The Mendacity Of Barack Obama

From The American Thinker:
Via Terry

April 15, 2011


The Mendacity of Barack Obama

By Steve McCann



Over my 45+ years in the business community, both domestic and international, I have dealt with an overwhelming variety of people of all races and political philosophies. Men and women who were thoroughly honest and many who had no concept of honor and integrity. Among them were those who would do or say anything to achieve their ends and do so with a straight face and an air of self-confidence that would deceive the most gullible. It is only through painful experience that one is finally able to develop an antenna to quickly weed out those charlatans.





While I have always been wary of and have written about his dishonesty, after the speech the president delivered the 13th of April regarding the federal budget, one that was chock full of lies, deceit, and crass fear-mongering, it must be said that Barack Obama is the most dishonest, deceitful, and mendacious person in a position of power I have ever witnessed.





That performance was the culmination of four years of outright lies and narcissism that have been largely ignored by the media, including some in the conservative press and political class who are loath to call Mr. Obama what he is in the bluntest of terms: a liar and a fraud. That he relies on his skin color to intimidate, either outright or by insinuation, those who oppose his radical agenda only adds to his audacity. It is apparent that he has gotten away with his character flaws his entire life, aided and abetted by the sycophants around him, thus he is who he is and cannot change.





The question becomes is he a compulsive liar or a sociopath? By definition:





A sociopath is typically defined as someone who lies incessantly to get their way and does so with little concern for others. A sociopath is often goal-oriented (i.e., lying is focused -- it is done to get one's way). Sociopaths have little regard or respect for the rights and feelings of others. Sociopaths are often charming and charismatic, but they use their talented social skills in manipulative and self-centered ways.





A compulsive liar:





A compulsive liar is defined as someone who lies out of habit. Lying is their normal and reflexive way of responding to questions. Compulsive liars bend the truth about everything, large and small. For a compulsive liar, telling the truth is very awkward and uncomfortable while lying feels right. Compulsive lying is usually developed in early childhood, due to being placed in an environment where lying was necessary.





I came to the United States as a survivor of the Second World War. I spent my early years alone on the streets of a totally destroyed city somewhere in central Europe. In order to survive I had to steal food where I could and lie in order to survive. I spent a good part of my life, even after coming to America and being adopted, battling those inbred impulses. It was a never-ending struggle with successes and failures, but I was able to finally defeat those demons.





What I say about Barack Obama I do not do lightly, but because I fear greatly for this country and can, not only from personal experience but in my dealing with others, recognize those failings in a person whose only interest is himself and his inbred radical ideology, which as its lynchpin desires to transform the country into a quasi-totalitarian state by any means possible.





In the United States there is great deference paid to the occupant of the White House. Justifiably so, as that person is not only the chief operating officer of the country but also the head of state representing the nation around the globe. The president's actions and demeanor set the tone for not only the political class but the country as a whole. Over the centuries there have many exceptional but also a few inept men to hold the office of President.





Today so much power is now vested in the Office of President of the United States that honor and integrity must be a hallmark of a president's character. It is not with Barack Obama; he may well be the most dishonest and disingenuous occupant of the Oval Office in history, and will do more damage to the nation than all his predecessors combined.





His failings can no longer be excused by this historical deference or timidity fostered by race, with the euphemisms of spin, obfuscation, fabrication, or politics being used to avoid the truth. Obama is extremely adept at exploiting the celebrity culture that has overwhelmed the society as well as the erosion of the education system that has created a generation or more of citizens unaware of their history, culture as well as historical ethical standards based on Judeo-Christian teaching.





While the future of the country depends on dramatically altering the economic and governing landscape, it cannot do so unless the opposition politicians and average citizens forcefully challenge and respond to the lies and machinations of Barack Obama and his allies without fear of what may be said about them or to them. As for me, I have already experienced far worse than anything that could be said or done to me. My only concern is for the welfare of my fellow citizens and the noblest experiment in the history of mankind: the United States.





Source and comments at:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/the_mendacity_of_barack_obama.html

Congressional Ethics Mess: What's The Hold-Up On The Maxine Waters Investigation?

From Judicial Watch:

Congress Ethics Mess: What’s the Hold Up on the Maxine Waters Investigation?




As you may recall, last year Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA) landed on Judicial Watch’s “Washington’s Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians,” and for good reason. Waters (and her partner in crime, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA)) helped secure a TARP grant for the failing Massachusetts bank OneUnited — a bank in which her husband had a significant investment. (Michelle Malkin reports that Waters’ husband, Sidney Williams held a $350,000 stake in OneUnited as recently as June 2008.)



Could the conflict of interest be any more egregious?



We didn’t think so. And for a while it appeared the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (a.k.a. The House Ethics Committee) agreed. The Committee announced last fall there would be a speedy trial to consider the charges against Waters. And, on the heels of the massive investigation and very public trial of Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), there was reason to be somewhat optimistic that Waters would be held accountable.



That is until House Ethics Committee Chairman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) started meddling in the process. Not only did Lofgren fail to issue subpoenas for records related to the scandal, but she also delayed the ethics committee hearing after doing everything in her power to undermine the professional committee staff leading the investigation. And, as if that were not enough, Lofgren then improperly fired two attorneys working on the investigation.



Now the Waters investigation is stuck in the mud. A spokesman for House Ethics Committee Chairman Rep. Joe Bonner (R-AL), who has slammed Lofgren on more than one occasion for mishandling the investigation, declined to comment on when a hearing would be rescheduled. (It looks to me as if Lofgren was trying to help Waters co-conspirator Barney Frank as much as Waters.)



Meanwhile, The Washington Post recently highlighted documents from the FDIC that provide new details on something Judicial Watch reported last year — OneUnited Bank was in deplorable financial shape at the time of the TARP grant (partially because of a questionable $50 million investment in the sinking ship that was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), and would never have received government assistance without the intervention of Waters and Frank:



A decision in late 2008 by top officials of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to help a politically connected bank in Boston left federal bank examiners there angry enough that some called it a “travesty of justice,” according to internal e-mails obtained by The Washington Post.



The chairman of OneUnited Bank, a friend of Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), had rendered it insolvent through lavish spending and bad investments, according to the examiners’ written accounts. But by the end of that year, after Waters arranged a key Treasury Department meeting for the bank, it had won a bailout loan and a unique exemption from the FDIC’s accounting rules.



“There are some really good people expressing very strong opinions regarding what they view as a travesty of justice regarding the special treatment this institution is receiving,” acting regional director John M. Lane warned in a March 2009 e-mail to Christopher J. Spoth, a senior FDIC consumer protection official.



(As reported in the January 22, 2009, edition of the Wall Street Journal, the Treasury Department indicated it would only provide bailout funds to healthy banks to jump-start lending.)



A travesty of justice. That’s a perfect description not only for the OneUnited cash infusion, but also the manner in which the Waters House ethics “investigation” has “proceeded.”



Judicial Watch has been on top of the OneUnited scandal ever since it first broke. In fact, we sued the Treasury Department for documents and unearthed some remarkable finds that implicate both Frank and Waters. For example, JW learned that the unnamed “federal regulator” Frank says he called regarding the $12 million TARP grant for OneUnited was none other than former Treasury Secretary Henry “Hank” Paulson.



And then there was this explosive January 13, 2009, email from Brookly McLaughlin, the Treasury Department’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, who expressed shock at Waters’ apparent conflict of interest regarding OneUnited:



Further to email below, WSJ [Wall Street Journal] tells me: …Apparently this bank is the only one that has gotten money through section 103-6 of the EESA law. And Maxine Waters’ husband is on the board of the bank. ??????



So, in sum, the House Ethics Committee has all the evidence it needs to hold Maxine Waters to account on the OneUnited scandal. But Waters allies are corrupting the Ethics Committee at this point. I might suggest that the new Republican leadership clean up this mess. Frankly, the longer it goes on, the easier it is to conclude that the Republicans running the House aren’t bothered by a dysfunctional Ethics Committee.

Obama Regime/HHS Plans Taxpayer-Funded ObamaCare Propaganda Campaign Costing $200 Million

From Judicial Watch:

From the Desk of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:




JW Uncovers Incriminating HHS Records Detailing Taxpayer-Funded Obamacare Propaganda Campaign



The American people do not support Obamacare. This much we know. So I’m willing to bet they’re going to be furious when they learn that the Obama Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) wants to spend as much as $200 million on a propaganda campaign to convince them they’re wrong about the president’s socialist health care overhaul.



