Before It's News | People Powered News

Thursday, February 28, 2013

The Real Problem With the Sequester
By A. Barton Hinkle
Thursday, February 28, 2013

To hear President Obama and his hod-carriers in the prestige press tell the tale, the sequester that is about to commence will produce an economic and social-welfare apocalypse of nearly biblical proportions. About that, there are three points worth making.

The first is that the sequester was Obama's idea in the first place. When the White House pitched the idea to House Speaker John Boehner, he balked. When it pitched the idea to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, he called the proposal "insane." But the administration pressed, and eventually got its way. Having gotten its way, it now prophecies doom and destruction as a result of the very policy it produced.

The second point is that those prophecies of gloom and doom are, very likely, overwrought. Take projected defense cuts. On a micro level, they will cause genuine pain as federal workers are furloughed and weapons contracts are torn up. On a macro level, however, the effect of such activity is not likely to be nearly so great as the White House – and, to be fair, Republican politicians in defense-industry states like Virginia – would have everyone think.

As Benjamin Zycher of the Pacific Research Institute has pointed out, "real defense expenditures grew every year from 1981 through 1989 and then fell in eight of the subsequent 11 years." If defense spending is so crucial to the economy, then you would expect GDP to rise and fall accordingly. But it didn't. The economy grew steadily every year in that period except for 1982 and 1991.

Still, there's little dispute that the sequester could do some damage. This brings us to the third point, which has to do with the most serious problem related to the sequester: That is the fact that federal spending is now so thoroughly interwoven into the fabric of the national marketplace that we have to worry about its effect in the first place.

How did we get to the point where the health of the world's largest economy is contingent on fluctuations in government spending? The full answer to that is an epic saga. But we can sketch out the bones of the story easily enough.

One of the largest drivers is social-welfare spending, which has more than doubled in the past 20 years (after adjusting for inflation). According to the Heritage Foundation, fully 62 percent of the federal budget now goes to entitlements. Jeffrey Miron, writing in National Affairs, notes that "if the $1.45 trillion in direct [federal] anti-poverty spending in 2007 had been simply divided up among the poorest 20 percent of the population, it would have provided an annual guaranteed income that year of more than $62,000 per household." Unfortunately, "much of the redistribution goes to middle-class families," while more is siphoned off to pay for the operation of the various programs aimed at fighting poverty.

Those programs are the result of Lyndon Johnson's famous War on Poverty – an enterprise that has cost upwards of $16 trillion to date, with no end in sight. Johnson's 1964 State of the Union address announced the commencement of hostilities against poverty with martial rhetoric. He declared "unconditional war"; warned that "no single weapon or strategy will suffice"; asserted that the "attack, to be successful," would have to be waged "in the field, in every private home, in every public office, from the courthouse to the White House. . . "

In other words, full national mobilization was needed to meet an urgent crisis. But as Robert Higgs has explained at length in his excellent "Crisis and Leviathan," government uses crises to amass power and resources beyond what is necessary – and then retains much of those powers and resources long after each crisis has subsided. The result is what Higgs and others have described as a one-way ratchet of government expansion.

A look at WWII illustrates his point nicely. In 1940, federal outlays totaled less than (brace yourself) $10 billion. By 1945 they had soared to nearly 10 times that level. After WWII they fell again – but not to anywhere close to pre-war levels. In 1948 they were still three times as high as they had been only eight years before.

So it has been with the War on Poverty as well: Programs have proliferated and grown to the point that now, counting only programs that are means-tested, there are now 126 federal anti-poverty programs that cost, in 2012, nearly $670 billion.

Efforts to roll back the growth of government, by contrast, look remarkably feeble. Although Ronald Reagan promised to "control the runaway growth of federal spending," from 1980 to 1988 federal outlays nearly doubled. Much of this was owing to Reagan's defense buildup – which, many argue, was justified by Soviet expansionism. The trouble is that Reagan did not offset that buildup with cuts in social-welfare spending. The result was a massively larger federal leviathan.

A similar pattern occurred under George W. Bush. In response to the crisis of 9/11, Bush launched two wars. But far from slashing social spending, he also added significantly to it with the Medicare Part D prescription-drug benefit. Conservatives, too busy cheering on the expansion of military might, did not bother to object much to these increases in social-welfare spending. The Obama presidency has produced a similar dynamic. Liberals, delirious with joy at the current president's expansions of the welfare state, have not groused too loudly about the growth of Pentagon spending. That growth represents another case of ratcheting: Despite the drawdown of two wars, Pentagon spending will continue to rise. The sequester might slow the rate of growth, but it will not produce year-over-year reductions in defense appropriations.

