We are nearing the precipice of a financial apocalypse in this country but you would never know it just by listening to the demagoguery of the Democrats. They can’t spend other people’s money fast enough (translated: the taxpayers). No pork project or expenditure to them is frivolous.
Despite massive increases in spending under Obama and Congress when both chambers were controlled by the Democrats, they refuse to agree to even a miniscule 1.7% reduction - $61 billion out of $3.6 trillion. Apparently, this figure has been reduced to about one half in order to avert a government shutdown. That would translate to around a 1.8% reduction in the spending deficit for just this one year!
This is essentially a rounding error – an unacceptable compromise which illustrates their total lack of responsibility and concern for America, our way of life and standard of living. It also confirms that their first interest is getting re-elected.
We should work to make sure that it doesn’t happen at their next election.
Shutdown? Why are we still discussing the 2011 budget?
Greg Richards April 01, 2011
The 2011 budget should have been passed by last year's Congress. The 1974 budget law requires that the budget for this fiscal year be passed by October 1 of last year.
The Democrats were in power last year. The entire government was under the control of the Democrat Party. In the Senate, the Democrats had a supermajority. In the House, the Democrats had a controlling majority. Their guy was in the White House.
Passing a budget could arguably be said to be Congress' primary duty apart from declaring war. But last year, we saw the contempt in which the Democrat Party holds the public. The Democrats ran away from their duty, a duty they accepted - indeed sought - by running for office.
But the Democrats did not want to run in the elections of November 2010 on their record, on their stewardship of the affairs of State. Instead they chose to be derelict in their duty to the country.
Now, under the goad of the Tea Party, the Republicans, having retaken control of the House, are insisting that the government institute a budget for fiscal 2011, which has already half gone. In the face of a $1.6 trillion deficit which is occurring, be it noted, in the absence of a national emergency even if in the context of poor economic performance, the Republicans are seeking to cut $61 billion in spending, a paltry 1.7% of the total budget and 3.8% of the deficit. And what do we find? We find the Democratic Majority Leader of the Senate Harry Reid attempting to marginalize the Tea Party, whose presence is the only reason that he is being forced to do his duty!
1. The Democrats, by abandoning their duty on the budget last year, have already shown that they have no respect for their responsibility to the country.
2. The Democrats certainly have no respect for Republicans and will not act in the interests of collegiality.
3. Therefore, the only thing that motivates Democrats in Congress is access to power. The only force that is going to move them is the fear of losing that power. What we know and they don't is that the citizenry is now aroused. It is fearful for the future of the country under the unmodulated profligacy of the Democrat Party in Washington.
So, let's treat the Harry Reids with the contempt they deserve. Reasonableness is not going to move the needle anyway. Let's do what is necessary to save the country and put the Dems to the test of public obloquy if they choose to continue their irresponsibility from last year and stand in the way of prudence and necessity.
During his two year tenure as “president”, Obama has unmasked his true intentions and character: an unrelenting arrogant, contemptuous, narcissistic, racist, elitist Progressive who intends to transform the American political, economic and social system in direct opposition to the wishes of an overwhelming majority of citizens in order to realize his ideological goals. His agenda is authoritarian control or, in essence, tyranny and has been accomplishing much of this through his czars and fellow Progressives with regulations and rules that often bypass Congress.
In isolation, Obama would have little success. Unfortunately, he and a cadre of Progressives in high places have worked to advance the far left causes which have been immensely aided by the fifth column press which is complicit in this revolution. We all know the names of some of these noxious Progressive politicians who are bent on undermining and destroying our country: Hillary Clinton, Barney Frank, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Pete Stark. (See yesterday’s post : Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Outrageous Statements Made In An Arab Country Regarding the Tucson Shooter for just one example of the outrageous, destructive and irresponsible actions of Hillary Clinton)
We must vanquish this revolution being perpetrated by liberal Democrats and Progressives from within the government, doing whatever it takes to neutralize these individuals and their destructive actions. The November massacre of Democratic politicians at the voting booth is a start but we must continue on relentlessly. It is imperative that we fervently support the conservatives and Republicans in Congress in order to help regain our stolen rights and freedoms as well as reestablish sane fiscal policies.
