Tuesday Chat

Time to speed up the process alittle. I’m still curious about the Sequester mess that is all over the news. The way the MSM and the White House makes it out to be, this 2% cut in future spending is going to cause all the problems that Obama has been railing about. Is Obama lying again?  Probably a dumb question.  On another note, the Republicans have been rather useless, but then again, the MSM don’t give them much air time.  Should we not hold each MSM outlet accountable by calling them out? 

About these ads

Comments

  1. gmanfortruth says:

    Obama is traveling to Virginia today to threaten the jobs of shipbuilders today. How nice :( One would think he would be negotiating in D.C.. Oh, he wants the Sequester :roll: All the while blaming the Republicans. If Harry Ried’s Senate would have passed a budget (or 4), would we be talking about this?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      As Obama speaks about how bad a 2% cut will hurt a budget of 3 trillion +, is it not totally obvious the complete hippocracy of his words?

  2. gmanfortruth says:

    (NaturalNews) You probably already know that the FDA has declared war on raw milk and even helped fund and coordinate armed government raids against raw milk farmers and distributors. Yes, it’s insane. This brand of tyranny is unique to the USA and isn’t even conducted in China, North Kora or Cuba. Only in the USA are raw milk farmers treated like terrorists.

    But now the situation is getting even more insane than you could have imagined: the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) and the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) have filed a petition with the FDA asking the FDA to alter the definition of “milk” to secretly include chemical sweeteners such as aspartame and sucralose.

    Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/039244_milk_aspartame_FDA_petition.html#ixzz2M0eTrv2r

    Good article that includes a link to a video about how much “pus” is in milk. I don’t drink milk, never really have, but after watching that, you may want to stop too!

  3. I am fighting back against the MSM by not giving them my vote. I have blocked all cable ‘news’ outlets from my cable channel menu so that I never click on them to watch. I don’t care what Neilson says, I know the cable companies can count every box that is tuned to a channel, the tech is too simple for them not to be doing this.

    The MSM has destroyed America in this way, that no one trusts what we are being told by anyone anymore. There was a time that Americans could turn on the news and trust that they where getting the facts, those days are gone.

    • A Thoroughly Dishonest Media

      Obama took the presidential election with 51% of the popular vote, and a 3.85% edge over Mitt Romney. The mainstream media provided Obama his thin margin of victory. Fox news reported “Five ways the mainstream media tipped the scales in favor of Obama.” I believe the mainstream media regularly delivers about 10-20% of the popular vote to the Democrats, and have been doing so for the past thirty years or so. I agree with Ann that you really do have to wonder if the Democrats would win any elections without the mainstream media.

      Today, the mainstream media — ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Boston Globe, the LA Times, Newsweek, Time, and all the other mainstream media outlets — are unabashedly liberal. They have also been integrated into the inner workings of the Democratic Party and the United States government. The Obama administration tells the mainstream media what to report and how to report it. We now have a government-controlled press, not a free press.

      Our Founding Fathers knew that if the government controlled the news media, that the people would only hear the political news the government wanted them to hear. The government could control what the people believed and valued. Such is the reality of the media in today’s America. The government-controlled media shapes the message, frames it and delivers it to the people.

      Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/02/the_media_threat_to_democracy.html#ixzz2M1Bg4oA6

      I hope the new media & internet can offset their power, but after last election, not sure if/when it will happen. Hope you have all hatches battened, looks like MommaNature is pissed today…

    • “The MSM has destroyed America in this way, that no one trusts what we are being told by anyone anymore. There was a time that Americans could turn on the news and trust that they where getting the facts, those days are gone”

      You show’em FL Patriot … There was a time …

      All righty then … you’re cuckoo for coco-puffs …:)

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Don’t worry FLP, Charlie has been riding the short bus all his life and can’t handle facts :)

        • :!: :!: :!:

          He’s our resident commie. Kinda like the crazy uncle that we just shake our head at and offer a nice smile.

      • Seeing as he has no intelligent response to my statement, I figuered he was just another sheeple not worth my time to respond to.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      FLP

      I am kind of curious when you think it was we could trust the media for telling the truth.

      • Good question. I am too young to remember Cronkite, and I am honest enough to know that even he had an agenda, but I have heard people tell me how they trusted what he told them. That generation tell me all the time how Cronkite would give the facts and then tell you his opinion seperatly, it allowed to you to hear the news and not just all opinion like we get today.

        Wouldn’t it be nice to have a real news service you could trust. I doubt we will ever have one again.

        • Oh, Cronkite? Pure commie …

          Kathy, I appreciate the smile :)

        • Bottom Line says:

          ” Wouldn’t it be nice to have a real news service you could trust. I doubt we will ever have one again. ”

          I have watched virtually no TV for about 2 years. If you want to get the real scoop as to what is going on, you are better served by getting it from places like SUFA where you have a group of concerned Americans voicing what is important to Americans, posting relevant articles and such.

          It is much better than cherry picked nonsense.

  4. It is 2% of the increases already scheduled. The president has the authority to decide WHERE the cuts go within departments. If he decides to lay off air traffic controllers….that is his decision. He does NOT have to do that. If he does what he claims, then he is the one practicing politics. THIS IS NOT A CUT…..this is a reduction in future spending. These scare tactics are bullshit…..and the public and the left buys it.

    Let the sequester happen. It should be 25% instead of 2%.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I agree with you D13. I think it’s all just to find out how many sheeple are still out there.

      Buck, What’s your take on the subject?

      • I can’t speak for Buck, G … but I kind of think you’re the sheeple in all this …

        • gmanfortruth says:

          I know you can’t help but to attack the person rather than the message, we call that intellectually bankrupt :lol:

        • No please….feel free to speak for me Charlie….

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Buck, Please tell us you are not allowing the intellectual bankrupt speak for you. I thought lawyers were wiser than that? Oh well, guess I was wrong about lawyers :lol:

          • Buck, You do realize that Charlie hates Capitalism, that is right isn’t it Charlie-you haven’t softened on your views have you?

            • In case it wasn’t clear, I was giving Charlie the limited power to speak for me on this singular topic to answer G’s initial post. I am quite sure Charlie understands the scope of his agency.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Good luck with that! You’ll probably end up as a gay character in his next book. Hey, Look, it’s Buck the gay crime fighter :lol:

              • gmanfortruth says:

                We won’t tell your wife :)

              • Wait G, I’m confused – I only fight ‘gay crime’?

                Charlie, that’s really not fair. I demand to fight all crime – gay or otherwise. I am an equal opportunity crime fighter!

              • gmanfortruth says:

                HAHA! Glad you see the humor! It’s his character, and your gonna be the Chief Investigator of the LGBT crimes unit ! Congrats on your promotion (Charlie had you in a pink cape !) :)

            • No, NO, NO, V.H. I don’t “Hate” capitalism … I think capitalist ideas can be curbed or trimmed (so most wouldn’t recognize it) enough to benefit more rather than fewer … the problem is those with the most won’t permit it … they’ll continue to use sites like SUFA to brainwash average people into thinking they’re serving the greater good via greed. :)

              • I have to wonder Charlie-How much one can trim capitalist ideas before you don’t have capitalism anymore-But I will stop thinking of you as a Self-declared Communist, doesn’t mean I don’t still believe you really dislike :) capitalism though.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13thecolonel

      Good morning Sir.

      You are correct up to a point. And that point is the remainder of this fiscal year. As I explained to SK last night:

      S.K.

      There is a little problem with the argument you are making. It involves ONLY this fiscal year, which started Oct 1st, 2012.

      It is 5 months into the year. Many if not most agencies are running on continuing resolutions, which may or may not have included the base budget 6% growth rate. Take it from me that some DID NOT.

      So what will happen is that the full cut will be made on the remaining 7 months of the fiscal year. This would obviously increase the impact (potentially) because you have less time to make the cuts.

      Now some reports have said this year is pro-rated. Thus 7/12 of the cut will be made from March 1 to Sept 30. But I have only seen two reports that made this claim.

      As for the impacts I can speak with authority on ONE agency. They goofed up and got their letter out to the employees before the Administration got theirs out. It said they could probably get by without furloughs. An hour or two later the Secretary’s letter came out claiming there would be furloughs.

      Whether the furlough days are exaggerated will depend on the number of critical employees and contract obligations of each agency. If these are large then the furloughs will be higher against the LOWER RANKING employees.

      I can tell you from the shut downs I was involved with that Air Traffic Controllers were considered ESSENTIAL. But you see, the Administration gets to make the call on that classification.

      I expect that the Administration will try to place as much of the hurt on the States as possible to drive home the pain. This will be in the form of eliminating Grants and Cost Share projects that have not been “obligated” yet.

      Now keep in mind that at the end of March the “Continuing Resolutions” funding the Govt EXPIRE.

      This could allow Congress a place to quickly target the cuts, override them, adopt them or add more. If you think this is a pissing match, wait until you see what is coming next.

      Now I can add to this after seeing one of the Republicans from the Budget committee on TV last night. He said the sequestration “will happen” and then the House will immediately go to work to extend the Continuing Resolutions with the sequester included. Then they will go to work on the FY 14 Budget.

      So it looks like the R’s are going to try and make the “crisis” nature dissipate and then focus on 2014.

      We will see how this works but I don’t have any high expectations. More like a re-run of the 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 budget battles.

      • Displaced Okie says:

        JAC,
        We’re considered “essential” and they have informed us that we are basically being furloughed for 10% of our pay periods….I wouldn’t have a problem with it IF they were actually trying to balance the budget. But we all know they just want to cut things that are the most “painful” to the most people–No reduction in foriegn aid, more F-16’s to Egypt, more turtle tunnels, etc…It’s all just a dog and pony show, in my opinion.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Okie

          Good to see you are still vertical. I was afraid you had been hijacked or some such thing.

          You would think they could come up with other cuts so your furlough days would be closer to the 2.5% sequestration value, wouldn’t you.

          Spousal Unit leader was told yesterday they won’t have furloughs. I bet that story changes by Thursday.

          Stay safe my Okie Friend.
          JAC

          • JAC,
            I’ve been trying to follow along, but my spousal unit and I just added a little one, so my free time has been limited. :) . That and by the time I get on here all the good discussion has usually ended…and you have already said what I was thinking anyway, lol. So I have mostly been been preaching to the masses via twitter. The low amount of characters per post is a pain but it is active at night and as an added bonus, I link to this site.

    • I like the idea I saw somewhere that said Obama wants it to happen. When the economy doesn’t improve he will blame the Republicans that let it happen. (even if the economy doesn’t improve because it was his policies). A few months later he will be claiming how he lowered the deficit. WIN WIN for Obama.

      If it does pass, and the economy gets worse, he blames Republicans for not increasing spending/taxing the rich. A few months later he will be claiming that he saved X number of jobs. WIN WIN for Obama.

  5. gmanfortruth says:

    In the past, what happens to nations when their governments…

    … rob from the rich to buy votes from the poor?

    … take legal citizen’s jobs, financial security, medical care and tax dollars and use them to buy votes from illegal immigrants and bribed minorities?

    … tax away incentive from the 1% responsible investors to buy votes from the 99% irresponsibly entitled?

    … disenfranchise, condemn and discriminate against those with traditional proven values to embrace radical change from politically correct change agents as the norm?

    … policies produce more walkers than strollers emptied by government funded birth control and abortions?

    … disarm individuals from self-protection to arm a private army (SS, DHS) for enforcement of executive orders?

    … vote themselves the treasury, the federal reserve, unrestricted spending and tax exemptions to fund youth indoctrination camps for unscrupulous change agents (like Acorn and now Fair Share) to canvas the country to slander opposition with big lies, propaganda, and mindless allegiance to a slanted totalitarian power base?

    … train, practice and prepare for armed assaults on its own cities, farms, business, and non-combative populace?

    … terminate law enforcement and military leadership that refuses to fire on their own civilian population?

    … excessively fine businesses that do not share their radical views of deviant inclusivism to buy votes from fringe movements?

    … spend more effort popularizing their photo ops with infatuated blind media than disaster relief with emergency services?

    … buy votes with money from foreign oil (BP), foreign investment (Pakistan), foreign kickbacks and foreign America hating organizations?

    … idolize a leader without a background check, while they criminalize the population by requiring background checks?

    … export jobs and import foreign dependence?

    … bail out bank usury, investor fraud, and wall street exploitation as they support foreclose on families and allow hoarding of the bail-out money by lenders?

    … tolerate, legitimize, support and engender hatred for a selected conservative race, dissenting creed, upper class or opposing party?

    … are intolerant of … and discriminate against racial majorities to pander to illegal immigrants, racial vengeance, and minority exploitation?

    … finance voter fraud and cover ups?

    … threaten loss of wages to steam roll uncontrolled spending?

    … embrace junk fringe science bankroll public policy?

    … weight statistics to support their agenda?

    … approve emergency powers acts to constitutionally exercise dictatorial power without legal objection from other branches of government?