The result of all this is that the federal government consumes, over time, a greater and greater share of the economy. As recently as 1948, total federal outlays were only 11 percent of GDP. But they keep creeping up, and now stand at roughly 23 percent. If forecasts are accurate, they will reach 35 percent of GDP within a couple of decades.

And therein lies the real problem. If government were small, then abrupt changes in federal outlays would hardly matter. Because government is huge, they matter considerably. President Obama is wrong to pretend that if the sequester gives the federal government a cold, the rest of America will catch malaria. But given the immense degree to which federal spending is now interwoven with the rest of the economy it should be no surprise if, when Washington gets the flu, America gets the sniffles.  

A. Barton Hinkle is an editor and columnist at the Richmond, Va., Times-Dispatch and a contributor to Reason magazine.

The American People Need Real Spending Cuts

By Sheldon Richman Wednesday, 
February 20, 2013
President Obama and other so-called progressives insist that the American people are not overly dependent on government. They also predict dire consequences if the automatic budget "cuts" known as sequestration take place March 1.
Both claims cannot be true. If modest across-the-board "cuts" — mainly cuts in the rate of growth — in military and domestic spending pose a threat to the American people and the U.S. economy, then the country is alarmingly dependent on government.
Federal spending has grown dramatically since the 1970s, with the biggest increases coming during Republican administrations. Spending today is hundreds of billions greater than in 2008 and much higher as a percentage of the economy. True, it is lower now than in 2009, but that year, a combination of George W. Bush and Obama "stimulus" spending, set a record.
The sequester consists of $1.2 trillion in across-the-board cuts in non-entitlement spending growth over ten years. To put that in perspective, Reason editor Nick Gillespie writes, "Remember that we're talking about $1.2 trillion dollars taken out of a projected $44 trillion or so in spending. What kind of budget discipline is that?" 
As that March 1 sequester approaches, the Obama administration warns of severe consequences for national security and economic security.
It is hard to take seriously the claim that even a small and temporary decrease in Pentagon spending would endanger the American people. Military spending has skyrocketed since the year 2000, and the United States spends almost as much on the means of war as the rest of the world combined — indeed, it spends more than it did at the height of the Cold War. The U.S. military is now out of Iraq and is beginning to leave Afghanistan. One should expect a fall in spending under those circumstances — unless the government plans to invade more countries.
Yet Obama and outgoing defense secretary Leon Panetta foresee great danger. Nonsense. As analyst Veronique de Rugy writes, "Defense spending has almost doubled in the past decade in current dollar terms and will continue to grow in spite of automatic cuts." Summarizing Rugy's findings, Gillespie writes, "Assuming maximum sequestration, Defense would increase only 16 percent in current dollars over the next decade, rather than 23 percent without sequestration." Some cut.
Of course, much could and should be cut from the military by ending the U.S. government's imperial foreign policy — which makes enemies for the American people — and moving to a policy of strict noninterventionism. This would not only save money; it would be the right thing to do. The U.S. government should not be policing the world.
What about the claims that a spending slowdown would harm the economy? We're told the economy could fall back into recession if spending is not maintained at the vigorous pace previously planned. After all, it is argued, if government workers are laid off and fewer military contracts are written, less money will be in people's hands to spend on goods and services. Considering that the government wouldn't actually have less revenue under sequestration, this is an outrageous exaggeration if not an outright lie. Of course, beneficiaries of that spending — especially the parasitic politicians and the military-industrial complex — have every reason to mislead the taxpayers. The people's natural interest in lower taxes and lower government spending must be overcome somehow. Frightening them into believing that even a slowing of the growth in spending would wreck the economy is just the ticket.
Even if it were true that the economy would slow down, it would be no more than a short-term effect that would quickly give way to real, sustainable economic growth, assuming the government took other needed steps to free the economy. Government employees and contractors spend the taxpayers' money. If the largess ends, the producers of that wealth will be free to spend and invest as they like. That's not only just; it's how sound economies are generated. Politicians use the force of the state to shape the economy to their own purposes. That violates freedom and stifles prosperity.
Contrary to the Keynesian ruling elite, government does not generate economic growth. The free market, unburdened by spending, taxes, regulation, and privilege, contains all that it needs to raise living standards for all. After sequestration, let's start seeing real and substantial cuts in spending.
Sheldon Richman is vice president and editor at The Future of Freedom Foundation ( in Fairfax, Va.

Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Obama Releases Jailed Immigrants Ahead of Budget Cuts

Monday, 25 Feb 2013 10:00 PM

Editor's Note: Well, well, with tongue in cheek, it's good to see our usurper finally interested in holding a budget in line.

