Log in

National GOP [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Assassination Czar? [Jun. 6th, 2012|06:51 pm]

conservative advisory

Meet John Brennan, Obama’s Assassination Czar
The unprecedented power has even Obama administration officials worried.

June 6, 2012 - 12:00 am

A relatively unnoticed article by Associated Press reporter Kimberly Dozier two weeks ago outlined new Obama administration policy changes which consolidated power for authorizing drone attacks and assassinations under political appointees within the White House.

The article identifies White House counterterrorism chief John Brennan as the official assuming the role of Obama’s de facto assassination czar, raising concerns even within the Obama administration that the White House is increasingly turning into “a pseudo-military headquarters” under the direction of just a few senior Obama administration officials.

Adding to these concerns are serious questions about Brennan’s qualifications for this role.

Read more...Collapse )

VIRAL NOTES: The problems I have with this are pretty simple.

1: Czars are un-Constitutional. There is no provision for a shadow government (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2837495/posts) of unknown, unaccountable "masterminds". Honestly, its quite pathetic. Obama's czars seem to make ever decision for him, or, at least, figure everything out for him, and leave him with nothing but the responsibility to say "yes" or "no" to their (stupid) ideas. Furthermore, these people have known allegiances, answerable only to this temporary politician, Obama, and do not answer to Congress or the People.

Now you know why Obama has so much time to play golf.

People aware of the famous saying by Lord Acton ("power corrupts...") are very wary of this (if they have a lick of sense): there are people squatting in our nation's capital that Obama has literally delegated his presidential power to, including, now, the power to order the deaths of people designated "enemy combatants". Most would be reluctant to accept people like this, as well as question their character. In the case of Obama's czars, this is doubly bad, considering Obama, seemingly, is a magnet for people of poor character, America-haters (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/sep/08/catching-van-jones/), scum (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/167989/bill-ayers-unrepentant-lying-terrorist-andrew-c-mccarthy), etc., that should probably be on military/intelligence capture/kill lists, themselves. Both Obama's known and unknown cabinets are composed of unsavory, dishonorable people that seem to be speaking and acting in ways that are very much contrary to the best interests of American national security, and the American People. Now, in this person, John Brennan, we have a true nightmare. A man that is an archetype example of Obama's seemingly infectious corruption has been given the power to determine who lives, and who dies.

I cannot criticize this, enough. This man of far less than sterling character, who has been shown to probably be the typical leftist political hack, has been given the power to determine who is a big enough 'public enemy' to order them killed by flying robots. Do I need to really count the ways, in how bad an idea this really is?

Brennan also came under fire after would-be underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab nearly brought down a U.S.-bound Northwest Airlines flight on Christmas Day 2009. British intelligence authorities had notified their U.S. counterparts of an “Umar Farouk” meeting with al-Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen, and Abdulmutallab’s father had warned of his son’s increasing extremism to CIA officials at the U.S. embassy in Nigeria. However, Abdulmutallab was never added to the U.S. no-fly list, nor was his U.S. visa revoked.

Following this stunning and nearly fatal intelligence failure which prompted members of both the House and Senate Intelligence oversight committees to call for his resignation, Brennan lashed out at the Obama administration’s critics in a USA Today editorial. He claimed that the “politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda.”


This is precisely the kind of operation that needs to be kept OUT of the White House, and confined in the halls of 7701 Tampa Point Boulevard, MacDill Air Force Base, Florida.

Who, or what, resides there?


This man has no military experience, that I am aware of, and certainly no Special Operations Forces experience (that I'm aware of). Furthermore, I have no intel on this man, stating he's been a field operative or analyst in an organization like the DOD DIA (http://www.dia.mil/) or CIA (https://www.cia.gov/).

John Brennan is the man under whom President Obama has consolidated the unprecedented power of assassination. He directly controls and oversees all aspects of the program that had been previously divided between the Pentagon, the CIA, and other officials. If this is the kind of policy change that Americans can expect in light of Obama’s promise to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev of “more flexibility” after the 2012 elections, Americans of all political stripes have reason for grave concern.

So, to recap, this man is not a Soldier, is not a spy; and yet the powers that were once in the hands of professionals, has been handed over to a total amateur and political hack (like when he made Leon Panetta head of the CIA). In an environment where the left is becoming increasingly violent and radical, where they've been shown to have almost total control (or at least influence) over Barack Obama, perhaps the most chinless, spineless president we've ever been afflicted with, coupled with the new push to have armed drones patrolling the skies of America...


...and further coupled with a paranoid president that has compiled an enemies list, including private citizens that he personally dislikes...



...this is a recipe for disaster.

2: Generally, Obama's cronies don't know their asses from a hole in the ground. Modern terrorism is something that requires a special approach. They are non-uniformed, non-state actors (at least in most cases) that target civilians for murder (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/06/obamas-peace-partners-the-taliban-poison-another-girls-school-400-school-girls-poisoned-this-past-mo.html), as well as military (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/16/marine-killed-by-afghan-soldier-last-month-officials-say/) and government personnel (http://www.oregonlive.com/newsflash/index.ssf/story/bomb-set-off-at-us-consulate-in/96d9d70e824640a590a28de2bab64135).

They can be addressed by conventional forces (Army/Marine infantry, military police, etc.), but everybody knows that terrorists don't generally stand and fight, preferring to run like the bitches they are. That, along with our hopelessly PC, spineless, pandering, cowardly government officials, precludes those kinds of forces from being really effective. Instead, this calls for USSOCOM: ARSOC, MARSOC, NAVSPECWAR and even AFSOC.

The United States Army Rangers.

Marine Corps Force Recon.

US Navy SEa Air Land.

And the best (worst) of them all, the United States Army Special Forces.


As well as guys from the CIA.

Why? Because this is what they do. Others may train 'harder' than American Special Operations Forces, and yet, they always fall short, when it comes to trying to be better. The CIA is one of the weapons that America used, from Eisenhower to Reagan, to defeat the Soviet Union's expert intelligence organization, the Soviet Komitet gosudarstvennoy bezopasnosti or Committee for State Security. These guys were MUCH smarter than any muslim terrorist, and probably taught them a lot of what they know, today. (Actually "were" is a stretch; though they've changed their name to FSB, they're still KGB, to the core.)

Military personnel are motivated by Duty, Honor, Country. They take orders, even from the basest of men (such as Obama) when in the proper position of political authority, and for the most part, the CIA is the same. They do not operate from political agendas: czars do. Furthermore, these are people that work in intelligence. While everybody knows the CIA does, most don't know that the US Army Special Forces gather vast amounts of intel that even the CIA might not have, to pass on. When the Army showed up in Iraq, they were welcomed, while Obama is despised, worldwide. On top of that, with every terrorist cell we destroy by missile strike, we are losing access to who-knows-how-much intel, taken by seizing undamaged property, as well as through interrogations. USSOCOM's way of doing things is to capture, or kill, while Obama takes the easy, mentally weak way out. He has his czar point out targets for him, then he orders CIA personnel to fly robots until they find them, then kill them and destroy evidence through Hellfire missile strikes. Computers, flash drives, papers, etc., all destroyed in a flash. All kinds of evidence and intel, gone. This is how Obama does it.

The bottom line is that this is yet another reason to get rid of the chinless, thin skinned manchild, Obama, who is afraid to even take on his mandatory responsibilities as Commander in Chief, and determine who to target.