    … exploit tragedy and violence as a pulpit to advance political objectives and to recruit party members willing to do the same?

    … blend political acuity, deceptiveness and cunning to convert a party’s non-majority but plurality status into effective governing power?

    … rewrite history to create a mythology surrounding their rise to power, countries greatness and hidden agendas.

    … gain power by false promises denied by big lies, glittering generalities and fringe group appeal?

    … criminalize free speech, censor the church and replace dependence on God with dependence on government?

    Read more: http://clashdaily.com/2013/02/hey-goofy-leftists-historically-what-happens-to-nations-when-their-governments-do-the-following/#ixzz2M0jhdPEM

  6. The Looking for a reason to buy a gun in Texas? Republican State Rep. Jeff Leach has filed a bill to give Texas gun-buyers a break — making Texas Independence Day (March 2) a tax-free holiday for anyone who purchases a rifle, pistol, shotgun or semi-automatic. Buy a gun, skip the sales tax. Leach calls his bill the Texas Gun Ownership Reinforcement Act.

    “Texas must take the lead in the fight against the federal government’s attempts to infringe on our Second Amendment Rights,” Leach said in a statement. ”As we fight against the federal government’s overreach, there is no more appropriate day to instate this tax-free holiday than on Texas Independence Day.”

    Under this legislation, there would be no sales tax on the following items bought on Texas Independence Day:

    Shotguns, rifles, pistols, revolvers, and other handguns

    · Gun cleaning supplies, gun cases, gun safes, and optics

    · Ammunition

    · Archery equipment

    · Hunting stands, blinds and decoys

    Leach says idea has the endorsement of the National Rifle Association. Currently, there already is a tax-free holiday before every school year on the sale of back-to-school shoes, clothes, books, backpacks and supplies. Leach’s bill would extend the sales-tax break to guns.

    Update today: The bill already has enough support to pass the house and the senate by 78%. It will be a Texas Independence day sale.

  7. gmanfortruth says:

    A view from the Left on gun ownership.

    http://www.nationalmemo.com/gun-lobby-defends-not-the-constitution-but-a-cynical-business-model/

    This author says that gun ownership is down. Thoughts?

    • “This author says that gun ownership is down.”
      The power of belief can overcome reality. Wonder if he still jumps off the roof with a blankey, flapping his arms, expecting to fly?

    • I understand that thoroughly and have made the assumption that the continuing resolutions will cover the remainder of this year.

      The downside is that there will still be no budget from the Senate. They will not do it…so I say…screw the budget and quit funding except essential servives. The Senate cannot spend what they do not have.

      The other thing….is the 2014 elections……the Repubs need to get their act together or they will lose the house. But the other thing that I see happening, is that more and more states are beginning to follow a Texas lead……they are getting their houses in shape to avoid the federal issues. we are fortunate here that we have sufficient revenues…..
      to not need the Feds on most items and we are positioning ourselves to become totally independent.

  8. gmanfortruth says:

    JAC,, Seems the cops in your neck of the woods need some schooling :lol:

    http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2013/02/video-law-student-schools-policeman-on-his-gun-rights/

  9. gmanfortruth says:
  10. Barack Obama is overplaying his hand in the latest manufactured crisis of his presidency, Sequestration, and may be alienating his most important constituency of all, the media. He and his advisors are heedless of the psychology of the media, who have been battered by downsizing and budget cuts far more draconian than the piddling 2.4% at issue in the Sequestration Crisis.

    The fantastical claims of apocalypse push a powerful emotional button the hearts of nearly everyone in the mainstream media. They have already made do with less; the expense accounts are less generous, and fewer people do the same amount of work. Two or three percent cuts are nothing. They bear emotional scars from seeing their colleagues jobless, and endure the fear of further cuts coming. They are survivors, and feel a mixture of pride in their prowess and endurance, fear of what lies ahead, and maybe sometimes a little taste of survivor’s guilt. A major portion of their self-concept is entwined with their status as survivors. Challenging a person’s self-concept usually evokes hostility.

    It may be that administration wolf-crying evokes a certain degree of scorn in the minds of event of their media allies. At same time, a degree of insulting high-handedness, if not contempt, is being demonstrated by the president lately:

    At a meeting with the National Governors Association on Monday, President Barack Obama closed his prepared speech by saying he wanted the press cleared out of the room so he could take some questions. (snip)

    “…what I want to do is clear out the press so we can take some questions.”

    This comes after alienating the traveling press by keeping them cooling their heels outside a golf course as the president hit the links with Tiger Woods and assorted fat cats. The fact that a sports journalist copped an interview drove home to the presidential press corps that they are not all that important. These are people for whom being attached to the president is a very big deal, a source of pride and identity. It makes worthwhile the grueling routine of tagging along with president on charter flights and busses, while he has Air Force One and limos.

    The press corps is firing back, giving Jay Carney a hard time lately.

    Meanwhile, Michelle Obama may be treading on thin ice: (hat tip: Breitbart)

    This is a dangerous moment for Obama’s ability to bend the media to his will. They have succeeded in re-electing him, so America’s first black president was not humiliated by defeat (their great fear). That history has been made. But instead of showing gratitude, he not only takes them for granted, he challenges their pride.

    The fact that Bob Woodward, the most prestigious reporter of this era took to the pages of the Washington Post last weekend to, in effect, call Obama’s denial of authoring the Sequestration proposal is very important. It is now OK to point out that Obama is not telling the truth. A lot of the survivors covering Obama got into the media because they wanted to be like Bob Woodward. The ultimate media role model has just shown the way ahead, or as the Obama campaign put it, forward!

    Readers of American Thinker realize how little serious scrutiny Obama’s claimed biography can withstand. Once it becomes OK, and then cool to unmask Obama’s deceptions, the flood gates could open.

    The economy is going south due to taxes and Obamacare, and our military is shrinking while our enemies gleefully enhance their capabilities. There is going to be some hell to pay probably well before Obama’s term is over.

    If Obama loses enough degrees of his media support, he might even (gasp!) start being held accountable.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/02/obamas_sequester_strategy_backfiring.html#ixzz2M1EnjzBa

    • It would appear that some members of the press are now realizing they’ve been nothing more than useful idiots to this adm. They played their roles well and got him re-elected and now they are being kicked to the curb. How will they react is the big question.

      • I’ve messaged Gov. Walker’s office and asked why he (and others) didn’t stand up and say, “no, we think the American citizens deserve transparency and the press should stay put”.

        I understand that this was probably such a surprise that no one knew how to react, I mean, Mr. Transparency himself asks the press to leave? But it will take everyone to stand up to this adm. and these governors missed an opportunity.

    • One would certainly hope that they would actually start to wake up-but other than a little fire at Obama -I’m not at all sure they will really hold him to account for his actions-unless they start to believe that he is going to cost other dems. the upcoming elections. They all would turn on him then. But they would still be backing the democrats. Obama supposedly is taking it to the people, which may be true and it has worked for him so far. But without a media that is at least professional enough to try to be fair and unbiased-all he’s taking to the people is what he wants them to know-and how many people actually believe the truth can be found when the President controls the information flow to a very large extent.

  11. WaPo/Pew sequestration poll question oddly missing an option
    posted at 10:01 am on February 26, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

    Let’s see if you can figure out what Pew and the Washington Post left out of this poll question about blame for the sequester. I won’t even give you a hint, even if Rovin had to tip me to this by e-mail:

    wapo-pew-question-this didn’t post-go to the link if you want to see it. :)

    Say, where is the option for Senate Democrats? It might be a secret to the Washington Post that Democrats control one chamber of Congress, but if they dug around a little bit, they might discover that Harry Reid runs the Senate. Of course, that hasn’t meant much in
    the last four years of budgeting, as Reid and his caucus have ignored the law that requires the Senate to actually produce a budget, but still, they’re at least nominally an independent player in this battle.

    By the way, if the Senate had followed the law and produced normal-order budgets, we wouldn’t have the sequestration at all. The budget resolutions of both chambers would have gone to conference committee, which would have hashed out the differences. Obama would have signed the budgets, and we would have avoided nearly four years of crisis funding for the federal government. Reid and Obama haven’t used normal order because they want to keep using continuing resolutions as a means to keep the inflated FY2010 spending levels as the baseline going forward, and especially because they want to keep House Republicans from having a real voice on spending and budgeting.

    In this case, Pew and the Washington Post didn’t just leave out an option. They left out the real culprit, both in the acute crisis (since the Senate still hasn’t produced a sequestration alternative in this session or the previous one) and in the chronic budget failure that produced it.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/26/wapopew-sequestration-poll-question-oddly-missing-an-option/

    • There is two options missing in my mind, for those of you who didn’t click on the link

      Q: If an agreement to prevent automatic federal spending cuts is not reached before next weeks deadline, who do you think would be more to blame?

      A: Republicans in congres: 45%
      President Obama: 32%
      Both Equally: 13
      Neither: 1
      No Opinion: 10

      The two missing options are: Democrats in Congress (obvious), I Support Sequestration

  12. NYT: $500K to OFA Gets You Quarterly Access to Obama; Admin’s Carney Dodges, Walks Away; AP Builds Denial Firewall

    By Tom Blumer | February 26, 2013 | 09:17

    It’s hard to imagine that Nicholas Confessore and his editors at the overwhelmingly Obama-friendly New York Times were just making things up when he reported over the weekend in a Page A1 story that the Obama campaign’s Organizing For America operation, now “rebooted” as the supposedly independent Organizing For Action, “will rely heavily on a small number of deep-pocketed donors … whose influence on political campaigns Mr. Obama once deplored,” granting them quarterly access to the Obama if they raise $500,000 or more.

    According to Charlie Spiering at the Washington Examiner, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, when asked about the story, in Spiering’s words, “asserted that OFA was an ‘independent organization’ that just happened to support the president’s policy agenda,” “refused to address the New York Times reporting,” and “ended the press briefing as reporters were still asking questions and fled the podium.” If the late Tony Snow had done this while serving as press secretary under George W. Bush, we’d be seeing a continuous loop of the walkout on network TV all day long. The key paragraphs from the Times story, the reaction of MSNBC’s Chuck Todd follow the jump, and the Associated Press’s non-denial denial firewall follow the jump.

    From the Times story (“Obama’s Backers Seek Big Donors to Press Agenda”; bolds are mine throughout this post):

    … contributions will also translate into access, according to donors courted by the president’s aides. Next month, Organizing for Action will hold a “founders summit” at a hotel near the White House, where donors paying $50,000 each will mingle with Mr. Obama’s former campaign manager, Jim Messina, and Mr. (Jon) Carson, who previously led the White House Office of Public Engagement.

    Giving or raising $500,000 or more puts donors on a national advisory board for Mr. Obama’s group and the privilege of attending quarterly meetings with the president, along with other meetings at the White House. Moreover, the new cash demands on Mr. Obama’s top donors and bundlers come as many of them are angling for appointments to administration jobs or ambassadorships.

    As reported at the Washington Free Beacon, MSNBC’s Chuck Todd had to work pretty hard to state the obvious:

    “This just looks bad–it looks like the White House is selling access,” Todd said Monday. “It’s the definition of selling access. If you believe money has a strangle hold over the entire political system this is ceding the moral high ground.”

    I don’t think Chuck would have had to get through the “looks like” stage before acknowledging that what OFA is doing is “the definition of selling access” (and, apparently, plum bureaucratic positions) if a Republican or conservative administration were engaging in this behavior.

    Headline writers at the Associated Press, aka the Administration’s Press, helped build a false “denial” firewall today which was contradicted by the actual content of Josh Lederman’s and Ken Thomas’s story. The AP reporters gave away their nervousness by never once specifically mentioning the Times in their writeup:

    WHITE HOUSE: NO PRICE TAG FOR OBAMA ACCESS

    Facing tough questions about President Barack Obama’s past pledges to help curb the role of money in politics, the White House pushed back Monday against suggestions that donors to a new group supporting his agenda will have special access to the president.

    … Asked Monday whether there was a price tag to see the president, White House press secretary Jay Carney said emphatically that there was not. But he wouldn’t directly address reports that donors who give or raise $500,000 will be invited to quarterly meetings with Obama.

    “Administration officials routinely interact with outside advocacy organizations,” Carney said. “This has been true in prior administrations and it is true in this one.”

    … Organizers of the nonprofit group (Organizing For Action) have outlined plans to raise tens of millions of dollars for the organization, according to someone who has been briefed on the plans. The group has reached out to 50 top Obama donors who intend to raise at least $500,000 this year, he said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to describe the group’s plans publicly.

    The donors, many of whom served on the Obama campaign’s National Finance Committee, are expecting they’ll receive benefits similar to what they received in the campaign, he said. Those benefits included briefings from top White House officials, campaign operatives and access to Obama. But an explicit menu of benefits available to those who raise specific amounts has not been offered.

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2013/02/26/nyt-500k-ofa-gets-you-quarterly-access-obama-admins-carney-dodges-walks-#ixzz2M1GeaJlc

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Does anyone wonder why Obama is still raising money? He can’t keep it for himself.