The Associated Press has learned that federal immigration authorities have released a number of detainees around the country to save money.
Gillian Christensen, spokeswoman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Washington D.C., said Monday that field offices have been directed to review their numbers of detained immigrants to ensure the jail populations stay within budgeted resources.
Christensen says an unspecified number of immigrants have been released and placed on more cost effective forms of supervision.
She says she did not have further details about those forms of supervision or how many people have been released.
Christensen says the agency will continue to pursue the cases in court and deport people when necessary.
Immigration activists say the agency most likely released detainees in California, Texas, Florida, and New Jersey.

Sunday, February 24, 2013

"Back To The Future: The Obama Dynasty!"
By Ron Ewart, President
National Association of Rural Landowners
and nationally recognized author on freedom and property rights issues.
We are helping to spread freedom and liberty around the globe.
© Copyright Sunday, February 24, 2013 - All Rights Reserved
This is an updated, modified version of an article we wrote back on March 25, 2009,
before the Parallax Prophecies Column was started.
It seemed appropriate to repeat it, with Obama winning a second term.
Editor's Note: Re-posted with permission of Ron EWART.
This article can also be viewed at:
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.  As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."     Benjamin Franklin

Jeremy huddled in a corner of the old log cabin, out of the wind, even though it blew through the cracks in the walls and whistled and moaned with a haunting, bone-chilling sound.  The sky was dark, grey and menacing.  The coming twilight filled him with dread.   There would be no artificial light for the approaching darkness and he tried not to think of the long night ahead.
His current dwelling was once a small cabin complete with solar panels, but the ravages of time, the sun, the wind and the rain had taken their toll on the aging building and it was but a few years from total collapse.  The cabin creaked under the strain of the wind. 
The solar panels on the roof ceased to function long ago, crusted over with rain-caked dust.  The electric wires to the cabin had long since blown to the ground by the incessant wind.  But alas, it was no matter because the massive generators that once brought electricity to the most powerful nation on earth, had fallen silent.  The radical environmentalists and the socialists of the early twenty-first century had their way and sent us back to the dark ages.  Government-instituted, insane cap and trade policies to drop CO2 levels in order to stop or slow down the non-existent problem of man-caused global warming, drove prices of everything through the roof and millions of businesses went out of business and the jobs went with them.  The nations unemployment rate had risen to over 45% and has stayed there since 2014, because the Obama administration borrowed our children's and grand children's future to the point that the minute a child was born, he or she owed over $150,000 in debt to the federal government, which could never be paid.  Taxes on income were at 90% with no deductions, but the producers had fled the country in a massive brain drain years ago.
The gross negligence, corruption and cost of too many social programs finally came home to roost.  Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare and the national health care system called Obama Care established in 2009, went completely broke by 2016.  Doctors and nurses, that once occupied our fine hospitals and clinics, could no longer dispense health care by the mere fact that all of their time was expended in just taking care of themselves and their families, as best they could.  Everyone was left to their own resources. 
To make matters worse, because of radical, international environmental policies, other countries started hording their own resources for their own people and shut off oil, coal, natural gas, materials and food shipments to anywhere in the world.   International trade dwindled to a trickle and piracy accelerated on the open seas on those ships that dared to sail.  The United Nations had taken control of the world in 2025 but nothing the UN did, had any affect on the rising chaos.  Border, resource and religion wars broke out constantly.
Our own oil, coal and natural gas resources had been shut off by the environmentalists and the Obama administration.  The entire energy infrastructure had fallen into disrepair.  Oil, gas and coal companies had shut their doors because of too many restrictions and exorbitant emission taxes.  The wind and solar power that Obama promised would replace fossil fuels, was just one of his worthless, but very expensive pipe dreams, like so many other socialist and radical environmental policies he implemented.  Power plants quit running for lack of transportation, energy resources and maintenance personnel.  The power grid was ravaged by neglect, natural forces and frequent domestic and foreign terrorist attacks.  But that was of no consequence.  There was no power to distribute to the grid.
