For The First Time In History, We Have A $1 Trillion Deficit

For all of you libs out there who are constantly repeating like trained parrots that George W. Bush brought us a $1 trillion deficit, the truth has come out. The honor of the first $1 trillion deficit goes to Barack Obama.

From Martin Crutsinger of the Associated Press:

Nine months into the fiscal year, the federal deficit has topped $1 trillion for the first time. The imbalance is intensifying fears about higher interest rates and inflation, and pressuring the value of the dollar. There’s also concern about trying to reverse the deficit — by reducing government spending or raising taxes — in the midst of a harsh recession. The Treasury Department said Monday that the deficit in June was $94.3 billion, pushing the total since the budget year started in October to nearly $1.1 trillion.

The Dems and Obama could have prevented this by cutting spending, but they didn't.

The deficit has been propelled by the huge sum the government has spent to combat the recession and financial crisis, combined with a sharp decline in tax revenues.

I learned back in the 4th grade that one cannot spend more money than one makes. Companies go bankrupt, families lose homes and businesses close when that type of money mismanagement occurs. But the danger here is that the dollar might very well collapse and cause our entire economy to crash down around us.

You have to wonder if the Dems realize this, or do they live in a fantasy world where they believe that spending like drunken sailors is a good thing?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Budget Deficit Tops $1 Trillion For First Time
Martin Crutsinger
Associated Press via KansasCity.com
July 13, 2009

Holy War In Virginia: Islamic School Wants To Expand

Right in our backyard in Fairfax County. A Saudi-owned Islamic school is trying to expand its campus and a group of local residents are trying to stop it.

From Fox News:

The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing Monday night to consider a proposal to expand the campus of the Islamic Saudi Academy, a Saudi-owned college preparatory school. Critics of the plan point to former students of the school who have been convicted in a plot to assassinate former President Bush, and more recently, arrested for trying to board an airplane with a seven-inch kitchen knife.

That is the end result of Wahabbism: young terrorists. And this is a Wahabbi school.

But, there are other issues here as well:

"We're opposed to the operation of the Islamic Saudi Academy because it teaches and practices Shariah law," said James Lafferty, chairman of the Virginia Anti-Shariah Task Force (VAST). ... Lafferty said his organization is a coalition with roughly 10 other groups that oppose the land-use expansion. By teaching Shariah law, Lafferty says, the school replaces the U.S. Constitution with a "very backward and barbaric" rule of law. "Shariah law advocates rights via gender and religion," Lafferty told FOXNews.com. "They allocate rights by gender and religion. If you are a male who is Islamic, you have rights. If you're not, you have no rights."

That alone is reason enough for this school to lose any accreditation at the very least.

But, I wonder how the government would respond if this were a Catholic School, or a Protestant Christian Academy, or a Jewish School. Would there even have been a debate? Or would the government simply have told the school "No" and be done with it?

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Coalition Fights Expansion Of Islamic Saudi Academy In Virginia
Joshua Rhett Miller
Fox News
July 13, 2009

As The Cap And Trade Energy Tax Heads To The Senate, We Must Look At Who Will Profit From It

One of the principles of ethics that should govern politicians and their dealings with the private sector is that politicians should not be voting on legislation that directly involves their own personal investments. Ideally, politicians shouldn't be investing in the market at all since they can vote to influence the market in their favor. If they do have investments in the private sector, then they should recuse themsleves from voting on any legislation that would influence the profitability of those investments.

The Cap and Trace Energy Tax recently passed by the House of Representatives is a good case in point. Several lawmakers will enjoy direct financial benefits from the legislation should it become law. Among these are Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

From Mark Tapscott at the Washington Examiner:

How much money will Pelosi make if the measure (Obama-Waxman-Markey (OWM)) becomes law, as seems quite likely? Pelosi, of course, is not the only member of Congress to own significant shares of energy companies. Senators and representatives from all over the country do, not just the "oilies" from energy states like Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana. But as House Speaker, Pelosi's ownership of an unknown number of shares in the Clean Energy Fuels Corp. (CLNE) valued at between $15,000 and $50,000, may deserve particular attention. ... Pelosi will profit because OWM will boost the price of natural gas on the market. This is because natural gas burns with significantly less carbon emissions than other fossil fuels. For companies trying to get under OWM limits for greenhouse gases emissions, burning more natural gas instead of, say coal, will be a no-brainer. That will drive up demand for natural gas, which in turn will create upward price pressures.

