The National Debt – Why Does It Matter?

We’re hearing a lot about The National Debt in the news these days, and you may wonder why you should even care about the National Debt.  Like many other people, you may see this as a government problem, but not one that can affect you in your personal life.  So why should the National Debt matter to you?  I’d like to try to address that question in this article.

The fact that our federal government has a National Debt isn’t really a problem.  We’ve had one since the days of the Revolutionary War, and quite honestly, we wouldn’t be the great nation we are today if we hadn’t been willing to borrow money when necessary over the years.

The problem with our National Debt is that it’s growing too big for our federal government to handle.  The interest on the National Debt has become one of the largest components of our federal budget, and it continues to grow.  Plus, our federal budget is now so out of balance that we are unable to meet our government obligations without borrowing more money each year.  This, in turn, creates even more interest expense on the National Debt, which in turn, necessitates even more borrowing, and on and on it goes.  It’s a vicious cycle.

The day is coming (and it’s not too far away) when the National Debt will be so large that we will simply be unable to borrow enough money to meet the obligations of the federal government.  Once we reach this point, the federal government will have no choice but to “print money” to meet its obligations. 

The term “print money” doesn’t necessarily mean to literally print more money.  More often, it refers to a trick the Fed uses, which is known as “increasing the money supply”.  It basically means creating money out of thin air.  It would be kind of like you being able to call your bank and instructing them to increase your balance by a million dollars even though you didn’t deposit a million dollars into your account.

Increasing the money supply may sound like a great solution to the National Debt, but this is where it becomes a problem for you.  The end result of increasing the money supply is that it also increases the inflation rate, so that your paycheck and the money you have in the bank become worth less and less.  In a worst case scenario, it can create what’s known as hyper-inflation, which is a rapidly increasing inflation rate spiraling out of control, often resulting in an economic collapse.

The only realistic way to avoid this looming disaster is to get our National Debt under control.  Let your Congressman and Senators know that you support a balanced budget and a reduction in the national debt.

State Of Obama; Facts VS. Fiction

By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer 

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama told Americans the bipartisan deficit commission he will appoint won't just be "one of those Washington gimmicks." Left unspoken in that assurance was the fact that the commission won't have any teeth.

Obama confronted some tough realities in his State of the Union speech Wednesday night, chief among them that Americans are continuing to lose their health insurance as Congress struggles to pass an overhaul.

Yet some of his ideas for moving ahead skirted the complex political circumstances standing in his way.

A look at some of Obama's claims and how they compare with the facts:

___

OBAMA: "Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don't."

THE FACTS: The anticipated savings from this proposal would amount to less than 1 percent of the deficit — and that's if the president can persuade Congress to go along.

Obama is a convert to the cause of broad spending freezes. In the presidential campaign, he criticized Republican opponent John McCainfor suggesting one. "The problem with a spending freeze is you're using a hatchet where you need a scalpel," he said a month before the election. Now, Obama wants domestic spending held steady in most areas where the government can control year-to-year costs. The proposal is similar to McCain's.

___

OBAMA: "I've called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg andDemocrat Kent Conrad. This can't be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline. Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans."

THE FACTS: Any commission that Obama creates would be a weak substitute for what he really wanted — a commission created by Congress that could force lawmakers to consider unpopular remedies to reduce the debt, including curbing politically sensitive entitlements like Social Security and Medicare. That idea crashed in the Senate this week, defeated by equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans. Any commission set up by Obama alone would lack authority to force its recommendations before Congress, and would stand almost no chance of success.

___

OBAMA: Discussing his health care initiative, he said, "Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan."

THE FACTS: The Democratic legislation now hanging in limbo on Capitol Hill aims to keep people with employer-sponsored coverage — the majority of Americans under age 65 — in the plans they already have. But Obama can't guarantee people won't see higher rates or fewer benefits in their existing plans. Because of elements such as new taxes on insurance companies, insurers could change what they offer or how much it costs. Moreover, Democrats have proposed a series of changes to the Medicare program for people 65 and older that would certainly pinch benefits enjoyed by some seniors. The Congressional Budget Office has predicted cuts for those enrolled in private Medicare Advantage plans.

