Wednesday, October 26, 2011
For several years now we have watched the controversy mount around Obama's eligibility to hold the Oval Office. More and more questions are raised with no substantive answers. When Obama released his clearly forged "birth certificate" last Spring, it only added fuel to the fire.
For several years now we have also watched numerous legal challenges fail and most media turn a blind eye. Meanwhile, Americans that understand that this is truly a Constitutional issue grow more and more frustrated. And this is truly a Constitutional question.
The framers of the Constitution were careful to set separate and specific requirements that any candidate for the Presidency be a "natural born citizen". All other Federal offices require the candidates to be citizens, but the Constitutional requirements for the Presidency are higher. The Founders did not want to risk that the leader of our nation have divided loyalties.
With another election looming, the time to act is now. So yesterday Liberty Legal Foundation filed two simultaneous class action lawsuits against the Democratic Party. Both lawsuits request injunctions prohibiting the Party from certifying that Obama is Constitutionally qualified to run for the office of President in the 2012 election. Without such a certification from the Party, Obama will not appear on any ballot in the 2012 general election.
Neither lawsuit discuss Obama’s place of birth or his birth certificate. These issues are completely irrelevant to the argument. LLF’s lawsuit simply points out that the Supreme Court has defined “natural-born citizen” as a person born to two parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the natural-born citizen’s birth. Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen. Therefore, Obama can never be a natural-born citizen. His place of birth is irrelevant.
No lawsuit to date has been able to get a hearing on the merits related to Obama’s natural-born status. LLF has studied all of these cases in order to learn from the rulings and avoid the pitfalls that stopped those lawsuits. LLF has learned that all states rely upon the truthfulness of representations made by the political parties, that their candidates are qualified to hold the federal office for which they are nominated. By naming the National Democratic Party as the defendant LLF not only targets the entity responsible for vetting the Democratic candidate, LLF also avoids taking on any state or federal government. The Democratic Party is a private entity, without any government immunities or government procedural advantages.
LLF also learned that Presidential candidates that are registered with the Federal Election Commission have standing to ask a court to keep another candidate off the ballot. Consequently, LLF partnered with FEC-registered Presidential Candidate John Dummett, a conservative Republican who believes that the Constitution should be followed.
Because LLF has a lead plaintiff that is a Presidential Candidate, and because that plaintiff is also a Liberty Legal member, Liberty Legal has standing to sue as well. If one plaintiff has standing to sue, all plaintiffs have standing to sue.
Anyone that believes the Constitution should be followed can join this class action lawsuit as a class member, just as you did when becoming a member of the Obamacare Class Action. If you agree that the Constitution should be followed, please add your voice to ours. Please join our class action lawsuit to protect the legitimacy of the ballot.
Co-Founder, Lead Counsel
Ulsterman: What needs to be done?
Insider: Next question. The word association…let’s go. Ask away.
Ulsterman: “Occupy Wall Street”
Insider: Part of the plan I told you about already. Chaos. The imminent threat of violence. Try and mobilize Obama’s base – whatever the f-ck that is these days. That interview you did with –name withheld- was right – it’s mainly the union boys behind the organizational stuff – the funding. The boots on the ground when needed. If there is a march…they brought in a couple thousand for that. Bussed them in. Dropped them off. Then took them back home. Nothing new there. Media wont’ dig too deep into that…not theNew York media anyways. No surprise there. I ain’t afraid of the Occupy sh-t as much as some people…it’s what was coming at us months ago. It’s part of that plan. And…I don’t think they are gonna pull it off. It’s gonna backfire on them. Too unpredictable. Too volatile. For them – the Obama people…some of the foolish Dems…for them to be wrapping their arms around something like that…stupid. Gonna backfire on them. Middle America isn’t liking this sh-t. And Middle America is who will decide the next president. Occupy won’t work unless they pull off something…something radical. A staged event – a serious one. A big deal. A threat. That could happen. It’s been bounced around…the idea of it – for a couple years. Since the Tea Party stuff. They might just prove desperate enough to try something like that.
Ulsterman: Like what? What are you talking about?
Insider: We have the first so-called Black president, right? What would be the extreme of the race-based re-election plan I told you about? The ace in the sleeve for this kind of program? Something that would make White America recoil at the thought of voting against this president? Make them feel just so very bad for this poor little doing the best he can it’s Bush’s fault president of ours?
Ulsterman: Riots? Race Riots?
Insider: No…that card will be played out sooner. And it’s too broad. They would need something much more…specific to Obama. The ultimate in a sympathy vote. And it’s been talked about. I assure you of that. These people are laying out every conceivable possibility to remain in power. Gettin’ real serious now…
Ulsterman: I don’t know.