This week we obtained documents from HHS that provide new details on a massive, taxpayer-funded, multimedia campaign designed to promote the Affordable Health Care Act (also known as Obamacare) and other HHS policy initiatives (such as the anti-obesity — or food control — campaign that is a vanity project of Michelle Obama). According to the records, which we obtained through a March 23, 2011, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, the total cost of this campaign, which notably targets Obama’s electoral coalition, could reach as much as $200 million over the next five years!



The following are highlights from the documents, which you can read in full here:



An April 27, 2010, Department of Health and Human Services Acquisition Plan entitled “National Multimedia & Education Campaign & Grassroots Outreach,” details a comprehensive five-year communications program covering a variety of HHS policy initiatives, including “health care reform.”

According to a section of the Acquisition Plan entitled, “Independent Government Cost Estimate,” the Health and Human Services Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs (ASPA) states: “ASPA is unable to provide a definitive government cost estimate. Campaigns vary is [sic] size and scope. Some campaigns involve radio, some TV, and some print. Other campaigns may involve all of those avenues plus on ground events, website, bus tours, etc.” However, “ASPA is letting this contract in order [to] produce three to four campaigns per year through the life-cycle of the contract. We are requesting a contract with a $200,000,000 maximum.”

According to a subsequent March 14, 2011, contract included among the documents, HHS hired The Ogilvy Group “to provide services to design, develop, and execute a multiplatform educational media campaign to promote the new website Healthcare.gov, including the new Spanish language version of the website.” The total amount of the contract awarded was: $3,998,928.

The Ogilvy contract “task order” describes the purpose of the Healthcare.gov website: “To accompany such a monumental piece of legislation [The Affordable Health Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare], the law charged the Department of Health and Human Services with the creation of a website to aide [sic] Americans about the health insurance coverage options available to them.” (U.S. Senator Charles Grassley has deemed the HHS online program “state-sponsored propaganda.”)

The Ogilvy contract also describes the “audiences” that will receive “targeted messaging” during the campaign: “Hispanic Americans, African Americans, Young People, Women/Mothers,” all considered key target demographics for the Obama reelection campaign.

According to the Ogilvy contract, HHS sought to receive “media training” in the following areas, among others: “controlling your message,” “handling hostile interviews,” “artful repetition,” “identifying loaded questions” and “being persuasive.”

And now for the really creepy part…



Here’s how the HHS describes the key to success for this campaign: “Health and program-related messages are processed by the target audience according to a particular reality, which he or she experiences. Attitudes, feelings, values, needs, desires, behaviors and beliefs all play a part in the individual’s decision to accept information and make a behavioral change. It is by understanding the importance of these characteristics that health and program-related messages can be targeted to the beneficiary in effective ways.”



CORRUPTION CHRONICLES

Clinton Hosts Islamic World Forum For Obama In D.C.

U.S. Pays To Upgrade Mexican Trucks

Florida's Governor Slapped With Ethics Complaint

$1 Billion Obamacare Initiative Will “Keep Patients Safe”

Why Did Obama DOJ Prosecute Anti-Communist CIA Agent?

Pentagon: Mexican Drug Cartels Threaten Entire U.S.

USDA Spends $5 Mil To Recruit Food-Stamp Recipients

So, in other words, the Obama administration is paying hired guns a lot of your money to manipulate you into “accepting” the Obama way and “changing” your behavior.



That’s certainly what HHS was trying to do with a series of three Medicare television advertisements featuring actor Andy Griffith. As Judicial Watch uncovered through FOIA, the Obama Administration spent $3,184,000 in taxpayer funds to produce and air the advertisements on national television in September and October 2010.



The administration said it was merely trying to “educate” Medicare beneficiaries, caregivers, and family members “about forthcoming changes to Medicare as a result of the Affordable Care Act.” However, according to FactCheck.org, a project of the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center, the advertisements intentionally misinformed the American people.



There was nothing “educational” about the Griffith ads. And there is nothing “educational” about this $200 million multimedia Obamacare propaganda campaign. These records prove the administration is using taxpayer dollars to manipulate public opinion, while, at the same time, getting a leg-up in the reelection campaign by targeting the Obama electoral coalition with positive but misleading messages about the president’s “signature policy initiative.”



This Big Brother campaign is most certainly underhanded, potentially unlawful, and it must be stopped. If Congress is looking for a place to trim the deficit, this is a good place to start.

Brace For Larger Deficits As Law-Makers Re-Think Health Care Law's Medicare Cuts

From The Heritage Foundation:

Brace for Larger Deficits as Lawmakers Rethink Health Care Law’s Medicare Cuts








Obamacare will cost Americans trillions of dollars in the decades to come. To help pay for its new coverage provisions, the plan makes sweeping cuts to Medicare.



But as it turns out, serious doubts exist about the likelihood of these cuts actually occurring, and evidence has already shown that lawmakers may shy away from some of the cuts. If the planned savings don’t materialize, the health care overhaul will add even more to deficit spending than already expected, further jeopardizing the nation’s fiscal future.

The Scoop



House Moves Toward Draining Obamacare Slush Funds



Heritage Responds to House GOP 2012 Budget and its Medicare and Medicaid Reforms



Health Care Exchanges: Obamacare Isn't the Answer



Order Now: Why Obamacare is Wrong for America



Commentary: The 'Untouchable' $23.6 Billion ObamaCare Fallacy





Both the director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Medicare Chief Actuary warn that Medicare cuts made by Obamacare will be difficult to sustain in the long term. In January, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf wrote:



“Current law now includes a number of policies that might be difficult to sustain over a long period of time. … If those provisions would have subsequently been modified or implemented incompletely, then the budgetary effects of repealing [the law] and the relevant provisions of the Reconciliation Act could be quite different—but CBO cannot forecast future changes in law or assume such changes in its estimates.”



Soon after Obamacare was passed into law, Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster wrote that seniors’ access to care would be threatened as a result of reductions in payment updates included in the new law. Foster wrote, “[P]roviders for whom Medicare constitutes a substantive portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable and, absent legislative intervention, might end their participation in the program.”



Now, lawmakers have already begun to squirm under the political pressure to prevent the planned cuts to seniors’ care. In a recent article, The Hill highlighted the fact that Senators on both sides of the aisle promised to fight proposed cuts to the home health care industry under the new law. According to Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), “Deep cuts in access to home healthcare takes us in completely the wrong direction at a time when we’re trying to control costs.” Collins, along with Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA), plans to introduce legislation that would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to justify her reasons for cutting payments to home health care.



Obamacare’s cuts to home health care agencies are projected to generate $39.7 billion in savings over the next decade. Since “savings” in the new law are dedicated to covering the expense of new coverage provisions—not to addressing Medicare’s $30.8 trillion in unfunded obligations—if they don’t materialize, more of the cost of Obamacare will be added to the federal deficit.



Medicare spending must be restrained to ensure its long-term viability, so any savings found should be used to extend the solvency of the program itself. Instead, Obamacare relies on savings from Medicare to offset an expansion of Medicaid and hefty new subsidies for low- and middle-income Americans. Repealing or delaying the cuts used to pay for the unpopular new law will only speed up the process by which Obamacare will add to federal deficit spending.

Senate Leadership In North Carolina Hires La Raza Supporter To Re-District

From ALIPAC:

Senate Leadership Hires La Raza Supporter To Redistrict




For National Release



April 14, 2011



Contact: Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC)

WilliamG@alipac.us (866) 703-0864



In a move that will send shock waves across North Carolina, Senator Bob Rucho (R-Mecklenburg) has hired Matty Lazo-Chadderton who is a member of the illegal alien amnesty supporting groups La Raza and El Pueblo to help redraw Senate districts which will be used to elect lawmakers for the next ten years.



Matty Lazo-Chadderton also served as one of Democratic leader Marc Basnight's top tier employees, before Republicans displaced the Democrats in the NC Senate for the first time in 130 years in 2011. She was Basnight's Director of Hispanic/Latino Affairs and is currently a Democratic Party precinct chair!



ALIPAC's President spoke out against Lazo-Chadderton's hiring for redistricting during a hearing on redistricting yesterday.



"It is against the public's interest to allow anyone involved in special interests and issue advocacy to have the power to influence redistricting, especially when that person supports radical positions in favor of Amnesty for illegal immigrants," said William Gheen, President of ALIPAC. "The public will be dismayed that they voted for historic change in NC, but find the new boss is the same as the old boss in parts of the Senate."



Several Republican lawmakers were shocked to learn that a top tier employee of Marc Basnight and supporter of El Pueblo and La Raza would be hired by the GOP Leadership in the Senate.