___

OBAMA: The president issued a populist broadside against lobbyists, saying they have "outsized influence" over the government. He said his administration has "excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs." He also said it's time to "require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my administration or Congress" and "to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office."

THE FACTS: Obama has limited the hiring of lobbyists for administration jobs, but the ban isn't absolute; seven waivers from the ban have been granted to White House officials alone. Getting lobbyists to report every contact they make with the federal government would be difficult at best; Congress would have to change the law, and that's unlikely to happen. And lobbyists already are subject to strict limits on political giving. Just like every other American, they're limited to giving $2,400 per election to federal candidates, with an overall ceiling of $115,500 every two years.

___

OBAMA: "Because of the steps we took, there are about 2 million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. ... And we are on track to add another one and a half million jobs to this total by the end of the year."

THE FACTS: The success of the Obama-pushed economic stimulus that Congress approved early last year has been an ongoing point of contention. In December, the administration reported that recipients of direct assistance from the government created or saved about 650,000 jobs. The number was based on self-reporting by recipients and some of the calculations were shown to be in error.

The Congressional Budget Office has been much more guarded than Obama in characterizing the success of the stimulus plan. In November, it reported that the stimulus increased the number of people employed by between 600,000 and 1.6 million "compared with what those values would have been otherwise." It said the ranges "reflect the uncertainty of such estimates." And it added, "It is impossible to determine how many of the reported jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus package."

___

OBAMA: He called for action by the White House and Congress "to do our work openly, and to give our people the government they deserve."

THE FACTS: Obama skipped past a broken promise from his campaign — to have the negotiations for health care legislation broadcast on C-SPAN "so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies." Instead, Democrats in the White House and Congress have conducted the usual private negotiations, making multibillion-dollar deals with hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and other stakeholders behind closed doors. Nor has Obama lived up consistently to his pledge to ensure that legislation is posted online for five days before it's acted upon.

___

OBAMA: "The United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades."

THE FACTS: Despite insisting early last year that they would complete the negotiations in time to avoid expiration of the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty in early December, the U.S. and Russia failed to do so. And while officials say they think a deal on a new treaty is within reach, there has been no breakthrough. A new round of talks is set to start Monday. One important sticking point: disagreement over including missile defense issues in a new accord. If completed, the new deal may arguably be the farthest-reaching arms control treaty since the original 1991 agreement. An interim deal reached in 2002 did not include its own rules on verifying nuclear reductions.

___

OBAMA: Drawing on classified information, he claimed more success than his predecessor at killing terrorists: "And in the last year, hundreds of al-Qaida's fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed — far more than in 2008."

THE FACTS: It is an impossible claim to verify. Neither the Bush nor the Obama administration has published enemy body counts, particularly those targeted by armed drones in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region. The pace of drone attacks has increased dramatically in the last 18 months, according to congressional officials briefed on the secret program.

___

Associated Press writers Jim Kuhnhenn, Jim Drinkard, Erica Werner, Robert Burns and Pamela Hess contributed to this report.

CBS News: EPA May Have Suppressed Report Skeptical Of Global Warming

EPA May Have Suppressed Report Skeptical Of Global Warming

Posted by Declan McCullagh

(CBS/AP/iStockphoto)

The Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government, according to a series of newly disclosed e-mail messages. 

Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty "decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data."

The EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail message to a staff researcher on March 17: "The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward... and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision."

The e-mail correspondence raises questions about political interference in what was supposed to be aindependent review process inside a federal agency -- and echoes criticisms of the EPA under the Bush administration, which was accused of suppressing a pro-climate change document.