Insider: All the ingredients are in place. Falling approval ratings. A big uptick in divisive racial talk…the GOP primary race gettin’ on, which has upped the anti-Obama rhetoric. Occupy Wall Street stuff. An aborted terrorist attack inAmerica. The president crisscrossing the country talking the same old sh-t, except playing the victim card even more than before…don’t tell me for a second some of this isn’t all being played out for a very specific possibility. If needed, they will try and pull it off. I got no doubt about it now. None.
Ulsterman: So what is it? Pull what off?
Insider: A manufactured threat against the President of theUnited States. Something easily digested by the media and the American public. Not a real threat – something totally of their own making. They will use it if they need to – got no doubt whatsoever about that. Jarrett has approved the idea…and did so a long time ago. There were whispers of it during the 2008 campaign. McCain was so god-awful it never reached a serious consideration…but the plan was discussed. If needed – they were willing to go that route. It would be the ultimate use of the race card in the history of American politics. And…it would likely work if they got away with it.
Ulsterman: They would go that far? Risk something like that?
Insider: You don’t need to ask that question. Not after what we’ve discussed this past year. Not after what I’ve told you has proven out over and over again. So stop asking the fu—ing question. You need to accept the fact…if you haven’t done so yet – you need to accept the fact these people are playing for keeps. I told you – how many times? How many times have I said it? These are not Democrats. These folks are something else entirely. And they are willing to push the country – all of us, right against the fu—ing wall. Hard. I’m pushing back. Others are too. All of this is part of that effort. A small part, but an important one.
By David Hoffman
When the British took over India, they discovered that in many villages had a charming custom called suttee or sati. Suttee refers to the practice of a Hindu widow who would throw herself upon her husband’s funeral pyre. I am not sure what the religious justification of this practice might have been, but I imagine that the idea was that there was no point in keeping an old woman around after her husband was gone. If the widow didn’t want to immolate herself and was strong-willed enough to resist the social pressure to do so, the male villagers would throw her in anyway.
The British were horrified by this practice. Although the British East India Company did not usually attempt to interfere with local customs, under pressure from Christian missionaries and Hindu reformers, the British banned suttee in the regions of India under their direct control in 1829.
Napier was the Commander-in-Chief of the British forces in India from 1849-1851. During his tenure, a delegation of Hindu notables complained to him of the ban on suttee. His reply was priceless.
You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours
If the British of that period had the same sort of politically correct, multi-cultural mush in their heads that all too many in the West have nowadays, Napier would have been instantly recalled for his racism and ethnocentrism. “How dare he assert that British customs are in any way superior to Indian traditions. “, the liberals would have said. No doubt they would have opposed any attempts to ban suttee in India and would have encouraged the authorities in Britain to ignore the practice in the immigrant communities.
For all their faults, and they did have them, the Victorians British at least had the self-confidence and moral clarity to assert that a civilization that does not burn widows is, in fact, more civilized than a civilization that does burn widows. I wish we, in the West, still had that self-confidence and moral clarity. I wish our intellectual elite understood that the civilization that brought things like modern science and democracy to the world has nothing to apologize to savages for.
7 minute Documentary featuring Nelson W. Winbush, a black son of Confederate black soldier Luis Napoleon Nelson who fought under Nathan Bedford Forest, founder of the KKK. A series of interviews, documentation, stock footage, and reenactments all collaberate to help defend the Confederacy and it's soldiers against it's notorious reputation in regards to black slavery and what the Confederate flag actually stood for.
Over the past couple weeks, The Blaze has received reports that some NYC Occupy protesters have been leaving their tents at night and fleeing to a local hotel for better accommodations. And while we’re still investigating those claims, it seems now there’s evidence of something similar going on in London.
The Daily Mail has published thermal imaging pictures showing that the tents at the Occupy camp near St. Paul’s Cathedral are nearly empty at night. The Daily Mail commissioned the photographs itself after images from a police helicopter showed similar findings. Here’s how it explains the photos:
These are the damning images that prove the anti-capitalist protest that has closed St Paul’s Cathedral is all but deserted at night.
Footage from a thermal imaging camera taken late at night reveals just a fraction of the makeshift camp was occupied.
An independent thermal imaging company, commissioned by the Daily Mail, captured these pictures after similar footage from a police helicopter found only one in ten tents were occupied after dark.
In these shots, taken late on Monday night, the presence of body heat from humans is represented by yellow and red inside the tents.
The tents that are coloured purple indicate they are colder and thus empty. The buildings behind are also yellow and red because of the higher temperatures inside.
Here are some of the photos the Daily Mail captured:
Gowdy to Napolitano: What Did You Know About Fast and Furious?
Chaffetz to Napolitano: What Role Did Homeland Security Dept. Play in Fast and Furious?