Illegal immigration foes, who had hoped 2011 would be the year that state legislation designed to protect American workers, students, taxpayers, and voters would finally be debated and voted on, will be disappointed that Senator Rucho's actions are backed by Senate President Phil Berger.



William Gheen then spoke with Senator Berger leaving the Senate Chamber and Berger indicated that he supported Senator Rucho's decision.



Senate President Phil Berger recently assigned immigration enforcement bill HB 33 to the Rules Committee, which is where the Democrats always sent bills to die without discussion or votes. The NC Senate Rules Committee is chaired by Senator Tom Apodaca who is a member of the National Hispanic Caucus of State Legislators (NHCSL) which opposes state level immigration enforcement.



A lot of conservative lawmakers at the NC General Assembly have growing concerns about what is happening with the top leadership right now. The hiring of Staff members who engage in highly unprofessional ego trip behavior and who have affiliations with illegal alien amnesty supporting organizations bodes ill for those hoping for improvements in governance under Republicans instead of Democrats.



New Senate district lines may be drawn in a way which harms conservative lawmakers who have supported illegal immigration control bills, while favoring the election of lawmakers more supportive of the La Raza amnesty agenda.



"Most Republican lawmakers do not want amnesty supporting Democratic precinct officers drawing their districts and I hope they will share that concern with Berger and Rucho," said William Gheen. "It breaks my heart to have to share this news with the public. But it appears today that agents supportive of the invasion of America have sway over Senate President Phil Berger, redistricting, and immigration bills, more than the citizens of North Carolina. We must rectify this situation."



Members of the media and public can direct their inquiries and concerns about these matters to NC Senate President Phil Berger (919-733-5708), Rules Chairman Tom Apodaca (919-733-5745), and Redistricting Chairman Bob Rucho (919-733-5655).



William Gheen is preparing an open letter to Senator Berger today which will be sent to each North Carolina lawmaker and placed upon the website www.ALIPAC.us

Boundless Immigration: The Silent Killer Of The Welfare State

From Red State:

Boundless Immigration: The Silent Killer of the Welfare State






There is no better time to reform our reckless immigration system.





Posted by dhorowitz3 (Profile)



Tuesday, April 12th at 12:53PM EDT

20 Comments



As we finally embark on the imperative discussion of entitlement reform, we cannot overlook immigration and its disproportionate effect on the welfare state.



Our immigration system is stuck in the Kennedy days of the 1960’s when our population was half of what it is today. Over the past few decades, in addition to the migration of 12 million+ illegals, we have allowed legal immigration to spiral out of control. We no longer promote an immigration system which benefits Americans, rather an unsustainable system of chain migration. This system encourages immigration which is too random, too low skilled, and quite simply too much. While our historical average for annual immigration ranged from 200,000-400,000, the current inane system has allowed for over 1 million new immigrants almost every year for the past decade. Again, a disproportionate number of those immigrants are low skilled.



There are obviously numerous challenges that are endemic in such a reckless immigration system, but the detrimental factor that is most relevant to the budget fight is the strain on our welfare system. Yesterday, Steven Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies published a timely study on the impact of immigration on the welfare state. Here are some key findings:

•In 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children.

•Households with children with the highest welfare use rates are those headed by immigrants from the Dominican Republic (82 percent), Mexico and Guatemala (75 percent), and Ecuador (70 percent). Those with the lowest use rates are from the United Kingdom (7 percent), India (19 percent), Canada (23 percent), and Korea (25 percent).

•The states where immigrant households with children have the highest welfare use rates are Arizona (62 percent); Texas, California, and New York (61 percent); Pennsylvania (59 percent); Minnesota and Oregon (56 percent); and Colorado (55 percent).

•Welfare use tends to be high for both new arrivals and established residents. In 2009, 60 percent of households with children headed by an immigrant who arrived in 2000 or later used at least one welfare program; for households headed by immigrants who arrived before 2000 it was 55 percent.







Undoubtedly, as many have suggested, immigration in general has been good for the country throughout most of our history. However, the puerile platitudes from immigration advocates concerning the benefits of immigration are as vapid as an unqualified declaration of the advantages of calorie intake to the human body. Yes, a certain amount is absolutely necessary for the body to function. A further increase in calorie intake might be innocuous in its effects. However, overindulgence in calorie consumption is inimical to the body. Furthermore, if the calories come from certain things like saturated fat, they can be harmful even in smaller quantities. Just ask Michelle Obama.



Our immigration system works the same way. We need a certain amount of immigration to sustain our growth and continue the American tradition to be the land of opportunity for those who seek liberty. But if we continue to invite an unlimited number of immigrants and grant a disproportionate bias towards low skilled newcomers, we will no longer serve the best interests of the American citizens. Any serious immigration system must be judicious in the numbers of immigrants, their origin (national security concerns), and their potential as an asset to this country. Instead, we have a system based on chain migration, and in some ways, even a random lottery.



The last time we invited so many immigrants was during the great immigration wave from 1880-1924. At that time, there was no robust welfare state to join as a permanent rent-seeker. Now, the welfare state is so entrenched that even the boldest reform plans merely call for a reduction in the rate of increase, or the reinstatement to pre-Obama levels. How are we ever going to control the entitlement crisis if we continue this reckless immigration policy?



Needless to say, illegal aliens are an even larger burden to the welfare system than legal immigrants. According to the CIS study, a whopping 71% of illegal alien households benefited from at least one welfare program on behalf of their U.S. born children, compared to 52% of legal immigrant households. If we were to grant them “a pathway to citizenship” as many Democrats and far too many Republicans suggest, they would have access to the full litany of welfare programs that are available to American citizens.



Yet, even minor state enforcement laws are met with well-funded and cumbersome lawsuits funded by George Soros and the ACLU. Not surprisingly, the 9th Circuit agreed to uphold a stay on Arizona’s immigration law yesterday. Arizona has the highest per capita burden of immigration welfare; yet, due to our convoluted system, they must wait years for a chance to secure their future.



Some states like Maryland have adopted the opposite approach. Yesterday, the Maryland General Assembly approved in-state tuition for illegal aliens. Without a real push for reform from Republicans in Washington, we will become a lawless nation.



As we propose ideas to reform the entitlement conundrum, it would be naive to ignore the need for immigration reform and its relevance to entitlement spending. It is time to engage in a mature discussion about the future of our immigration policy without the demagoguery and the race baiting that is employed by the left and the Bush Republicans. Our eventual presidential nominee must be willing to seriously address illegal and legal immigration reform. Immigration is the sort of issue that separates the men from the boys among conservatives. Any presidential candidate who is serious about curbing the growth of entitlements must be willing to curb the growth of immigration to some degree.



If we fail to modernize our immigration system, not only will we have a permanent entitlement crisis, we will have a permanent Democrat majority.

Boundless Immigration: The Silent Killer Of The Welfare State

From Red State:

Boundless Immigration: The Silent Killer of the Welfare State






There is no better time to reform our reckless immigration system.





Posted by dhorowitz3 (Profile)



Tuesday, April 12th at 12:53PM EDT

20 Comments



As we finally embark on the imperative discussion of entitlement reform, we cannot overlook immigration and its disproportionate effect on the welfare state.



Our immigration system is stuck in the Kennedy days of the 1960’s when our population was half of what it is today. Over the past few decades, in addition to the migration of 12 million+ illegals, we have allowed legal immigration to spiral out of control. We no longer promote an immigration system which benefits Americans, rather an unsustainable system of chain migration. This system encourages immigration which is too random, too low skilled, and quite simply too much. While our historical average for annual immigration ranged from 200,000-400,000, the current inane system has allowed for over 1 million new immigrants almost every year for the past decade. Again, a disproportionate number of those immigrants are low skilled.



There are obviously numerous challenges that are endemic in such a reckless immigration system, but the detrimental factor that is most relevant to the budget fight is the strain on our welfare system. Yesterday, Steven Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies published a timely study on the impact of immigration on the welfare state. Here are some key findings:

•In 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children.

•Households with children with the highest welfare use rates are those headed by immigrants from the Dominican Republic (82 percent), Mexico and Guatemala (75 percent), and Ecuador (70 percent). Those with the lowest use rates are from the United Kingdom (7 percent), India (19 percent), Canada (23 percent), and Korea (25 percent).

•The states where immigrant households with children have the highest welfare use rates are Arizona (62 percent); Texas, California, and New York (61 percent); Pennsylvania (59 percent); Minnesota and Oregon (56 percent); and Colorado (55 percent).