    • Those dirty, greedy, wealthy scumbags……

      Oh, wait….guess not!

    • Seriously this man’s tactics is an example of All the very worse aspects of allowing men power. He has no respect for our laws, he has no respect for our system of government and his proper role in it and freedom is simply an obstacle to be overcome.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Not to mention that he leads the “War on the Unborn”.

        • He leads the war against just about everybody. Except for the fat cats that support him-hell everything he does hurts the poor and the middle class. Handing out a few goodies while causing the whole economy to tank, jobs to be lost, value of money to go down, and prices to go up. Wow-he so clearly cares about the little people while he hobnobs with the rich celebrities. How many articles have you read where he refuses to talk to anybody except a select few and now he’s selling his self to the highest bidder. He was going to promote transparency, yet he won’t talk too and kicks out the media, Congress members and who knows who else- but give him $500,000 and your in.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            They should pay him, he is King Barak! Bow to him and you will be saved from certain death. Remember, all good Americans should donate to King Barak. Show your patriotism and send him your money!

  13. I linked to this NC group’s agenda in our last post. Looks like a little sunlight and exposure didn’t help their efforts.

    http://www.therightscoop.com/soros-funded-nonprofit-faces-funding-loss-after-leaked-memo-outlined-attack-on-nc-gop-leadership/

  14. GAO Report: Obamacare Adds $6.2 Trillion to Long-Term Deficit
    By Andrew Stiles
    February 26, 2013 10:58 A.M.

    Obamacare will increase the long-term federal deficit by $6.2 trillion, according to a Government Accountability Office report that will be released today.

    Senator Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.), who requested the report, revealed the findings this morning at a Senate Budget Committee hearing. The report, he said, “confirms everything critics and Republicans were saying about the faults of this bill,” and “dramatically proves that the promises made assuring the nation that the largest new entitlement program in history would not add one dime to the deficit were false.”

    President Obama and other Democrats attempted to win support for the health-care bill by touting it as a fiscally responsible enterprise. “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future,” Obama told a joint-session of Congress in September 2009. “I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period.”

    The new report exposes the “lack of honesty” surrounding such claims, Sessions argued. “This is how a country goes broke,” he said.

    (from Drudge Report)

    • gmanfortruth says:

      You mean Obama lied? But he’s the Messiah, he don’t lie! King Barak is so hinest the whole world believes every word he speaks, so quit posting these right wing articles that do nothing but spew lies and untruths. How dare you! :evil:

  15. Lengthy read, but interesting to note the lengths that government will go to enforce their will. It is also why we constantly need to fight against the union control of our schools here.

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/02/doj-seeks-deportation-of-family-persecuted-in-germany-for-homeschooling/#more

  16. NOT THE ONION! Do we laugh? Round them all up and institutionalize them for being mentally unstable?

    Liberal Think Tank Claims Global Warming Caused Arab Spring

    http://moonbattery.com/?p=26221

    • Calling Bob!

      British Media Declare All-Out War On Green Energy Lobby
      Author
      – Guest Column Dr. Benny Peiser (Bio and Archives) Sunday, February 24, 2013

      ONE million homes narrowly escaped a power cut last month as bitterly cold weather placed a massive strain on Britain’s creaking electricity network. Shutdown was only avoided because a gas-fired station due to close by next winter came to the rescue. Last night experts warned that life-threatening blackouts are increasingly likely as “we head downhill – fast”. Fawley is one of a number of coal and oil power stations being forced into retirement to comply with EU environmental targets.—Tracey Boles, Sunday Express, 24 February 2013

      We are facing disaster on energy prices. The dynamic has changed, but the thinking hasn’t. What worries me most is that the average household energy bill will be £1,400 by end of the year; £1,500 is a cliff edge at which most people say they’ll switch off the heating entirely.——Ann Robinson, consumer champion at uSwitch, Sunday Express, 24 February 2013

      Scotland’s wealthiest private landowners are on course to earn around £1 billion in rental fees from wind farm companies, according to a book published yesterday by a senior Tory politician. Struan Stevenson, a Conservative MEP, estimated the sum will be paid over the next eight years to at least a dozen landowners willing to allow turbines on their estates and farms. –-Simon Johnson, The Sunday Telegraph, 24 February 2013

      Our energy policy is no longer dictated by the need to keep supply plentiful and cheap which for decades was the basis of all planning. Today energy policy is framed with only one factor in mind: satisfying the green lobby. It is, to be blunt, mad. —Stephen Pollard, Daily Express, 20 February 2013

      We’re seeing in Scotland the biggest transfer of money from the poor to the rich that we’ve ever seen in our history. In parts of the Highlands now tourism is being effectively destroyed and people are leaving the Highlands because tourists no longer want to go there with the landscape bristling with wind factories and industrial wind turbines. It’s a catastrophic policy that could lead to the lights going out in Scotland and power cuts in the years ahead. It’s time this was exposed.—Struan Stevenson, MEP, The Sunday Telegraph, 24 February 2013

      ThE main task of the Department of Energy used to be keeping the lights on but windmill-obsessed David Cameron and his coalition cronies have changed all that. Now we have a Department of Lethargy (aka Climate Change), more keen on closing down old power stations than opening new ones. There has been nothing like it since the Luddites vainly tried to halt the Industrial Revolution by smashing up new labour-saving machines.

      Mr Yeo has moved an extraordinary amendment to the Energy Bill that would set a crippling and binding target for the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by generating power in 2030. It would transform the electricity industry and bring huge benefits to the business sector, which has so generously rewarded Mr Yeo. For the rest of us, however, the effects will be very different. It will cause already high energy bills to soar further and could lead to more power cuts. The effect on business is likely to be even more dramatic. –- David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 24 February 2013

      Even without the amendment, the long-term consequences of the Energy Bill will be horrible. It’s a recipe for deindustrialisation. Either we get rid of this obsession, or we give away our future to the rest of the world. The question is whether we’re serious about our economic future or not. –- Professor Gordon Hughes, Mail on Sunday, 24 February 2013

      Thousands of Britain’s wind turbines will create more greenhouse gases than they save, according to potentially devastating scientific research to be published later this year. The finding, which threatens the entire rationale of the onshore wind farm industry, will be made by Scottish government-funded researchers who devised the standard method used by developers to calculate “carbon payback time” for wind farms on peat soils.—Andrew Gilligan, The Sunday Telegraph, 24 February 2013

      The harsh fact is that successive governments in the past 10 years have staked our national future on two utterly suicidal gambles. First, they have fallen for the delusion that we can depend for nearly a third of our future power on those useless and unreliable windmills – which will require a dozen or more new gas-fired power stations just to provide back-up for when the wind is not blowing. Yet, at the same time, by devices such as the increasingly punitive “carbon tax” due to come into force on April 1, they plan to double the cost of the electricity we get from grown-up power stations, which can only have the effect in the coming years of doubling our electricity bills, driving millions more households into fuel poverty.—Christopher Booker, The Sunday Telegraph, 24 February 2013

      Until very recently, all the mainstream media sources on the alarmist wing of the global warming theory were apt to agree with one another no matter what, but now, at last, when somebody announces that the oceans will soon be 30 feet over the heads of our grandchildren, there is a welcome new reluctance to accept the mere assertion as evidence in itself. Getting a bit frail in my old age, I never thought I’d live to see the day when the Guardian told the BBC to stop cooking the books. But it happened. –Clive James, The Daily Telegraph, 23 February 2013

  17. A man after my own heart, from a “New York Times” obit. Read slowly to enjoy the irony.

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9407E4D7173AF931A35751C0A9659D8B63

  18. Go Mr. Terkel!

  19. Perspective!

  20. gmanfortruth says:
    • So what do you want me to do here? Am I suing this guy for slander? Invasion of privacy? What?

      I also find it very amusing how critical you are of the media and anything reported by the media, yet how quick you are to post links to this utter BS….

      • gmanfortruth says:

        That was the point, in continuing the look at Buck the Gay Crime Fighter, I brought forward a totally stupid….something, from…. well, I think you get the point. All in the name of humor :)

        • gmanfortruth says:

          I guess it could be slander against the gay community though. It’s bad enough he was once a lawyer. :lol:

  21. Anita, what’s the weather doing over your way? Map shows we are getting weather from the EAST! What the heck? Not supposed to happen that way – keep it to yourself!

    • Ha! Just got off the phone with the power company..watched a transformer blow..not mine luckily. It’s windy raining and just now turning to sleet..we’re expecting 5-7 overnight. I’m ready to be done with this mess!

  22. gmanfortruth says:

    For those who think that tyranny cannot exist in the USA, Watch the video at the bottom of article. This won’t happen where I live. http://www.infowars.com/city-wants-power-to-disarm-individuals-during-crisis/

  23. DHS to release thousands of illegal immigrants, blaming budget cuts

    By Judson Berger

    Published February 26, 2013

    FoxNews.com

    22613_ice.jpg

    May 6, 2010: An undocumented immigrant is escorted at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement holding facility before being deported in Phoenix. (Reuters)

    The Department of Homeland Security has started releasing hundreds of illegal immigrants held in local jails in anticipation of automatic budget cuts, in a move one Arizona sheriff called politically motivated — and dangerous.

    Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu said Tuesday that Immigration and Customs Enforcement released more than 500 detainees in his county alone over the weekend. A spokesman for Babeu told FoxNews.com that ICE officials have said they plan to release a total of nearly 10,000 illegal immigrants — though an ICE official told FoxNews.com it’s unclear how many ultimately might be released.

    Babeu described the move as a “mass budget pardon” and suggested the administration was going to unnecessary lengths to demonstrate the impact of the so-called sequester.

    “President Obama would never release 500 criminal illegals to the streets of his hometown, yet he has no problem with releasing them in Arizona. The safety of the public is threatened and the rule of law discarded as a political tactic in this sequester battle,” he said.

    An ICE spokeswoman confirmed the plans without specifying how many illegal immigrants might be released.

    Spokeswoman Gillian Christensen said ICE had directed field offices to make sure the “detained population” is “in line with available funding.” She stressed that ICE would continue to prosecute the cases while keeping them under supervision.

    “Over the last week, ICE has reviewed several hundred cases and placed these individuals on methods of supervision less costly than detention,” she said. “All of these individuals remain in removal proceedings. Priority for detention remains on serious criminal offenders and other individuals who pose a significant threat to public safety.”

    The announcement comes after DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano on Monday warned about the potential impact of the cuts. She said the department “would not be able to maintain the 34,000 detention beds as required by Congress.”

    “We’re doing our very best to minimize the impacts of sequester. But there’s only so much I can do,” she said. “I’m supposed to have 34,000 detention beds for immigration. How do I pay for those?”

    Republicans in Congress, though, have challenged the numerous Obama Cabinet secretaries warning about the devastating impact to their departments. With cuts set to take effect Friday and no deal in sight to avert them, Republicans claim the administration is trying to make the cuts seem worse than they are — some want to give the administration more leeway so that high-priority agencies don’t get hit as hard.

    House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., called the move to release illegal immigrants “abhorrent.” “By releasing criminal immigrants onto the streets, the administration is needlessly endangering American lives,” he said in a statement.

    Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., also said “these savings could be much more safely and rationally achieved.”

    In Arizona, Babeu slammed the move, painting his community as a victim of gridlock in Washington.

    “Clearly, serious criminals are being released to the streets of our local communities by this mass budget pardon. These are illegals that even President Obama wants to deport. This is insane that public safety is sacrificed when it should be the budget priority that’s safeguarded,” he said.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/26/dhs-to-release-thousands-illegal-immigrants-blaming-budget-cuts/#ixzz2M2iMQ07m

  24. gmanfortruth says:

    The University of Iowa may have broken federal guidelines by sharing with the local sheriff’s department private information about students who apply for campus gun permits.

    Under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, public universities are required to keep secret personal information on students, such as their grades and addresses. But Iowa has been sending personal information regarding students who apply for campus gun permits to the sheriff’s office.

    That information includes whether students received bad grades, or were exhibiting signs of depression or anger.

    The policy dates back to a campus shooting in 1991, when a mentally disturbed graduate student killed himself and five others.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/22/university-discloses-students-grades-disciplinary-history-when-they-apply-for-gun-permits/#ixzz2M2zNbXAY

    A good subject to look at. Is this a good thing or another kneejerk leftist decision done without any thought?

  25. gmanfortruth says:

    http://www.westernjournalism.com/americas-number-one-terrorist/

    Bush was just as guilty! Politicians in general, today, should all be removed from office, both parties disbanned and we need to start over, frickin soon too!

  26. I miss Candid Camera! Some funnies for SUFA!

  27. Just A Citizen says:

    When Chris Cristie gave the keynote at the last Elephant Convention, and forgot the mention Romney, the left wing media castigated him.

    As they have on many occasions.