I'm not saying that my way (the USSOCOM way) is easier. No, its more dangerous, in fact. However, this is what these people signed up for, and, in many cases, its exactly what they want. They know that with every capture, or clean kill that doesn't result in destroyed evidence, our chances of busting a plot against America, or an ally, is much greater.

LinkLeave a comment

Facing Facts and the Future [Apr. 29th, 2012|03:45 pm]

Too many people are pointing fingers at Obama, calling him an "ideologue" for his beliefs and behavior, then turning around and acting the same way, themselves.

Obama's ideology is flat-out wrong. He vociferously and legislatively supports everything that is anti-American, and everything that is wrong with America. He supports these agendas as a True Believer, and supports everyone else that is a True Believer in the leftist agenda.

However, a lot of Republicans are guilty of the same thing. They are ideologues, just like Obama. Instead of supporting the Stars & Stripes, instead of supporting the Constitution of the United States. Just as Obama has voiced his hatred of the Constitution, and for which it stands:



...too many Republicans do the same things. Obama believes in party and liberality uber alles. To him, all things DNC are what America should bow to, no matter what they espouse. Now, more and more, we're getting Republicans that are doing and saying the same things, only in reverse. Whereas the DNC is saying "democratic party uber alles", the GOP is saying: "Republican party uber alles". A classic example is RINO Newt Gingrich, who admittedly supported one of worst of the worst of the New York leftists, Dede Scozzafava.

Dede Scozzafava Endorsement
Newt has admitted it was a mistake to back Dede Scozzafava, the Republican nominee in the 2009 NY-23 special election.

Whether it was helping to build the Republican Party of Georgia back when Democrats controlled the entire state or leading the nationwide effort in 1994 to break 40 years of Democratic rule in the House, Newt has always tried to advance the cause of a truly conservative Republican party. This has always meant supporting the most conservative nominee possible as selected by Republican primary voters.

Therefore, Newt will almost always back the nominee of the Republican party and not back an independent candidate in a race against a Democratic candidate.

Newt still believes in this principle, however, he has admitted it was a mistake to back Dede Scozzafava, the Republican nominee in the 2009 NY-23 special election. Although she was the Republican nominee, the problem was that Republican primary voters did not pick her, the local party leaders did, otherwise her liberal views would have prevented her from becoming the nominee. The Conservative Party candidate whom Scozzafava was running against, Doug Hoffman, recently remarked about Newt’s endorsement of his rival, “I would advise other conservative republicans: Don’t hold this against him.”


There you have it. He'll always back someone, just because they have an "R" behind their name, over someone who espouses principals of Conservatism, just because they don't have the 'coveted' "R" behind theirs. Hoffman demonstrated, without a doubt, that the welfare of his country was more on his mind, than politics, when he made his statement not to hold Gingrich's RINO politicking against him. (However, that's exactly what I am going to do - hold it against him.)

I do not vote for party: I vote for principals, and how much I believe a candidate will stand by them. The Republican Party was never founded as the Conservative Party. It had party planks, just like any other, but their planks were derivative of Conservative principals; Conservatism was not an outgrowth of the GOP. People that were attracted to their principals that were derived from Conservatism stood under that banner, because it best represented what they stood for, professed and practiced, themselves. The crap that the leftists of the DNC call "principals", well, they attracted people, too, and for the same reasons. In the past, when someone was identified as a member of the Republican Party, people knew where that person stood. Now, that isn't true, anymore. For leftist democrats, yes it is still true, but not for the GOP. Now, the Republican name has become nothing more than a covering. Something to hide behind. Now, we're faced with a new and pernicious breed of "Republican" that is the RINO, and stands for few, if any, of the espoused principals of the GOP. They are, in fact, little more than leftists, wearing Republicans' clothing, and have become metastasized into the Establishment.

Both the GOP and the DNC have put party over Country, and that's not going to change. Very few Republicans remain in that party that actually believe in Duty, Honor, Country, and none of them have names like Boehner, Cantor, Lugar, Chafee, Snowe, Specter, Collins, Shays, Pataki, Boehlert, Romney, Castle, Leach, Grahm, McConnell, etc. The RINOs are no more working to re-establish the Constitution as the law of the land, than the DNC is. Now, twice, the cancer that has taken over and terminally infected the GOP has destroyed elections, replacing Conservatives with one of their own. First, we had McCain, now we have Romney. Why I have to call these RINOs in politics and on the streets "ideologues" is because they support Willard, just because he's not Obama, and just because he's got an "R" behind his name, as though these are actually special virtues. Not a single one will answer these questions:

Why should I support a candidate that is rabidly pro child murder?

Why should I support a candidate that is pro socialism in medicine?



Why should I vote for someone that is un-Godly in his legislation and beliefs?



Why should I vote for someone that is seemingly a pathological liar, and who's word absolutely cannot be trusted? Who even lies about his NAME during a presidential debate?!



"I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there and in some ways it was frustrating not to feel like I was there as part of the troops that were fighting in Vietnam."

- Mitt Romney, Boston Globe, 6/24/07

"I was not planning on signing up for the military. It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam."

- Mitt Romney, Boston Herald, 5/2/94

Why should I vote for someone who seems to have criminal inclinations, and hiding something that is potentially very serious?




Why should I vote for a man that supports violating the Constitution, so he can pay off crony capitalists?



There is no real difference between Romney and Obama, and even less distinction between their defenders. Too many are supporting their candidate, not really on what they espouse, but because of the political party they represent. Leftists are voting for Obama, because they do not want a Republican back in the White House. Republican ideologues are voting for Romney, simply because he's a Republican, and they're trying to force themselves to believe that a person with that kind of record will, somehow, be more competent and virtuous, than Obama, a leftist.

I think its time people wake up and start looking at what people really are, and what they represent, and not voting down party lines. While in the vast majority of cases, yes, being a democrat does make you a bad guy, considering you're shilling for the political party that invented hate crimes, race based slavery, institutionalized racism, insurrection and political terrorism in this country. However, just because you choose to put an "R" behind your name doesn't make you any better, by some kind of default. Until we calm down and start putting principals over party, we will only see the problems get worse, and once they pass a certain point, we will lose our country, forever. Liberals are un-American, for the most part, because the vast majority of them identify themselves as liberals, before anything else. They're liberals, before they're "Americans", they're liberals before they're "Christians" (or whatever; most aren't Christians, no matter what they say, or even catholics), they're liberals before whatever ethnicity they use to identify themselves by in their mania for identify politics, etc. Now, its looking like Republicans and liberals have degenerated to the same, lowest common denominator of party before nation. This "anyone but Obama" politicking may sound nice, if you're an idiot, but in practice and theory, its not going to hold water. What America needs is a competent statesman. A Conservative that is a True Believer, just as Obama is a True Believer in the ways and means of the left. Just as church has never saved anybody, from any thing, the Republican party hasn't saved America from anything. Only values have any meaning, not labels, considering how useless labels have become, in light of people fraudulently putting them on, merely for political and personal gain. Give me a president that actually takes his station seriously, who puts the good of the nation above the good of political games and gain; who puts self aside for the People.

We're not going to get that out of someone's who's claim to fame is just the letter behind their name, when they're on TV, or in print media.