Food was in short supply and inflation was so rampant from government over-spending and borrowing back in the first, second and third decades of the twenty-first century, that it took over $1,000,000 to buy a loaf of bread.  Most banks had gone under, forcing Americans into the barter system, where they could.  Gold had shot up to over $25,000 an ounce, but it could not be found as most had been bought up years ago and horded.  Crime accelerated as hungry bellies resorted to stealing or killing, just to stay alive.  Murder was an every-day occurrence as anger, fear, resentment, frustration and jealousy overwhelmed the minds of most Americans, because government corruption had broken the back of the most powerful nation on earth.  In the once-great cities of America, dead bodies littered the streets with no one to dispose of them.  The stench from decaying bodies and rotting garbage was unbearable.   Rats, disease and famine were everywhere.  Tens of thousands died every day.  Cities looked like ware zones and they were. The only relief was escaping to the rural areas, if one could.
....... Jeremy looked out the broken window at the setting sun as it highlighted the wind turbines in the distance, but their bearings had frozen from neglect and even with a hurricane-force wind, the propellers refused to budge. Many of the blades had broken off and had fallen to the ground, laying there like bleached-out bones in an old elephant graveyard, as a criminal legacy to one more failed government policy. 
At 39, he was thin and emaciated from trying to carve out a living in the wilderness.  His clothes were tattered and torn but he would be hard pressed to find new or even used clothes, where he was. Soon he would be forced to don the skin of a large animal, if he had the energy and the where-with-all to find, kill and skin one. 
He drank from the scarce moisture in ever-shrinking puddles of rapidly evaporating, infrequent rain water.  He had spent this day looking for food, dining on what grub he could find in broken logs, when he broke out of the trees and saw the cabin. The cabin was the first shelter he had found in days.  He was surprised to find the cabin empty.
The nation's farmers had let their fields go fallow, creating dust bowls of the great plains, ending in an unprecedented drought that has lasted for almost 30 years, with no sign of letting up. Massive dust storms that swept across the plains were almost a daily occurrence.
He had escaped the big city because there was nothing but starvation, death and destruction there.  He lost his wife and two children to murder.  Heavily armed, roving gangs ran wild in the streets, day and night and killed, pillaged, plundered and robbed whatever they wanted. The nights were the worst and were nothing short of anarchy and chaos. The days were just slightly better, but going out on the street at any time could result in being severely beaten and robbed, or bring an end to your life in a fraction of a second.  Police were nowhere to be found because the danger was too great and the government had no money to pay them. 
The American people were broke and the government was broke.  The government had been forced to trade American soil in exchange for defaulted loans to foreign countries, who had called in the debt.  Much of America had been exchanged for that debt.  It was not uncommon to run into foreign soldiers if one accidentally strayed onto land now owned by China, Japan, or even Russia. 
Sovereignty, individual rights and the constitution had died sometime during Obama's 16-year reign of terror.  After his 8 years as a twice-elected president, he declared martial law, suspended the Constitution and tightened his grip on power.  But it didn't last.  After Obama was driven from office by an outraged electorate and a Congress that finally regained its courage, he, his wife and his children escaped to Iran, fearing for their very lives in America.  The Iranians welcomed him with open arms.  He could now openly practice his Moslem religion, free from the charade of pretending to be a Christian. 
But it was too late for America.  Irreversible damage had been done and there was no going back.  America, as a once, all-powerful Constitutional Republic, lay fractured and in tatters, a victim of the Obama dynasty.
Jeremy longed for other company but he couldn't take the chance because he could trust no one.  If he saw someone in his travels he avoided them at all costs.   His future was bleak and short.  He was not sure how long he could survive living as he was.  Many days he thought about ending it, because of the futility of it all.  He thought back to the days when America was strong and vibrant and picked up a piece of wood and threw it at the wall of the cabin in a fit of anger at what Obama and our leaders had done to this great country and what the American people had allowed to happen by not peacefully settling their own differences and holding those leaders accountable to our Constitution and the founding principles of freedom and liberty. 
It was dark now and Jeremy tried to go to sleep, as the cold and wind howled insults at his frail and shivering body.  He dreamed of a time when people were actually happy, everyone had plenty of food on the table, money in the bank, homes to live in and cars to drive.  His dream was shattered as a board fell with a crash from the ceiling, knocked loose by the wind shaking the cabin.   The year was 2051 and a new day would not bring any relief to Jeremy's misery.  Because you see, Jeremy was just one of the tens millions of hapless victims of the failed and tortured years of the Obama dynasty, a time in America's history where the people fell prey to the siren call of "free stuff" and finally discovered too late that it wasn't free after all.  The end result was totally predictable, but it was also preventable, if only the people had been more virtuous.

Thursday, February 21, 2013

Why I Do Not Like The Obamas

The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn’t like the Obama’s? Specifically I was asked: “I have to ask, why do you hate the Obama’s? It seems personal not policy related. You even dissed their Christmas family pic.”

The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology, and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation.