    Now that CPAC has not invited him to their little conservative strategy meeting Christie is now the “last best hope” for the R’s to win the presidency. Those stupid “conservatives” just need to understand that they must choose another “blue state”, Rockefeller Republican if they want to win. And Christie is the bomb.

    JAC’s summary of the whole thing. Now that you Conservative KNOW who the MEDIA and the RHINO’s want as their candidate in 2016 maybe you can short circuit the GAMESHOW early this time.

    • “Those stupid “conservatives” just need to understand that they must choose another “blue state” … from your fingers to God’s ears …

      I can’t help but laugh at Marc Levin when I hear him rant at the GOP … I’ll say this for you, JAC … you remind me of him … and it is incredibly funny. Do you really think one of the tea baggers can win the Presidency in 2016? Seriously? :)

  28. Just A Citizen says:

    Another version of the Debt Repudiation theory to deal with the National Debt.

    http://mises.org/daily/6369/The-Ethics-of-Repudiation

    Any takers??

    • Wow-I get the difference-one is an individual obligation-the other makes a third party responsible to pay-but I’m having a real hard time understanding how not paying these debts would actually help the people in this Country. One example-a contractor gets a government contract-the government should just not pay this contractor. Even though the work is to build highways or something, which helps everyone. Which will probably bankrupt the company. Doing this on a big scale, how is this helpful to the people? Is this the type of thing he’s talking about?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        V.H.

        I don’t think your example would fit what he is talking about. That is the “Sovereign Debt”, namely the Bonds and “Obligations” under entitlement programs. The things that create the 70 Trillion in long term debt we currently have.

        I suppose at the extreme money owed the Contractor could be simply discarded as “repudiation” but realistically that would be such a small amount it would not be considered necessary. However, we would no longer be able to borrow money to cover “future” contracts.

        As to how it would benefit us all, I think that is in the fact that if we simply blew off this large debt it would prevent us from “borrowing” any longer. Who would loan us money? It would force us into a Positive or Neutral Cash Flow funding system.

        • Seems like a drastic and somewhat immoral step to take. We are a Country and as a Country, we the people, do have some input into what we do, seems like we should have to take some of the responsibility and pay our obligations. Although, each year that goes by, we seem to have less and less input. But I’m not at all sure that too isn’t our own fault. Too many people don’t vote, don’t pay any attention, and don’t ensure that the government keeps it’s proper place. It’s certainly not every individuals fault or choice but we live under a governmental system. I don’t see any way around that fact and I’m not sure that fact alone makes such a step right.

          • But looking at it from the perspective of individual people filling bankruptcy-that too seems wrong but I support it because I believe people should have the ability to start over and I certainly don’t believe in debtor’s prisons. Things are so confusing!

  29. gmanfortruth says:

    Hey!! The new Leftist fantasy is that most Southern Republicans are obese! Yep, just heard it. Imagine that! She, yes a woman, said Obamacare was needed because us righties are fat! :roll:

  30. John “the libertarian” Stossel … speaking up for workers! That’s what I’m talkin’ about … free enterprise this, boyeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

    • One has to wonder if Mr. Stossell saw the point of unions in this wonderful story of successful capitalism whereby no regulations permit the owners to exploit the living shit out of his workers. There’s your best example of free enterprise, pals of mine. Stand Up For Socialism :)

      • Do you think you can come up with something from our generation :) That’s from wrestlers who were popular in the late 70’s for Pete’s sake. I was in Junior High when Stossel got smacked down. Your examples are laughable :lol:

        • I’d suggest you take re-look at the 2007-8 bailouts but what’s the point, G? You’d only see through your blinders anyway :)

          • Actually, my Canoli friend….all of the bailouts…..I have not seen one that was needed.

            What’s up with Michigan……..they voted open shop? Wow.

          • Charlie, comparing pro wrestling in the 70’s to the bailouts is absurd. They have nothing in common at all. For the record, I was 100% against the bailouts, maybe that’s why I keep reminding you how corrupt governments are. You want more corruption, I want no corruption. :)

  31. http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=hxlcVAEj0sM&vq=large

    This is the way Socialists act, isn’t Charlie?

  32. I thought this interesting……nuff said.

    Religious Visas Put Lie To Obama’s Suggestion Muslims More Tolerant

    Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/092712-627385-tolerant-muslim-world-bans-western-religious-workers.htm#ixzz2M6ePhfyS
    Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

    Islamofascism: President Obama seems to be under the illusion the Muslim world is more tolerant than the West. Its immigration policies are perhaps the clearest evidence that’s wildly untrue.

    Referring to the Muhammad video during his U.N. speech this week, Obama lectured Americans about “intolerance” toward Islam.
    “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” he said. “It is time to heed the words of Gandhi: ‘Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.'” He actually believes Muslims have heeded those words.

    “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance,” he intoned during his 2009 Cairo speech. “Throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.” Obama must have learned his history at that Jakarta madrassa he attended.

    We won’t litigate the ugly past of Islam here. We don’t have to: A 2010 congressional study found that 20 of the 23 nations that ban Christian religious workers are — surprise — Muslim nations. Egypt, Saudi Arabia and most other Middle Eastern countries still refuse to offer religious visas and deny entry to U.S. clergy as official policy, according to the report by the Law Library of Congress, the foreign legal research arm of the U.S. Congress. Even U.S. allies Afghanistan and Iraq, which have enshrined Islam in their constitutions, made the list.

    “Of this group, the vast majority constitute Arab or Muslim states,” the three-page report said. “Since Islam prohibits proselytism by other religions, foreign religious workers will in effect be denied entry to conduct religious work.” Yet the U.S. State Department continues to grant R-1 religious visas for Islamic clerics from Muslim nations — including jihadist hotbeds Egypt and Saudi — even though we’ve had to arrest a number of these foreign imams for inciting anti-American violence.

    Muslim countries discriminate against us based on religion, but we don’t discriminate against them — even when it’s totally justified. Homeland Security considers visiting imams as nonthreatening as Buddhist monks. Border agents don’t screen them any differently. Also, R-2 visas are routinely granted to relatives of foreign imams. Most overstay their visas without consequence, even as they radicalize Muslims at our mosques — Islamic centers often built with Saudi money and run by the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.

    In contrast, Saudi religious police in recent years have accused dozens of foreign Christians living in the kingdom of worshiping in their homes, and ordered them deported. Non-Muslim “infidels” have to take a separate highway into the “holy city” of Mecca. And they are banned from Islamic shrines.

    But this is nothing different. In Southeast Asia, Christians are banned from Buddhists shrines and temples. In Thailand, the same is true. Religion is alive and well all over the world and all of them practice discrimination and hypocrisy. Even Ghandi……..sigh.

  33. I guess I’m slow-but they actually have an automatic annual growth rate of 7%. Why?

    February 27, 2013
    An Existential Threat to Liberal Ideology
    Jude Federspiel

    All of the hysteria and panic from left-leaning politicians and media commentators over the last month or so regarding the dire consequences of sequestration have left me somewhat baffled. How could anyone possibly believe that growing the federal government’s budget by something less than the ridiculous automatic scheduled annual growth rate of 7% could be catastrophic? In effect, the sequester would return the federal government to 2012
    expenditure levels in 2013. Has inflation been so severe in the last twelve months that such a decrease in the increase would bring upon us wildfires, tainted meat, airport lines, and loss of all medical care?

    No, obviously not. But Democrats have governed for years under a paradigm that there is no prioritization in federal budgeting. According to the democratically controlled Senate, every single dollar the federal government spends is absolutely critical — even more, equally critical. A dollar spent on defense matches exactly the importance of a dollar spent on outreach programs, a reality TV show in India, studies on studies, foreign aid, rural broadband deployment, free cell phones, and all other federal dollars. This is evidenced by the government’s unwillingness to produce a budget during any of the past four years.

    A budget is prioritization. By creating a budget, a financial decision maker is forced to decide which line items must be paid for and which can or must be put off. A budget’s author(s) must choose between things like food and entertainment, bills and vacations, housing and gifts. Ignoring federal law by not producing a budget means that our elected leaders get away with the gross lie that all expenditures are of equal necessity.

    This language has very intentionally been introduced to other aspects of the financial debate in recent years. During discussions concerning the debt ceiling, we have regularly been treated to admonishments by liberals that the nation must “pay its bills,” as though every elective budget item were a critical “bill” that must be honored. This will continue every time the debt ceiling comes up — watch for it.

    One might say that the sequester plan originated as a declaration that all federal expenses are created equal. In other words, since government could not agree on any acceptable cuts that would bring our expenditures in line with revenues, Congress and President Obama created a backstop law that would implement across-the-board cuts equally. The cuts amount to $85 billion this year, or about 2.1% of the estimated 4.061 trillion dollar total expenditures in 2013. Such a “cut” would still result in federal outlays for 2013 totaling 3.976 trillion dollars, about 180 billion dollars more than was spent in FY2012.

    This is a disaster, according to liberal politicians and commentators.

    Or is it? Perhaps the real danger is that sequestration will occur, and people’s lives will go on as normal. The liberal myth that all government spending is critically important will fade away. People might actually realize that we can survive and thrive with smaller government. In actuality, liberals are very concerned that their fundamental philosophy — that prosperity is driven by government spending and government growth — might be discredited. How can government justify confiscating and wasting trillions of dollars more than we take in every year if nobody believes these expenditures matter? Maybe those dollars will finally be recognized as pork, waste, union handouts, and paybacks to donors and friends. Maybe we really could cut the size of government by even more than the woefully inadequate 2% and we’d all be just fine.

    This is the existential threat to liberalism. It’s about the lie being exposed, not the paltry decrease in the increase. Hence the sound and the fury.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/02/an_existential_threat_to_liberal_ideology.html#ixzz2M6eEaRaI
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

    • Just A Citizen says:

      V.H.

      The WHY is so that Govt can do long range budget projections and analysis.

      It also gives Agencies a “starting” point for their annual budget development.

      It is a STARTING point but not necessarily “hard wired”.

      It is “hard wired” in the long term projections you see on things like long term debt.

      The CBO will take the last budget, apply the inflation constant and then adjust for any KNOWN laws that affect future spending. This could be up or down depending on the law.

      The only reason this “constant” is important is in the RHETORIC used when politicians SCREAM about any proposed cutting.

      This is because “cuts” are evaluated on the TEN YEAR budget cycle. So the 7% constant creates the false impression you are cutting something when you are only reducing the growth rate.

      But in any given year Congress can increase or decrease ACTUAL spending relative to that PROJECTED number.

      By the way, if you dig into federal budgeting you will find that when the POTUS submits the budget there is usually tow columns. Agency request and Presidents request.

      Once finalized there will be a third column.. Congress Approved.

      Does this help?

      • Yes it helps, but why 7% as the starting point -that seems high-do they not base it on anything-is it just a % they picked out of the air? From some quick searches the current inflation rate is 1.59.

  34. Grrrrrrrrr- on both houses-stop changing your rhetoric to purposely divide us!

    Will Democrats Learn to Love the Sequester?
    As they originally admitted, it reflects their priorities better than most bargains.

    By Andrew Stiles

    The Obama administration has gone to great lengths in recent weeks to portray a post-sequester America as a harrowing wasteland where criminals roam the streets, homeless people are tossed out of shelters, seniors and children go hungry, food goes uninspected, the mentally ill go untreated, and airports descend into chaos. (Interestingly, the majority of the administration’s horror stories seem to focus almost exclusively on the domestic-spending portion of the sequester.)

    It marks a pretty stunning shift from the way Democrats talked about sequestration in the months following the debt-ceiling compromise, back when it was simply known as “the trigger.”

    Days after the debt-ceiling bill was signed, Senator Ben Cardin (D., Md.) told reporters the sequester was not something Democrats should fear. “I think [we] are in a pretty strong position because we’re not too concerned, as we were with the debt ceiling, that if we don’t reach an agreement it will be devastating to our priorities,” Cardin said.

    Democrats often boasted of their successful effort to shield Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and welfare programs from the automatic cuts. They reckoned (incorrectly, it turns out) that the sequester’s disproportionate cuts in defense spending would compel the GOP to accept tax increases, and, as Cardin suggested, gave Democrats a tolerable fallback option even if Republicans refused.

    Advertisement
    Months later, Representative Xavier Becerra (D., Calif.), a member of the supercommittee tasked with averting the sequester, argued that, absent a larger agreement, sequestration would be a perfectly acceptable outcome, and “a way to get us back on track” financially.

    “Sequestration will give us progress whether we like it or not,” Becerra said. “I’d rather have a human hand fashioning the progress than, as I’ve said before, the blunt edge of a guillotine deciding what progress looks like. [But] any time you can get $1.2 trillion in savings, that’s not failure.”

    Those remarks seem drawn from an entirely different universe, given the recent spate of dire warnings and appeals from sad-eyed seals. So what, exactly, has changed?

    The presidential election obviously altered the political balance of power. But that has largely been reset following the resolution of the fiscal-cliff showdown, which saw Republicans surrender a $600 billion tax increase to President Obama, and subsequently postpone another showdown over the debt ceiling.