Alan Carlin, the primary author of the 98-page EPA report, told CBSNews.com in a telephone interview on Friday that his boss, McGartland, was being pressured himself. "It was his view that he either lost his job or he got me working on something else," Carlin said. "That was obviously coming from higher levels."

E-mail messages released this week show that Carlin was ordered not to "have any direct communication" with anyone outside his small group at EPA on the topic of climate change, and was informed that his report would not be shared with the agency group working on the topic.

"I was told for probably the first time in I don't know how many years exactly what I was to work on," said Carlin, a 38-year veteran of the EPA. "And it was not to work on climate change." One e-mail orders him to update a grants database instead.

For its part, the EPA sent CBSNews.com an e-mailed statement saying: "Claims that this individual’s opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false. This Administration and this EPA Administrator are fully committed to openness, transparency and science-based decision making. These principles were reflected throughout the development of the proposed endangerment finding, a process in which a broad array of voices were heard and an inter-agency review was conducted."

Carlin has an undergraduate degree in physics from CalTech and a PhD in economics from MIT. His Web site lists papers about the environment and public policy dating back to 1964, spanning topics from pollution control to environmentally-responsible energy pricing.

After reviewing the scientific literature that the EPA is relying on, Carlin said, he concluded that it was at least three years out of date and did not reflect the latest research. "My personal view is that there is not currently any reason to regulate (carbon dioxide)," he said. "There may be in the future. But global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid-20th century. They're not going up, and if anything they're going down."

Carlin's report listed a number of recent developments he said the EPA did not consider, including that global temperatures have declined for 11 years; that new research predicts Atlantic hurricanes will be unaffected; that there's "little evidence" that Greenland is shedding ice at expected levels; and that solar radiation has the largest single effect on the earth's temperature.

If there is a need for the government to lower planetary temperatures, Carlin believes, other mechanisms would be cheaper and more effective than regulation of carbon dioxide. One paper he wrote says managing sea level rise or reducing solar radiation reaching the earth would be more cost-effective alternatives.

The EPA's possible suppression of Carlin's report, which lists the EPA's John Davidson as a co-author, could endanger any carbon dioxide regulations if they are eventually challenged in court.

"The big question is: there is this general rule that when an agency puts something out for public evidence and comment, it's supposed to have the evidence supporting it and the evidence the other way," said Sam Kazman, general counsel of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a non-partisan think tank in Washington, D.C. that has beenskeptical of new laws or regulations relating to global warming.

Kazman's group obtained the documents -- both CEI and Carlin say he was not the source -- and released the e-mails on Tuesday and the report on Friday. As a result of the disclosure, CEI has asked the EPA to re-open the comment period on the greenhouse gas regulatory proceeding, which ended on Tuesday.

The EPA also said in its statement: "The individual in question is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue. Nevertheless the document he submitted was reviewed by his peers and agency scientists, and information from that report was submitted by his manager to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. In fact, some ideas from that document are included and addressed in the endangerment finding."

That appears to conflict with an e-mail from McGartland in March, who said to Carlin, the report's primary author: "I decided not to forward your comments... I can see only one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office." He also wrote to Carlin: "Please do not have any direct communication with anyone outside of (our group) on endangerment. There should be no meetings, e-mails, written statements, phone calls, etc."

One reason why the process might have been highly charged politically is the unusual speed of the regulatory process. Lisa Jackson, the new EPA administrator, had said that she wanted her agency to reach a decision about regulating carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act by April 2 -- the second anniversary of a related U.S. Supreme Court decision.

"All this goes back to a decision at a higher level that this was very urgent to get out, if possible yesterday," Carlin said. "In the case of an ordinary regulation, these things normally take a year or two. In this case, it was a few weeks to get it out for public comment." (Carlin said that he and other EPA staff members asked to respond to a draft only had four and a half days to do so.)

In the last few days, Republicans have begun to raise questions about the report and e-mail messages, but it was insufficient to derail the so-called cap and trade bill from being approved by the U.S. House of Representatives.