I’ve made no secret of my contempt for the Obamas. As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned question, I don’t like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state.
I don’t hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same Michelle Obama’s raw contempt for white America is transpicuous.
I don’t hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same Michelle Obama’s raw contempt for white America is transpicuous.
 I don’t like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress. I expect, no I demand respect for the Office of President and a love of our country and her citizenry from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people. The Reagans made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice Department to act like jack-booted thugs?
Presidents are politicians and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie, but even using that low standard, the Obama’s have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge and obfuscation to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry and they display an animus for civility.
I do not like them, because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates, when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and her code speak pursuant to now being able too be proud of America. I view that statement and that mindset as an insult to those who died to provide a country where a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny, could come and not only live freely, but rise to the highest, most powerful, position in the world. Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites, because Americans of every description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do same.
I have a saying, that “the only reason a person hides things, is because they have something to hide.” No president in history has spent over a million dollars to keep his records and his past sealed. And what the two of them have shared has been proved to be lies. He lied about when and how they met, he lied about his mother’s death and problems with insurance, Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 bank stocks they inherited from his family. He has lied about his father’s military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nauseum.
He lied to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address. He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman. He has surrounded himself with the most rabidly, radical, socialist academicians today. He has fought for abortion procedures and opposed rulings that protected women and children, that even Planned Parenthood did not seek to support. He is openly hostile to business and aggressively hostile to Israel.

His wife treats being the First Lady, as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world). I condemn them because, as people are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, he and his family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement – as he goes about creating and fomenting class warfare.
I don’t like them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public condemnation of them and of his policies. We should condemn them for the disrespect they show our people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for Congressional authority.

Dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of their skin, it has everything to do with their behavior, attitudes, and policies. And I have open scorn for their playing the race.
It is my intention to do all within my ability to ensure their reign is one term. I could go on, but let me conclude with this. I condemn in the strongest possible terms the media for refusing to investigate them as they did President Bush and President Clinton, and for refusing to label them for what they truly are. There is no scenario known to man, whereby a white president and his wife could ignore laws, flaunt their position, and lord over the people as these two are permitted out of fear for their color.

As I wrote in a syndicated column titled “Nero In The White House” – “Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood…Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement – while America’s people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.” (; 8/8/11)

Oh, and as for it being personal, you tell me how you would feel if a senator from Illinois sent you a personally signed card, intended to intimidate you and your family. Because you had written a syndicated column titled “Darth Democrat” that was critical of him. ( 11/16/04)

About Mychal Massie

Mychal S. Massie is the former National Chairman of the conservative black think tank, Project 21-The National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives; and a member of its’ parent think tank, the National Center for Public Policy Research. In his official capacity with this free market public policy think tank he has spoken at the U.S. Capitol, CPAC, participated in numerous press conferences on Capitol Hill, the National Press Club and has testified concerning property rights pursuant to the “Endangered Species Act” before the Chairman of the House Committee on Resources. He has been a keynote speaker at colleges and universities nationwide, at Tea Party Rallies, at rallies supporting our troops and conservative presidents; and rally’s supporting conservative causes across the country. He is an unapologetic supporter of our right to own and carry firearms

Monday, February 18, 2013

Homeland Security’s Numbers On Ammo Purchases Don’t Add Up

By Alan Bates, MD

February 17, 2013

In response to American patriots’ concerns over Homeland Security’s unprecedented massive orders of ammunition (including hollow point bullets which are intended for human targets) , an AP article published Thursday states the Agency’s abysmal attempt to justify their high volume of purchases which reportedly began at least as far back as Spring of last year.   But their numbers don’t add up!   Before we review their statement,  let us revisit this statement by Barrack Obama in his 2008 post- election speech:

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set.   We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”  What did he mean?  Don’t we have enough domestic law enforcement and national guard troops adequate to handle domestic threats?  What would require more power than these agencies provide?

Now to the numbers.  An HSA spokeswoman stated that the agency  plans to buy more than 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition “in the next four to five years” to be used for their law enforcement agents in training and on duty.  The article further states that HSA uses as much as 15 million rounds every year for these purposes.  They state that one of the contracts allows them to purchase up to 750 million rounds of ammo over the next five years.  How many rounds would THAT be per year?  150 million rounds---which is TEN times more than they claim their training facilities use now.  Why would they need TEN times as much ammunition going forward?   The AP article then states that the rest of the 1.6 billion rounds of ammo would be for ICE agents.  Last year ICE reportedly requested 450 million rounds of  40 caliber ammunition, 40 million rounds of rifle ammunition each year for five years (total 200 million rounds), and 176,000 rounds of ammunition for sniper rifles.  Despite the fact the numbers don’t add up since they don’t account for just under 200 million additional rounds,  the fact that HSA would claim to need TEN times as much ammo each year just for training and duty use compared with past years suggests either bad math or something they are not sharing with the public.  By way of comparison, their supposed needs are some TWENTY times the ammunition expended per year by our troops in the Iraq war.  And lest I forget,  HSA ordered some 7000 AR-15 rifles in June while the Left tries desperately to prevent American citizens from having them! 