    Few disagree that sequestration is bad policy, yet it has already survived two separate opportunities (the supercommittee and the fiscal cliff) to do away with it. Perhaps both parties have reason to believe the sequester is a more acceptable solution than the alternative proposals it was designed to inspire. But the GOP’s strategic, and at times bewildering, turnabout on sequestration has been examined at some length. The Democrats’ evolving, and similarly convoluted, rhetoric has received far less scrutiny.

    Consider the arguments put forward by left-wing activists and liberal commentators before, during, and immediately following the supercommittee negotiations.

    In November of 2011, as the supercommittee was winding down, Jonathan Bernstein wrote in the Washington Post that Obama’s long-term negotiating strategy on the debt ceiling “was a lot better than many liberals believed” because “it’s clear that Republicans are more worried about the trigger than are the Democrats.”

    Also in the fall of 2011, Bloomberg View columnist Ezra Klein suggested that Democrats may come to view the sequester as a least-bad option for reducing the deficit. “An across-the-board sequester is the crude work of a hatchet, not a scalpel, but a lot of Democrats would prefer crudely implemented, broad cuts that target defense and exempt the social safety net to narrow cuts to social programs that are handled delicately,” he explained. To Klein, the current political environment was unlikely to produce a deficit-reduction compromise preferable to sequestration for most Democrats.

    The crux of any potential “grand bargain” on the budget has always been significant entitlement reform in exchange for higher taxes. In the absence of such a deal, GOP opposition to raising taxes is often singled out as the main impediment. Perhaps it is because President Obama does a much better job of at least appearing willing and reasonable about entitlement cuts than Republicans do about tax increases. But meanwhile, his base, along with many Democrats in Congress, has always vociferously opposed any changes to entitlements and welfare programs.

    That is why so many liberals were actively rooting for the supercommittee to fail. Labor unions and other activist groups threatened to withhold future support from Democratic supercommittee members who agreed to a deal that would affect entitlements. Robert Borosage, co-director of the left-wing activist group Campaign for America’s Future, wrote that “the programs for the poor and vulnerable are likely to fare better in event of failure, than in the event of a grand bargain.” Cuts to the military, on the other hand, were “long overdue,” he argued.

    Advertisement
    “If the supercommittee fails, as expected, it will be time to celebrate,” Paul Krugman suggested. Jonathan Cohn of The New Republic was decidedly sanguine at the prospect of failure. “First, super-committee failure does not mean we’ve blown a chance to reduce the deficit,” Cohn wrote, noting that it would bring about the sequester cuts, which he described as “just a down-payment on what we should be doing about the deficit in the long term.” No inkling of today’s doomsday scenarios.

    Elsewhere on the left, the sequester was (and still is) seen as an excellent opportunity to cut a bloated defense budget. “Most experts estimate that the defense budget would lose $600 billion to $700 billion over the next 10 years [under sequestration],” Fareed Zakaria wrote in 2011. “If so, let the guillotine fall. It would be a much-needed adjustment to an out-of-control military-industrial complex.”

    Lawrence Korb, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, has been making a similar case for years. In 2012, Korb argued that dire warnings from the likes of Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta about the impact of sequestration were “wildly exaggerated.” The defense budget, he added, “can and should reduce be reduced [sic] to 2006 levels, sequester or no sequester.”

    CREDO Action, a left-wing organization, circulated a petition last year urging Congress not to do away with the defense cuts in the sequester. “Our defense budget is grotesquely bloated,” the petition read. “If there’s one thing we can cut, it’s defense spending.”

    A recent Pew poll on federal-spending preferences found that most Democrats agree. Of the 19 spending areas included in the poll, the State Department and military defense were the only two for which more Democrats wanted to decrease spending rather than increase it.

    Perhaps not surprisingly, the sequester-replacement plan drafted by Senate Democrats and endorsed by the White House included almost $30 billion in cuts to defense. And although the president has adopted a measured tone when it comes to prospect of further defense cuts, the Washington Examiner’s Philip Klein notes that Obama has a long history of supporting such cuts. His nomination of former Republican senator Chuck Hagel for defense secretary is widely viewed as an effort to provide political cover for further spending reductions at the Pentagon.

    These days, Ezra Klein is wondering if Democrats should “stop worrying and learn to love the sequester,” which would follow the argument he made in 2011. “The law will hit priorities Democrats care about, like education and research, but it’s hard to imagine an alternative that’s acceptable to Republicans and does less damage to core Democratic programs,” he writes. “Moreover, funding for those programs can always be restored later. But these defense cuts, as a number of liberal bigwigs have admitted to me privately, are a one-time offer.”

    Which is probably true. Earlier this year, when House Republicans signaled their willingness to let the sequester take effect in an effort to gain leverage in budget negotiations, a top Republican senator told National Review Online he did not think the strategy would work because he thought “the president would go along with it. He wants to cut defense.”

    The ongoing blame game over who created the sequester elides a couple of important facts that almost always go unmentioned because the media prefers to cast the GOP as the obstructionist party: First, Democrats and their liberal backers are not serious about reducing spending, and consistently view the defense budget as the only thing that can be cut without evicting the elderly from nursing homes. Second, the liberal base’s fierce opposition to entitlement reform has been as important a factor in scuttling grand-bargain negotiations as the GOP’s resistance to tax increases.

    The sequester is certainly far from the Democrats’ implied preference of reducing the deficit almost entirely through tax increases (a split being billed as a “compromise”), and they will certainly try to pin the consequences on Republicans. But if, at the end of the day, Democrats have privately decided that an ill-conceived spending cut that targets one of their lowest priorities (the defense budget), while protecting their highest priority (entitlements), may not be so bad after all, who could blame them?

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/341419/will-democrats-learn-love-sequester-andrew-stiles?pg=2

  35. Oy Vey-Congress and Obama have dug such a hole for themselves, which I blame on various things but mostly on not having a budget for 4 years-they know what is the best thing to do-but no one will do it-because they don’t want to take the blame. So how about this-set up a group of republicans and democrats-have the department heads come in and suggest the best way to cut each department -and this group votes to accept these or change them-but they can’t leave the room until they agree on something, if they don’t reach an agreement- they are automatically dismissed from their job and then we bring in another batch, which I suspect wouldn’t be necessary-then they are all equally to blame or to praise.

    Townhall News Politics & Government
    Obama rejects plan for more say in spending cuts
    APNews | 16 hours ago

    Obama rejects plan for more say in spending cuts

    WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama brushed off a Republican plan Tuesday to give him flexibility to allocate $85 billion in looming spending cuts, wanting no part of a deal that would force him to choose between the bad and the terrible.

    Three days out and no closer to any agreement, both parties sought to saddle the other with the blame for the painful ramification of the across-the-board cuts set to kick in Friday. Obama accused Republicans of steadfastly refusing to compromise, while the top Senate Republican, Mitch McConnell, chided Obama’s effort to “fan the flames of catastrophe.”

    McConnell and other top Republicans were lining up behind a plan that wouldn’t replace the cuts but would give Obama’s agency heads, such as incoming Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, greater discretion in distributing the cuts. The idea is that money could be transferred from lower-priority accounts to others that fund air traffic control or meat inspection.

    But Obama, appearing at a Virginia shipbuilding site that he said would sit idle should the cuts go through, rejected the idea, saying there’s no smart way to cut such a large chunk from the budget over just seven months — the amount of time left in the fiscal year.

    “You don’t want to have to choose between, ‘let’s see, do I close funding for the disabled kid, or the poor kid? Do I close this Navy shipyard or some other one?'” Obama said. “You can’t gloss over the pain and the impact it’s going to have on the economy.”

    Giving the Obama administration more authority could take pressure off of Congress to address the sequester. But the White House is also keenly aware that it would give Republicans an opening to blame Obama, instead of themselves, for every unpopular cut he makes.

    Not all Republicans were on board, either.

    “We’ll say, ‘Mr. President, it is now up to you to find this $85 billion in savings,’ and we’ll say it’s to make it easier for you, but every decision he’ll make, we’ll criticize,” acknowledged Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina in a CNN interview Monday.

    The White House has warned the $85 billion in cuts could affect everything from commercial flights to classrooms to meat inspections. The cuts would slash domestic and defense spending, leading to forced unpaid days off for hundreds of thousands of workers.

    The impact won’t be immediate. Federal workers would be notified next week that they will have to take up to a day off every week without pay, but the furloughs won’t start for a month due to notification requirements. That will give negotiators some breathing room to work on a deal.

    Although Obama was to discuss the cuts among other topics Tuesday in a White House meeting with Graham and GOP Sen. John McCain, there were no indications that negotiations between Obama and congressional leaders were under way. Dampening hopes for a compromise was a key disagreement about whether new tax revenue, by way of closing loopholes and deductions, should be included in any deal, as Obama has insisted.

    In the Republican-controlled House, Speaker John Boehner of Ohio said he’d already done his part, complaining that the House twice passed bills to replace the cuts with more targeted reductions.

    “We should not have to move a third bill before the Senate gets off their ass and begins to do something,” Boehner told reporters.

    Senate Democrats have prepared a measure that would forestall the automatic cuts through the end of the year, replacing them with longer-term cuts to the Pentagon and cash payments to farmers, and by installing a minimum 30 percent tax rate on income exceeding $1 million. But that plan is virtually certain to be toppled by a GOP-led filibuster vote later this week.

    Recharging his effort to lay out the stark consequences for letting the cuts take effect, Obama traveled Tuesday to eastern Virginia, where he warned that workers at the state’s largest industrial employer, Newport News Shipbuilding, would sit idle. He stood in front of a massive submarine propeller, with workmen and the few female employees watching up from the cavernous assembly floor and said the cuts would mean construction and repair of Navy ships would be delayed or canceled altogether.

    “These cuts are wrong. They’re not smart, they’re not fair. They’re a self-inflicted wound that doesn’t have to happen,” Obama said.

    The highly staged visit earned him a harsh rebuke from Republicans, including Boehner, who claimed Obama was using U.S. troops as props in his campaign to scare Americans into raising taxes.

    But Obama, grasping eagerly for the chance to portray his positions as having broad appeal, singled out for praise the few Republicans who say they’re open to new revenues as part of a deal. At the top of his list was Virginia Rep. Scott Rigell, who traveled with the president on Air Force One to call attention to the need to find a way out of the cuts.

    “I boarded the plane knowing that some would potentially misinterpret this,” said Rigell, who both criticized Obama for not putting forward a detailed plan and criticized Republicans who say there’s no room to raise revenue or that the sequester should go into effect. “Even if you hold the view that defense spending should come down, this is not the right way to do it.”

    Also on Tuesday came word of the first tangible impact of the looming budget cuts on the nation’s security at home. To save costs, the Department of Homeland Security has started releasing illegal immigrants being held in immigration jails across the country, Immigration and Customs Enforcement said.

  36. Colorado Republicans bristle as White House meddles in state’s gun control debate

    By Barnini Chakraborty

    Published February 27, 2013

    FoxNews.com

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/27/colorado-gop-says-white-house-is-unfairly-weighing-in-on-state-gun-debate/#ixzz2M7GMwa5E

    This is the best thing the WH can do……go ahead and start meddling in State affairs….I cannot think of anything more appropriate to strengthen the States against the feds….the new War between the States……Federally approved and sanctioned.

  37. Some more for yous to think about … Marx in favor of free enterprise: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is9htTRVf1M&NR=1&feature=endscreen

  38. Big Brother? US linked to new wave of censorship, surveillance on web

    By John R. Quain

    Published February 27, 2013

    FoxNews.com

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/02/27/special-report-surveillance-and-censorship-america/#ixzz2M7IX5Mei

    Sigh….

  39. Interesting question for all…….China is engaged in computer hacking as we all know….so are a number of other “states” (countries)……….if a military computer of the defense department is hacked,,,,and damage is done to launch codes or something of that nature….does anyone on here consider this an act of war and military response justified? Say…a cruise missile in their communications network?

    • Hmmm – send in the drones.

    • Good question. If they were to disable all our defenses computers, then we have a problem. Is that what they are trying to do? Maybe use an EMP to disable their comm network. Just a thought.

    • I would certainly consider it an act of war. Your saying they harmed our ability to fight a defensive war, if that doesn’t affect the security of this Country-not sure what does.
      How we should handle it-is beyond my pay grade. But hurting their communication network certainly seems justified.

  40. No, No, No! We can’t have that debt clock running while we talk! Every single day we can come up with clip after clip of these seriously deranged people that make decisions on our behalf. Such nonsense.

    http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/26/democrats-complain-about-presence-of-debt-clock-on-capitol-hill/

  41. One more … Try to pay attention to his focus on reality, wingies … :)

    • So What !

    • Just A Citizen says:

      charlie

      What reality is that? That HE built the railroads in the South in the mid 1800’s?

      Good grief.

    • Try if you can, to stop living in the past. Constant grumbling over past injustices serves no one.