•Welfare use tends to be high for both new arrivals and established residents. In 2009, 60 percent of households with children headed by an immigrant who arrived in 2000 or later used at least one welfare program; for households headed by immigrants who arrived before 2000 it was 55 percent.







Undoubtedly, as many have suggested, immigration in general has been good for the country throughout most of our history. However, the puerile platitudes from immigration advocates concerning the benefits of immigration are as vapid as an unqualified declaration of the advantages of calorie intake to the human body. Yes, a certain amount is absolutely necessary for the body to function. A further increase in calorie intake might be innocuous in its effects. However, overindulgence in calorie consumption is inimical to the body. Furthermore, if the calories come from certain things like saturated fat, they can be harmful even in smaller quantities. Just ask Michelle Obama.



Our immigration system works the same way. We need a certain amount of immigration to sustain our growth and continue the American tradition to be the land of opportunity for those who seek liberty. But if we continue to invite an unlimited number of immigrants and grant a disproportionate bias towards low skilled newcomers, we will no longer serve the best interests of the American citizens. Any serious immigration system must be judicious in the numbers of immigrants, their origin (national security concerns), and their potential as an asset to this country. Instead, we have a system based on chain migration, and in some ways, even a random lottery.



The last time we invited so many immigrants was during the great immigration wave from 1880-1924. At that time, there was no robust welfare state to join as a permanent rent-seeker. Now, the welfare state is so entrenched that even the boldest reform plans merely call for a reduction in the rate of increase, or the reinstatement to pre-Obama levels. How are we ever going to control the entitlement crisis if we continue this reckless immigration policy?



Needless to say, illegal aliens are an even larger burden to the welfare system than legal immigrants. According to the CIS study, a whopping 71% of illegal alien households benefited from at least one welfare program on behalf of their U.S. born children, compared to 52% of legal immigrant households. If we were to grant them “a pathway to citizenship” as many Democrats and far too many Republicans suggest, they would have access to the full litany of welfare programs that are available to American citizens.



Yet, even minor state enforcement laws are met with well-funded and cumbersome lawsuits funded by George Soros and the ACLU. Not surprisingly, the 9th Circuit agreed to uphold a stay on Arizona’s immigration law yesterday. Arizona has the highest per capita burden of immigration welfare; yet, due to our convoluted system, they must wait years for a chance to secure their future.



Some states like Maryland have adopted the opposite approach. Yesterday, the Maryland General Assembly approved in-state tuition for illegal aliens. Without a real push for reform from Republicans in Washington, we will become a lawless nation.



As we propose ideas to reform the entitlement conundrum, it would be naive to ignore the need for immigration reform and its relevance to entitlement spending. It is time to engage in a mature discussion about the future of our immigration policy without the demagoguery and the race baiting that is employed by the left and the Bush Republicans. Our eventual presidential nominee must be willing to seriously address illegal and legal immigration reform. Immigration is the sort of issue that separates the men from the boys among conservatives. Any presidential candidate who is serious about curbing the growth of entitlements must be willing to curb the growth of immigration to some degree.



If we fail to modernize our immigration system, not only will we have a permanent entitlement crisis, we will have a permanent Democrat majority.

Obama Regime DHS Launches Community Outreach To Muslims, (Illegal) Immigrants

From Creeping Sharia and Floyd Reports:

DHS Launches Community Outreach to Muslims, (Illegal) Immigrants






Posted by Ben on April 12, 2011 · Comments (17)





Creeping Sharia Blog







A pilot pandering program, just like at the FBI and CIA (see related links below). via Homeland Security launches community outreach.





CHICAGO
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is “taking it to the streets.” At least that’s the motto behind a new pilot program aimed at combating the negative image that some community groups have about the department.



The program is being launched next week in Chicago to dispel stereotypes, mistrust and misinformation about the department and its agencies, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection.



The idea is to bring together DHS officials with immigrants, Muslims and other groups to encourage them to reach out with any questions or concerns.



“All they see is that we’re standing at the borders, searching luggage,” said Robyn Dessaure, a Homeland Security field director, about Customs and Border Protection. “It’s time for us to get back on the ground.”



Officials hope the Chicago program would become a template for similar outreach nationwide.



Meeting with community groups to help build trust and get information is nothing new — the FBI has held meetings at mosques for years — but the Chicago program attempts to bring together different branches that typically don’t work together.



And all the FBI got in return was a lawsuit by Muslims and demands to make public FBI operating procedures. Oh and Hamas-linked CAIR and other Muslim groups boycotted working with the FBI.

 
DHS launches community outreach to Muslims, (illegal) immigrants




Posted on April 7, 2011 by creeping





A pilot pandering program, just like at the FBI and CIA (see related links below). via Homeland Security launches community outreach.



CHICAGO
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is “taking it to the streets.” At least that’s the motto behind a new pilot program aimed at combating the negative image that some community groups have about the department.



The program is being launched next week in Chicago to dispel stereotypes, mistrust and misinformation about the department and its agencies, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection.



The idea is to bring together DHS officials with immigrants, Muslims and other groups to encourage them to reach out with any questions or concerns.



“All they see is that we’re standing at the borders, searching luggage,” said Robyn Dessaure, a Homeland Security field director, about Customs and Border Protection. “It’s time for us to get back on the ground.”



Officials hope the Chicago program would become a template for similar outreach nationwide.



Meeting with community groups to help build trust and get information is nothing new — the FBI has held meetings at mosques for years — but the Chicago program attempts to bring together different branches that typically don’t work together.



And all the FBI got in return was a lawsuit by Muslims and demands to make FBI operating procedures public. Oh and Hamas-linked CAIR and other Muslim groups boycotted working with the FBI. More like a reach-around.





The idea was born out of a unique situation in Chicago last summer.



Residents in a Muslim enclave on Chicago’s North Side expressed concerns about post 9/11 racial profiling and called on federal officials to meet with residents and leaders. The result were meetings that started out rough — there was palpable frustration in the room as a few dozen Muslim residents talked about feeling targeted.



But some neighborhood residents and leaders said they have helped. While tensions between federal agents are hardly quelled, more than 100 people attended by the end.



The new program’s kickoff event is Monday at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Several organizations including student groups and the Polish American Chamber of Commerce have been invited.



That hotbed of terrorism that is the Polish American community. Can anyone find out if the Muslim Brotherhood-linked Muslim Student Association was invited?



Alheli Herrera, an organizer for Enlace Chicago, said the nonprofit community group has been invited and will hear what federal officials have to say. But they’re cautious.



“The perception of ICE in our community is that that they are out to get us and especially get people who are here without status,” she said. “We’re willing to work with them, but it’s taken with a huge spoonful of skepticism.”



The perception Herrera gives is hat she is harboring illegal aliens. If you are here without status that usually means you are here ILLEGALY and ICE “identifies and apprehends removable aliens, detains these individuals when necessary and removes illegal aliens from the U.S.” Or at least they are supposed to, and much more, according to their website.



Related posts:

•Obama taps Muslim for top job at federal DHS

•Another Jihad Nominee at Dept of Homeland Security

•More Islamic policy influence at DHS

•Radical Arab group gets Muslim inside the TSA

•Muslims setting Muslim policy at Pentagon

•Muslim groups belittling F.B.I. into submission

•More Muslim recruiting at CIA (video)

•CIA launches Muslim recruitment drive

Let The Battle Begin

From Human Events--Guns & Patriots:




Let the Battle Begin



by Hugh Bouchelle





04/12/2011















An airline pilot might call it a near miss.



But while I wasn't hoping for a government shut-down, I wasn't fearing it either.

I thought of it like any other federal holiday, employees take a vacation day or two, a few tourists are inconvenienced, and the world continues to spin - with a little less DC traffic during rush hour.











Regardless, the threat of a shutdown served as a great attention getter for the coming budget battle only now heating up. A battle I expect will determine whether we become another European style socialist nation or move back toward our roots of individual freedom and responsibility that made this country great.



On one side are socialist liberals, who, for the sake of power, want government to control as much of our daily lives as possible. They believe that enlightened government officials can decide better than the average citizen what is best for them - a philosophy in direct contrast to the way the Founding Fathers saw things.



On the other side are those who believe the proper role of government is to support the people in their pursuit of happiness, as they see it. They recognize that along with the freedom to succeed, must, by necessity, come the freedom to fail. This ideal of individual freedom and responsibility is arguably the biggest single factor in the greatness of the United States.