Arrogant and Authoritarian: Barack Obama and the New Progressives
Chuck Rogér January 12, 2011
Blindness to physical reality, denial of human nature, and a consuming desire to use government force to impose fantasies on fellow human beings. Welcome to the mind of today's American "progressive."
Progressives veil sophomoric schemes in eloquent verbiage. Barack Obama's mastery of the technique got him elected president. Sixty-nine and a half million Americans would not have voted for Obama had he failed to conceal the differences between his campaign spiel and the contents of his heart.
Convinced of the goodness of their intentions, ideologues like Obama mistake tyranny for noble action. And to achieve their noble objectives, today's progressives bend the truth far more than did predecessors like John Dewey, Woodrow Wilson, and FDR. Yet Obama has increasingly adopted a more direct modus operandi since becoming president. The "centrist" disguise has disintegrated.
Progressivism initially appeared on the American scene in response to problems that cried for solutions. Peter Berkowitz describes the movement's birth.
The original progressivism arose in the 1880s and 1890s and flourished during the first two decades of the 20th century. It is associated with, among others, Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, scholars Fredrick Jackson Turner and Charles Beard, reformer Jane Addams, theologian Walter Rauschenbusch, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, philosopher and educator John Dewey, and journalist and New Republic founder Herbert Croly.
At their best, the original progressives responded to dramatic social and economic upheavals generated by the industrial revolution, opposed real Gilded Age abuses, and promoted salutary social and political reforms. They took the side of the exploited, the weak, and the wronged. They fought political corruption and sought to make political institutions more responsive to the will of the people. And they advanced programs and policies that, in a changing world, brought liberal democracy in America more in line with the Declaration of Independence's and the Constitution's original promise of freedom and equality for all.
So some original progressives had a positive influence on the country. But history shows that the ideas of zealots like Wilson, Croly, Dewey, and FDR had devastating effects. Government size and intrusion into business and private life have mushroomed. America's education system has decayed into a vehicle for infecting young people with pie-in-the-sky misconceptions of human nature and twisted versions of the American story.
Decades since the progressive movement began, a clear picture has developed of rabid ideologues like Margaret Sanger, whose racism incited her to conceive the eugenic "Negro Project" to reduce the "inferior" black population. Progressive minds like Sanger's, capable of spawning the depravity of Planned Parenthood, are dark places.
Today, the truth stares Americans in the face. While progressivism was born of an earnest desire to advance personal freedom, the ideology devolved into a collection of approaches that would lock people in the chains of a centrally planned society, with progressive elites withholding the keys to the locks. The elitists truly believe that legislative and regulatory shackles can remold human nature to conform to an impossibly perfect vision.
We need look no farther than our progressive-in-chief for the embodiment of the stubborn pseudo-intellectual who views himself as society's infallible guiding hand. Barack Obama wants government to "spread the wealth" by taking wealth from high earners who spread it more broadly and deeply than government ever could. Our president thinks that Americans who are concerned about decaying values and explosive federal spending are too "scared" to trust cherry-picked "facts and science." Obama believes that people are wasting valuable time "pushing away challenges, looking backwards" -- presumably focusing on really dreadful stuff like wholesome values, common sense, and facts evidenced by history. Barack the magic driver says that Republicans critical of his magic bus "can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back."
A hundred years ago, Herbert Croly foretold the Obama mindset, declaring that "the average American individual is morally and intellectually inadequate to a serious and consistent conception of his responsibilities as a democrat1." Peter Berkowitz suggests that today's progressives probably find Croly's declaration "mortifying." I think Berkowitz misses the mark. Hillary Clinton, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Time's Joe Klein, U.C. Berkley linguist George Lakoff, Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank, and countless other progressives routinely make an exhibition of their insufferably arrogant elitism. Obama's superior manner and California Representative Pete Stark's outrageous impudence typify the demeanor of today's enlightened ones.