      Despite the praise heaped on it, Marlon Brando’s “I coulda been a contender”, line in “On the Waterfront”, is like a giant self-inflicted gunshot wound. yes, you could have but that was then, this is now, rise above it as best you can and move forward.

      Just the other day I was thinking of the three opportunities I had to have really left everybody in the dust in my career. In all three instances, circumstances, outside forces that i had no control over prevented me from achieving those goals. I guess I could be still caught up in that self pity and probably I am a bit, the memories certainly will always be there. But, I did get on with my life, found a different course and did ok, maybe not spectacular, but ok. I owe a lot of that to my Dad, not anything he ever said but what he never said. despite having one obstacle after another thrown in front of him in life, he never joined the “could of, would of, should of” crew. The words, “I coulda been a contender” never came out of his mouth.

      • Stephen, no disrespect intended (seriously), but “Try if you can, to stop living in the past. Constant grumbling over past injustices serves no one.” … spoken like someone who didn’t have to deal with the stuff mentioned by Baldwin.

        • Charlie, that Baldwin thing did not happen recently. Just wanted you to know. Oh, and Bill Buckley is dead as is Baldwin, since 1987 no less! In 2008 a black man, by the name of Barack Obama was elected president of the United States. By my calculations, that was 21 years after Baldwin died. So, that was then, this is now. 100 years from now, if we both lived, I suspect you would still be making the same argument. Stuck in the past is about as useful as being stuck on stupid.

          For entire generations of people not yet even born to fail to take advantage of what is available today because their forebears were persecuted boggles the mind. There are very few of us in this country, regardless of where we came from who could not claim some serious persecution in the past either here or abroad.

          • This is what I was attempting to address, Stephen, but your very narrow view of things precludes that from happening. This statement of yours: “For entire generations of people not yet even born to fail to take advantage of what is available today because their forebears were persecuted boggles the mind. There are very few of us in this country, regardless of where we came from who could not claim some serious persecution in the past either here or abroad.”

            The topic of the Baldwin-Buckley debate had to do with the American Dream. I’d suggest, based on the lack of minority representation in all aspects of true power these days (bankers, lawyers, pols, etc.) we’re very far from eradicating racism. Baldwin was describing how what happened to blacks and how they were perceived by whites for 400+ years wasn’t about to go away with a voting rights act that passed as recently as 1965 (that’s not very long ago) … the sociological aspects of being black in America are another issue altogether … there’s no comparison to what the Irish and Italians, for instance, went through (not even close) … but if you don’t want to see it, there’s nothing I can do about it …:)

            • AS for Obama … Bush III and Bush IV … there are plenty of blacks who are VERY unhappy with his performance … he’s way too Republican for my blood … and I’m white :)

            • Irish and Italians and Poles faced a bit of persecution in this country. In their native countries they faced hundreds of years of oppression every bit as onerous as what blacks, Asians and native American Indians did here. Let’s not even talk about Jews.

              Every person in this country that has crawled out of poverty has put the lie to what you say regardless of their ethnicity.

              Not all whites in this country looked at blacks in the way you portray it. There was this little matter of the Civil War and though a good argument can be made for the fight relating to “states rights”, a big part of that was over, above, under and around slavery. Read a little on Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain and the 20th Maine in a book by the same name.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      THE AMERICAN DREAM. For the record is not described anywhere as an actual shared value until the 20th century.

      History

      The meaning of the “American Dream” has changed over the course of history, and includes both personal components (such as home ownership and upward mobility) and a global vision. Historically the Dream originated in the mystique regarding frontier life. As the Royal Governor of Virginia noted in 1774, the Americans “for ever imagine the Lands further off are still better than those upon which they are already settled”. He added that if they attained Paradise, they would move on if they heard of a better place farther west.[3]

      The ethos today implies an opportunity for Americans to achieve prosperity through hard work. According to the dream, this includes the opportunity for one’s children to grow up and receive a good education and career without artificial barriers. It is the opportunity to make individual choices without the prior restrictions that limited people according to their class, caste, religion, race, or ethnicity. Immigrants to the United States sponsored ethnic newspapers in their own language; the editors typically promoted the American Dream.[4]
      19th century

      In the 19th century, many well-educated Germans fled the failed 1848 revolution. They welcomed the political freedoms in the New World, and the lack of a hierarchical or aristocratic society that determined the ceiling for individual aspirations. One of them explained:

      ”The German emigrant comes into a country free from the despotism, privileged orders and monopolies, intolerable taxes, and constraints in matters of belief and conscience. Everyone can travel and settle wherever he pleases. No passport is demanded, no police mingles in his affairs or hinders his movements….Fidelity and merit are the only sources of honor here. The rich stand on the same footing as the poor; the scholar is not a mug above the most humble mechanics; no German ought to be ashamed to pursue any occupation….[In America] wealth and possession of real estate confer not the least political right on its owner above what the poorest citizen has. Nor are there nobility, privileged orders, or standing armies to weaken the physical and moral power of the people, nor are there swarms of public functionaries to devour in idleness credit for. Above all, there are no princes and corrupt courts representing the so-called divine ‘right of birth.’ In such a country the talents, energy and perseverance of a person…have far greater opportunity to display than in monarchies.”[5]

      The discovery of gold in California in 1849 brought in a hundred thousand men looking for their fortune overnight–and a few did find it. Thus was born the California Dream of instant success. Historian H. W. Brands noted that in the years after the Gold Rush, the California Dream spread across the nation:
      “ “The old American Dream . . . was the dream of the Puritans, of Benjamin Franklin’s “Poor Richard” . . . of men and women content to accumulate their modest fortunes a little at a time, year by year by year. The new dream was the dream of instant wealth, won in a twinkling by audacity and good luck. [This] golden dream . . . became a prominent part of the American psyche only after Sutter’s Mill.”[6] ”
      20th century

      Historian James Truslow Adams popularized the phrase “American Dream” in his 1931 book Epic of America:

      But there has been also the American dream, that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for every man, with opportunity for each according to his ability or achievement. It is a difficult dream for the European upper classes to interpret adequately, and too many of us ourselves have grown weary and mistrustful of it. It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position.[1]

      And later he wrote:

      The American dream, that has lured tens of millions of all nations to our shores in the past century has not been a dream of merely material plenty, though that has doubtlessly counted heavily. It has been much more than that. It has been a dream of being able to grow to fullest development as man and woman, unhampered by the barriers which had slowly been erected in the older civilizations, unrepressed by social orders which had developed for the benefit of classes rather than for the simple human being of any and every class.

      Martin Luther King, Jr., in his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” (1963) rooted the civil rights movement in the black quest for the American Dream:[7]

      “We will win our freedom because the sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands…when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters they were in reality standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judeo-Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.”

  42. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Just for fun, Another Global Sea Ice Update:

    Northern Hemisphere -0.383 M km^2
    Southern Hemisphere +0.608 M km^2

    Global sea ice is now above normal for this date compared to the 1979-2008 average.

    You won’t hear THAT too many other places :)

    Back to what you all were doing now….

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Peter

      Are the numbers you post relative to last year or the 79 to 08 average?

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        JAC,

        The numbers posted are the current anomaly from “normal”, which on the NSIDC graphs is defined as “the deviation from the 1979-2008 average value”.

        I hope that helps!

        PeterB

        By the way, Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice has been at or above “normal” for 24 months in a row now, and the VAST majority of that time has been well above “normal”.

  43. February 27, 2013
    Obama boxed in on sequester
    Thomas Lifson

    It turns out that the “across the board cuts” of Sequester leave plenty of flexibility for the Obama administration. Within a rather large budget category (in many cases), the feds would be free to prioritize. The devil is in the details, and it turns out that the legislation was somewhat carelessly written. Review & Outlook of the Wall Street Journal pursued the legalities:

    Programs, projects and activities are a technical category of the federal budget, but the
    sequester actually occurs at the roughly 1,200 broader units known as budget accounts. Some accounts are small, but others contain hundreds of PPAs and the larger accounts run to billions of dollars. For the Pentagon in particular, the distinction between PPAs and accounts is huge. This means in most cases the President has the room to protect his “investments” while managing the fiscal transition over time.

    Congress might have intended for the sequester to apply to PPAs, but they also wrote a sloppy law at the 11th hour. The Budget Control Act of 2011 disinterred the lapsed sequester rules of the Gramm-Rudman Deficit Control Act of 1985, though without anyone looking at the details.

    Gramm-Rudman said the sequester applies to accounts, not PPAs, under a temporary “part-year” budget. As it happens the government is operating under just such a continuing resolution now, not a normal appropriations bill. If Congress returned to regular order in 2014 or later, the sequester would indeed trickle down to PPAs.

    The White House has even more discretion than this. When Gramm-Rudman led to a 4.3% sequester in 1986, Congress passed a special bill that created the category of PPAs and spent 1,119 pages defining what they were for 1986. Congress has never done anything of the sort since, and thus as the government has grown PPA definitions now vary[.]

    The practical meaning of this is that President Obama will own responsibility for the cuts he has already started making, even before the Sequester even takes effect. He is making the choice to punish Americans in order to get his way. That is a simple and powerful phrase, and the Republicans should start using it at every opportunity.

    Normally, the media could be counted upon to sell Obama’s version. But even the wizards of persuasion can’t overcome the reality that downsizing has been a prominent part of organizational life across America, particularly among the MSM.

    The battle is far from won, but President Obama does not have any good options if the GOP plays its hand correctly.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/02/obama_boxed_in_on_sequester.html#ixzz2M7rOGMkH
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

    • I get the gist of this-but this one part through me:

      “Gramm-Rudman said the sequester applies to accounts, not PPAs, under a temporary “part-year” budget. As it happens the government is operating under just such a continuing
      resolution now, not a normal appropriations bill. If Congress returned to regular order in 2014 or later, the sequester would indeed trickle down to PPAs.”

      Why would returning to regular order change the interpretation of Gramm-Rudman?

  44. @Chuckie, Hey, Pinko Commie, You will probably always remind me of the little doll in the movie, not because of how you look, but what you wish for :) http://www.prisonplanet.com/victim-of-communism-warns-america.html

  45. JAC……I just came from a very interested meeting. Present was (1) IRS (2) Lawyers from Haynes/Boone, (3) Texas Chamber of Commerce, (4) National Federation of Independent Business and various local community and business leaders. The subject matter was the ACA (aka. Obamacare). In order for small business and franchise owners such as McDonalds, etc, it was determined that to avoid the penalty phase for employees of 50 or more, is to set up separate Divisions with separate tax ID numbers and make them separate profit centers and hold your employees to 49……there is no problem. So a franchise owner of three or so franchises that employs 150 people, just make each one a separate profit center, keep employment to 30 hours (29) to be certain and you can avoid Obamacare. In addition, there is no additional tax liability to the owner for income taxes if all of the franchises are placed into a holding company that has no employees. Regional IRS says that it is ok, business lawyers from Haynes/Boone says it is ok, the State of Texas says it ok………and the cost is 85% less to do that than pay a penalty. I thoughtyou would find this interesting.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13thecolonel

      I expected that might be one of the responses. Separate legal businesses.

      It does increase accounting costs/headaches, but that is nothing compared to just paying the money.

      I wonder how many decades it will take to have this abomination killed off?

  46. ABC claims Michelle Obama’s remarks about ‘automatic weapons’ cut for time

    By Scott Whitlock

    Published February 27, 2013

    FoxNews.com

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/02/27/abc-silent-about-why-it-edited-out-michelle-obama-reference-to-automatic/?intcmp=trending#ixzz2M8LlJGaR

    And everyone who believes this…………..despite the fact that there were no shell casing found at all……that means…..not auto or semi auto weapons were used. The media covering up again……lol.

  47. I hope you can keep this nut in NYC, we don’t want him to infect anyone else. I do like the last line, maybe Charlie can keep him company :lol:

    • Bottom Line says:

      I didn’t click on the link, …I read it.

      Real simple… Marriage isn’t a matter of law.

      Why do people want the law to regulate their personal love life or religious practices?

  48. This is good~

    Food for thought…

    If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for being in the country illegally … you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
    If you have to get your parents’ permission to go on a field trip or take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion … you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
    If the only school curriculum allowed to explain how we got here is evolution, but the government stops a $15 million construction project to keep a rare spider from evolving to extinction … you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
    If you have to show identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book, but not to vote who runs the government … you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
    If the government wants to ban stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines with more than ten rounds, but gives 20 F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt … you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
    If, in the largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not a 24-ounce soda because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat … you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
    If an 80-year-old woman can be stripped searched by the TSA but a woman in a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched … you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
    If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more … you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
    If a seven year old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher “cute,” but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable … you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
    If children are forcibly removed from parents who discipline them with spankings while children of addicts are left in filth and drug infested “homes”… you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
    If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government intrusion, while not working is rewarded with EBT cards, WIC checks, Medicaid, subsidized housing, and free cell phones … you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
    If the government’s plan for getting people back to work is to incentivize NOT working with 99 weeks of Unemployment checks and no requirement to prove they applied but can’t find work … you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
    If you pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big screen TV while your neighbor buys iPhones, TV’s and new cars, and the government forgives his debt when he defaults on his mortgage … you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
    If being stripped of the ability to defend yourself makes you more “safe” according to the government … you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-02-27/founded-geniuses-and-run-idiots

  49. Release of illegals from prisons and jails under supervised conditions………..what they have not told you is that these are convicted criminals with various violations…..and not regular border jumpers. Where is the equality and why aren’t convicted US citizens released under the same circumstances.