The AP article is an attempt by HSA to satisfy the concerns of  ‘low information’ citizens,  while those of us with elementary math skills have a much higher level of concern,  especially since the Administration and its Leftist minions are trying to ram gun control down the throats of law-abiding citizens while doing nothing to address the rates of recidivism or the security of public places and our schools.  And what about Obama’s plans to deploy domestic drones against American citizens whom he decides are ‘terrorists’?  Let us not forget that HSA’s terrorist watch list includes many conservative, religious and patriot groups who believe in our Constitution.  And what about Congressional passage of the National Defense Authorization Act which does not prevent the President, Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of State from violating American citizens’ constitutional right to habeas corpus and the unconstitutional use of our military to arrest and detain indefinitely citizens without charges or due process?  Could HSA’s high volume purchases of ammunition be just another piece of this anti-American Administration’s plan to complete its ‘transformation’ of our free republic into a tyrannical regime?  Remember,  1 + 1 = 2.   Do the math!

Copyright 2/17/13 by Gulf1

Friday, February 15, 2013

Obama’s EEOC: We’ll Sue You If You Don’t Hire Criminals

Friday, 15 Feb 2013 10:52 AM
By Jim Meyers
The Obama administration’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says it should be a federal crime to refuse to hire ex-convicts — and threatens to sue businesses that don’t employ criminals.

In April the EEOC unveiled its “Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records,” which declares that “criminal record exclusions have a disparate impact based on race and national origin.”

The impetus for this “guidance” is that black men are nearly seven times more likely than white men to serve time in prison, and therefore refusals to hire convicts disproportionally impact blacks, according to a Wall Street Journal opinion piece by James Bovard, a libertarian author and lecturer whose books include “Freedom in Chains: The Rise of the State and the Demise of the Citizen.”

Most businesses perform background checks on potential employees, but the EEOC frowns on these checks and “creates legal tripwires that could spark federal lawsuits,” Bovard observes.

An EEOC commissioner who opposed the new policy, Constance Baker, said in April that the new guidelines will scare businesses from conducting background checks.

Reason: If a check does disclose a criminal offense, the EEOC expects a firm to do an “individual assessment” that will have to prove that the company has a “business necessity” not to hire the ex-convict. If the firm does not do the intricate assessment, it could be found guilty of “race discrimination” if it hires a law-abiding applicant over one with convictions.

Bovard points out that the “biggest bombshell” in the new guidelines is that businesses complying with state or local laws requiring background checks can still be sued by the EEOC.

That came to light when the EEOC took action against G4S Secure Solutions, which provides guards for nuclear power plants and other sensitive sites, for refusing to hire a twice-convicted thief as a security guard — even though Pennsylvania state law forbids hiring people with felony convictions as security officers.

Bovard quotes Todd McCracken of the National Small Business Association: “State and federal courts will allow potentially devastating tort lawsuits against businesses that hire felons who commit crimes at the workplace or in customers’ homes. Yet the EEOC is threatening to launch lawsuits if they do not hire those same felons.”

Bovard concludes: “Americans can treat ex-offenders humanely without giving them legal advantages over similar individuals without criminal records.”