Pelosi claims that her husband handles the stocks and that she has no knowledge of what stocks he is purchasing. This is an irrelevent cop-out. Mr. Pelosi knows very well what legislation his wife is working on and whether or not it is likely to be passed. He further knows what effect such legislation would have on the stocks he will be purchasing. That is the same thing as insider trading and that makes it every bit as unethical as it would be if Speaker Pelosi purchased the stocks herself.

Rather than fulfill her 2006 promise of ridding D.C. of the culture of corruption, Pelosi and her fellow Dems simply claimed the cess pool as their own, jumped in and began splashing around.

You can access this story on on-line here:

Pelosi Will Profit From Obama-Waxman-Markey Cap-And-Trade Energy Bill
Mark Tapscott
Washington Examiner
June 24, 2009

And who else stands to make bank from this legislation? Al Gore and Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) for two. Markey holds between $51,000 and $115,000 in investments in Firsthand Technology Value Fund (solar-evergy manufacturers) and Al Gore has $6 million in the Venture Capital Group (CO₂ emmissions tracking software), both of which will make very nice profits under the cap-and-trade tax. Profits that will come from fleecing the American people through higher taxes.

Before this gets voted on in the Senate, we should seriously look into which members of Congress will make a profit off of it and how they voted or intend to vote.

Book Review: COMMON SENSE By Glenn Beck

The out-of-control government spending we are witnessing right now began under George W. Bush. That much is true. But, just because Bush did it does that mean that it is okay for Obama and the Dems to accelerate it? No, absolutely not. If Bush was wrong for running up a $2 trillion debt, then Obama is five and a half times as wrong for wanting to run up an $11 trillion debt. (For those of you who don't understand the math, here is the equation: 11/2 = 5 1/2.)

That basically sums up Glenn Beck's thesis in his #1 bestseller Common Sense. Taking some inspiration from Thomas Paine, the author of the original Common Sense, Glenn has built up an argument that shows us why we, as a nation, are on the wrong path, what will likely happen as a result of going down this path and why we should hold those in power (both Democrat and Republican) accountable for what they've done.

The Founding Fathers who wrote the U.S. Constitution knew what dangers there were in a government that over-reaches its powers. Glenn reminds us of this throughout the book with passages such as the following:

Thomas Jefferson knew that government debt was not only bad economic policy but also morally unacceptable because it effectively makes your children responsible to pay for what you bought. He said, "The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale." If that wasn't clear enough, he also said that politicians should consider themselves "unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves ..."

I am not aware of any other commentator who even knows about that quote from Jefferson much less actually reminds us of it. But, since most of us don't know the numbers or don't seem to care enough about what those numbers mean, we simply let it go and expect someone else to handle the problem for us.

That is not possible in the current situation. Here's why: Our interest payment to service our debt stands at $26 billion per month. That's right, per month. That's money that is sent to our creditors rather than going to upgrade schools or roads here in the U.S. Multiply that by 12 and you get $312 billion per year. If the government taxed away the total profits of Exxon-Mobil, General Electric, Wal-Mart and IBM, we wouldn't even have enough to pay one-third of the interest payment on the debt much less pay down the debt! Where is the rest of this money going to come from? Small businesses? Higher taxes on the middle class? (As I write this, the Dems in Congress are already working on several new plans that will raise taxes and depress our economy even further which means even less ability to pay down the debt.)

With this type of insanity going on in Washington D.C., Glenn asks another very important question: "Why do we keep sending these bozos back to Congress?" Therein lies the crux of the title of this book. Sending the current crop of politicians back to D.C. defies common sense.