With a smugness celebrated by soul mates in the media, Barack Obama inspires American progressives to flaunt their haughtiness. Describing the posturing that accompanies the haughtiness, Berkowitz observes that Obama's techniques constitute an "effort to push dramatic transformation under the cover of moderation, pragmatism, and post-partisanship."
My characterization is more straightforward. The media actively sell Obama's phony "moderation, pragmatism, and post-partisanship" to "cover" actions that are immoderate, impractical, and entirely partisan. Obama purveys doublespeak to convince people of one thing while the illusionist-in-chief does another. Millions of Americans voted for a package of illusions in 2008.
Obamaesque deceit and conceit are easily summarized: progressives sanctify pretty theory as obviously true and condemn ugly reality as necessarily false. Progressives see themselves as incapable of error and believe that rejection of their high-mindedness could be undertaken only by commoners too dim to comprehend what's best.
During the two years after Barack Obama moved to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and Democrats increased their stranglehold on Congress, something became crystal-clear. A hideous infestation called progressivism has uglified the White House and the Democrat Party. The tyrannous legislative and regulatory rampages that Obama and the Democrats undertook made something else clear. Until progressivism is flushed from the party, Democrats must never again be entrusted with substantial influence in government.
A writer, physicist, and former high tech executive, Chuck Rogér invites you to visit his website, www.chuckroger.com. E-mail Chuck at email@example.com.
In an interesting and somewhat surprising statement targeting Obama and further evidencing intra-party conflict, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid criticized the "president" for trying to steal power from Congress. In better times for the Democrats, such talk was almost unheard of. However, since their election debacle, the level of friction and general disunity has markedly escalated.
Reid: Obama Trying to ‘Steal Power’ From Congress; Earmarks ‘Constitutional Duty’
During a Senate committee hearing that dealt with television retransmission, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (Dem. – West Virginia) had the temerity and despicable hauteur to state that he wished that he could just have the existence of FOX News and MSNBC terminated by the F.C.C. It seems that the news media is “interfering” with the running of government and their ability to govern by providing information to the public which they do not find helpful.
An informed public is a “dangerous” one according to this philosophy. After all, we actually can attempt to track their legislation, activities, corruption and attempts to deprive us of our rights and liberties (Obamacare, Cap and Trade, etc.) and act on these. We would be a nuisance to their privileged and powerful positions and lifestyles as politicians.
This pronouncement is not surprising and is consonant with the elitism and arrogance that the Congressional Democrats habitually exude and which has become part of their genetic/ideological makeup. A few prime examples:
Of course, Obama is a high profile a paragon of this pernicious comportment.
This attitude is one that is a precursor to tyranny and an autocratic government and is why we must remain ever vigilant of their threats and actions.
We must also vanquish this attitude and have these “representatives of the people” removed from office.
Senator Jay Rockefeller Wishes FOX News and MSNBC Would Just Stop Existing
Posted in Liberaland by Alan • November 17, 2010,
Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia somehow believes that free speech exercised on FOX News and MSNBC makes his job harder, and in his heart of hearts he wishes the government could shut them up.
At a Senate committee hearing about television retransmission consent on Wednesday, Mr. Rockefeller spoke broadly about the ways he believes television is ailing, and in doing so he singled out the “endless barking” of cable news.
He said: “There’s a little bug inside of me which wants to get the F.C.C. to say to Fox and to MSNBC, ‘Out. Off. End. Goodbye.’ It would be a big favor to political discourse; to our ability to do our work here in Congress; and to the American people, to be able to talk with each other and have some faith in their government and, more importantly, in their future.”
Sadly for Senator Rockefeller, the FCC doesn’t have authority over cable television.
Given the arrogance, corruption and contempt that have been egregiously displayed by Harry Reid, Obama, Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats of their ilk, it does not come as a shock that Reid’s “re-election” may have been a result of such actions. Furthermore, with stories coming out of ballots pre-selected for him and union involvement in the election, we would not be surprised if this election was illegally manipulated to guarantee him a victory.