Americans are a caring people, and we decided long ago that reasonable safety nets for those who fall are a legitimate function of government. Yet these things must be done with wisdom and prudence so as to not destroy the wealth building system that makes the safety nets possible. And that's where we are at today.



Thanks to the arrogance and appetite for power of too many of our leaders, those willing to play on the natural desire of people for handouts, we are moving dangerously close to socialism, a system that is historically ineffective, where eventual bankruptcy is certain, and where great civilizations crumble.



Everyone agrees that we must get spending under control. But like the addict returning to the needle, it is hard to break the cycle of power bought with government issued goodies. That is exactly what is happening in Wisconsin, where unions are seeing their investment in this cycle destroyed by a Governor willing to make tough decisions to balance the budget.



But even President Obama is now heralding what everyone has known for years. "Beginning to live within our means is the only way to protect those investments that will help America compete for new jobs." I wish he had added, "and continue to live as a free and independent people."



However, as many state governors are already discovering, bringing an overweight budget back into line is fraught with political hazards. The recent near shutdown is a perfect example.

This year, the federal government will spend close to four trillion dollars. To pay that four trillion, we will have to take out 1.5 trillion in new loans from our creditors. The 37.7 billion that the government has now cut from the budget (only at the threat of a shutdown) was less than one percent of the total spending for the year. And it was less than two percent of the amount we will take out in loans.



That's like if you and your spouse have a monthly budget of $4,000 dollars, and you are threatening to move out rather than cut $36.00.



Yet Senator Harry Reid, who fought against this miniscule cut, tooth and nail, now declares after the battle, “We must get our fiscal house in order ...We've agreed to an historic level of cuts for this fiscal year."



What's sad is that these probably were historic cuts, but perhaps it is an early sign of the

direction the country is finally willing to go.



Remember, there are only two legitimate ways to reduce the debt: raise revenue (taxes) or decrease spending. But spending cuts means less government while raising taxes means more. Which do you think the liberals prefer?



So now the real battle begins. To make any significant cuts in the federal budget we will have to address big entitlements like Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. This can be done without hurting people, just like the highly successful welfare reform of the 1990s did by creating programs that encourage personal responsibility and thrift.



House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan said, "We are facing the most predictable crisis in the history of our country." And then, he came up with a plan which puts control of Medicaid more under the control of the states, puts Medicare more under the control of those who use it, freezes spending at 2008 levels and affects no one's Medicare over the age of 55.



It is not a perfect plan, but it was bold, courageous move which gives more timid legislators a place to start.



In putting forth this plan, Ryan has set himself up to be targeted (destroyed if possible) by the punditry of the left who see their means to power slipping away, just like in Wisconsin.



But just like the good pilot who, after committing to take you to Chicago, discovers a fuel leak and decides to land in Charleston, do you really want him to fly on - do you?







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hugh Bouchelle is a former Army, Special Forces Medic who as flown everything from Apaches to Blackhawk Medivac�s. He is a former Maryland State Trooper and Medivac Pilot and later went to work for FEMA where he responded to the events of

All Quiet On The Southern Front?

From Human Events--Guns & Patriots:




All Quiet on the Southern Front?



by Oliver North





04/12/2011















WASHINGTON -- According to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, everything is hunky-dory on America's southern border. In her public appearances and speeches, Napolitano consistently claims that things along our side of the U.S.-Mexico border are "safer than ever" and that "spillover violence" is simply "a widespread misperception." In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed column she co-authored with Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, Napolitano claimed, "The Southwest Border Is Open for Business." Unfortunately, too much of the business is in drugs, murder and mayhem -- and business is good.



"Illegal immigration is decreasing. Deportations are increasing. And crime rates have gone down." Those oft-repeated assertions by the Obama administration make a nice sound bite, but like so many other things coming from the O-Team, the facts don't square with the rhetoric. As usual, there's more to the story -- and very little of it is being covered by the so-called mainstream media.



Less than 24 hours after Napolitano and Locke boasted about how "major investments to renovate and expand outdated ports of entry" have improved cross-border trade and "bolstered security," two American citizens were murdered while waiting to come into the U.S. at the San Ysidro port of entry, south of San Diego. The incident was buried by the potentates of the press, but Fox News correspondent William La Jeunesse reported the victims were killed by a lone male gunman, who calmly "walked through the lanes of traffic and boldly unloaded five rounds from a 9-mm. handgun." Apparently, the Obama administration's "improvements" on the border do not include long-range, high-resolution cameras capable of identifying a perpetrator just a few yards into Mexico.











In the past four months, two federal law officers have been murdered by heavily armed criminals. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed 13 miles deep in Arizona on the night of Dec. 14-15. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Special Agent Jaime Zapata was assassinated south of Monterrey, Mexico, on Feb. 15. Napolitano offers reassurance by throwing out numbers. She says federal agents "seized 81 percent more currency, 25 percent more drugs and 47 percent more weapons" last year than they did during the final year of the Bush administration. She also contends that apprehensions of illegal aliens "have dropped by 36 percent over the past two years to less than a third of its all-time high."



The National Border Patrol Council, a union representing Border Patrol agents, isn't buying into the numbers game. In a statement posted March 25, the NBPC said: "Mexico is hemorrhaging violence and we are being hit with the splatter. The U.S.-Mexico border is unsafe and to say anything else is not true."



Auditors at the U.S. Government Accountability Office also maintain that Napolitano's numbers don't add up. According to the congressional bean counters, "over the last three years, apprehensions on federal lands (820 miles of the 2,000-mile border) have not kept pace with Border Patrol estimates." The GAO reports the number of "illegal entries" in 2009 was three times higher than the number of apprehensions.



Sheriff Larry Dever of Cochise County, Ariz., agrees. When our Fox News' "War Stories" team interviewed him for a documentary titled "The Third Front," he described the situation along his 82-mile stretch of the U.S.-Mexico boundary as "under siege." Last week, Dever explained how the Department of Homeland Security cooks the books and why drug, gun and money stats are up while apprehensions are down. He has told his outgunned and outnumbered deputies that the Border Patrol's mission is "not to catch anyone, arrest anyone. Their job was to set up posture, to intimidate people, to get them to go back."



All of this pales in comparison with charges now being investigated by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. They want to know whether the Department of Justice is complicit in illegally exporting thousands of firearms being used to threaten and kill American citizens on both sides of the border. According to congressional sources and court documents, weapons recovered after the murders of federal agents Terry and Zapata are linked to a DOJ-approved undercover operation dubbed "Fast and Furious."



Several current and former federal agents allege that the operation began in 2010 as a way to "take down" a major cartel and that it all went seriously awry. One congressional investigator asserts that the DOJ "all but ordered" licensed firearms dealers to "facilitate" the sale of guns to "known and suspected criminals who were illegally moving the weapons across the border." If these charges are borne out, it was all kept secret from Mexican President Felipe Calderon -- as he wages war against drug lords, who have killed nearly 35,000 of his countrymen.



U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder promises that his inspector general will "fully investigate the matter." And this week in San Fernando, Mexico -- just 50 miles from Texas -- authorities found 59 "freshly buried bodies in mass graves." They were apparently all passengers on a bus that was hijacked March 25. All quiet on our southern front, indeed.







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lt. Col. North (Ret.) is a nationally syndicated columnist and the author of the FOX News/Regnery books, "War Stories: Operation Iraqi Freedom," "War Stories II: Heroism in the Pacific" and "War Stories III: The Heroes Who Defeated Hitler." Lt. North hosts "War Stories Investigates: Drugs, Money and Narco-Terror" Saturday, Aug. 22, at 3 p.m. and 9 p.m. EDT on Fox News Channel.

More Mass Graves Unearthed In Mexico

From Homeland Security NewsWire:


Mexico warMore mass graves unearthed in Mexico



Published 12 April 2011



The number of bodies found in mass graves in north-eastern Mexico over the past week has risen to 88, after 16 more corpses were discovered; the graves are the largest concentration ever found in one area in Mexico; a gang member who participated in the killing told police that most of the victims were travelling through the area on buses; the motive for the killings remains unclear; the graves resemble the discovery last August of the bodies of seventy-two Central and South American migrants, who were killed in the same town for refusing to join the ranks of the cartel which had abducted them





Mass graves believed to contain Latino migrants // Source: presstv.ir



The number of bodies found in mass graves in north-eastern Mexico over the past week has risen to 88, after 16 more corpses were discovered. Investigators found four new graves in San Fernando, not far from the U.S. border.