And here is another good excerpt:

President Obama announced that his 2009 budget was projected to produce a $1,700,000,000,000 deficit. If you break that down you find that we're spending $4,657 billion every day for a year, which breaks down to $53,906.64 per second.

Our government is spending in one second what most Americans don't even make in a year! How sustainable is that? It isn't, which is why all of this fiscal madness is only going to bring us to economic disaster and ruin.

And this brings us to one of the most poignant questions any commentator has ever asked:

Borrowed money has to be paid back - but it won't be us who will have to do it. Our children will question our sanity for spending money we did not have on "bridges to nowhere," skateboard parks, tattoo removel, and other pork-laden projects that politicians stuffed into "must pass" legislation. They will wonder why we tolerated such reckless behavior from our elected leaders instead of holding them accountable. How will we respond?

Indeed, how will we respond? More specifically, how will you respond if your child or grand-child comes up to you after they've turned 18 and asks why they are working to pay off a debt that they didn't vote to incur and from which they are getting no benefit at all?

I doubt anyone will have a good answer to that question. I know I don't.

I highly recommend this book to all Americans whether Democrat, Republican, Lbertarian or otherwise. The issues brought up by Glenn Beck are not political so much as they are national concerns that will touch every single one of us in very negative ways.

Each of us has a choice. Either a) stand up and finally tell Congress to bring spending under control or risk losing their next elections, or b) just sit back, do nothing and wait until the dollar collapses and our children wake up to find themselves up to their foreheads in a debt that they did not incur but will be held responsible for.

I'm sure that you can see choosing the latter will mean that you waited too long to become active.

Nice Photo Of Obama Taking A Peek

Nothing sinister is meant by this. I'm sure Barack is simply being a red-blooded American male here. But it is a pretty funny picture.

Small Businesses Will Get Hammered Under The Cap And Trade Energy Tax

You know, the Dems try to paint themselves as friends of "the little guy," but since their takeover of Congress in 2006 and the election of Barack Obama to the White House, it is clear that the Democrats are all about big government and controlling the people. There really is no counter-argument to that since is it simply a fact that cannot be denied.

The energy tax that was passed by the House Dems (and 8 back-stabbing Republicans) is a perfect example of how the Dems really want to control "the little guy" through big government intervention rather than do anything to help.

McArthur's Bakery in St. Louis will be facing a very difficult time because of Pelosi's energy tax. The owner, David McArthur explains why.

From Fox News:

David McArthur, vice president of the 52-year-old family operation, a Gateway City institution, is one of a growing number of business owners and taxpayers nationwide who are mobilizing against the so-called cap-and-trade bill, which would levy harsh fines on energy consumption ... ... McArthur told FOXNews.com that every aspect of his business relies on the forms of energy targeted by the American Clean Energy and Security Act, and that his congressman, Carnahan, was supporting "a direct tax increase on small business" by voting for it. "We make (our product) with electricity, we bake it with gas, we refrigerate and freeze it with electricity and we distribute it with gas and oil," said McArthur, who said he worries that high prices could cost his company up to $15,000 a year in an industry with a very tight margin for profit.

Think about all the small businesses that rely on energy. Basically, all of them. If this energy tax passes the Senate, it will hit small businesses like 10 tons of bricks. Beauty salons that require electricity to run dryers and water heaters will begin to close. Delivery companies will have to raise their rates to account for the gasoline and diesel that their trucks use. Farming will become more expensive. In turn, food prices will go up as will the price of any commodity that needs to be transported from producer to market.

Very few small businesses will be able to withstand such an economic onslaught. Most will have to lay off workers in order to make ends meet. That will mean fewer people getting paychecks while prices will be going higher.

This cap and trade energy tax is a disaster waiting to happen and the Dems (and a few short-sighted Republicans) are completely blind to the danger. Instead, they have beholden themsleves to the junk science espoused by Al Gore.