Link3 comments|Leave a comment

Obama's latest speech, deconstructed [Mar. 10th, 2012|12:39 pm]


VIRAL NOTES: And now, the transcript of Obama's latest speech to soft-soap America into believing he's actually competent, and capable of anything good.

"Hi, everybody. I’m speaking to you this week from a factory in Petersburg, Virginia, where they’re bringing on more than 100 new workers to build parts for the next generation of jet engines.

It’s a story that’s happening more frequently across the country. Our businesses just added 233,000 jobs last month — for a total of nearly four million new jobs over the last two years. More companies are choosing to bring jobs back and invest in America. Manufacturing is adding jobs for the first time since the 1990s, and we’re building more things to sell to the rest of the world stamped with three proud words: Made in America.

Read more...Collapse )
Link2 comments|Leave a comment

Gas Prices and Obama [Feb. 25th, 2012|01:43 pm]


VIRAL NOTES: "A tone of indignance", is right. The speaker for the White House isn't so much 'indignant', as he is ignorant. However, it is clearly coming from Obama, and the rest of his regime.

President Obama does not "accept responsibility" for high gas prices, his spokesman indicated today, arguing that Obama has done everything he could to bring down the price of oil and blaming the high gas prices on oil price increases caused by global factors.

"The president accepts the responsibility that he identified the next president should accept, back in 2008, which is the need to develop a comprehensive energy policy," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said today when asked if Obama "accept[s] responsibility" for the high price of oil and gas. "If you're suggesting that there is responsibility for a rise in the global price of oil, it's certainly not because of anything he hasn't done to expand domestic oil and gas production," Carney added.

Asked if he believes it is fair for Americans to blame the president, Carney noted that gas price hikes are "a recurrent problem." He added that domestic oil production is at a record high right now and that Obama has opened "millions of acres in the Gulf of Mexico" to drilling.

The conversation today stemmed from yesterday, when Carney was asked about the Keystone XL pipeline. He said that "the president did not turn down the Keystone pipeline," arguing that Republicans prevented a full environmental review from taking place.


Even if we don't go into finding something or someone to blame for increasing gas prices, Obama won't even come close to acting like an executive, and saying "the buck stops here". This is not a solution, nor is it something indicating we're listening to a guy that's even interested in finding one.

Will President Obama do something about high gas prices? No, argued Deputy White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest today.

Earnest insisted that there was no "short term solution" for cheaper gas, other than the president's payroll tax cut and refused to discuss releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserves.

"If there was a magic wand you could wave, one of the presidents would have waved it," said Earnest arguing that high gas prices were not a new problem.

"Anyone who says that they can wave a wand or plant the magic beans to lead to a reduction in oil prices is just not telling the truth," he added.

Earnest insisted that the President's payroll tax cut would give relief putting an average of $40 back into the pockets of working Americans.

"Thats certainly is an important step to offering a little bit of a financial cushion to those families." he said.

When challenged by reporters about President Obama's claiming credit for an increase domestic oil production, Earnest would only say that "at the end of the day, facts are facts."


Read more...Collapse )
LinkLeave a comment

Geithner [Feb. 24th, 2012|02:35 pm]



VIRAL NOTES: Tax Cheat Timmy is as big a liar as any of the rest of Obama's regime. Let's cut through this foggy wall of lies and BS.

First, Geithner blames rising oil prices on "growth" in a strengthening economy, and Iran. He says there are no quick fixes or short term fixes. He recommends driving more fuel-efficient vehicles and cutting the payroll taxes. This is the biggest load of horse crap I've heard in quite some time. He's no good at financial matters (he's a tax cheat, and claimed he couldn't understand Turbo Tax, remember?), and he's certainly no good at geopolitics or anything that even rhymes with economics. Obama, himself, has admitted that, once again, he's been lying, and that we are not in any sort of recovery. The economy is not getting 'stronger', by any means, and he, himself [Obama] acknowledged this in a letter that the LEC (Liberal Entertainment Complex) refuses to publish, leaving it to more Conservative outlets to do, for fear of making their Dear Leader look bad in an election season.


Fortunately, people are waking up to his lies, and increasingly reacting with appropriate negativity.


Statistics show that our [America's] per-capita government incurred debt is worse than that of Greece.


Where, in that chart, in those statistics, does it reflect a growing economy, here or abroad? Geithner can't believe what he said, himself, because if he did, he's just a complete moron. I hope he made a buffoon out of himself on cable television, just for the sake of perpetuating what he knows to be outright lies and total, transparent propaganda. The crux of Geithner's explanation as to rising crude prices is that global productivity is increasing, and hence, there is a greater demand for oil, and diminishing supplies on hand. Actually saying this with a straight face means Geithner really takes the American public for fools, when it is, in fact, he that is the village idiot.

He claims the Obama regime is making an effort to increase and expand oil exploration, and to acquire more oil from nations like Saudi Arabia. For one, oil production, under, and thanks to, the Obama regime, is down 40%.


This is the same president that illegally and un-Constitutionally took it upon himself to institute a complete moratorium on oil drilling, and was taken to task on it by a federal judge, who actually found him [Obama] in contempt, and yet was still ignored.



This is also the same president that very clearly stated that he wanted Americans to suffer under high gas prices, and that coal, an energy staple would not only see it's mining and utilization intentionally crippled crippled by his politics, but would be facing bankruptcy, as he fought to destroy a major component of America's energy production capability.

True, Iran has been creating problems, and prices have been going up, in part, because of that. They cannot take the lion's share of the blame, though. One misconception is that gold is increasing in value. A single ounce of gold, last year, was nowhere near what it is, now, and that's not because gold is becoming more valuable. Its because the USD [United States Dollar] is weakening. Thanks to things like "quantitative easing" and Obama's constant printing of money, this intentional campaign to lower the value of the USD is continuing to be successful.



The more he [Obama] hurts the economy and the dollar, the lower the USD's buying power, and the more things will cost. Economics can get complicated, but this is not astronautics or electronics engineering. You make a concerted effort to devalue the dollar, and it will be devalued, when means it becomes weaker against other currencies. Iran isn't to blame for this, Obama is. Furthermore, the claim about getting supplies from Saudi Arabia to help in this mess is another big lie. The very same media outlet that Geithner spread this lie on, just days earlier, pre-emptively called him a liar:

The world’s top oil exporter, Saudi Arabia, appears to have cut both its oil production and export in December, according to the latest update by the Joint Organizations Data Initiative (JODI), an official source of oil production, consumption and export data.

The OPEC heavyweight saw production decline by 237,000 barrels per day (bpd) from three-decade highs of 10.047 million bpd in November, the JODI data showed on Sunday.

The draw-down was sharper for the actual amount exported, declining by 440,000 bpd, or 5.6 percent, to come in at 7.364 million bpd, the data also showed. The level would still be similar to exports after a steep ramp-up last June.


That doesn't sound like an increase, to me, but it does sound like our supply is being constricted and choked off, contributing to the increase in prices of crude and gasoline, thanks to diminishing supply. Geithner can't find a short term fix, or anything else for that matter, to deal with this, because his brain doesn't wok that way. He's a tax-and-spend liberal, and thinks taxation and spending is the path to success. One way to have fixed this would have been to open areas to drilling, as opposed to closing them:


Another way would have been to not hand over America's oil reserves to foreigners.



Another way he could've done some good is to not have been a crony capitalist, costing 20,000+ American jobs, simply to line the pockets of billionaires that he's got between his back pockets.


Had he not cancelled the Keystone XL Pipeline project, this would've been another source of oil, and a source from a nation that is not out to kill us.


Then, we have Geithner pontificating about cutting things like the payroll tax. That is like shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic. A reduction in a small tax that has a return of only about 20 - 40 bucks a month is nothing, compared to what Americans would gain, if the US government stopped it's out of control spending and eliminated it's unnecessary taxation. Once government is forced to obey the law, and all that spending comes to a halt, virtually all taxes, including the income tax, will disappear. Then, and only then, would we see a "burden" lifted off the Peoples' backs. If Obama were to stop spending, cut taxes, slash regulations and let business do what it does best, that would be the road to economic prosperity. Getting out of the way, and allowing on-shore and offshore drilling, as well as the processing of oil shale would be a major, major factor in expanding energy production, and cutting the cost of fuel. However, they choose the opposite, and as Reagan asked: 'name one nation that has taxed itself into prosperity'. As long as the government doesn't do this, and allow oil prices to skyrocket, the costs of virtually everything will skyrocket with it, ranging from transportation to clothing. Telling people to use 'green' energy sources and buy more fuel efficient cars is just about as useless and stupid as Obama's previous advice:


Oil prices spiking through the roof is no indication of "growth", unless you're talking inflation, or something similar. Government intervention is definitely called for in mitigating these oil prices. Don't listen to Geithner's bumper-sticker catch-phrase BS: the Strategic Reserve is something that should only be for the federal government. The federal government should not be holding on to oil for privately held oil interests; they should each have their own 'strategic reserve'. Government intervention should come in the form of obeying their Constitutionally-enumerated powers and limitations, such as their inability to dictate to domestic Private Sector oil corporations if they can, or cannot drill. If oil is on federally-held lands, then you should also consider that the US does not have the Constitutional power to "own" lands. Land is, and should be, held by the states, not Washington D.C. If there are to be any limitations imposed on drilling and hydraulic fracturing for oil shale, it should be an issue to be resolved between the corporation and the actual owners of the land, be it the States or the People [private citizens], not an un-Constitutional bureaucracy like the Environmental "Protection" Agency, and not the Department of the Interior (another bureaucracy of dubious Constitutionality). That is how the government should intervene: by stepping back, and allowing the Private Sector to do it's job: produce goods, services and JOBS. The policies that the current regime pursues against Iran are useless. Even as the flow of petrodollars and trade is constricted, it does nothing to curtail their military...


...nor their military nuclear weapons programs.


The sanctions aren't so much a danger to us, as it is a waste of our time. We have the capability to undermine Iran in a much more efficient way, and that is to tap our own oil and natural gas resources, then sell them on the open market, internationally, even to places like the PRC, for prices that undercut all OPEC nations, robbing them of petrodollars, and taking their customers away from them. We would, eventually, if we spend wisely, acquire not only a glut of oil (reducing domestic prices, and prices abroad), but we'd also be able to acquire a glut of money, also known as a budget surplus , as we ended deficit spending and vanquished the national debt, once and for all.

Once again, addressing Geithner's blatant, bald-faced lie about increased energy production:


Then, we move on to Geithner's party-line lie about taxation. Nothing he says is true. They are not simplifying the tax code, they are not encouraging investment, unless this sounds like encouraging investment, to you:



First of all, I said lower or decrease spending. This is an increase. The way to stimulate the economy is not to spend billions to trillions of the taxpayer dollars that you're doing everything in your power to render absolutely worthless...


...but to really invest. However, "invest" doesn't mean spend money, either. For the US government to invest in America's economy, again, they have to stop spending so much money, because all that does is cripple it. If we were to stop every single spending program that the Constitution does not make allowances for, reducing taxation to individuals, and reducing that tax to a flat fee (not percentage), we'd have more than enough to pay for legitimate government functions. The rest would be the responsibilities of the States and the Private Sector. Increased responsibility for the Private Sector means increased demand for business and workload, and that translates into an increased demand for workers. This, again, is pretty simple, and easy to understand. THAT's investing in America. The other way to be undertaken in conjunction with that is to eliminate all corporate taxation. If you're going to tax, tax individuals, not corporate entities. The net effect of making the US the lowest in the world for corporate taxes (which would be 0%) would be to sit back and watch the businesses overseas execute an immediate 'abandon ship', and head for America, where they could truly turn a profit. More corporations = more jobs. Less taxes all around = better paychecks that the corporations could actually afford to pay.

Simplifying the tax code is not something the Obama regime has any interest in doing, because it is too interested in taking money out of your pockets, to give to someone else. Itemized deductions should be changed. This would include deletions from the code, simplifications and even additions. For instance, with the soft housing market (something brought about by the DNC), there should be a deduction for mortgages that should be much more significant. I believe that we should be able to deduct from both State and Federal taxes, maybe 50%. That means, we'd be able to get (through a combination of State and Federal returns) everything we've paid out on mortgages back. For an economy that is currently weakened in [large] part due to irresponsible (if not illegal) legislation from the DNC, that would be a shot in the arm, like no other. A lot of properties that are underwater would turn around, very quickly. Banks wouldn't be losing money, either, because of bad loans. When a bank either makes a bad, predatory loan, or is forced into a sub-prime loan by leftist politicking, they lose money when that deal goes South. They're left with a house, and they're not making money on that, unless they can sell it for a profit, or at least break even. That's no guarantee. Allowing the people to write that off would be a step further that the government could take to insure people have enough of [their own] money in their own pockets, and be able to meet these obligations. (Also, the government would have to obey the Constitution, and divest itself of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, altogether, rendering them 100% privately funded institutions.) Other deductions? Medical expenses, with the same parameters as mortgage deductions. Obama complained and campaigned about how medical expenses were bankrupting people, but his solution was a stupid one, which was to raise the cost of medical expenses.


Broaden the tax base? The best way to do that is to crack down on the tax evaders (like Geithner):





Until you start those kinds of tax cuts, there is no incentive for people to start building things in America. Look at the iPhone. Its manufactured in China, because its almost impossible to manufacture it, domestically, and still have it be affordable. Tax reform, all-in-all, lies in a return to the Constitution, and it's lesson of fiscal Conservatism. Europe is a leftist continent, through-and-through, and they've even less fiscal responsibility than the US does, but we're certainly heading that way. This is why the US has to enact Constitutional tax reform, involving the elimination of taxes, the cessation of printing money (possibly even removing currency from circulation and destroying it), and ending policies that are intended to hurt our currency and the Private Sector. We also need to stop paying into things like the IMF; the Founding Fathers weren't into foreign aid, and that's precisely what this is, on a terrible, gigantic scale.

Worries about bank proprietary trading thanks to Dodd-Frank are the least of America's worries. I think that the majority of these kinds of regulations should be left to the States, though the federal government through Congress does have the enumerated power to regulate. The address of the Federal Reserve was very cursory and ineffective. What we need to do is get a Congress in there that will not allow this opaque operation to continue. The secrecy must stop, and employees of the Federal Reserve should be directly answerable to Congress, with all their operations annually, or bi-annually, audited, due to the importance of the US economy, and how vital a role the currency plays in that. Criminality should be immediately punished, right up through any members of Congress or the Executive Branch that had any knowledge of these incidents, and failed to act on them.