Homeland Security officials say the border is more secure than ever, but the House Judiciary Committee wants to know why work-site enforcement has plummeted and whether hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens facing deportation will be granted amnesty.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano will face these and other questions when she appears before the panel Wednesday morning, which follows on the heels of her contentious testimony before the Senate counterpart last week where she revealed that 396,906 illegal aliens were deported in the 2011 fiscal year.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R. –Texas), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, says the Obama administration inflated the numbers by including voluntary removals, a process he says will also make it easier for illegal immigrants to return to the U.S., illegally.
“In other words, the Obama administration is cooking the books to make it look like they are enforcing immigration laws, when in reality they are enacting amnesty through inaction,” Smith said.
“Even President Obama admitted to Hispanic voters that his administration’s deportation numbers are ‘deceptive,’” Smith said.
By John Galt
October 26, 2011
The mainstream media continues to attempt to paint the Occupy Wall Street crowd as a bunch of iProtesters, carrying their Apple products around the parks and protesting the unfair aspects of Wall Street and our financial system with the inference that the monied crowd imposes their will on them and that the mistakes they made are society’s fault. The problem with their argument of course is that middle class America wants to sympathize with part of their cause but empathy fades when the videos of radicals making outrageous speeches demanding changes in line with 1906′s Marxist ideology.
Fast forward to yesterday’s news cycle and the reality that the MSM is deliberately bypassing the negative stories and focusing on turning the Occupy movements into a political positive for the leftist agenda and the President’s re-election becomes glaringly apparent. Yet in yesterday’s news a story fromReuters should alert everyone as to what is next for the OWS movement, as it is the most dangerous story of the week:
The story by Ben Berkowitz has a few major highlights which tie into other news stories about the “protests” and should alarm any sane individual. The first excerpt from the story is a warning shot that was fired without anyone paying attention to the implications:
Any loss of the limelight, especially when the onset of cold weather has already started to reduce the ranks of protesters prepared to camp out overnight in lower Manhattan, could dampen the momentum of the movement.
“Without the oxygen to fuel their fire they’re very much at risk of losing relevance,” said Daniel Tisch, chairman of the Global Alliance of Public Relations & Communication Management, a confederation of national PR societies.
Let those two sentences sink in deep. If they feel they are beginning to lose relevance, odds are the next course of action will be more flamboyant and based on the history of movements supported by Marxist radicals, usually violent. The first tease of this occurring was provided by an over-dramatization of the arrests in Oakland as the police attempted to clear the park near city hall and of course, the propaganda flowed like a Radio Moscow World Service broadcast from the 1980′s:
The story linked above from The Blaze claims excessive force was used by the Oakland police to force the Occupy Oakland movement out of the park. The problem with their argument however is that the mainstream media initially reported the story on CBS radio yesterday morning at 9 a.m. ET and the audio clearly demonstrated that the police gave a final warning before moving into the park and apparently gave the protesters a full week to come into compliance. They were not being denied their right to protest, but the park needed cleaning and overnight camping is prohibited.Unfortunately for the city of Oakland, those aspects of the story are minimized and only visual images of crying protesters being arrested are broadcast by the radical blogosphere and extremist media.
Thus begging the question as the Reuters article highlighted:
“People know what the general storyline is,” said Senia Barragan, a protester from New Jersey acting as a spokeswoman for the occupation when not working on a doctorate at Columbia University. “I think they’re moving on to other stories.”
The useless idiots are now beginning to realize the original novelty is wearing off and that is why this statement from the story should be considered our final warning:
Experts on social movements have said the protesters need a “second act” of sorts as fatigue sets in and as cold weather starts to descend on New York and other protest sites.
If “uh-oh” is the reader’s initial reaction, then that is a sound logical emotion. The second act is being hinted at throughout the actions and news stories not receiving vast coverage by the mainstream media, and yes I am including Fox News in that mix:
The new storyline is now in play. The first story above is from CBS in Atlanta and the “path to escalation” is clearly the choice of the extremists who wish to use the idiots before they disperse in frustration, as “innocent” protesters getting tasered, sprayed with tear gas, or beaten by police is exactly the story that the left needs to gain sympathy and prominence. By engaging in this course of action to provoke a violent response then hiding within then the crowd of college morons thinking that they are part of the cause. This is a typical strategy engaged in by the radicals and terrorists of the 1960′s thus why the protester’s ignorance of the members within their movement is dangerous to the point of including a risk to their healthy and survival.