What is even worse is that once again, the House of Representatives voted on a bill that members did not get a chance to read:

"He's killing small business -- he's killing us," McArthur said of Carnahan, who was one of a majority of Democrats who voted for the bill in a closely fought 219-212 vote. McArthur, who penned a scathing letter to Carnahan, is not alone in taking the message directly to his congressman. Dozens of small protests were organized at the end of June at federal buildings and outside the offices of national lawmakers who voted for the bill. Mike Wilson, who led a protest in Cincinnati of about 100 people on June 27 across from the offices of Rep. Steve Driehaus, D-Ohio, said he was appalled by the 1,500-page legislation, which was fast-tracked by House leaders for a vote Friday. A 310-page amendment was slapped onto the bill Friday morning. "It was, quite frankly, criminal passing a bill that you didn't read," said Wilson, founder of the anti-tax group Cincinnati Tea Party.

One thing is certain though. If this becomes law, the effects will be harsh and far-reaching. And the Dems will not be able to blame this on George W. Bush. Blame will rest solely and squarely on the shoulders of the current party in power.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Small Businesses Irate Over Climate Change Bill
Joseph Abrams
FoxNews.com
July 7, 2009

Kennedy Health Care Chart

Does anyone here really think that government run health care will be more efficient and help more people than private health care? The horror stories coming out of Canada and Great Britain are ample evidence that socialized medicine is a disaster.

But here, we can see one of the reasons why. Click on the following chart (requires Adobe reader):



Given all the new bureaucrats who will now be involved in your health care decisions, how long do you think it will take before certain treatments are approved? Do you think that if you or someone in your family needs urgent care that you will get it in a timely manner? That has not been the experience of people in Canada and Great Britain. And it won't be the experience of people here if we move towards this disastrous health care system.

Go to the following website and get the facts about patients' rights:

Conservatives For Patients' Rights

Obama Administration Quashes Biden's Comments About Israel

I remember back during the 2008 Presidential election that libs and Dems were hurling insults at Sarah Palin saying that she was "stupid" or "not smart enough." Well, let's contrast that with what has been happening with Vice President Joe "Gaffe" Biden.

He made a gaffe about Franklin Roosevelt going on television when the market crashed in 1929. But Roosevelt was not president yet and television was not commercially avaliable at the time.

He made a gaffe when he asked a wheelchair-bound man to "stand up and take a bow."

Sarah Palin never did or said anything that even came close to these two gaffes and they are only a small representation of Biden's repertoire.

Now, the Obama administration has had to step in once again and undo whatever damage Biden did by talking.

From Breitbart:

The Obama administration poured cold water Monday on any notion it is giving Israel the green light to attack Iran or that it is reconsidering plans to engage diplomatically with the Islamic republic. Vice President Joe Biden said in an interview broadcast Sunday that the United States would not stand in the way of Israel in its dealings with Iran's nuclear ambitions. But State Department spokesman Ian Kelly rebuffed suggestions from reporters that Biden could be seen as giving the Jewish state a green light to attack Iran, which it views as an existential threat.

I think Biden was pretty clear in what he said and left little room for interpretation. Here is his quote: "Israel can determine for itself -- it's a sovereign nation -- what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else. We cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do when they make a determination, if they make a determination, that they're existentially threatened."

Seems petty clear to me.

You can access the complete atory on-line here:

US Not Giving Israel 'Green Light' To Attack Iran
AFP via Breitbart
July 6, 2009

Dr. Thomas Sowell: A Tangled Web Of Racial Politics

In this post-racial America that was supposed to be Barack Obama's hallmark, we find that things have not changed one little bit. Dr. Sowell reminds us that the recent Supreme Court decision which vailidated the complaints of several New Haven firefighters who were denied promotion because they were white may have been a good decision because it was fair, but also that the decision was a rare case of sanity in an insane political world.

In his latest column for Town Hall, he writes:

The original Civil Rights Act of 1964 was very straightforward in forbidding discrimination. But, even before that Act was passed, there were already people demanding more than equality of treatment. Some wanted equality of end results, some wanted restitution for past wrongs, and some just wanted as much as they could get.

Those that want equality of end results or simply to get as much as they can without having to work for it are the problem. Instead of making themselves better people, they play the race card or the victim card in the hopes of gaining something for little or no labor on their part.