The BBC reports that they were tipped-off by a suspect who was detained on Saturday. Police said he had confessed to the kidnapping and subsequent killing of dozens of victims, who were travelling through the area on buses. Last Thursday, police found fifty-nine bodies in eight mass graves in San Fernando, in Tamaulipas state. Thirteen more bodies were discovered the following day in two other graves. The graves are the largest concentration ever found in one area in Mexico.



The BBC quotes officials to say that sixteen people have been arrested in connection with the discovery of the mass graves, but the motive for the killings remains unclear.



The gruesome find resembles the discovery last August of the bodies of seventy-two Central and South American migrants, who were killed in the same town for refusing to join the ranks of the cartel which had abducted them.



Tamaulipas state, where the mass graves where found, is at the centre of a bloody battle between rival drug gangs for control of the lucrative drug-smuggling routes to the United States.



Around 35,000 people have been killed in drug-related violence in Mexico since President Felipe Calderon declared war on the country’s drug cartels.



AFP reports that while authorities have not assigned blame, there is a fierce battle in northeastern Mexico over control of lucrative drug smuggling routes into the United States between the Zetas — a ruthless cartel run by former Mexican anti-drug commandos — and their former employers, the Gulf Cartel.



Seven major drug gangs are operating in Mexico.



In addition to the 35,000 killed, the country’s Human Rights Commission said more than 5,000 people have been reported missing in Mexico, and many are presumed to be victims of the drug war.

SEIU Demonstrates Its Lack Of Civility With "Civil Dis-Obedience"

From Red State:

SEIU Demonstrates Its Lack of Civility With ‘Civil Disobedience’












Posted by LaborUnionReport (Profile)



Monday, April 11th at 7:30AM EDT

14 Comments



You’ve certainly seen enough video footage of the unruly union mobs in Madison, WI for the last two months. Well, the SEIU has taken its mob show on the road and, like the pioneers of old, headed West.







For the last week, SEIU protesters have been demonstrating at the Washington State Capitol–a state largely controlled by Democrats. Late Thursday, however, the SEIU took its protests to a whole new level by attacking state troopers as the purple people beaters tried to push and shove their way into Democrat Governor Christine Gregoire’s office.





Demonstrators were forced out of a legislative gallery and stopped by state troopers outside Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire’s office, said Robert Calkins, spokesman for the Washington State Patrol.



About 400 protesters were in the building, loud but orderly, Calkins told CNN. Some tried to rush to Gregoire’s office.



“There were a group that planned to be arrested and they were accommodated,” Calkins said. “We’re happy to have people come down and express their opinion, but we want it to be safe for everyone involved.”



One protester kicked an officer and elbowed another and was booked on two counts of third-degree assault, Calkins said. Sixteen protesters were charged with disorderly conduct and released.



Below are two clips of the confrontation in Olympia.



The first clip comes via Gateway Pundit:











This second clip comes via The Blaze:











Thankfully, unlike what happened to GOP lawmakers in Wisconsin, at least there were no death threats made to Democrat lawmakers in Olympia…



Oh, wait!



This is only the first week.



_________________



“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776



Cross-posted @LaborUnionReport.com.

Children Of The Corn: How Ethanol Damages America

From Red State:

Children Of The Corn – How Ethanol Damages America!












Posted by Repair_Man_Jack (Profile)



Monday, April 11th at 9:50AM EDT

33 Comments





The market for ethanol is propped up by the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), a Soviet-style production quota. Conservatives should be appalled by this reversion to Stalin-era central planning. Should taxpayers have to subsidize ethanol too?



- (HT: globalwarming.org)



So let’s make a deal! I’ll give you a new source of fuel that has 1/3 the energy of your gasoline. In return for that, I’ll dramatically decrease the food supply. As a result of this screaming bargain, you’ll end up spending more cash on gasoline to make up for the lost power from this new fuel additive. And furthermore, once we’ve obliterated metric tons of food production, governments all over the Middle East will become destabilized and disrupt the original supply of fuel we were using before I offered you this bargain. If this sounds about as enticing as the offer Agent Smith made to Cypher Reagan, that only means you are intelligent and have been paying attention.







This pretty much describes the byzantine set of government mandates aimed at making us put corn juice in the gas tanks of our cars. As a result of this failed science experiment, botched on a national level, we now pay more for this alternative fuel and get worse gas mileage. On average, E85 vehicles cost $4.16 to drive the same distance you could typically drive with 1 gallon of regular unleaded for $3.77. The E85 is cheaper per gallon, but it lacks power, and you have to burn more to go the same distance you would with regular unleaded gasoline.



Ethanol is primarily protected from competition by the VEETC (Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit) which exempts ethanol fuel from $0.45 of taxation per gallon. Senators Tom Coburn and Benjamin Cardin have co-sponsored legislation to eliminate this giveaway. These gentlemen may have been inspired to eviscerate this travesty as a result of recent data from the CBO. Details follow below.





The costs to taxpayers of using a biofuel to reduce gasoline consumption by one gallon are $1.78 for ethanol made from corn and $3.00 for cellulosic ethanol. The cost of reducing an equivalent amount of diesel fuel (that is, a quantity having the same amount of energy as a gallon of gasoline) using biodiesel is $2.55, based on the tax policy in place through last year.



Similarly, the costs to taxpayers of reducing greenhouse gas emissions through the biofuel tax credits vary by fuel: about $750 per metric ton of CO2 (that is, per metric ton of greenhouse gases measured in terms of an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide) for ethanol, about $275 per metric ton of CO2 for cellulosic ethanol, and about $300 per metric ton of CO2 for biodiesel.



(HT: CBO.gov)



By comparison, the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill estimated fair value offset prices between $25-$93 dollars depending upon emissions category. (Please see page xii in link). So, from anywhere from 3 to 25 times the recommended Waxman-Markey GHG offset prices for a metric ton of pollution, ethanol can bring cleaner air to a place near you!



According to Kenneth Gloser of The Heritage Foundation, US government policy is on track to make us consume 15Bn Gallons of ethanol by 2015 - against a predicted market demand of 9.8. Thus, by forcing the consumption of more ethanol, we get the BTU equivalent of 3.5Bn gallons of gasoline in exchange for 5.2Bn gallons of ethanol. After this 33% forcing of ethanol consumption, we will successfully replace 1.8% of the oil we import from abroad. The program was targeted to replace 25% of by 2025. I’m certain DOE’s Lean Six Sigma boys have a miracle in the works!(/sarc).



The effects of ethanol on US foreign policy have been deleterious in even the best case scenario. What happened in Egypt was not a best case scenario. Spengler of The East Asia Times describes how Eqypt was (and still is) vulnerable to any major policy that makes agricultural commodities cost more.





Egypt is the world’s largest wheat importer, beholden to foreign providers for nearly half its total food consumption. Half of Egyptians live on less than $2 a day. Food comprises almost half the country’s consumer price index, and much more than half of spending for the poorer half of the country.



(HT:Asia Times)



This discombobulating impact can be said without loss of generality to Tunisia, Iran, Pakistan, and Syria. These particular governments are nothing to laud or aspire to; however, the alternatives seem primarily groups like Al-Qaeda, The Muslim Brotherhood or Hamas. Any US policy that strengthens the ability of these people to control territory and manpower enables them to plan more terrorism and thereby drive up the cost of a safe and secure America. Thus, the ethanol policy also raises the Bin Ladin Tax that has added to our economic hardships in the US.



Ethanol, like the awful characters in the Stephen King story Children of The Corn, is something that we absolutely don’t need to encourage. A market demand, of smaller dimension, exists for some of this fuel. Let the market meet this demand and back off the Kremlin Era central planning. Thus, when Senators Coburn, Webb, Feinstein and Cardin all four agree that ethanol should become decreasingly mandatory or protected, this is an example of Senatorial bipartisanship at its best. All four of these people are telling Washington DC to stop screwing this up. Call your senators and request their support of S. 520 and S. 530 today.

"We Are One!"--Unions And Communists Rally In Chicago

From Red State:

“We Are One!” — Unions and Communists Rally in Chicago












Posted by LaborUnionReport (Profile)



Monday, April 11th at 1:15PM EDT

16 Comments



You could say that they are one now. At least, there’s no denying they’re breaking bread and sipping from the same can of alphabet soup these days under the banner of so-called “solidarity.”



Over the weekend, thousands of union workers crowded in Chicago’s Daley Plaza to show their solidarity(!) with their union comrades in Wisconsin.