    • Who do you think they will try and hire to protect them when all hell breaks loose? This whole issue is a joke, one more reason to fight for our gun rights Colonel. They didn’t think about that I bet.

  50. Just A Citizen says:

    MUST READING.

    That is if you would like some insight into the coming financial situation.

    http://mises.org/daily/6368/The-Fed-in-2012

  51. You’ve all heard Woodward speaking out that this sequester was indeed proposed and approved by this adm. He apparently researched it for his book at that time (2011 I believe?) Well now he opens up about what has happened since he’s started talking.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/02/27/woodward_white_house_warned_me_youre_going_to_regret_this.html

  52. Bottom Line says:

  53. American Student Punished for Refusing to Recite Mexican Pledge
    Posted on February 28, 2013 by Cowboy Byt

    A Texas high school student has filed a federal lawsuit against her school and her teachers after she was punished for refusing to salute and recite the Mexican pledge of allegiance.

    The Thomas More Law Center filed the suit on behalf of Brenda Brinsdon alleging the McAllen Independent School District violated the 15-year-old girl’s constitutional rights when she was forced to recite the Mexican pledge and sing the Mexican national anthem.

    Brinsdon, who is the daughter of a Mexican immigrant and an American father, refused. She believed it was un-American to pledge a loyalty oath to another country.

    Ironically, the school district has a policy that prohibits a school from compelling students to recite the American Pledge of Allegiance.

    The district also has a written policy that excuses students from reciting text from the Declaration of Independence if the student “as determined by the district, has a conscientious objection to the recitation.”

    “There is a sad trend in public schools across our nation to undermine American patriotism,” said Richard Thompson president of the Thomas More Law Center. “But it’s encouraging to see students like Brenda stand up for America despite pressure from school officials.”
    – See more at: http://cowboybyte.com/19418/american-student-punished-for-refusing-to-recite-mexican-pledge/#sthash.oeN06lHI.dpuf

    Something about current times. :)

    • It really is odd, isn’t it-First question Why are they pledging allegiance to the Mexican Flag in the first place? Much less trying to force students to participate.

  54. People kept saying Obama actually wanted the Sequester to happen-but I couldn’t figure out why-other then to use it to talk bad about Republicans-but I think this explanation is very illuminating.

    “The endgame of The Sequester Hustle is to blame the economy tanking on cutting less than 2% of the federal budget. Obama doesn’t want his failed policies blamed for a double dip recession, so he’s playing Chicken Little with sequester so the GOP and a lack of government largesse are blamed.”

    Cult of Obama: List of Journalists Throwing Woodward Under Bus

    by John Nolte 28 Feb 2013, 6:08 AM PDT 0 post a comment
    NOTE: This post will be continually updated…

    The media stands by its own until, at least until one of its own upsets The Narrative. Not even a living legend is immune from this rule. In the case of Bob Woodward, his detailed and lengthy reporting on sequester has resulted in the possible derailing of the most crucial Narrative the White House and media are likely to launch this year. The fate of Obama’s second term and even his legacy rest on it.

    The endgame of The Sequester Hustle is to blame the economy tanking on cutting less than 2% of the federal budget. Obama doesn’t want his failed policies blamed for a double dip recession, so he’s playing Chicken Little with sequester so the GOP and a lack of government largesse are blamed. Naturally, the media is as all-in on this con as their Master is.

    This, even though everyone knows it was Obama who suggested sequester, saw it passed, and then signed it into law.

    Woodward’s reporting threatens to monkey wrench all of this. His reporting not only confirmed that sequester was Obama’s idea but that Obama moved the goal posts with his demand for tax increases. The original sequester deal did not include tax increases.

    Yesterday, Woodward really threw the White House and its media a curve by being the only high-profile reporter willing to say out loud that Obama has the power to choose where the cuts hit. In other words, all this White House fear-mongering is an audacious lie.

    Though no one’s disputed Woodward’s reporting, the media’s Cult of Obama began pushing back against the Watergate legend even before he dropped the bomb last night that he had been threatened by a top White House official.

    But when that news hit, many in the media immediately chose to protect Obama by ridiculing Woodward, questioning his motives, and/or dismissing his reporting.

    Meet the members of the Cult of Obama…
    – See more at: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/02/28/Rogues-Gallery-Journalist-Side-with-obama-over-woodward#sthash.Ihgl7TR9.dpuf

    • …he dropped the bomb last night that he had been threatened by a top White House official…

      Sheesh. Does anyone bother to actually read the email exchange (both from Sperling to Woodward and Woodward’s response)!? http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/exclusive-the-woodward-sperling-emails-revealed-88226.html Not exactly a threat….

      • I was actually more focused on why Obama seems determined not to make any agreement that would actually stop the sequestration he keeps screaming must be stopped-why he destroyed the deal the first time around by demanding more tax increase’s at the last minute , which lead to the sequestration in the first place-then he got tax increases and the debt ceiling raised but he still insists that he must have more taxes before he’ll do anything to stop what he claims is a national disaster. The reason that he would actually want the sequester to happen kept illuding me until after reading this article.

        But on your point-these e-mails make it look like Woodward is claiming a threat when it may have just been a bad choice of words. But you know what, I’m gonna wait until Woodward responds to make up my mind. Because I wasn’t in those meetings, I didn’t hear the words or see the facial expressions, or anything else and it isn’t all that uncommon for people to be polite about something. Then after the fact to analyze the whole situation-putting all the parts together to realize that they have been made to feel very uncomfortable and threatened during the whole exchange. Which would put more weight to those innocent sounding words, sent by E-mail-so they would actually be on the record.

        • VH, Woodward DID respond to the email. His response is at the bottom of the page I linked to.

          • I know-I acknowledged his response. “it isn’t all that uncommon for people to be polite about something. Then after the fact to analyze the whole situation”

          • I see the problem-I was talking about his responding to the release of the e-mails

        • On your other point, you can’t assign all blame to Obama here. So what if Obama initially suggested the sequester (…as a means to force action and compromise later on…) Let’s deal with the here and now — sequestration is the law. Obama can’t just unilaterally ignore the law, now can he?

          http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/02/27/bob_woodward_asks_why_obama_won_t_become_a_dictator_and_ignore_budget_control.html

          • He often “just unilaterally ignores the law”. What would be different this time? It would be better for the country this time?

            • I’m marking my calendar — Kathy now supports having the President disregard law!

              • I didn’t say that at all – just pointing out to you that it hasn’t stopped him in the past and surprised you would use it as an argument this time.

          • In general, I don’t put all the blame for our current mess on any one person. But on the specifics on sequestration and how it came about-I do indeed put all the blame on Obama. And no-I hear wayyy to much of this -lets talk about the here and now. This isn’t a question of just the here and now-it is the discussion of a progression of acts which got us here.

            And yes, I think the President should follow the laws-but whether or not he had to do so the way he did is up for debate. Not one I feel I have enough information to be too specific about. And I don’t think your article proved it one way or the other either.

            • …on the specifics on sequestration and how it came about-I do indeed put all the blame on Obama…

              You’re right – I forgot that Obama has the authority to simply create law…

              Obama did two things – he suggested sequestration (again, as a means of trying to force action and compromise later on) and he signed it into law. You seem to be missing where Congress voted for sequestration.

              • No, I’m not-I stated quite clearly in my second post why I blame Obama for the sequestration. They had a deal, Obama had tax increases, he blew the deal up. If he hadn’t there wouldn’t of been a sequestration bill at all.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Buck

                WHO created the pressure that force the Sequestration to be enacted?

                By the way, don’t forget the Dems have HALF of Congress.

              • Did I ever say the Dems should have no blame? Did I ever say Obama should have no blame?

                I just said it is misplaced to assign all blame to Obama.

              • Then let’s move on to the debt ceiling situation, Obama accepted a deal with tax increases and the debt ceiling raised. Next stop-lets talk about cuts. Nope-Obama wants more tax increases-Lo an Behold-We have sequestration being implemented. How the heck can you blame the republicans for this situation-they are the only parties to this debacle who gave in on anything. So how do you define bi-partisanship-Do as Obama demands.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Buck

                When a smart man is negotiating with a moronic man, who is responsible for the outcome of the deal struck between them?

              • I’m glad you agree that, at least in this scenario, Obama is the smart man. :)

      • You had access to the 1/2 hour scolding phone call that preceded the email, Buck?

        • You mean the ‘scolding phone call’ that Sperling specifically apologizes for numerous times in his email?

          Have you ever had a phone call where you are arguing over something — pretty easy to let your guard down and raise your voice. Just the other day I found myself being screamed at by another attorney over something involving a client and his business partner. Coincidentally, he called back to apologize for his tone and ‘getting carried away’. Should I go running to the paper over it?

          • Seriously Buck – you think nothing of a Sr. WH official telling off a journalist – a hero of the left, no less – along with an implied threat? You really don’t see the difference between someone in the government coming down on someone and a conversation between two colleagues?

            Yikes!

            no wait….

            (sigh)

            • First off, in the email — there really wasn’t a threat, though there was an apology for the telephone call.

              Secondly, the telephone call — no, there really isn’t much of a difference between the two. Both examples are professionals who should keep themselves in check and maintain basic rules of professionalism. In both cases that failed as arguments got heated and in both cases apologies were issued. I really believe this is turning a mountain out of a mole hill.

              As for your post below regarding Davis, I don’t know anything about this to comment on, but would agree that had it happened as alleged, the WH was completely in the wrong and should be chastised for it. Though I have a feeling this has happened with past administrations as well (not saying that makes it ok).

              • All things are possible-But lets put some things in perspective. Obama has been going out of his way to exclude the media, he straight out attacks any News outlet he doesn’t like, he disrespects there place in our society completely. Now you have Woodward coming out and reporting what he claims he’s learned from his participation in these agreements and suddenly he says he is being attacked and threatened by the Administration. There have been constant complaints about the media being shut out and threatened with no interviews or loss of White House access since Obama took office. I remember one story about a guy being put into a closet. Now Davis, a democrat is claiming Washington Post was threatened. After awhile, the evidence just stacks up to such a point that the “it’s happened before” just doesn’t cut it.

              • And let’s remember as Kathy pointed out-we are talking about people with the power of the government behind them. We are talking about the freedom of the Press.

              • VH, I agree that if the Davis allegation actually happened as alleged, the WH was out of bounds and in the wrong, and should most definitely be called out for it.

                But, while I wasn’t privy to the telephone call, I did read the email exchange between Woodward and Sperling and I’m sorry, but there was no threat, at least in the email itself.

              • I’ve never said that the email was an explicit threat, I’ve said that it could be based on the rest of the story and on past accusations. You are simply going by how You perceive the words and on this one little part of Obama and his crews actions when it comes to the media and declaring it-wasn’t. I’m trying to look at everything-and I’m declaring Obama takes actions that are dangerous to the freedom of the press.

                So if Davis’s accusations are true-what does that mean to you-besides Obama should be fussed at-what are the implications of his actions?

              • Assuming Davis’ allegations are true and happened exactly as stated by Davis, then you call out the WH on this. End of story. There really isn’t anything else that can be done so far as I know.

                I just don’t see this as some big ‘war on freedom of press’…

              • It’s not a big war on the press-okay-then what exactly are you going him out for?

              • It’s unseemly….it gives the appearance of impropriety…etc.

              • going means calling

              • Let’s at least agree on one thing Buck-if it’s true-it doesn’t give the appearance of impropriety it is the definition of impropriety.

              • Oh, hell no. V’s losing it…changing the meaning of words..going means calling now! :)

              • :) I was being lazy.

              • If a right wing staffer would have said this to Chris Mathews, the staffer would have been arrested and charged with making a terrorist threat. It would fit the DHS description and they would jump on it like white on rice. :0

  55. I wonder-Biden keeps going out and acting like such a clown when it comes to the gun debate. Are they trying to use him to make people think -see our side likes guns-so don’t worry we aren’t gonna go too far and actually take your guns away or are they trying to make people think -see even people on our side shouldn’t own guns or both?

    Shoot through the door was the last idiotic thing I heard the man say.

  56. Good Afternoon, Everyone :)

    Been reading along, and at this point I agree with Buck, it’s all of the governments fault. It’s the big crisis game so that nobody can focus on the more important issues. A lot of the news sites that I visit say very very little about the issue. They see it for what it is, just more of the DC game. :)

    • I’d be willing to bet-that was not Buck’s point.