The second story from Reuters gives the world a snapshot as to the new time line for the next course of action:
If they are successful in baiting the police around the world into a violent course of action during the G20 meetings and obtaining massive coverage on the compliant networks then the movement will be rejuvenated. The idea that initiating violence to insure massive support and coverage of protests is nothing new as during the 1960′s and 1970′s the Communist and so-called liberation movements deliberately engaged law enforcement to create sympathy and publicity for their causes. Thus why I think the fading news coverage, warnings not just in Atlanta but in other “occupy” cities is not just a warning, but a threat and the most dangerous story of the week. As the G20 meetings begin on November 3rd, prepare to see one last desperate act by the radicals within the Occupy groups to remain relevant, even if it costs the lives of some innocent dupes who just cut class at NYU to hold a cardboard sign in support of the global Marxist cause.
by Mark Vogl
If the issue of the approval for the Sons of Confederate Veterans Specialty plates revolved only around the honorable service of the men who served the Confederacy defending Texas from Union attack, the debate would be brief, the plates already approved.
In the modern world, the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia is the single most recognized symbol of a region of the United States (the South) in the whole world. The crimson field framing the St. Andrews Cross has flown over Berlin when the Iron Curtain dividing Germany fell. And it flew in Afghanistan when the Soviet Union was driven from its occupation of that nation.
The Confederate battle flag is an international symbol of defiance, individual liberty and regional unity. While some white supremacist groups have attempted to abscond with the colors, the history and lineage of the colors place it on a platform of honor and sacrifice which cannot pervert its original meaning.
Though American revisionist historians in the late twentieth century attempted to corrupt the reputations of the men who fought under the crimson flag, Generals Robert E. Lee, Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson, Patrick Cleburne and many other southern patriots remain a noble corps of Christian Americans seeking an alternative government for Dixie. And it is this spirit and pride which drives the 2,400 members of the Texas Division to seek approval for the specialty license plate.
But alas, those who oppose approval of the plates have attacked the meaning of the Confederate battle flag on grounds not directly associated with its’ original purpose. Therefore, in order to defend the values of the men who fought under the Confederate battle flag, the following article has been penned here on Rebel Mountain in East Texas.
God Himself, may be the organizing dynamics behind the controversy in Texas. This article attempts to connect the history of secession and an alternative American Constitution, with the present day troubles and frustrations of our nation. The issues the United States face today, and the normally ignored causes of secession in 1860, combined with the creation of the Confederate States of America, (C.S.A.) provide a startling illustration of the relevance of the Southern nation to today’s troubles. The C.S.A. offered an alternative America, one which has much relevance today, and could provide a route to a new American future.
The Sons of Confederate Veterans, (S.C.V.) the Texas Division, the Confederate States of America and the South are all benefitting from the media interest associated in the division application for Texas specialty license plates. Governor Rick Perry's decision to enter and compete in the Republican primary contest for the nomination for President of the United States, has brought the American Civil War Sesquicentennial and our division's efforts to secure a license plate to the fore of the current national campaign. We see repeatedly that news agencies within Texas, and across the nation are contacting local and brigade S.C.V. representatives, and to some extent we are participating in interviews about the issue.
As of now, I have seen none of the interviews, and since I have not seen a standardized Fact Sheet produced and distributed across the division, or at the national level, I can only assume that the interviews are in no way coordinated or developed to send the same messages. Instead, local men, with varying degrees of historical and political knowledge are doing the best they can to respond.
During this ongoing series of events we see that our political opponents are able to hold Press Conferences, attract media attention, and organize their anti-Southern messages for the general public.
And of course, the Perry Campaign is doing what it feels necessary to react. Again, since I have seen no national reporting of the event, nor have I seen Governor Perry make any comments, I can only presume that the Perry campaign is doing the best it can to avoid the issue. Governor Perry and his operatives are running for President and do not feel a need to open up a can of worms by re-teaching American history and governance. Therefore, we cannot anticipate their reaction on this issue to be supportive of recreating an American foundation.
Further, Governor Perry’s avoidance of a detailed discussion of the causes of secession indicates just how non-conservative Governor Rick Perry is. You see, an open discussion of the application for the license plates provides a very unique, very American approach to the current campaign issues which face our nation, everything from open borders with Mexico, to industry bailouts, national health care, and the role of states. The topic of the license plate does provide an opportunity for a discussion of the modern role of the Tenth Amendment, but that is not something any of the Republican candidates have embraced as a center piece of their campaign.
Our opponents are attacking the Sons of Confederate Veterans application for specialty plates for one and only one reason, racism. They connect the Confederate battle flag to the slavery of 1861 - 1865 and to the racism of the mid-20th century. They tie the Confederate battle flag to the KKK and other white supremacist groups and by doing so attempt to strip away support from conservative America. This is their stratagem and it is neither unanticipated, nor ineffective. Many minorities, who have no real economic or social plans which they can openly explain and discuss, use racism as their lone card to play.
For our opponents this is a “bread and butter” no work issue. For decades they have used standardized assaults on the South to build and maintain name recognition for themselves, and unify their cohorts with mindless proclamations which occupy air time.
But for us, the 50 - 80 million Americans whose ancestors fought for the South, for those people who proudly belong to the Sons of the Confederate Veterans, and want to see the state of Texas issue our specialty license plates we have an arsenal of important political, historical, and social lines of argument which should be presented to the American people.
For years, decades, we have argued that the South left the Union for a number of reasons. However, we have done a relatively poor job of painting the full picture, of illustrating exactly what the differences were between North and South. Today, now, in this time, when the United States of America is seeing its national identity destroyed by both the Democratic and Republican parties, and global special interests, this argument concerning the Texas license plates is brought before the people of America by God. He, the Almighty God, has brought forward the history of one hundred and fifty years, and the causes of secession, and the alternative American democracy of the Confederate States of America so that Americans at the beginning of the twenty-first century can see that America could avoid much of what is occurring today. The problems we face are not inherent in our nation. No, instead, because of the Civil War, and the decisions made by Congress and the Supreme Court after 1865, we have chosen the malaise and complications we face today.
As the Lt. Commander of the Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, (responsible for Heritage Defense) I have given much thought to the points of argument I will now present for consideration by the members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, by Texans, and by today's Americans. I offer these thoughts not as a line of argument to secure passage of the Texas license plates, but as a broader line of logic for the future of America herself.
For generations the issue of "slavery” has been an intellectual black hole which has acted as an impenetrable cloud covering secession and an alternative American democracy. Slavery was used to distract students from considering an alternative American government. There have been no serious discussions of an alternative United States because all of the Confederate modifications to the U.S. Constitution have been overshadowed by one issue, slavery. Slavery has been used to prevent students and Americans from considering all of the alternatives included in the Confederate Constitution. The evil of slavery has stood alone as the soul difference between the shattered Union and the rebel South.
But, the differences which were incorporated into the new Confederate Constitution were anticipatory of many of the largest problems we face today. The changes to the Confederate Constitution reflected a region and people who knew the formation of the United States some seventy years earlier, and who wanted to preserve those foundations. Had we done so, America’s future today would be much different.
So to begin this discussion of an alternative American democracy, and the Southern nation, let's quickly, completely, and without reservation condemn the institution of slavery for what it was; an American sin against man which should have never been brought to these shores by the Europeans and Americans from the northeast who operated the ships and markets which transported and sold slaves within the United States.
Slavery was NOT a uniquely Southern thing in the 16th century. The slaves brought to the western world were brought by the Euro powers and deposited all along the coasts of North and South America, and the islands of the Caribbean. The United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Spain, France, ( which continue to try to rule the world to this day ) facilitated the slave trade. It was the “globalism” of their time, an economic system intended to reap the benefits of the new world. Yes, the South did participate, and yes, the sin is as much that of the people of the South as the people of the North, or the people of South America. But slavery was not a uniquely a Southern thing. Like abortion today, where fifty million American souls have perished, slavery was an American thing.
Unlike the Northerners, Southerners hoped to build an agricultural, rural nation. Slavery was seen as the foundational means to help build this reality. Northerners who early realized slavery could not work above the Mason Dixon Line, did not free their slaves, or return them to Africa. Instead, they sold them south for profit. Slavery would eventually end in the north, after the Revolutionary War, but it was not due to northern Christianity and mercy, but as a result of economic necessity.
So let us here accept that slavery was a national sin, one equally caused by north and South, condemn it, and move to a discussion of the political and legal alternatives offered by the Confederate States of America in their Constitution.
With slavery condemned, let us now look at the alternative America of the Confederate Constitution. It is important to recall that the founders of the American Constitution saw the central government as a necessary evil. A central element behind the creation of the Constitution was this fear of an uncontrolled central government.
When considering where power came from, the Southern perspective first finds political sovereignty in God. From God, sovereignty passes to each individual. The individual surrenders a degree of sovereignty to the state. And then finally, the states shed a small piece of their power to the central government. To further insure that the federal government could NOT exercise power in certain areas, the Bill of Rights was offered simultaneous to the Constitution for approval by the states.
For a more in-depth knowledge of the early United States, the fear of a powerful central government and the roots of Southern political thinking I recommend to you “The South Was Right!” by James and Walter Kennedy.
The Confederate Constitution would incorporate a series of changes which when taken together created a new government with different character. The major changes within the Constitution include:
1. The inclusion of God in the Preamble where the Southern nation called for the protection and guidance of Almighty God. This open inclusion of a Christian God in the Preamble could very likely influence the moral aspects of national law throughout the centuries and avoid what is presently known as the doctrine of “separation of Church and state.”
2. The hope that a “less than perfect union” could survive by not challenging the power of the states.
3. That secession was an inherent right of the state, and therefore the ultimate check on central power.
4. That citizenship came only through birth within the Confederacy.
5. That the single six year term President was given sufficient power to operate the government and most importantly control spending.
6. That Congress was prohibited from using earmarks to pass legislation.
7. That 2/3’s of Congress must approve spending above that proposed by the President.
8. That the central government was prohibited from providing bail outs for industry, and was prohibited from acting on behalf of individual businesses,
9. The Confederacy was much more attuned to the global economy and sought trade as the source of many consumer goods.
A full discussion of these and other changes within the Constitution by learned professors at schools of higher learning could provide modern day America a whole new direction for national development.
What the Southern point of view offered was liberty, state integrity, local control, a fully integrated Christian faith into citizenship, and most importantly the preservation of values of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and the other southern founders of our nation.
In the coming years the Sons of Confederate Veterans will be faced with a choice. As a not-for-profit organization we are responsible for the Charge given to us by Lt. General Stephan D. Lee. In that Charge we are asked to vindicate the Cause. In the past, vindication has meant ceremonies at cemeteries, marching in parades, participating in living histories and other relatively benign historical events. It is my view that to live to the Charge members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans must become politically active in reclaiming the ground which was originally America.
There is much to do, but men of Southern heritage are men who can do much working with God as their partner. So let’s get these plates approved and take one more step down the road of the Sesquicentennial.
74 percent say the country is on the wrong track and 84 percent disapprove of Congress
It is interesting to compare Lincoln and his treachery in causing the Southern "enemy" to fire the first shot at Fort Sumter, resulting in the Civil War, with Roosevelt's similar manipulation causing the attack on Pearl Harbor and America's entry into World War II.
Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., a well-known American "court historian," has written the definitive defenses for both Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt regarding their reprehensible behavior in causing their respective unnecessary American wars. He clearly documents the unconstitutional behavior of both and offers great praise for the same. He attempts to justify the actions of both presidents on grounds that they were acting during a "crisis" pertaining to the "survival of the American government," and that their unconstitutional actions were thereby made "necessary." Schlesinger has stated that "Next to the Civil War, World War II was the greatest crisis in American history." His defense of these two "great" presidents is as follows:
Roosevelt in 1941, like Lincoln in 1861, did what he did under what appeared to be a popular demand and a public necessity. Both presidents took their actions in light of day and to the accompaniment of uninhibited political debate. They did what they thought they had to do to save the republic. They threw themselves in the end on the justice of the country and the rectitude of their motives. Whatever Lincoln and Roosevelt felt compelled to do under the pressure of crisis did not corrupt their essential commitment to constitutional ways and democratic processes.
Schlesinger, however, recognizes the terrible precedents that were created by these presidents' violations of the clear constitutional restrictions on their office:
Yet the danger persists that power asserted during authentic emergencies may create precedents for transcendent executive power during emergencies that exist only in the hallucinations of the Oval Office and that remain invisible to most of the nation. The perennial question is: How to distinguish real crises threatening the life of the republic from bad dreams conjured up by paranoid presidents spurred on by paranoid advisers? Necessity as Milton said, is always "the tyrant's plea."
Let us add to John Milton's statement a more specific warning by William Pitt in his speech to the House of Commons on November 18, 1783: "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants."
Finally, it is instructive to compare the circumstances for Lincoln at Fort Sumter with those for Roosevelt at Pearl Harbor. In neither case was there an actual "surprise" attack by the enemy. In fact, there was an extended period of time, many months prior to the "first shot," in which both Lincoln and Roosevelt had ample opportunity to attempt to negotiate with the alleged "enemy," who was desperately trying to reach a peaceful settlement.
In both cases, the presidents refused to negotiate in good faith. Lincoln sent completely false and conflicting statements to the Confederates and to Congress — even refused to talk with the Confederate commissioners. Roosevelt also refused to talk with Japanese Prime Minister Konoye, a refusal that brought down the moderate, peace-seeking Konoye government and caused the rise of the militant Tojo regime. Both Lincoln and Roosevelt repeatedly lied to the American people and to Congress about what they were doing while they were secretly provoking the "enemy" to fire the first shot in their respective wars. Both intentionally subjected their respective armed forces to being bait to get the enemy to fire the first shot.
It's mathematically guaranteed, given the total failure of the supposedly responsible party, the Republicans, to even openly discuss the fiscal realities, much less address them. The Market Ticker walks through the numbers:NOW we need to cut the federal budget not with a knife or a scalpel, but a chainsaw. Bachmann has said "43%." There were gasps when she uttered those words. Sorry, that's not enough. (Take your heart medication before continuing folks.)One can - and I will - take exception to the estimate of $800 billion for the net revenue consequences from what economists describe as "the multiplier effect", but the more important point is that changing government spending patterns will have an effect on the economy. It is as foolish to apply a static government spending cut model as it is to apply a static tax revenue model. Now, we can come up with a total range of estimates by utilizing the very high multiplier of optimistic Obama administration economists, who assumed it to be 1.6, then comparing that to the actual Four Wars multiplier of Robert Barro, which worked out to 0.8.