Adding further suspicion to this was the 9 point swing in support where he was down at least 3 points immediately prior to the election yet won by a margin of 6 points over Sharron Angle.
This must be investigated in light of the already known innumerable coordinated attempts across the country by the left of massive voter fraud – many involving groups associated with ACORN and George Soros.
Harry Reid should not be above the law
Washington Examiner Editorial November 5, 2010
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid looked like toast a few days before the Nov. 2 election, trailing his Republican challenger Sharron Angle by three or more points in the campaign's concluding polls, according to RealClearPolitics. But when ballots were counted, Reid had somehow converted that deficit to a nearly six-point margin of victory. Most observers attributed the phenomenal success of Reid's last-ditch comeback to the Nevada Democratic Party's highly polished get-out-the-vote "ground game." But an internal e-mail from a Reid campaign operative to a Harrah's executive strongly suggests the Reid ground game depended at least in part on breaking the law.
As former Federal Election Commissioner Hans A. von Spakovsky explained Friday in The Examiner, federal law makes it illegal for officials with a Senate campaign to coordinate with corporate or union officials: "Both the Reid campaign and Harrah's may have violated federal campaign finance law that prohibits in-kind corporate and union contributions to, and coordination with, political campaigns. Corporations and unions may spend money to run ads in support of or opposing a candidate, but they are not allowed to make direct or in-kind contributions to federal candidates. Federal criminal law also prohibits intimidation and coercion of a person exercising his or her right to vote (or not to vote)."
According to the e-mail, which was first made public by National Review Online's Elizabeth Crum, the Reid staffer pleaded with Marybel Batjer, Harrah's vice president for government relations, to do everything possible to get the firm's thousands of employees and their families in Nevada's largest county to the polls to vote for the Senate majority leader, including putting a "headlock" on recalcitrant supervisors "to get them to follow through." In response, Batjer instructed her fellow Harrah's executives that they were to "do whatever we need to do to get the supervisors to know that there is NOTHING more important than to get employees out to vote. Waking up to a defeat of Harry Reid Nov 3rd will be devastating for our industry's future."
It is clear that the pro-Reid effort by Harrah's executive met with some level of resistance within the company, as one of the e-mails obtained by Crum referred to problems encountered by the Reid backers with midlevel supervisors in the company's culinary department. "They simply are not cooperating and listening with upper management" in the companywide get-out-the-Reid vote campaign, a Harrah's executive complained in one of the e-mails. Because intimidation and coercion were apparently involved, this matter requires the attention of the Department of Justice's Public Integrity Section. Attorney General Eric Holder can be sure that the House Judiciary Committee will be closely watching his actions on this matter.
Although we don’t have any other information regarding this particular situation regarding pre-marked ballots for Harry Reid, what is known is that there have been countless” attempts particularly by far-left groups including those funded by George Soros and ACORN to perpetrate high volume voter fraud. This is a very serious problem which can have the effect of “disenfranchising” millions of voters on the right side of the aisle.
We must remain highly suspicious and vigilant.
Nevada Voters Say Reid's Name Checked for Them on Touch-Screen Ballots
October 26, 2010 | FoxNews.com
Voters in one Nevada city are complaining that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's name was already checked when they went to cast their ballots in early voting Monday, according to Fox5Vegas.com.
Voters in Boulder City said they were trying to vote for Republican nominee Sharron Angle, but that Reid's name was checked when they got to the electronic voting machines.
"Something's not right," voter Joyce Ferrara told the network, saying several people reported the same problem. "One person that's a fluke. Two, that's strange. But several within a five-minute period of time -- that's wrong."
A Clark County voting official said highly sensitive touch-screens may be to blame and that fraud is not the issue.
We may all remember the incident during Congressional hearings when Sen. Barbara Boxer demanded to be called “Senator” because she “worked so hard to earn the title”. This same haughty attitude seems to be genetically programmed in numerous other Democratic politicians such as Barney Frank, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Charlie Schumer, Alan Grayson, Charlie Rangel, and Maxine Waters.
America needs to be vaccinated against these despicable politicians.
In a thoroughly embarrassing move, both House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid passed by a voice vote legislation that runs counter to their ideologies and constituencies and which Obama is planning to veto all because they NEVER READ THE BILL.
What a surprise!
This is yet another example of their confusion, arrogance and incompetence and why there needs to be a wholesale removal of Democrats including Harry Reid and banishment of Pelosi from her Speaker of the House position.
The editorial below elucidates this matter quite well along with the wholly irresponsible goal of the liberals: to prevent lenders from foreclosing on individuals who have just stop paying their mortgages. It is just another example of the Democrats absolving individuals of taking any responsibility for their actions.
However, the rest of us taxpayers will be paying instead!
Investor’s Business Daily 10/08/2010
Leadership: Egg is all over the faces of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid after a bill to speed foreclosures slipped through Congress. Apparently, they neglected to read it.
It's a month before an election that promises devastation for Democratic senators and congressmen. What's the last thing they need right now?
How about a Democratic president's veto of a bill the Democratic majorities in both houses allowed to pass by voice vote — a piece of legislation that seems designed to anger their liberal base.
With Congress adjourned for the fall campaign, President Obama pocket-vetoed what was described in the media as "a little-known bill" to require federal and state courts to accept notarized documents from other states.
"Little-known" is right, because apparently the entire Democratic leadership didn't know its content — yet let it pass by voice vote, and without debate.
The White House jumped on the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010 after discovering that the legislation smoothed the foreclosure process for lenders.
The left has been having a fit, with the Daily Kos calling it an exacerbation of "the denial of due process for homeowners" in what it calls an ongoing "foreclosure fraud crisis."
The bill's sponsor was a Republican, Rep. Robert Aderholt of Alabama. But no less than Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., squired it through his panel, then let it be known that every Senate office was notified before it passed the floor by voice vote, and that "no concerns or objections had been expressed" by senators. Leahy's office even says the chairman "supports that decision" by President Obama to veto.
Leahy supports a veto of a bill he supported?
Sounds like presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004 saying, "I actually did vote for" the Iraq war "before I voted against it."
Leave aside the whole issue surrounding the bill — that a typo or technical glitch shouldn't stop valid foreclosures from taking place.
What the left is up to right now is a repeat performance of what caused the global financial crisis. But this time, instead of forcing banks to give mortgages to people who aren't qualified, it now wants to prevent lenders from foreclosing on those same people after they've stopped making mortgage payments.
Indeed, the NAACP and the National Council of La Raza last week partnered with Big Labor to demand a nationwide freeze on foreclosures. If these liberal activist groups got their way it would be an attack on the rule of law in America, without which our system of economic freedom simply cannot work.
When mortgage contracts become a joke, people stop honoring them — like any other contract — and the institutions left holding the bag will start dying, taking their employees' livelihoods to the grave with them.
The foreclosure issue aside, the most significant thing we learn from this episode is just how dysfunctional the 111th Congress is.
The Pelosi quote from March that will live in infamy — "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it" — doesn't just apply to 2,300-page behemoths to take over the national health care system.
It turns out that they're so busy trying to get re-elected — and so engrossed in crafting and negotiating monstrous bills expanding government, setting up new bureaucracies to manage government's vast new powers — they don't know what's happening on the floors of the House and Senate.
Anything might get passed without being read even by the House and Senate Democratic leaderships, let alone rank-and-file members.
The large Democratic majorities in this Congress have already proved their corruption — with Rep. Charles Rangel, a shoe-in for re-election in New York City, getting removed from his chairmanship of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee because of trouble paying his own taxes, and Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., allegedly using TARP funds for family kickbacks. ObamaCare proved their thirst for more and more government power.
Now the addition of rank incompetence completes a poisonous mixture constituting a grave threat to Americans' liberties, as voters mull their options less than a month before Election Day.