      • Hi V. Hope today finds you happy and warm :)

        I think of Buck as a reasonable man. He may be left of center politically, but not that far, in my opinion. The way things have gone the last 4 years, both sides should have known this thing would happen. For any of them to say otherwise is most likely an act of stupid or a lie.

        I have no doubt that Woodward was threatened. That is the Chicago way and has probably become a habit in the Administration. They apologized because they bit off more than they could chew in this instance. Don’t worry, it will happen many times more in the years to come.

      • VH, before you try to assign the point I am making or not making, please read my response up above to you and JAC:

        “Did I ever say the Dems should have no blame? Did I ever say Obama should have no blame?

        I just said it is misplaced to assign all blame to Obama.”

        And yes G, I am a reasonable man, thank you for noticing! :)

        • I read your response Buck but okay, if you believe that the whole situation is nothing more than an act played out for political gain. Fine.

  57. Just A Citizen says:

    Buck

    I see that once again you avoided answering my question. Instead you take a little side step…..

    “I’m glad you agree that, at least in this scenario, Obama is the smart man. :)

    • Ok, I’ll bite — who are you referring to as the smart man and who are you referring to as the moronic man?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Buck

        It doesn’t matter. It is a question of ethics….so the players are not important.

        Although I think I have been quite clear as to who I think the Morons are in the particular example.

        The irony of the “sequester” fiasco is that the Morons may unwittingly have proven once and for all that the old saying “even a blind pig will find an acorn once in awhile” is true.

  58. Just A Citizen says:

    A pretty good comment from the politico article cited above:

    Daniel Martin Gray Bill63 • 8 hours ago

    Woodward TELLS TRUTH!

    And, as ALL “Progressives”, his FORMER admirers
    ABANDON and DISDAIN him when he won’t COVER-UP for them.

    As an Apostate PROG myself, SUCCESSFUL in DEFEATING SEIU, I also feel the HEAT.

    But the TRUTH is what LED me, over these past decades, from Hoffman, Rubin, and Alinsky, to our Founding Fathers.

    THEY WARNED US.

    But we FAILED to HEED. We have SOWN the WIND, and now REAP the WHIRLWIND.

    There is ONLY ONE CHOICE to be made.

    Will you voluntarily CEDE all personal POWER, your Freedom, your Liberty, your CHOICE, to “EXPERTS”, who “SOLVE” crises by making them WORSE?

    Who USE circumstances, use US, to garner and solidify POWER OVER US?

    Will you live as a SLAVE to KINGS, on your KNEES?

    I would NOT…

  59. Most of your righties need to read “The Amazing Adventures of the Thunderbolt Kid” … I’m laughing my ass off at the section on communism in America … it’s 1950’s memoir and deal with McCarthy, et al … and, quite frankly, many of the absurd crap yous yap about communism in here pretty much mirrors what McCarthy and his ilk were saying … same old propaganda … and that’s why the moronic CPAC shunning Chris Christie will cost you 2016 the same way it did 2012 :)

    • The elections are totally fixed Charlie, they already know who is going to win. You are a strange one lately, what you been smokin? :)

      • Ran out of my pipe tobacco. Seriously, if you’re around my age (56) or so, the memoir is hilarious (gonna review it tomorrow night) … talks about the worst toy ever made being “electric football” … how can anyone argue with that? Very funny book about growing up in Des Moines,Iowa during the fifties … hilarious.

        • ROFL Charlie :) I remember electric football to this day! He’s right, dumbest game ever! that brings back some fond memories of when life was real simple! Just being a kid and having some fun. :)

  60. Hey Alabama! You are apparently a very racist state! LOL! – I love these on the street interviews.

    http://www.therightscoop.com/mrctv-visits-voting-rights-act-protest-at-supreme-court-gets-intimidated-by-thugs/

  61. Your dingbat congress critter of the day. Back for a repeat performance….Max Waters!

    http://nation.foxnews.com/jobs/2013/02/28/maxine-waters-over-170-million-jobs-could-be-lost-due-sequestration

  62. I didn’t know this about registration of guns, but we should all know it know :)

    One Absurdity of Gun Registration: Criminals Are Exempt
    Permalink | Print

    The mass media is still all atwitter with talk of “closing the gun show loophole” and “universal background checks.” These phrases are tossed about without concern to their true intent: a de facto system of gun registration in these United States. I am dead set against any form of registration, since the history of the 20th Century showed countless times that registration leads to eventual confiscation.

    There is one other inherent problem with gun registration schemes that is often ignored: that is that it only applies to law-abiding citizens. By virtue of established case law and cemented with an 8-1 Supreme Court decision, criminals are exempt from gun registration because it would violate their Fifth Amendment protection from self-incrimination. Second Amendment expert Clayton Cramer explains it all in a fine essay titled: The Fifth Amendment, Self-Incrimination, and Gun Registration. Here is an excerpt:

    In Haynes v. U.S. (1968), a Miles Edward Haynes appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of an unregistered short-barreled shotgun. His argument was ingenious: since he was a convicted felon at the time he was arrested on the shotgun charge, he could not legally possess a firearm. Haynes further argued that for a convicted felon to register a gun, especially a short-barreled shotgun, was effectively an announcement to the government that he was breaking the law. If he did register it, as 26 U.S.C. sec.5841 required, he was incriminating himself; but if he did not register it, the government would punish him for possessing an unregistered firearm — a violation of 26 U.S.C. sec.5851. Consequently, his Fifth Amendment protection against self- incrimination (“No person… shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”) was being violated — he would be punished if he registered it, and punished if he did not register it. While the Court acknowledged that there were circumstances where a person might register such a weapon without having violated the prohibition on illegal possession or transfer, both the prosecution and the Court acknowledged such circumstances were “uncommon.” The Court concluded:

    “We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm under sec.5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under sec.5851.”

    If you ever get into an argument with a neighbor or co-worker about any gun registration stupidity, then I recommend that you either send them the link to Cramer’s essay, or hand them a printout of it. End of argument! – J.W.R.

    http://www.survivalblog.com/2013/02/one-absurdity-of-gun-registration-criminals-are-exempt.html

    • That would be crazy…IF it were the end of the story!

      Now I could be mistaken, but subsequent to that decision, wasn’t the federal registration act amended and then upheld by SCOTUS in a later case?? Meaning that an individual can be held criminally liable for possession of an unregistered firearm.

      • Buck, I will have to do some research on the subject. Off hand, I don’t know of any registration laws (I could be wrong) currently being enforced.

  63. John Boehner–probably fearing the loss of the Speakership–is apparently not budging this time. He had some choice words for Harry Reid’s Senate, saying: “We have moved a bill in the House twice. We should not have to move a third bill before the Senate gets off their ass and begins to do something.”

    Harry Reid responded, saying: “We’re doing our best here to pass something. The Speaker is doing nothing to try to pass anything over there.”

    The Senate has done absolutely nothing; and the House has offered multiple bills. With all this, the public is still set to blame Republicans, because the PR machine that is the Democratic Party has pulled the wool over the public’s eyes.

    http://lastresistance.com/1497/the-obama-and-harry-reid-tax-scam/

    • Boehner should be on the road matching O campaign speech for campaign speech. He should be describing just exactly what O should be doing to ease the impact of the budget increase decrease. He should be demanding O produce his laser and start using it. That’s what he promised in ’08.

  64. Lengthy, but very, very good. Not familiar with this guy but he is knowledgeable and entertaining.

    http://www.therightscoop.com/must-see-video-larry-elder-delivers-keynote-address-at-david-horowitz-retreat/

    • That’s the first I heard of him too. I wish he had run for Senator in CA. I’d vote for him. He is right about the Republicans. I have said for years they can’t argue their way out of a wet paper bag. When Bush 43 was pushing SS privatization, the interviewers would hit on the market and its ups and down. I would scream at him to ask the reporter if he had an IRA or 401K and where his money was invested. The hypocrisy would have become instantly apparent if he had asked that simple question.

      Comic strip artists are very good at looking at ordinary situations from outside the box and seeing the hypocrisy and contradictions in the situation. The Republicans need to hire someone with that kind of talent.

  65. A view from the left

    Why Bob Woodward’s Fight With The White House Matters to You
    And why I iced a senior Obama White House official.

    By Ron Fournier
    Updated: February 28, 2013 | 2:11 p.m.
    February 28, 2013 | 9:49 a.m.

    The fight between the White House and journalistic legend Bob Woodward is a silly distraction to a major problem: The failure of President Obama and House Republicans to lead the country under a budget deadline.

    Woodward-gate is a distraction the White House welcomed, even encouraged, as part of a public-relations strategy to emasculate the GOP and anybody else who challenges Obama. It is a distraction that briefly enveloped my reporting last weekend, when I essentially broke ties with a senior White House official.

    Yes, I iced a source– and my only regret is I didn’t do it sooner. I decided to share this encounter because it might shed light on the increasingly toxic relationship between media and government, which is why the Woodward flap matters outside the Beltway.

    On Saturday, White House press secretary Jay Carney accused Woodward of being “willfully wrong” on a story holding the White House accountable for its part in a legislative gimmick called sequestration. (Months ago, the GOP-controlled House passed, and Obama signed, legislation imposing $1.2 trillion in cuts unless an alternative is found by Friday.)

    Carney isn’t the first press secretary to criticize a reporter. Presidential aides do it all the time to set the record straight or — often, more cynically — to dodge accountability. I was struck by the fact that Carney’s target has a particular history with White House attacks. I tweeted: “Obama White House: Woodward is ‘willfully wrong.’ Huh-what did Nixon White House have to say about Woodward?”

    Reporting by Woodward and Carl Bernstein uncovered Watergate misdeeds and led to the resignation of President Nixon. My tweet was not intended to compare Nixon to Obama (there is no reason to doubt Obama’s integrity — period) but rather to compare the attack to the press strategies of all the presidents’ men.

    I had angered the White House, particularly a senior White House official who I am unable to identify because I promised the person anonymity. Going back to my first political beat, covering Bill Clinton’s administration in Arkansas and later in Washington, I’ve had a practice that is fairly common in journalism: A handful of sources I deal with regularly are granted blanket anonymity. Any time we communicate, they know I am prepared to report the information at will (matters of fact, not spin or opinion) and that I will not attribute it to them.

    This is an important way to build a transparent and productive relationship between reporters and the people they cover. Nothing chills a conversation faster than saying, “I’m quoting you on this.”

    The official angered by my Woodward tweet sent me an indignant e-mail. “What’s next, a Nazi analogy?” the official wrote, chastising me for spreading “bull**** like that” I was not offended by the note, mild in comparison to past exchanges with this official. But it was the last straw in a relationship that had deteriorated.

    As editor-in-chief of National Journal, I received several e-mails and telephone calls from this White House official filled with vulgarity, abusive language, and virtually the same phrase that Politico characterized as a veiled threat. “You will regret staking out that claim,” The Washington Post reporter was told.

    Once I moved back to daily reporting this year, the badgering intensified. I wrote Saturday night, asking the official to stop e-mailing me. The official wrote, challenging Woodward and my tweet. “Get off your high horse and assess the facts, Ron,” the official wrote.

    I wrote back:

    “I asked you to stop e-mailing me. All future e-mails from you will be on the record — publishable at my discretion and directly attributed to you. My cell-phone number is … . If you should decide you have anything constructive to share, you can try to reach me by phone. All of our conversations will also be on the record, publishable at my discretion and directly attributed to you.”

    I haven’t heard back from the official. It was a step not taken lightly because the note essentially ended our working relationship. Without the cloak of anonymity, government officials can’t be as open with reporters – they can’t reveal as much information and they can’t explain the nuance and context driving major events.

    I changed the rules of our relationship, first, because it was a waste of my time (and the official’s government-funded salary) to engage in abusive conversations. Second, I didn’t want to condone behavior that might intimidate less-experienced reporters, a reaction I personally witnessed in journalists covering the Obama administration.

    That gets to why this matters beyond the incestuous Washington culture. One of this country’s most important traditions is “a free press that isn’t afraid to ask questions, to examine and to criticize,” Obama said at the 2012 White House Correspondents Association’s annual dinner.

    Because of tech-fueled changes in the market, there are fewer reporters doing more work with less experience than when I came to Washington with Clinton in 1993. Also, the standard relationship between reporters and their sources is more combative, a reflection of polarization in Washington and within the media industry.

    Personally, I had a great relationship with Clinton’s communications team, less so with President Bush’s press shop, and now — for the first time in my career — I told a public servant to essentially buzz off.

    This can’t be what Obama wants. He must not know how thin-skinned and close-minded his staff can be to criticism. “I have the greatest respect and admiration for what you do,” Obama told reporters a year ago. “I know sometimes you like to give me a hard time, and I certainly like to return the favor, but I never forget that our country depends on you.”

    http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/why-bob-woodward-s-fight-with-the-white-house-matters-to-you-20130228

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 138 other followers

%d bloggers like this: