. Thirty months of Barack Obama, and it is gone for the first time in history. Change we can believe in!

The retrogression is neither surprising nor is it the only “historic” first The One has perpetrated against the United States. Obama cajoled Congress for weeks that it had to pass a debt ceiling compromise by August 2 to avoid just this occasion. But as Rep. Tom McClintock, R-CA, pointed out, “The purported cuts, even if realized, are far below the $4 trillion deficit reduction that credit rating agencies have warned is necessary to preserve the Triple-A credit rating of the United States government.” S&P used precisely this language in its statement about downgrading the United States, saying the resultant cuts fall “short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.” It faults political gridlock and the lack of “containment” of entitlements. The same administration experts who insisted GOP sellouts on the debt compromise would stave off Friday’s downgrade also insisted passing a stimulus plan would hold unemployment below eight percent.

Even less surprising is the fact that the Obama administration actually believed its rhetoric could stop the inevitable. When Standard & Poor’s began hinting at its actions, anonymous officials began a whisper campaign that the agency’s math was off. Jake Tapper reported Friday evening, “Because of the pushback, the Obama administration is preparing for the downgrade but is not 100% positive it’s going to happen, officials said. And if the downgrade does happen, officials are not sure when it will happen.” S&P downgraded the U.S. hours later. Choosing talk over action has consequences, at home and abroad.

The consequences of his actions are unknown and foreboding. The new credit rating may cause inflated interest rates to trickle down to states and localities, or make all borrowing rates rise.

Economic growth would shrink the importance of the national debt — but such growth is not expected as long as Obama is president. Economists expert growth in debt, and its attendant economic disintegration, in the years to come. Under most estimates, debt would amount to 88 percent of GDP in ten years. S&P warns under its pessimistic scenario, debt will reach 101 percent of GDP in 2021. (AFP news service reported on Wednesday, that U.S. borrowing topped 100 percent of GDP.) Carmen Reinhart of the Peterson Institute for International Economics testified before the House Budget Committee in March that growth begins to slow noticeably once debt crosses the 90 percent threshold. The European Central Bank suggested negative impacts begin at the 70-to-80 percent level. Even the adoption of the debt compromise spooked the stock market, causing a decline for nine out of the past ten sessions, a streak not seen since 1978 when Jimmy Carter was president.

Read More at Floyd Reports By Ben Johnson, The White House Watch

Revise U.S. military strategy now!

/0 Comments/in /by

Thirty-one U.S. special operations forces (Navy Seal 6 members reportedly) killed in a helicopter crash Saturday morning in Afghanistan south of Kabul may have been victims of a Taliban shoulder-held missile.

Iran is controlling the future of Iraq more and more each day. Gen. Qassem Suleimani, the Iranian general “secretly running” Iraq and commander of the al-Quds Force, has so much Iraqi influence that Baghdadis believe he is controlling the country. The commander of the Iranian al-Quds force controls more of what goes on inside Iraq than the United States does. There appear to be no achievable victories for the United States in either country.

To date, government security policy elitists in the United States government have demonstrated almost complete ignorance toward revised, adaptive and forward strategic planning. While virtually every military officer and many policy “wonks” have been taught strategic planning at some level, it is obvious many have thrown most of the lessons out the door upon graduating. This is demonstrated more than ever by our senior generals, admirals and Defense, State Department and intelligence political appointees. One only need observe the international scene and turmoil in Afghanistan and the Middle East.

The time is now to change strategy and reposition our forces for present and future operations. This mythical counterinsurgency, or COIN, strategy must cease immediately. These so-called decision makers have bankrupted the United States and are decimating our armed forces by continuing critical budget cuts, wearing out our military equipment and wearing down our force structure with extended operations in the Middle East. It’s just what our enemies like to see.

We must reposition our forces now and change our global strategy. I implore the generals and admirals to take charge and do what is right for America.

Read More at WND  By Paul E. Vallely, WorldNetDaily

The high cost of being an anti-abortion attorney

/2 Comments/in /by

A longtime prolife activist who is a licensed lawyer in Kansas and has been admitted to the bar of the U.S. Supreme Court is arguing before the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that those who influence court-related decisions should be held accountable for their statements.

The issue being raised by Bryan J. Brown, now of ArchAngel Institute, follows his rejection by the Indiana Board of Law Examiners for permission to practice law in that state. The decision followed reports from a state organization called the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program that included comments from outside evaluators who were critical of his Roman Catholic beliefs.

Brown is not challenging his rejection by the IBLE, but he is calling for a court decision that those outside evaluators be held accountable for their statements, especially regarding his faith.

His concern is that his case is becoming a test for a strategy that could be used to remove a prolife perspective from the legal profession – and ultimately the judiciary since judges almost invariably spring from that field.

“JLAP is set up to break down conservative attorneys in the name of advancing their mission – diversity. I am no anomaly, I am just the first to feel their blades,” he told WND.

Read More at WND by Bob Unruh, WorldNetDaily

Obama’s Approval Hits All-Time Low Among Poor, Says Gallup

/1 Comment/in /by

A week that began with President Barack Obama going on national television to pitch his vision for a debt-limit deal in terms that pitted “millionaires and billionaires” against “everyone else,” ended with the president receiving his lowest-ever weekly approval ratings in the Gallup poll from the poorest Americans (those earning less than $2,000 per month) and from one segment of the middle class (those earning between $5,000 and $7,499 per month).

In fact, according to Gallup, Obama enjoys no more approval among the poorest Americans today than he does among the richest—and he enjoys significantly less approval among middle class Americans earning between $5,000 to $7,499 than he does among the richest Americans as measure by the income brackets reported by Gallup (those earning $7,500 per month or more).

Over the last seven weeks, Obama’s approval rating has dropped 11 percentage points among the poorest Americans—and 14 points among middle-class Americans earning between $5,000 and $7,499.

Among the poorest Americans, the president’s approval started at 54 percent in the week of June 13-19 and dropped to a record low of 43 percent last week (July 25-July 31). Over the same period, Obama’s approval dropped from 52 percent to a record low of 38 percent among those middle-class Americans earning between $5,000 and $7,499 per month.

Seven weeks ago, according to Gallup, Obama was doing far better among the poorest Americans and those earning $5,000 to $7,499 per month than he was doing among the wealthiest (those earning more than $7,500), who in the week of June 13-19 gave Obama a 44-percent approval rating.

 Read More at CNS News  By Terence P. Jeffrey, CNSNews.com

How Obama Will Bankrupt the Auto Industry (and Taxpayers)

/4 Comments/in /by

On this lovely, but exceedingly hot, Sunday afternoon, with computer-in-lap, I am enjoying the benefits of wireless Internet technology as I sit in the passenger’s seat of my five-year old SUV purchased from CarMax. My husband and I enjoy road trips just about as much as we enjoy the steamy-hot cups of java that we sip along the way. For the majority of the Bush 43 years, a cup of Starbucks cost more than a gallon of gas, but now both are essentially the same, meaning this road trip will more than likely be the last we can afford to take – until America puts a Republican president back in the Oval Office.

Proponents of President Obama’s new vehicle cafe standards might argue that his policy makes it affordable to get back out on the road in this day of almost $4.00 per gallon of gasoline. While vehicles that sip gasoline like we sip our coffee on road trips sounds enticing, do not be fooled; this sipping will come at a cost quite unaffordable to most Americans.

Consider the $40,000 Chevy Volt that was declared the Motor Trend 2011 Car of the Year for its advanced engineering that allows the car to run as a series hybrid, parallel hybrid, or as an electric vehicle. Sounds nice – until you realize the car’s price tag is higher than the average per capita income of $39,000, and the cost of electricity is on the rise.

General Motors may indeed deserve credit for Volt’s technology, but GM’s partnership with Motor Trend’s publisher, Source Interlink, calls into question if the Volt received the award standing on its own four wheels, or “Government Motors” had a little help from its Uncle Sam – and now must convince taxpayers that our “investment” was worthwhile, as well as set the stage for the next phase of this administration’s back door approach to “Cap and Trade.”

The administration assumes its new cafe standards of 54.4 miles per gallon by 2025 will somehow spur economic growth when auto makers begin to crank up the assembly lines to make automobiles most of us cannot afford. In the first two months of this year, out of 268,308 Chevrolets sold, the Volt accounted for one-fifth of 1 percent, or 602 — indicating that most American’s are not interested in the 4 cylinder sardine can on wheels — even if it is the “car of the future” as described by Obama.

Read More at Floyd Reports  By Susan Stamper Brown, Floyd Reports

The Budget Control Act Of 2011 Violates Constitutional Order

/1 Comment/in /by

In a Constitutional Republic of the sort that we thought we had, the process by which laws are made is at least as important as the laws that are enacted. Our Constitution prescribes that law-making process in some detail, but those who voted for the “Budget Control Act of 2011″ (“BCA 2011″) were wholly unconcerned about trampling upon required constitutional processes on the way to the nirvana of “bi-partisan consensus “to avert a supposed crisis. At least two titles of the bill now being rushed through Congress are unconstitutional.

First, the “Debt Ceiling Disapproval Process” in BCA 2011 Title III unconstitutionally upends the legislative process.