Here's the math.
Last year (Calendar 2010) we ran a 12% of GDP deficit, $1.7 trillion. This year we are tracking to run about $1.4, but we have three months left. If history repeats as to size it'll come in around $1.4 trillion, which is approximately 9% of GDP. This is within the rough range of 9-12% of the last three years. The last year of Bush's Presidency we ran somewhat over 9% of GDP. Obama has run 11 and 12%, respectively, and this will be ~9-10%, so there's no change in that regard.
But withdrawing the deficit spending is not enough because the withdrawal of that money, when it runs through the economy, then produces a (gross) reduction in tax receipts. Figure 1/3rd of that deficit spending ultimately returns to the government in the form of taxes in some form or fashion by the time all of the "turns" those funds made in the economy (e.g. from company making the presidential limo to the folks making the alternator to the folks making the copper wire to the mine pulling the copper out of the ground), and subtract that off as well.
So now we need to reduce spending not by $1,700 billion but that plus about another $500 billion for the tax impact, for a total of $2.2 trillion out of $3.7 trillion spent. About $500 billion of our spending at present is interest so this means we have: $3.7 - $2.2 - $0.5 = $1 trillion in total actual federal spending available to us out of an original $3.7 trillion.
At present, federal tax revenues are $2.3 trillion. This means tax revenues/GDP are 2.3/15.0, or 15.3 percent. For the maximum range, we'll ignore the BEA's estimate of G and go with the actual amount of federal spending, which is $3.7 trillion. The range of multiplier effects means that the net contribution of that government spending to the economy is somewhere between $5.92 trillion (Obama) and $2.86 trillion (Barrow). Applying the Tax/GDP ratio indicates a TOTAL tax benefit of between $906 billion and $453 billion from ALL $3.7 trillion in government spending, which means that Karl's estimate of $800 billion in lost taxes from the aforementioned 1.7 billion reduction is almost surely too high, even before we notice that the 0.8 multiplier means that reducing government spending would tend to increase GDP and therefore tax revenues by a factor of 1.25.
So, in order to obtain the most conservative estimate of the tax effect, we have to multiply (1.25 x 1.7 trillion) x .153. This would indicate a benefit of $325 billion to GDP from the reduction in spending rather than an additional loss. On the other side, (1.6 x 1.7 trillion) x .153 means a maximum tax revenue loss of $416 billion.
I'm not sure where Karl got his interest figure, (it looks like he used the 2015 estimate), but the reported interest on the national debt is $240 billion for 2011. So, in order to prevent the debt situation from expanding, and depending upon which economist you trust concerning the multiplier effect, federal spending must be reduced to somewhere between $2,085 trillion on the high end and $1.344 trillion on the low end. And here are the current big-ticket items:
$761 billion - Social Security
$468 billion - Medicare
$269 billion - Medicaid
$598 billion - Unemployment/Welfare
$679 billion - Department of Defense + Foreign Wars
So, this is why the Tea Party and the Republican Party cannot possibly salvage the situation They're not proposing the end of ANY of these major programs even though the nation can only afford to keep two of them, three in the unlikely event that both Defense and Social Security are entirely junked. Since that's not going to happen, given the way in which the incompetence of politicians presently inhabiting Washington aren't willing to even consider such drastic action, the financial collapse of the US federal government is assured.
Because I harbor Austrian School inclinations and the propensity for government malinvestment is obvious, I think the higher figure based on Barro's multiplier is the more relevant one. It's hardly a surprise that the Keynesian model would make government spending look more desirable and cuts to that spending more horrific, and obviously the administration economists were incorrect about that 1.6x multiplier given the failure of their $787 billion stimulus plan. But I found it to be interesting to discover that the $2.085 trillion figure works out to a 43.6% required reduction in federal spending, which tends to suggest that Michele Bachmann's economists are utilizing an equation similar to the one that I have worked out here. Perhaps old Crazy Eyes really does read Mises at the beach.
From Bono the rock star to Bozo the clown, Obama is polling lower than the teats on a pregnant weenie dog. Obama has been relegated to speaking at high schools and fire stations.
His recent bus tour arrived at the first stop in the formerly red-turned-blue state of North Carolina, where Obama was greeted by nearly 200 adoring fans. Michelle travels with a larger entourage than this.