Addressing foreclosures and the housing market, the government needs to get out of it. The Constitution does not give the government the power to sell houses, give mortgages, etc. Housing and Urban Development is an un-Constitutional bureaucracy, and should be dissolved, and subject to intensive criminal probes. What would go a long way toward "healing" the housing market is returning it to the hands of the People [the individuals] and the Private Sector.

Finally, we have the spending issue. The complete elimination of "entitlement" spending/unfunded liabilities, each and every one of them, would not leave us worrying about cutting spending effectively in a decade, but in a few years. The gap between spending and GDP would widen, significantly, just as there should be. Pontificating about cutting national security, after cutting national security, does nothing to help anyone. Fear mongering about cutting benefits for seniors doesn't do anything. I've already explained how that would work, and I'm sure others have, too. People like Geithner and Obama just won't listen, because they're just plain not smart enough to understand.

I am Virus-X, and I skippy damn approve this message.

LinkLeave a comment

Dividends Taxation [Feb. 22nd, 2012|01:31 pm]


Obama's Dividend Assault
A plan to triple the tax rate would hurt all shareholders.

FEBRUARY 22, 2012

President Obama's 2013 budget is the gift that keeps on giving—to government. One buried surprise is his proposal to triple the tax rate on corporate dividends, which believe it or not is higher than in his previous budgets.

Mr. Obama is proposing to raise the dividend tax rate to the higher personal income tax rate of 39.6% that will kick in next year. Add in the planned phase-out of deductions and exemptions, and the rate hits 41%. Then add the 3.8% investment tax surcharge in ObamaCare, and the new dividend tax rate in 2013 would be 44.8%—nearly three times today's 15% rate.

Keep in mind that dividends are paid to shareholders only after the corporation pays taxes on its profits. So assuming a maximum 35% corporate tax rate and a 44.8% dividend tax, the total tax on corporate earnings passed through as dividends would be 64.1%.

In previous budgets, Mr. Obama proposed an increase to 23.8% on both dividends and capital gains. That's roughly a 60% increase in the tax on investments, but at least it would maintain parity between taxes on capital gains and dividends, a principle established as part of George W. Bush's 2003 tax cut.

With the same rate on both forms of income, the tax code doesn't bias corporate decisions on whether to retain and reinvest profits (and allow the earnings to be capitalized into the stock price), or distribute the money as dividends at the time they are earned.

Of course, the White House wants everyone to know that this new rate would apply only to those filthy rich individuals who make $200,000 a year, or $250,000 if you're a greedy couple. We're all supposed to believe that no one would be hurt other than rich folks who can afford it.

Read more...Collapse )

VIRAL NOTES: I've always called Obama an "economic illiterate", Mark Levin agrees (he says it, too), and this is further proof of this.

One of the major reasons for the inability for the economy to get a good start is the fact that there is such a burden on Big Business and Small Business, through confiscatory taxation. ObamaCo is constantly trying to pass the lie that we are in the midst of some kind of recovery (a "jobless recovery")...


...to the general public, though privately, he's already slipped up, at least once, and revealed that we're nowhere near a recovery, jobless, or not.


Time-and-time, again, I've said that a major key to an actual recovery is the wholesale elimination of the vast majority of taxes that we pay in this country. This un-American level of taxation that Obama seeks to drive higher into the stratosphere of the misery index...



...at the cost of everyone's well being is already having a destructive effect on America's economy. Corporations are operating in an uncertain environment, since they don't know how the election will turn out. If Obama is re-elected, those taxes associated with ObamaCare will kick in (and the worthless "Supreme" Court is dragging its feet, ass and heels in addressing it, now: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2849669/posts), and some businesses may very well go out of business, under this unprecedented, un-Constitutional burden. Others will have to hemorrhage workers, just to stay afloat.


This uncertainty makes them afraid to take the chance on hiring people (as if you haven't noticed). Businesses that cut down on employees will probably also cut down on wage and hours allocations. The effect will cascade. Consumers will have less money to consume, which will cause businesses, big and small, to cut production (and those workers I just got through talking about). To keep some semblance of a profit, those very same businesses will raise prices. And so on, and so on, and so on.

Obama's always campaigned on the stupid promise of soaking the "rich" (which should include him [http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/05/17/Report-confirms-Obamas-wealth/UPI-42941274151419/] and the rest of his cronies in the DNC [http://frontpagemag.com/2012/02/15/democrats-richer-than-romney/] [http://bluecollarphilosophy.com/2011/11/democrats-in-congress-are-richer-than-republicans/]) and taking one person's money, to give to someone else.

This has always been a hypocritical position, considering he lionizes billionaires like Warren Buffet who dodges taxes, constantly, and is always on the lookout for another scam to dodge other taxes, including colluding with Obama to spread lies.



His most popular lie is that his poor, put-upon secretary was supposed to be paying more in taxes, than he was.



Bottom line, Obama's policies are destructive and thoroughly wrong-headed. These burdens on business are killing jobs, and sending them to other countries, as well as sending entire corporations overseas. This is because he just doesn't have what it takes...

...to understand that investment is a heavy component in driving business.

When someone invests in a business by buying their stock or bonds, they've invested in that business, providing them with more capital. With that capital, they can do things like expand and grow their business, becoming more competitive, and making more profit. The investors don't do this out of the kindness of their hearts. They do it so they can reap some of the benefits that company they invested in, enjoys. Those reaped benefits for the investors are called dividends. Plenty of people do this. People looking to increase their financial power, retirees looking to keep their money from getting funny and live a comfortable life, other businesses looking to get stronger, etc.

Taxing this is not, and never has been, a good idea.

When you're cutting into the rewards for investment, there are plenty of people that will say they've already got enough money, and will cut investing, altogether. Others, like the retirees I mentioned, will see their income plummet. Obama, himself, said that you don't raise taxes during a recession.

Maybe he's saying we're in recovery, simply for the sake of covering his ass for his impending plan of tax hikes. In any event, its senseless. Already, thanks in large part to his policies (backed by Congress), we've got unemployment numbers falling, because more people are literally dropping out of the work force, meaning they're no longer even looking for work. They've given up.


With his [Obama's] thoroughly bad, business-destroying policies, work is harder to find.


Now, cap that off with the fact that he's raising taxes on everyone (as I've shown, above) and gutting the military for money...


...and you have the makings of a seemingly intentional depression coming on the horizon. Like I've [and many others] already said in previous posts, we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem, and Obama is a major, living symptom of this syndrome.


1 + 1 = a petty bureaucrat that isn't bright enough to know about the Laffer Curve. The economist Art Laffer demonstrated that with the increase in taxation, the US actually doesn't make more money (through taxes), but less. People (like Buffet, for instance) find more and more ways (legal or not) to dodge paying higher taxes. Individuals, in many instances, believe that it isn't worth working, and drop out of the workforce. They don't even bother looking for a job. Others remaining in the workforce take the attitude that it isn't worth their time to increase their level of productivity, considering overtime pay would be immediately burned away through this taxation.

Don't believe this would happen? Not only will it, but it already has, thanks to other economic illiterates, like peanut-picking anti-Semite and idiot du jour James Earl Carter.


I stand by my previous assessment.