According to the Chicago Sun Times:





Laborers, carpenters, electricians, machinists, sheet metal workers, police officers, firefighters, teachers, actors, writers and pharmacists from Illinois and surrounding states marched from corners of the Loop, waving pro-union banners and chanting “We are one.”



What? No mention of the Communists there to rally with their union brothers?



[via RebelPundit.com]









As the RebelPundit observed:





We have noticed an alarming message, prevalent at every single left wing protest we have attended this year in Chicago and the Midwest. While each protest has an official message of a seemingly less alarming cause, such as; Anti-War, Anti-Deportation or “We Are One” with “Union Solidarity”, there is also an extremely disturbing trend of blatant and obvious promotion of a revolutionary transformation of America into a new socialist or communist type of economic system.



[snip]



What was even more disturbing to us, was the amount of young children brought to the protest with their parents, holding signs which prominently advocate for a new alternative economic system in America, and being taught what we believe is a very “un-American” message, by the reoccurring theme these Chicago protests contain. Communist protesters at this rally even claim they are very patriotic for their advocacy to end capitalism in America.



Disturbing? Yes. However, apparently today’s trade-union members have no problem aligning themselves with Communists and their Marxist agenda. After all, they are all one now.

It's ObamaCare, Stupid!

From Red State:

It’s Obamacare, Stupid






Obamacare is not an extraneous issue to the budget fight. It is the fight.





Posted by dhorowitz3 (Profile)



Monday, April 11th at 6:44PM EDT

49 Comments



Many establishment conservatives are agog with joy over the grand sellout of a budget deal. They feel that John Boehner was the real winner in the debate. The problem is that they are all focusing on the dollar amount of the discretionary spending cuts. They are forgetting the 800-pound gorilla in the room; Obamacare. The cost of O-care to our economy, liberty, consumer choice, and health care system is incalculable; certainly ions more than the diminutive $38 billion (really $26 billion in new cuts) in discretionary cuts that were secured by Boehner.



The Wall Street Journal penned a disingenuous op-ed lauding the spending deal as the ” first victory for the Tea Party.” They further admonished conservatives for criticizing the deal. Here is what they had to say:





“Republicans also showed they are able to make the compromises required to govern. We realize that “governing” can often be an excuse for incumbent self-interest. But this early show of political maturity will demonstrate to independents that the freshmen and tea party Republicans they elected in November aren’t the yahoos of media lore. A government shutdown over a spending difference of $7 billion and some policy riders would have made the GOP look reckless for little return….



Now the battle moves to the debt ceiling increase and Paul Ryan’s new 2012 budget later this year, and there are lessons from this fight to keep in mind. One is to focus on spending and budget issues, not extraneous policy fights.” (emphasis added)



Let’s get this straight. Republicans won their biggest electoral victory in 70 years over the issue of Obamacare, yet it is merely an “extraneous policy fight” to the Journal’s editors? Republicans pledged to defund Obamacare and now they are admitting that they will never employ any meaningful tactic to force the issue. In fact, they voted to extend an Obamacare program in March.







All of the Monday morning quarterbacking has focused on the rift among Republicans over abortion and $23 billion in extra discretionary spending. But what ever happened to Obamacare? That is the mother of all budget disasters and will bankrupt our future, along with our healthcare system. Yet, Republicans agreed to fund it for an additional 6 months.



If it is reckless to shutdown the government over Obamacare, then there is nothing in the budget worth fighting for. Due to the degree of entrenchment of the existing entitlement, even Paul Ryan’s plan will not balance the budget for another 26 years. If Obamacare is not defunded within the next year, it will be virtually impossible to completely repeal and will make a balanced budget an impossibility.



The question for the Wall Street Journal editors and like minded Republicans is this: If you consider it reckless to shutdown the government over Obamacare, how will you enforce that provision of Paul Ryan’s budget in September? When will we ever eliminate it if we refuse to utilize the electoral mandate to fulfill our promise of defunding Obamacare? The dirty little secret is that we will have to use some sort of extraordinary, back door means to annul Obamacare (government shutdown, debt ceiling, budget reconciliation or change in Senate rules assuming that we win back the Senate without 60 votes). We will not have enough votes to extirpate it through the front door.



Before House conservatives sign onto the budget deal for 2011, Republican leadership must provide them with an unambiguous end game for defunding Obamacare. After all, if Obamacare is not fully defunded, and becomes the mother of all entitlements, the other spending issues will become “extraneous fights.”

It's What Happens When The Stupid Party And Evil Party Get Together

From Red State:

It’s What Happens When the Stupid Party and Evil Party Get Together












Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)



Tuesday, April 12th at 4:46AM EDT

41 Comments



There is a quote out there that sometimes get attributed to Republican Senate Leader Everett Dirksen and sometimes not. The quote is that there two parties in Washington — the stupid party and the evil party. Every once in a while the stupid party and the evil party get together and do something that is both stupid and evil. In Washington, that is called bipartisanship.



Our United States Senate, led by Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia and Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia are on the verge of leading the Congress into doing something both stupid and evil.



It will be heralded by the Washington Press Corp as a grownup act of bipartisan.



To give you a sense of just how bad it is, even Barack Obama is getting in on the act and signaling he will support what Chambliss and Warner come up with if only as a way to shut down serious conversation about Paul Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity.”



Last year, Barack Obama formed a Deficit Reduction Commission. The Commission’s report came out and Barack Obama promptly treated it like it was an illegitimate child worthy of being shunned.



The White House did not mention it. During Obama’s State of the Union address he glossed over and ignored the panel. He punted on every significant issue.



Fast forward to last week. Congressman Paul Ryan introduced his “Path to Prosperity.” Even Democrats were calling Paul Ryan “courageous” for his willingness to step out there. The chairmen of the Deficit Commission, Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, praised Ryan’s leadership. Many people noted Barack Obama’s absence from the debate.



So Obama has to do something. The Washington Post reports Obama will come out and give a lot of platitudes without much substance, but he will claim that his platitudinal direction is far better than Paul Ryan’s substantive direction.



He will have Saxby Chambliss and Mark Warner to back him up.



Already Chambliss and Warner are out subtly criticizing Paul Ryan’s plan. They are downplaying its significance and making it clear that it won’t pass the Senate.



What Chambliss, Warner, and four other Senators have in store for us is the stupid and evil solution — raise taxes, restructure entitlements, and do it in such a way that it keeps the citizenry of the republic fueling the leviathan.



Saxby Chambliss gave away the game in an interview with the Atlanta Journal. He said, in part, “[Y]ou’ve got to have enough money to run the government, and then you’ve got to have excess money to start paying down on that debt.”



What we know of the Chambliss-Warner plan is that while entitlements will be reformed and the tax code simplified, restructuring programs, entitlements, and taxes will involve keeping Washington at the center of all reforms.



It is stupid to do this because keeping Washington at the center of all reforms will mean that eventually the leviathan will come looking for future sacrifice again. The appetite will be unabated.



It is evil to do this because these reforms are guaranteed to further enslave future generations of Americans to Washington, D.C.



In Saxby Chambliss, Mark Warner, and Barack Obama’s world view, Washington, D.C. is the indispensable party. Any conversation about block grants, handing power and money to the states, etc. is unserious and not grownup. They view themselves as the masters of our destiny.



They will commit us to a bipartisan compromise that, in ten years, we will be having to fix. They will do so in way that makes the nation poorer. But they’ll win praise from the Washington media and liberal commentariat.



Conservatives, this is the next fight. They will tie this to the debt ceiling. We can stop them, but we must act fast. Conservatives should stake their ground on a balanced budget amendment and passage of Paul Ryan’s reforms.



The stupid and evil compromise must be stopped. It is, at its core, made of the same flawed conventional beltway wisdom where the smartest guys in the room get together, hammer out a deal, have the media praise it, and get it passed. In other words, it is exactly like every other deal that has gotten us into the fiscal mess we are in right now

The Debt Bomb Is Coming Due

From Town Hall Finance:




Larry Kudlow



The Debt Bomb Is Coming Due

Email Larry Kudlow
Columnist's Archive







































Share Buzz





0digg







Sign-Up











White House press secretary Jay Carney said Republicans should not “play chicken with the economy.” The administration wants a prompt vote to raise the federal debt ceiling quickly. Carney went on to say, “The consequences of not raising the debt ceiling would be Armageddon-like in terms of the economy.”



But then again, if the federal debt limit keeps getting raised without any real new spending-limitation rules, Armageddon for the economy may come just as quickly.