Thursday, February 14, 2013

The Benghazi Hearings: A Bipartisan Whitewash

I have heard testimony, all that I can stand to listen to anyway, on the Benghazi attack of September 11, 2012 Hillary Clintonand find it more and more disgusting as each day of “testimony” comes and goes.  No one on these “investigative panels” really wants the citizens to know what happened or why it happened.  If they did they wouldn’t be asking Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, and the rest of the regime “explainers” being “called before Congress”.
I did a search of the Benghazi attack and the first eleven entries I found involved Panetta and what he had to say about the situation.  Now, I realize I am not a lofty Senator or Congressman but I would do things a bit differently.  Clinton and Panetta would be the last ones I would call to testify.   My “panel of experts” wouldLeon Panetta entail a totally different group of people.  The two brave Navy Seals who died trying to help can’t talk so I would do the next best thing.  The first people I would call to testify would be those who were dismissed from their posts for refusing to “stand down” during the attack.
I would call Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette, who was removed from command of the USS Stennis Carrier Group, designated Carrier Strike Group 3 (CSG-3).  Gaouette was replaced over “allegations of inappropriate leadership judgment” after he refused to stand down when he ordered his forces to assist ground troops being sent on a Rear Adm. Charles Gaouetterescue mission to Benghazi.  According to several stories I have read it is extremely unusual for a commander to be removed from command while at sea.  The usual action is to replace them when they return to port.   Admiral Gouette is reported to be in the Obama dog house for refusing to “stand down” after hearing the call for help from Ambassador Stevens during the attack caused by  “a video offensive to Islam”.   I would ask Admiral Gaouette what he knew and when he knew it, what his actions were in regards to the attack, and finally, when he was told to stand down and who gave that order.
The second person I would call would be General Carter Ham, commander of AFRICOM, the top commander on the African continent.  General Ham was reportedly relieved of his command and detained by his second-in-command, General David Rodriquez, when he refused to stand down in his moves to provide support to Ambassador StevensGen. Carter Ham and the other Americans at the Benghazi consulate.  Rodriquez quickly received a promotion for his loyalty to the regime rather than to his fellow Americans who were under attack.   After General Ham I would pull Gen. Rodriguez in for a “consultation”.
The song and dance we get from the regime is that there wasn’t time and that we didn’t have enough information to put armed forces into the situation.  While I am certainly not as expert as Clinton and Panetta I do have a Age 20 7th SFG-2bit of knowledge about these kinds of situations.  I was a member of the U S Army Special Forces from 1968 to 1971 so I do have the background to know how these kinds of problems are resolved.  The two commanders replaced were doing what any decent commander would do, send help if possible.
The idea that we could not intervene in an attack that lasted for 7 hours is beyond preposterous.  There is much that could have been done had the regime had the desire to save those who were killed.  The two Navy Seals that died disobeyed orders to help.  One had a laser designator “painting” a mortar crew firing on the compound.  I know enough about special operations to know he would never “lase” a target if he knew there were no assets available.
I served long before laser designators were available but I know a little something about protective air strikes.  Calling in air strikes in my day was a bit more precarious.  The forward air controller, flying a propeller airplane, would come in low and slow (at low altitude and minimum speed) to find us.  We would pop a smoke grenade to show him our position.  He would then direct the “fast movers”, the jet strike aircraft, where to “lay their eggs”.  The FAC would give our position and an attack azimuth parallel to our position, the safest for the ground troops, for him to make his bomb or gun run.
I can’t imagine popping a smoke grenade without any assets on station.  We would never do that and neither would Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.  These men were too highly trained to throw their lives away without anyGlen_Doherty_Tyrone_Woods_5 hope of air assets being available.  For Panetta and Clinton to sit there and spout the excuses they spout is inexcusable, and in my mind, criminal actions.
The next people I would call in to testify would be those stationed at the embassy in Benghazi at the time of the attack.  It is reported that thirty-two people were at the embassy when the attack took place.  Where are they and why haven’t they been called to testify before Congress?  I contend, and it is my firm belief, that neither political party wants to find the real answers to the questions that need answering.  If the truth is known not only would Obama and his henchmen be found to be negligent but the chances are real high that members of Congress would also be found negligent.  How many, and who, in Congress knew about the weapons being supplied to the Al Qaeda led “protestors”?  The story being bandied about is that Ambassador Stevens was there trying to find sophisticated weapons, such as shoulder fired missiles, that had been given to the opponents of Muammar Gaddafi.
I doubt We the People will ever know the truth about Benghazi or the actions that led to the massacre that occurred there. Politicians are more interested in taking guns away from law abiding citizens in America than they are in finding out why four American citizens were slaughtered in Benghazi.  I actually believe they know what happened and why, and therefore find it very easy to cover their butts and careers by whitewashing this as they do all other criminal actions of government.
The corruption in our federal government is so ingrained and so massive that if We the People were to ever find the truth it would lead to an uprising that would topple the tyrants running our nation.  The dog and pony shows go on and nothing ever gets resolved.  Just as in the Fast & Furious “investigation” no answers are ever given.  The story eventually dies out and goes quietly into the night, never to be resolved, and those responsible for murders of countless innocents sliver back under their rocks without ever having to answer for their crimes.  Congress can put Roger Clemmons in prison for lying about using performance enhancing drugs in sports but can’t find out anything about crimes committed by other politicians.  Ain’t politics wonderful????
I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.
Bob Russell
Claremore, Oklahoma
February 8, 2013
 America Again NOW!
Finally, a plan of action

Friday, February 8, 2013

Panetta: President Never Called Me Night Ambassador Was Slain

Thursday, 07 Feb 2013 03:57 PM
By Todd Beamon
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told senators on Thursday that President Barack Obama was absent the night U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in Libya on last Sept. 11.

Under questioning by Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Panetta said that he had met with Obama at a pre-scheduled meeting at 5 p.m.,

The meeting was a pre-scheduled 30-minute session, Panetta testified. He testified that he and Obama spent about 20 minutes discussing the American embassy that was surrounded in Egypt and the situation that was just unfolding in Benghazi.