Returning to strict, original interpretation of the Constitution will immediately begin eroding away America's debt. Eliminating all spending that Congress and the Executive had no enumerated power to engage in (such as unfunded liabilities, or "entitlement" spending) will almost immediately pull America out of it's fiscal death spiral toward the ground. This will allow Big Business and Small Business to have more money it their pockets, which will allow them to financially reward productive behavior in its employees. This fair taxation will not only help rehabilitate the Private Sector, but will attract overseas businesses (and businesses that have gone overseas to return, in full) to American shores.

Now, I bring you back to the investors.

With business facing a potential boom (or already booming, possibly), thanks to the elimination of billions in tax and spend fiscal liberality politics, when there is incentive to invest (the incentive being an absolute abolition of such things as capital gains tax, dividends tax, etc.), now people (and businesses) will feel free to invest, and will do so. Knowing that you can reap potentially large benefits for investing will cause people that weren't going to invest, previously, to get in on the game.

With Obama being the number one outsourcer of business...


...just imagine a change in fiscal attitude as I've described and illustrated. Its even possible that with the influx of returning businesses and businesses coming to America from other countries, there might be more jobs than workers for a good reason, as opposed to bad ones. Another way to increase the tax base, without increasing taxes, is having kids. As long as your kids don't grow up to be scrubs...


...there will be more people to pay taxes. People, enjoying a fiscally Conservative job environment, will be able to afford to have kids. Not only would be this be a good thing for the nation, economically, but, I guess it isn't bad on a personal level. Unfortunately, this isn't what we're looking at. Instead, we're looking at an uncaring, uneducated president that laughs at our distress.


The fix, while painful in the short term, would be more than worth it. With the elimination of the majority of taxation, simplification of the tax code, and simplifying deductions, this would very much grease the wheels of the American economy and the Private Sector. It would also have the effect of eliminating the level of personal dependency on the federal government (and probably every level of government, altogether).

However, we all know that the current ward of the welfare state system exists, sheerly to perpetuate government graft and corruption. Liberal democrats, chiefly, use the carrots of the system in the form of free swag to buy votes and political attacks against their opponents that promote self-sufficiency, and the Constitutional definition of equality. As long as the ideal of self-sufficiency is alien and abhorrent, the left wins, taxes increase and regulations choke off the economy. As LTC Allen West said, when people were going out to explore and conquer the west, they didn't go to the federal government to ask for wagons. They provided for themselves, they fended for themselves, they assumed control and responsibility over their own lives and destinies, and they reaped the benefits of this. Legislation like what ObamaCo. is pushing is antithetical to this, to the Constitution, to the wishes of the Founding Fathers and to any ideals of fairness and justice, no matter how many times they say those words, while stealing your money.

I am Virus-X (the Black Avenger), and I damned skippy approve this message.

LinkLeave a comment

Budget Problems [Feb. 17th, 2012|01:21 pm]


VIRAL NOTES: Geithner's own worry, pertaining to people retiring out of the system [workforce] being a danger to unfunded liabilities, speaks volumes more than he's willing to say out loud, apparently. A system that is never a step away from total collapse if people should find a way out of it, is no system that should be allowed to stand. He just will not admit that unfunded liabilities are, specifically, what is running this country out on a rail to insolvency. To be more specific, its so-called "entitlement" spending.

My father, a leftist, said it himself: 'The DNC won't go away, because they give away the best free stuff'. Between paying for unfunded liabilities/"entitlement" spending, and keeping on countless government bureaucracies, agencies and czars that the US government does not have the authority to maintain, this is what is costing every last man, woman and child that exists in this country [that does, or ever will pay taxes] and will come to exist, tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars for something they've nothing to do with.

I will explain once again, how we got into, and could easily get out of, this mess.

1: We [the federal government] are promising to people far more than we have the financial ability to cover, and there's no end in sight to this fast-track to Grecian economics.

2: Government persistently believes the key to economic prosperity is more government Keynesian tax and spend policies.

3: Government has succeeded in doing nothing but creating obstacles to economic growth.

Now, let's look at solutions.

Really, in all honesty, it doesn't take a great economist like Hayek to tell you how to put America back in the black (no pun intended). The burden of "entitlement" spending (I keep writing that word in quotation marks, because not a single one of those things are things people have any sort of entitlement to, from the US government, nor the American taxpayers). The Constitution of the United States had it right, and still does. (You know, that document liberals keep saying is outdated, and keep reinterpreting and agitating to replace with their "living, breathing" one.) The Constitution specifically enumerates the powers and responsibilities of the federal government, right down to what they can and cannot spend money on. Take a look at this:


Now read all of this:


I'd like for you to tell me just how many of those bureaus, agencies and whatnot are Constitutionally called for, and that the federal government has the enumerated responsibility to create and maintain. This includes Social Security (the government telling you that politicians are intrinsically smarter than you are, and only they can responsibility run your retirement), Medicare and Medicaid (the government telling you that neither you, nor anybody in the Private Sector, or any level of government below their own can be trusted to help you find affordable health care and treat you with any level of dignity) and Welfare (the government saying that charity must begin with all the taxpayers, who have their money confiscated by the government, so they can redistribute it, as opposed to allowing the State and local levels of government handle their own citizens, or for charitable organizations like churches, to have a hand in it, which only would cost donations, or local taxes, as opposed to national moneybags).

The VAST MAJORITY of these government bureaucracies should be privatized, including those that deal with "entitlement" programs. Private accounts for social security can be handled through good investment firms (such as Jalbert Financial, @ http://www.jalbertfinancial.com/), returning a lost freedom. Leftists may want to complain that investment into stocks and corporations and bonds are unreliable, but is the US government showing itself to be any more reliable?


People have lost money on their houses, thanks to the government-started housing bubble...



...and the government makes it worse by staying in the housing business, unconstitutionally, and shoveling more money at the problem they created, in the first place.


Important safety tip: When you see a fire in your house, don't throw paper on it.

Leftists will complain that the Private Sector can't be trusted with such things as retirement, providing medical care, etc. Well, how would they know, considering its never been done on a large scale, like the government failure has?


Quite frankly, mismanagement and malfeasance by Private Sector corporations like what the government is guilty of would have people being fitted for orange jump suits, and I think all government officials should be getting sized up for those, too, if they've anything to do with this. While there are plenty that can say what "good" the "entitlements" have done for America, the damage they've done is a lot more stark, and overbalances any supposed and alleged "good":


With Social Security being taken care by individual, private accounts, people control how much comes out of their check (if anything), and it goes only into their retirement. Not anyone else's. If they die, that money can be passed on to someone else, of their choosing, not the government's. Removal of the un-American death tax...


...will go a long way toward this.