The problem with the rising debt burden is too much spending and too little growth. A spending-limitation of 20 percent to GDP would go a long way toward fixing the debt-bomb problem.



A number of Republicans are proposing such a limit, with real teeth to force automatic spending cuts across the board if the limit is violated. House and Senate Republicans will not agree to an increase in the debt limit without these kinds of serious spending reforms. As they say, it’s time to stop maxing out the credit card. There has to be some discipline in the fiscal system.



The current $14.3 trillion debt ceiling will run up against the wall sometime early this summer. As of the end of March, there’s a $76.1 billion borrowing limit left. Treasury man Tim Geithner says all measures to postpone a U.S. default on its obligations will end approximately July 8, 2011. At that point, government payments -- including interest on the Treasury debt -- would be stopped.



So the message for investors is tighten your seatbelts. The hard-driving politics of spending reform and debt limits will go down to the wire. At virtually the same time, the Fed will probably have ended QE2. So debt-default worries, along with possible inflation fears, could drive up interest rates and hurt the stock market as well.



But let’s not forget, the debt bomb is coming due, sooner or later. Better for Washington to cancel its summer vacation and put some serious disciplined limits on federal spending and borrowing. Take away Washington’s credit card.



John Ransom: Finally, A Socialist Budget

Mike Shedlock: Germany Warns on Greek Debt

Tom Purcell:Tax-Time Miseries

















Larry Kudlow

Lawrence Kudlow is host of CNBC’s “The Kudlow Report,” which airs nightly from 7 p.m. to 8 p.m

A Life Lesson

From Town Hall:




Cal Thomas



A Life Lesson

Email Cal Thomas
Columnist's Archive







































Share Buzz





0digg







Sign-Up







ARCHBOLD, Ohio -- Here in Middle America, where farmland extends to the horizon, I pass an inspirational yard sign: "Self-Control: Having a Life Purpose Bigger Than Self."



It's a message our representatives in Washington would do well to learn, especially after months of raucous partisan bickering that nearly culminated in another "government shutdown."



Here in Archbold farmers still labor to produce crops from the soil. In Washington, liberal politicians and lobbyists labor to produce careers for themselves and pry more "entitlements" from overburdened taxpayers to give to people who in some cases have not earned them. People have been taught envy and entitlement in ways that would have shocked and angered our relatives who survived the Great Depression on far less.



A simple web search finds numerous Depression-era survival stories, which puts into perspective for those living now the concept of living through "hard times."



In a 2009 story in the Saginaw News, writer Sarah Nothelfer quoted 79-year-old Jean R. Beach, who compared the 1930s with today: "To me, as a country, we've been on a binge. Now comes the time to put things in order."



Carrie Iles, 87, said: "I have good memories of those days. We didn't have it good, but we always had enough." Imagine, good memories of the Depression and thankfulness for having enough.



In 2011, too many Americans complain, not because they don't have what they truly need, but because they don't have what they want, and worse, what they feel "entitled to." Too many suffer from an addiction to government checks.



As Stephen Moore wrote last week in The Wall Street Journal, "there are nearly twice as many people working for the government (22.5 million) than in all of manufacturing (11.5 million). This is an almost exact reversal of the situation in 1960, when there were 15 million workers in manufacturing and 8.7 million collecting a paycheck from the government." And "Every state in America today except for two -- Indiana and Wisconsin -- has more government workers on the payroll than people manufacturing industrial goods."



As the party of government, Democrats have a special interest in increasing individual reliance on the state because it keeps them in power. Among the many problems with that position is that at some point, consumers of other people's wealth become a majority. In order to sustain what those non-producers expect, government must borrow increasing amounts of money until we arrive at where we are today -- unable to pay our bills and dependent on foreign governments, chiefly China, because no one wants to say "no" to what anyone wants.



What to do? Instead of demanding ever more from government, we must reclaim those basic virtues from The Greatest Generation and begin to do more for ourselves. That means younger people must take charge of their own retirement. It also means more people must stop worrying about health care and begin to focus on staying well. The healthier we are, the less we will need doctors, hospitals and medicine.



We can't go on as we have been. The kabuki theater that passes for reasoned debate in Washington is nothing more than rhetoric that has been tested before focus groups for political gain. Too many politicians are telling their constituents, not necessarily what they believe, but what they think they want to hear. And this is why little gets done in Washington and why we are losing our liberty.



Back to that 2009 Saginaw, Mich., story about Depression survivors and what they think of today's complainers: "What happened," said the Rev. Edward R. Pankow, 80, pastor-emeritus at St. Peter Lutheran Church in Hemlock, "is people just got too much too easily. The more you wanted, the more you got."



Democrats hauled out their familiar playbook about starving grannies and women who would supposedly be denied treatment for breast cancer if the government had shut down. This time it didn't work.



It was clear Republicans won round one of the budget battle when Obama adviser David Plouffe said on "Meet the Press" last Sunday that the president would seek new cuts, even in Medicare and Medicaid. Can they keep up the momentum?















Tags: Budget and Government , Democrats , Deficit , Republicans









Cal Thomas

Cal Thomas is co-author (with Bob Beckel) of the book, "Common Ground: How to Stop the Partisan War That is Destroying America".

Another Spending Cut Plan

From Town Hall:




Thomas Sowell



Another Spending Cut Plan

Email Thomas Sowell
Columnist's Archive







































Share Buzz





0digg







Sign-Up







Since everybody else seems to be coming up with plans on how to cope with the skyrocketing national debt, let me try my hand at it too.



The liberals' easy solution is just to increase taxes on "the rich." But, if you do the math, there aren't enough of "the rich" to cover the huge and record-breaking deficit.



Trying to reduce the deficit by cutting spending runs into an old familiar counter-attack. There will be all kinds of claims by politicians and sad stories in the media about how these cuts will cause the poor to go hungry, the sick to be left to die, etc.



My plan would start by cutting off all government transfer payments to billionaires. Many, if not most, people are probably unaware that the government is handing out the taxpayers' money to billionaires. But agricultural subsidies go to a number of billionaires. Very little goes to the ordinary farmer.



Big corporations also get big bucks from the government, not only in agricultural subsidies but also in the name of "green" policies, in the name of "alternative energy" policies, and in the name of whatever else will rationalize shoveling the taxpayers' money out the door to whomever the administration designates, for its own political reasons.



The usual political counter-attacks against spending cuts will not work against this new kind of spending cut approach. How many heart-rending stories can the media run about billionaires who have lost their handouts from the taxpayers? How many tears will be shed if General Motors gets dumped off the gravy train?



It would also be eye-opening to many people to discover how much government money is going into subsidizing all sorts of things that have nothing to do with helping "the poor" or protecting the public. This would include government-subsidized insurance for posh and pricey coastal resorts, located too dangerously close to the ocean for a private insurance company to risk insuring them.



This approach would not only circumvent the sob stories, it would also circumvent the ideological battles over whether to cut off money to Planned Parenthood or National Public Radio.



The money to be saved by cutting off agricultural subsidies to the wealthy and the big corporations is vastly greater than the money to be saved by cutting off Planned Parenthood or National Public Radio, much as they both deserve to be cut off.



If spending cuts are to be done strategically, a good strategy to follow would be that of General Douglas MacArthur in World War II. General MacArthur realized that he didn't have to attack every Pacific island held by the Japanese. He captured the islands that he had to capture, in order to get within striking distance of Japan.



In peace as in war, there is no point wasting time and resources attacking heavily defended enemy positions that you don't have to take.



Social Security and Medicare are supposed to be among the most difficult programs to cut without ruinous political consequences. However, it is not necessary to attack all the spending on these programs in order to make big savings.



Instead of attacking these programs as a whole, what is far more vulnerable is the compulsory aspect of these programs. If Medicare is so great, why is it necessary for the government to force people to be covered by Medicare as a precondition for receiving the money they paid into Social Security?



Many people with private health insurance would rather continue to rely on that, instead of being trapped in Medicare red tape. It is not a question of taking away Medicare but allowing people to opt out, saving the taxpayer from having to subsidize something that many people don't want.



It is not a question of forcing people off Social Security either. But private retirement accounts can offer a better deal.



Even someone who retires when the stock market is down is almost certain to get a bigger pension from a decent mutual fund than from Social Security.



By giving young people the option, while continuing to honor commitments to retirees and those nearing retirement age, the sob story defense of runaway spending can be nipped in the bud.















Tags: Budget and Government , GOVERNMENT Spending









Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of The Housing Boom and Bust.