The Constitution’s Article I, Section 8, Clause 2 vests in Congress the power “to borrow Money on the credit of the United States.” As two of America’s leading constitutionalists, St. George Tucker and Joseph Story, observed, the power to borrow money is “inseparably connected” with that of “raising a revenue.” Thus, from the founding of the American republic through 1917, Congress — vested with the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties and imposts,” — kept a tight rein on borrowing, and authorized each individual debt issuance separately.

To provide more flexibility to finance the United States involvement in World War I, Congress established an aggregate limit, or ceiling, on the total amount of bonds that could be issued. This gave birth to the congressional practice of setting a limit on all federal debt. While Congress no longer approved each individual debt issuance, it determined the upper limit above which borrowing was not permitted. Thus, on February 12, 2010, Congress set a debt ceiling of $14.294 trillion, which President Obama signed into law.

However, a different approach was used when BCA 2011 was signed into law on August 2, 2011. Title III of the Act reads the “Debt Ceiling Disapproval Process.” Under this title Congress has transferred to the President the power to “determine” that the debt ceiling is too low, and that further borrowing is required to meet existing commitments,” subject only to congressional “disapproval.” For the first time in American history the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States has been disconnected from the power to raise revenue. What St. George Tucker and Joseph Story stated were inseparable powers have now by statute been separated.

Read More at Floyd Reports By Herbert W. Titus and William J. Olson, Floyd Reports

Obama: Still the Alinskyite

/1 Comment/in /by

Here’s my take on the puzzle of Obama’s leadership style. Obama is still every inch the Alinskyite organizer. He talks about uniting, even as he deliberately polarizes. He moves incrementally toward radical left goals, but never owns up to his ideology. Instead, he tries to work indirectly, by way of the constituencies he seeks to manipulate.

“Leading from behind” is classic Alinskyite strategy. The idea is for the organizer to find out what the people he’s organizing want, give them enough of that to gain authority and control, then slowly and quietly push the group in his ideological direction, all the while making it seem as though the plan is what the people themselves have asked for. Obama used to literally lead from behind, by stage-managing his group’s protests from the back of the room, while the ostensible leaders took charge on stage. That is what Alinskyite organizers do.

Alinskyite organizers are tough when facing down the “enemy” (their word), but subtle, stealthy, and incremental when dealing with the members of their own group. Above all, they are never openly ideological. Everything is portrayed as pragmatism.

The trouble with Obama’s Alinskyite leadership style is that he’s trying to adapt it to the presidency, a role it was never designed for. When he tries classic Alinskyite polarization, he’s treating people he’s supposed to be leading as his enemies. When he tries to bring about leftist results under the guise of a neutral pragmatism, he disappoints his base, which desperately wants him to turn his eloquence to the task of persuading the country of their principles.

Obama is a bad negotiator because Alinskyite’s don’t negotiate, they intentionally polarize. As for their own groups, here they try to placate all factions and hide their own goals. That about describes Obama’s performance on the debt deal, which included a dollop of both of these stances.

Read More at National Review  By Stanley Kurtz, National Review

Senator Jim DeMint Talks About the Debt Ceiling Deal and His New Book

/0 Comments/in /by

Jackson: On the show today our favorite Washington conservative warrior, Senator Jim DeMint is back. We’ll discuss the fallout from the debt ceiling deal, the danger of Congress’ new Super Committee, and his new book, The Great American Awakening: Two Years that Changed America, Washington, and Me. I’m your host Brad Jackson and you’re listening to the August 4, 2011 edition of Coffee and Markets.

Senator, thanks so much for joining us on the show today. It’s great to have you here.

DeMint: Well, it’s good to be back. Thanks for having me.

Jackson: Obviously the last couple of weeks in D.C. have been quite a rollercoaster with the debt negotiations. How do you think it ended up? I know this isn’t the plan that you preferred and not one that I think a lot of conservatives preferred, but how do you think this deal ended up going for folks?

DeMint: Well, I think everyone is glad just to have it over with. But I felt that this was a point where we really needed to begin to solve the problem. The problem is our debt not just our debt limit. And we’re on a course now to borrow another $10 to $15 trillion over the next 10 years, and no one is going to lend us that amount of money, and this deal unfortunately doesn’t really cut any spending, based on where we are today. Now when they say it cuts spending, what they mean is it reduces the levels of increases that are planned. It certainly doesn’t reduce any debt. We’ll continue to add about $1 trillion a year to our debt. So, I’m very concerned because I don’t think America can borrow $10 trillion or $5 trillion, and I think even the $2.4 trillion that we’re talking about borrowing before the next election could put us in trouble.

Read More at Red State Posted By Brad Jackson, Red State