States should take care of their own people. Medicare and Medicaid could be combined into a State level program, funded through various ways. For instance, when issued a State's program card, the individual and/or family could go to any hospital in the state (or nation) and present that card. That card guarantees to any hospital or private practice physician that when the number is run on that card at the end of the month, not the end of the year, that they'll be reimbursed IN FULL, with NO DELAY. Theological philanthropic institutions, such as churches, the Salvation Army, etc., could also make use of this program, and be similarly compensated. Their up-front money would come from donations, though, and may be more limited, but, if people find out their donations are going to this cause, it could just cause those donations to increase. This way, they could go to the best hospitals, and receive the best care, and not have to worry about going to back alley, Gotham City butcher shops for medical care. Investigating applicants for this State program would insure that only the indigent would qualify; it wouldn't be used as an alternative to buying insurance, it wouldn't be a State weapon to become RomneyCare, or try to drive insurance providers out of business. As for costs, you deal with Big Pharma, the hospitals AND insurance providers, thus:


Housing and banks? Deregulation. I'm not saying create a potentially anything goes business environment, I'm saying cut away all unnecessary regulations off the banking and loan industry, and let the states take more control over their own laws. States that persist in perpetuating oppressive, anti-business regulatory environments will lose banks, and their citizens won't get loans, and those citizens will figure out who is really at fault, real quick.
This deregulation will get government out of the banks, unnecessarily, and help run government and business pushers of "sub-prime loans" out of town on a rail.


With the banks not facing over-regulation, they can cut costs (spent on legal fees, mostly), and it will be easier to make loans, and they won't be pressured into predatory lending, which hurts the bank and the People. The bank thinks you're a bad risk, and you're getting 'too much house' for your income? They're free to deny that loan, and you're free to find another bank.

Eliminating all those bureaucracies and getting the burden of "entitlement" programs off the Public back will give us the ability to eliminate virtually every tax, because government spending would be limited to what they're legally able to spend money on. A flat tax charging everyone a fixed fee that does not rise or fall based on income would be more than enough to maintain a government that only took care of it's legitimate, Constitutional demands. In turn, the money would reappear in our own pockets, and those of businesses. We would have more money to spend (on such things as houses, better private or supplementary insurance, and even birth control...), businesses would have the capital to expand and actually hire people, or create jobs. People would have more reason to invest in business, which would further expand business' ability to expand and hire, and the investors would get more on their returns, thanks to eliminating things like "capital gains tax".

Government spending to stimulate the economy, based on failed, laughable Keynesian economic theories has helped no country, nowhere in history. In fact, even Kaynes himself realized how stupid his ideas were, but died before he could make those views widely known.

Wealth redistribution is the way I prefer to refer to Keynesian "Economics", and how's that worked out for us? Not very well, apparently, but there are always those out there that claim alarmists like myself should be ignored, and the US is in the pink.


Let me be clear: the government does not produce anything. It does not create profits, it doesn't create jobs. Every penny it has, comes from someone else: the taxpayers. Every job it "creates", takes one out of the Private Sector. Taxation has become the politicians' fallback and solution to everything.

Clinging to a tax and spend economic philosophy has done nothing but not only hurt the nation, but hurt the world. Socialist economic ideals have proven themselves deleterious to everything and everyone they touch, but there's always somebody that thinks they can do it better, be it some British MP, or some Kenyan named Barack Hussein Obama. Socialists and communists I know, personally, all seem to just suffer from an envy of everyone else that has the poor grace to be doing better than they are, financially. Some, however, genuinely believe that there is a wealth inequity resulting from people being paid "too much", as though there's this small, limited pool of money, and that what I get paid deducts from what someone else could be paid. Ironically, one of those socialists/communists is a teacher, making quite a bit of money, and not donating a single penny from those in greater need, in accordance to communist philosophy ('from each, according to his ability, to each, according to his need). All seem to have a problem with business being in business for what business for: turning a profit. Stupid legislation like telling people they'll get a few hundred bucks from government kickbacks for hiring people doesn't accomplish anything, other than draining more money out of our treasury. You hire people because you have business, and you need help managing that business. If you can't afford your own overhead, if business is slack, then you cannot financially justify hiring, and a few government bucks doesn't provide that justification (especially since it comes out of your own pocket, through taxation). I'm also not going to gloss over the fact that government getting bigger not only sops up more taxpayer money, and creates more dependency. Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. He also becomes dependent on the people to give him his daily sustenance. Teach that man to fish, and he'll eat for the rest of his life, because he is independent. A nation's government that looks solely to give people fish is not a government with good intentions.

Taxing capital gains, taxing inheritance ("death tax"), taxing you on how much money you have the audacity to make, taxing you on how much money you have in your bank account, etc. Go back to what I'd said, earlier. With the elimination of all programs and bureaucracies that the federal government is not enumerated with the power to possess, that gigantic, black wedge from Bill Whittle's video literally disappears. Where does it go? Back into our pockets. The flattened, fair tax would be the way to go. With a population filled with people that actually have money, and an environment that is actually friendly to business, that would fire up the gigantic electromagnet the US used to have on that yanked businesses and entrepreneurs away from other countries with less business and citizen-friendly environments. In dealing with other problems like government manipulation of the currency, there has to be accountability. The Federal Reserve is not an unconstitutional institution, in and of itself. Paulnuts (people who think they know the Constitution better than anyone else, but for some reason, never got around to reading the very first article and 8th section of that) believe it should be abolished, but that would be unconstitutional. What's really needed is a serious check on their power through such measures as absolute transparency, the elimination of political appointees (replacing them with members of Congress, for instance), and clarifying that sitting members of the US Congress can be recalled by their states, and their vacated positions filled by special election. Prevention of such things as Obama's mania with printing money...


...will be paramount to this effort to help stabilize and enhance the value of our own currency. Ron Paul's politics are simply BS, and coming from someone that's the poster boy for the Ku Klux Klan and Stormfront, he, and anything he says, should be ignored, on general principle. Perhaps taking vast amounts of printed/minted money OUT of circulation, in conjunction with all the other measures I've outlined in this blog post could, in perhaps 2 - 3 years (with other measures out outlined in other blog posts) turn the US economy around, 180 degrees, as well as perhaps shore up the economies of other nations who are moored to our own.

Any questions?

I am Virus-X, the Black Avenger, and I approve this message.

LinkLeave a comment

Social Security [Feb. 10th, 2012|01:18 pm]


VIRAL NOTES: Someone was nattering at me, last night during CPAC, about my absolute unwillingness to compromise on unfunded liabilities. I see unfunded liabilities as nothing more than un-Constitutional financial expenditures that serve no purposes, other than to contribute to destroying America's economy, and rendering people inured to the government a permanent slave underclass.

The person that was nattering and nay-saying (all without asking me what I would actually do about it, and just throwing strawmen left & right, falsely claiming what I would, or would not, do) claimed that I would just terminate the program, as president...

...leaving people with nothing.

Let's face facts: Social Security is broke.


Read more...Collapse )

I am Virus-X, Black Avenger 1, and I approve this message.

LinkLeave a comment

Parents don't know what's good for their kids. [Feb. 8th, 2012|09:38 pm]


VIRAL NOTES: Now, I've written an email to her office, but I got an autoresponse stating she'll not be back in her office until February 14th. I asked her to clarify that position, considering she looked nothing other than condescending and, quite frankly, arrogant and stupid.

Michigan now has Rick Snyder in office as governor, and he's no great shakes, either. People say he's a big improvement over Jennifer Granholm...


...but I'm not seeing it. Just because he hasn't run things further into the ground, doesn't make him any better. That's like saying the person that stands and watches you bleed out is better than the person that was stabbing you. Uh, no. Funny how leftists claim people shouldn't get paid very much if they're running their business into the ground, and yet Granholm was one of the highest paid governors IN THE NATION...


Michigan, under Snyder and under Granholm, is struggling with a debt problem, just like the US at the federal level, and just like several other states. Snyder is not a Conservative, by any means, and will fail Michigan, too. I can already see it coming. Like Granholm, the guy that claims he's such a nerd...