Subtract the “undisclosed number” of Secret Service agents, plainclothes operatives, various man-servants, then add in local law enforcement, paid union members, and Central Casting extras, and you get about 12 people who actually caught Obama’s act at any given location on the tour. Why didn’t he just Skype the tour from his CrackBerry?
What happened to the sold-out venues, the fawning “Obama Girls,” and other regressive Utopians who felt that Obama would make heaven of Earth? The gilded crowd is vacationing in St. Mortiz, while others take “staycations” to dig their 2012 sub-Utopian rat holes.
Most conservatives knew that Obama’s fall was coming, and I feel a sense of déjà vu telling you what I reported a few months back, that Obama’s crowds have been shrinking like post-lactation breasts.
As this tour proves, Obama’s audiences continue to shrink, not drawing enough of a crowd to throw a decent backyard barbecue or a beer fest. Don’t be surprised if the White House offers incentives (such as SNAP cards) as party favors to pull in a few more zombies.
Obama’s dismal performance has most Americans more broke than the Ten Commandments. Incomes are down dramatically—the most in decades—and that’s for the lucky few who are fortunate to have jobs. Gasoline is a luxury item for those who haven’t hocked their cars to pay for their food and medicine.
For college kids, the old “look to the left, look to the right” no longer is about who will be in your graduating class, but more likely indicates who won’t have jobs when they graduate.
Things are so bad for Obama that even after breaking his so-called jobs plan into “bite-sized pieces” that Republicans can understand, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed on the appetizer.
Obama’s tour was meant to coincide with Harry Reid getting the bite-sized jobs bill through the Senate. The left was certain that the Occupy Wall Street strategy would pressure the Republicans to fork over more extortion payments. People were supposed to be outraged by now, ready to join Obama in blaming Wall Street fat cats—the “step-on-your-throat” capitalists who would run over their grandmothers to get ahead. The Democrats knew their liberal minions would be all too willing to be the useful idiots, too duped to realize they are pawns in a class-warfare game. The irony is that useful idiots want to be rich, too. The bigger irony is that the OWS movement has become farcical, like looking at the real America in a funhouse mirror. With the OWS movement’s failure, unless Obama finds people in the other “seven states with one left to go,” he will have a large inventory of snake oil left over in the White House basement.
Los Angeles Times reporter Peter Nicholas wrote of Obama’s last tour stop:
…Obama stood at a lectern against a backdrop of firefighters and offered his prescription for solving the persistent jobs crisis: “A fair shot for everybody; a fair share from everybody. That’s the principle that built America.”
How naïve for Obama to say something so silly. Nothing is fair. Conservatives understand this by age five. If life were fair, there would be no ugly people. If life were fair, we could all accomplish nothing, get elected president, and be awarded Nobel Peace Prizes.
America was built on a promise of freedom from a tyrannical king and protection from a tyrannical government. America is a country where a man defines his own status, not has it assigned. America offers opportunity for success and an equal chance to fail.
Nicholas further describes the final Obama stop:
The president got a polite reception from the 100 or so people crowded into the station garage. Early in his speech he mentioned his American Jobs Act. One or two people clapped. “You can go ahead and clap,” the president said. “Go ahead, nothing wrong with it.”
Nobody else clapped, or likely even wanted to, because listening to Obama is like expecting an answer from an answering machine.
Obama likes playing president, but what he really wanted was a paycheck, a cool house for parties, and an unlimited taxpayer-funded vacation package. Being a good president is hard; being an incompetent president is even harder. Obama is so skilled at incompetence, he makes it look easy.
Don’t think for a second that the lack of adoring sycophants will stop Obama from wanting four more years of the perks and the added bonus of tormenting old-school Americans. Thankfully his arrogance and undying support of an insane dogma are the reasons he won’t be reelected. America understands how close to the edge of O-blivion we are. By election time, Obama will be alone in his circus tent, the press not even covering his concession speech.
Over the past five years, the Mexican drug war has claimed the lives of an estimated 40,000 civilians and drug traffickers. British journalist Ioan Grillo describes it as "a bloodbath that has shocked the world."
In his new book, El Narco, Grillo takes a close look at the Mexican drug trade, starting with the term "el narco," which has come to represent the vast, often faceless criminal network of drug smugglers who cast a murderous shadow over the entire country.
"People struggle to really understand what this force is," Grillo tells NPR's Ari Shapiro. "You talk about 'el narco' being behind 30 bodies on the street and 'el narco' threatening politicians, but who really are these people, and what really are they?"
He says when he first arrived in Mexico in 2001, traffickers used gangbangers to carry out their assassinations — but not anymore.
"Now they have fully fledged militias with AK-47s, [rocket-propelled grenades]," Grillo says, "and they have become something very fearsome and very dangerous within Mexico."
'El Narco' As Boss
Also Listen to the Story