More:

Opponents of the Civil Rights Act said that it would lead to racial quotas and reverse discrimination. Advocates of the Act not only denied this, they wrote the language of the law in a way designed to explicitly prevent such things. But judges, over the years, have "interpreted" the Civil Rights Act to mean what its opponents said it would mean, rather than what its advocates put into the plain language of the legislation. A key notion that has created unending mischief, from its introduction by the Supreme Court in 1971 to the current firefighters' case, is that of "disparate impact." Any employment requirement that one racial or ethnic group meets far more often than another is said to have a "disparate impact" and is considered to be evidence of racial discrimination.

The problem is that there is no evidence of such racial discrimination in these cases. Having grown up in predominantly black Prince George's County, Maryland, I have seen this up close. I went to public school with all my black peers. We all attended the same classes and were presented with the same study material. Those that scored better on the exams were those who applied themselves and made an effort to learn. Those that didn't do so well were those who were lazy and didn't do the work that was required of them.

It is that latter group that is most likely to play the race card or the victim card claiming some sort of discrimination when the truth is that they simply didn't want to work.

Why does this mentality survive today?

Read on:

The dogma survives because it is politically useful, not because it has met any test of facts.

That's it. No other reason. It is easy for leftists with political aspirations to buy votes by jumping on the victimology bandwagon and then promising to help those "victims" through government intervention. In other words, they promise to make other people pay by redistributing wealth.

But it is amazing that while minorities claim racial dicrimination in most areas, you won't ever hear them complain about it in other areas, such as sports. Dr. Sowell gives us some good insight on that:

Does anybody seriously doubt that blacks usually play basketball better than whites?

So, why aren't their any complaints of racial discrimination in the NBA or even the NFL? Because it would strip away the illusion of victimization.

If the Dems and other leftists were serious about transforming America into a "post-racial" society, their first step should be to tell all those who would play the race card to be quiet.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

A Tangled Web
Dr. Thomas Sowell
TownHall.com
July 7, 2009

Colin Powell Criticizes Obama Agenda

Well, I'm finally back from vacation with the family. Had a really nice time and the fireworks in Ocean City, MD were really good.

First, let me say "Congratulations" to all those principled Conservatives from Minnesoata who decided to stay home rather than get out the vote last November. I hope the next six years are everything you dreamt of.

But, let's look forward, not back. Colin Powell has finally seen the light concerning Barack Obama. Apparently, the retired General is now wondering whether or not voting for color of skin rather than actual issues was such a good idea.

From the Washington Times:

Colin Powell, one of President Obama's most prominent Republican supporters, expressed concern Friday that the president's ambitious blitz of costly initiatives may be enlarging the size of government and the federal debt too much. "I'm concerned at the number of programs that are being presented, the bills associated with these programs and the additional government that will be needed to execute them," Mr. Powell said in an excerpt of an interview with CNN's John King, released by the network Friday morning.

Well, those of us who were not blinded by a "Messiah complex" knew this to be true last year.

More:

"And we can't pay for it all," said Mr. Powell, who was the first African-American to serve as secretary of state, under former President George W. Bush. ... Mr. Powell's comments represent the growing concern that began with hard-line fiscal conservatives but is now spreading to moderates about the rate of government spending and debt under President Obama, and the long-term impact on the country's fiscal sustainability and national security. The national debt stands currently at $11.5 trillion and the deficit for the current fiscal year is projected to be close to $2 trillion. Mr. Powell expressed alarm at "budgets that are running into the multi-trillions of dollars" and "a huge, huge national debt that, if we don't pay for in our lifetime, our kids and grandkids and great-grandchildren will have to pay for it."

Welcome aboard, General Powell! It's good to see that you have finally realized what most of us have known all along!

This is what happens when people vote from their emotions rather than their rationality. They get the exact opposite of what they were expecting.

BTW, look for the Obama administration to throw General Powell under the bus soon.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Powell Airs Doubts On Obama Agenda
Jon Ward
The Washington Times
July 3, 2009