...yet, really, he's seeming more like a turd. His 10 point plan (which I can't find anywhere on the Internet, strangely enough) doesn't seem to be doing much, and didn't hold much promise, anyway. Sure, he's only been in office for a short time, but his plans are minuscule and timid. Small scale, cowardly plans are not what's going to help Michigan.

What would I do?

First, I'd work with the GOP controlled State Legislature to start slashing taxes and getting rid of government functions that could be contracted out to the Private Sector, post-haste.

Around that time, I'd fly in a lot of people (on my dime). First stop: California. Silicon Valley. I'd arrange a big meeting with a lot of companies...


...and the aim would be quite clear: stealing business. California has done everything in it's power to run businesses out of town...


The boom is over. Now, its all bust. Not only that, but its a bust they're looking to make everybody but their own government (which bears full responsibility for it) pay for. This means increasing, exorbitant, confiscatory taxation. Even liberals like money (when its theirs). I'd sit the businesses down (and the businesses that have already left that Left Coast) and hammer out a deal they can't refuse. For relocating to Michigan and establishing a new Michigan Silicon Valley, I would use them as a prototype for a program that would eliminate a lot of taxes from Michigan, and simultaneously simplify the Michigan tax code. Besides having no work, Michigan is very overtaxed, and overtaxation doesn't improve the condition of the treasury; it actually discourages people from working and businesses from coming in.

In tailor-making a business-friendly environment, you open up a whole, new job market, and insure that door won't close, anytime soon. Sure, it would cost California jobs, but California is costing California jobs.

The other group of people I'd be bringing in (or teleconferencing with) come from Japan.


Nomura Holdings.


Mitsubishi Chemical.






And others.

They'd be included in the deal.

Getting these companies to take root in Michigan would mean the real start of Michigan's boom. With the influx of corporations and conglomerates and companies comes the influx of one of the most valuable things: jobs.

Then comes the other project.

Michigan has also been victimized by another interest, besides it's own government: the unions.

Yep, I'm including the teachers union (Michigan Education Association) in this, too. As a companion plan, I would assemble a panel of teachers and ask them to take a chance, if the corporations take a chance on Michigan: I would ask them to become entrepreneurs.

Michigan's school system sucks the wet mop.

Open wide.

I know some good teachers, really, but they're working for crappy schools, plain and simple. These teachers I get would be used to create an alternative to the Michigan Department of Education. Removal of the State from the equation of education, in my opinion, would be a giant step in the right direction. An education system based on Free Market principals would be superior to a State run indoctrination mill. Schools where parents have say over what their kids do, and do not, learn is what parents want and what kids need. Not this:

For all the money the Department of Education has absorbed from taxpayers, what have they really given us?



Microsoft pays a lot through charitable donation toward education.


Now just stop and think for a minute: what if all those corporations that decided to take a chance on Michigan donated, charitably, to this new corporation, which was in the business of administering a chain of private schools? What if these corporations had a say in what was taught there, along with the parents (considering they're putting money in this)? Imagine a K-12 that not only afforded the chance at getting a high school diploma from an extremely highly rated school system, but the chance at walking across the stage to collect a paperwork certifying that student MCP?






Et. cetera.

Have fun getting into college (because I'm sure it would be a lot more fun for them, then it would be for a lot of other graduates.) Hell, I think that it might even be a good idea to create a chain of private universities, run by the same principles, with the corporations adding a helping hand, again. Maybe not only in suggesting curricula, but maybe actually even teaching. Meanwhile, I'd have to crack down on things like tenure in the state universities, because, well, we all see how well that's working out for everyone else. Additionally, people enrolling their kids into these schools would be exempted from property taxation, which goes to paying for Michigan schools, and eventually, I'd like to do away with property tax, anyway, considering its un-American to tax people for their own property.

This would be an investment in the corporations' own future, insuring they would be able to make Michigan worth a long-term commitment and investment, as they would be able to insure they'd have a suitable workforce. I stipulate this would have to be paid for through the corporations and through banks (loans for the business), because I will not subsidize them. Furthermore, if the business is a corporation or conglomerate, they could offer stock (though I recommend not doing so, and just offering bonds; that way, you don't have leftists shareholders trying to interfere with the curriculum and harm children by bringing their indoctrinista ideals, with them). As for the schools, themselves, they'd be scattered throughout the state, probably with each area being a corporate subsidiary. Both administration and parents would be responsible for discipline, and in an effort to prevent them from becoming a duplicate of the DPS (Detroit Public Schools), like any business, they can refuse your business. If you're not going to discipline your kid, and you won't let them do it, then you can take your kid's ass back to Cooley High.

A success with this plan would mean jobs coming back to, and accumulating in, Michigan. In turn, it would mean the tide of depopulation of the state would begin to reverse. Hell, if I was feeling sporty, I'd consider asking some movie studios if they'd consider similar relocation, for the same tax cut deal.

That would be just one plan.

Like I said, overall, like any household that's facing financial difficulties, you don't solve those problems by borrowing and spending more, you solve those kinds of problems by cutting back the spending. There are lots of services that need to be privatized, and I would fight to get that done. Replacing them with competitive bid business would be a relief for already overburdened taxpayers. Governments don't solve revenue problems (though we don't have one; we have a spending problem) by finding more things to tax.

Now, there are other things, like suing Obama, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Interior, because they do not have the Constitutional, enumerated power to tell the States they cannot drill for oil on their own land...


...so we shouldn't need permits from them.

However, that's for another discussion.

The bottom line is, you never get anywhere, thinking small, and I really don't see anything big or revolutionary coming out of Snyder's office. Big and revolutionary is what you need, when you're state is at rock bottom and there are still people breaking out the pick axes, trying to see if they can take the state any lower. Anyhow, this is just one idea. There are plenty of others, I'm sure, but where are the other people with their other ideas? Certainly not in the Michigan Legislature or Executive.

LinkLeave a comment

Obama's mediocre cabinet members strike again. [Feb. 4th, 2012|03:15 pm]


Panetta: We could still take on Iran and North Korea simultaneously

by Joel Gehrke Commentary Staff Writer

United States Armed Forces could win simultaneous conflicts in the Korean peninsula and against Iran, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told American soldiers in Germany today, despite the impending force reductions.

"We could be fighting a land war in Korea, and suddenly Iran moves to close the Straits of Hormuz," Panetta said, discussing a hypothetical scenario, during a visit to soldiers at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center today. "We’ve got to have the capability to be able to confront each adversary, to not only deter them, but defeat them. And we can do that with the force that we’ve put in place."

North Korea, currently transitioning from one dictator to another and armed with nuclear weapons, has concerned United States foreign policy analysts for decades. Similarly, Iran's push to develop nuclear weapons has resulted in oil sanctins and the possibility of an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Panetta assured the troops that the United States could defeat two such enemies, but the scheduled force reductions will preclude fighting a two-front war on the scale of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. "If we are engaged in a major combat operation in one theater, we will have the force necessary to confront an additional aggressor by denying its objectives or imposing unacceptable costs," Panetta explained in a recent summary of Defense Budget Priorities and Choices.

Read more...Collapse )

LinkLeave a comment

[ viewing | most recent entries ]
[ go | earlier ]