But, otherwise, Obama left operational details, including knowledge of what resources were available to help the Americans under attack in Benghazi, “up to us” — meaning Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, The Standard reports.

When Ayotte asked whether Obama had called to check on the status of events in Benghazi, Panetta said, “no, but we got information that the ambassador, his life had been lost, it went to the White House.”

The outgoing Defense Secretary said that he did not communicate with anyone at the White House on the night of Sept. 11.

“There was no follow-up from the White House?” Ayotte asked.

“No,” Panetta responded. Obama had never called to check in, he testified.

When Ayotte asked whether the president had checked on what resources were available and how fast could they have been sent to the consulate, Panetta said, “The biggest problem that night was that nobody knew what was going on there.”

© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Wednesday, February 6, 2013

New York Times Proves Clint Eastwood Correct -- Obama Is Lousy CEO

Editor's Note: Take notice of this dated article... 
9/03/2012 @ 12:34PM
A Sunday New York Times front page story — New York Times! — might have killed President Obama’s re-election hopes.
The story is called “The Competitor in Chief — Obama Plays To Win, In Politics and Everything Else.” It is devastating.
With such a title, and from such a friendly organ, at first I thought Jodi Kantor’s piece would be a collection of Obama’s greatest political wins: His rapid rise in Illinois, his win over Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primaries, the passage of health care, and so on.
But the NYT piece is not about any of that. Rather, it is a deep look into the two outstanding flaws in Obama’s executive leadership:
1. How he vastly overrates his capabilities:
But even those loyal to Mr. Obama say that his quest for excellence can bleed into cockiness and that he tends to overestimate his capabilities. The cloistered nature of the White House amplifies those tendencies, said Matthew Dowd, a former adviser to President George W. Bush, adding that the same thing happened to his former boss. “There’s a reinforcing quality,” he said, a tendency for presidents to think, I’m the best at this.
2. How he spends extraordinary amounts of time and energy to compete in — trivialities.
For someone dealing with the world’s weightiest matters, Mr. Obama spends surprising energy perfecting even less consequential pursuits. He has played golf 104 times since becoming president, according to Mark Knoller of CBS News, who monitors his outings, and he asks superior players for tips that have helped lower his scores. He decompresses with card games on Air Force One, but players who do not concentrate risk a reprimand (“You’re not playing, you’re just gambling,” he once told Arun Chaudhary, his former videographer).
His idea of birthday relaxation is competing in an Olympic-style athletic tournament with friends, keeping close score. The 2009 version ended with a bowling event. Guess who won, despite his history of embarrassingly low scores? The president, it turned out, had been practicing in the White House alley.
Kantor’s piece is full of examples of Obama’s odd need to dominate his peers in everything from bowling, cards, golf, basketball, and golf (104 times in his presidency). Bear in mind, Obama doesn’t just robustly compete. The leader of the free world spends many hours practicing these trivial pursuits behind the scenes. Combine this weirdly wasted time with a consistent overestimation of his capabilities, and the result is, according to NYT’s Kantor:
He may not always be as good at everything as he thinks, including politics. While Mr. Obama has given himself high grades for his tenure in the White House — including a “solid B-plus” for his first year — many voters don’t agree, citing everything from his handling of the economy to his unfulfilled pledge that he would be able to unite Washington to his claim that he would achieve Israeli-Palestinian peace.
Those were not the only times Mr. Obama may have overestimated himself: he has also had a habit of warning new hires that he would be able to do their jobs better than they could.
“I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters,” Mr. Obama told Patrick Gaspard, his political director, at the start of the 2008 campaign, according to The New Yorker. “I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m going to think I’m a better political director than my political director.”
Though he never ran a large organization before becoming president, he initially dismissed internal concerns about management and ended up with a factionalized White House and a fuzzier decision-making process than many top aides wanted.
Kantor’s portrait of Obama is stunning. It paints a picture of a CEO who is unfocused and lost.
Imagine, for a minute, that you are on the board of directors of a company. You have a CEO who is not meeting his numbers and who is suffering a declining popularity with his customers. You want to help this CEO recover, but then you learn he doesn’t want your help. He is smarter than you and eager to tell you this. Confidence or misplaced arrogance? You’re not sure at first. If the company was performing well, you’d ignore it. But the company is performing poorly, so you can’t.
With some digging, you learn, to your horror, that the troubled CEO spends a lot of time on — what the hell? — bowling? Golf? Three point shots? While the company is going south?
What do you do? You fire that CEO. Clint Eastwood was right. You let the guy go.