Rep. Joe Barton, the senior Republican on the Energy and Commerce committee, invoked Carlin's report in a floor speech during the debate on Friday. "The science is not there to back it up," Barton said. "An EPA report that has been suppressed... raises grave doubts about the endangerment finding. If you don't have an endangerment finding, you don't need this bill. We don't need this bill. And for some reason, the EPA saw fit not to include that in its decision." (The endangerment finding is the EPA's decision that carbon dioxide endangers the public health and welfare.)

"I'm sure it was very inconvenient for the EPA to consider a study that contradicted the findings it wanted to reach," Rep. James Sensenbrenner, the senior Republican on the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, said in a statement. "But the EPA is supposed to reach its findings based on evidence, not on political goals. The repression of this important study casts doubts on EPA's finding, and frankly, on other analysis EPA has conducted on climate issues."

The revelations could prove embarrassing to Jackson, the EPA administrator, who said in January: "I will ensure EPA’s efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and programs, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency." Similarly, Mr. Obamaclaimed that "the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over... To undermine scientific integrity is to undermine our democracy. It is contrary to our way of life."

"All this talk from the president and (EPA administrator) Lisa Jackson about integrity, transparency, and increased EPA protection for whistleblowers -- you've got a bouquet of ironies here," said Kazman, the CEI attorney.

Harry Reid: No More Business As Usual!!!!

Conservative Group’s ‘MasterLard’ Ad Lampoons ‘Pork’ in Health-Care Bill
Wednesday, January 20, 2010

A new Internet video is off to a viral start accusing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) of “buying off” Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) by gaining increased Medicaid or reinstating projected cuts for their states in exchange for their votes on the health-care bill.

With the upset election of Scott Brown in Mass. yesterday, I think Good Ole Deal Makin' Harry better start thinking about his retirement plans after November......

Here is the link to this masterpiece of internet horn blowing...... Masterlard

Welfare recipients now eligible to receive cell phones

Government Welfare: Cell Phones for the Poor

January 18th, 2010 / original post from The Heritage Foundation

Government-sponsored text messaging? Welfare recipients in approximately 20 states–with more to follow– are currently eligible to receive a free cell phone with a limited number of monthly minutes. All individuals that qualify for state or federal welfare–food stamps, Medicaid, etc.–and have an income at or below 135% of the poverty level, are eligible. According to a Fox News report, the cell phone service is currently the fastest growing welfare program in the country.

In 2008, the fund that foots the bill for this program contributed $819 million to subsidize low-income telephone services. The fund is projected to grow to over $1 billion this year. That’s $1 billion of over $800 billion the United States will spend on welfare in 2010.

This particular program is covered by the federal Universal Service Fund. At first it received its money by essentially taxing telephone companies that provided long-distance service, with the money then being used to provide affordable rates for those living in less densely populated areas where phone service was more costly. However, in 1996, Congress voted to extend the use of this fund to subsidize low-income households and subsequently expanded the list of those required to pay into the fund to include: local telephone companies, wireless companies, paging services, and payphone providers. (Naturally, the cost for this fund is passed to the customer.) In 2008, the Federal Communications Commission began subsidizing cell phones for low-income households.

Besides the $1 billion price tag, which is likely to increase as more states implement the service, not to mention the concern for growing entitlement created by this program, cell phone recipients are loosely monitored. According to Heritage welfare expert Robert Rector, this means that if an individual’s income increases to where he or she is no longer eligible for the service, there is no one to make sure he or she stops receiving it.

Jose A. Fuentes, director of Government Relations for TracFone–one of the providers of the free phone service–says that the phones are not meant “for heavy usage.” Instead, they are meant “for quick phone calls, as well as a way for people to reach you in case of…emergency or for calls from a potential employer,” not meant to replace a landline. This idea indicates that not only should government subsidize phone service, but that as SafeLink, one of the providers of the cell phones, states, “cell phone ownership is a right.”

This is just another example of the ever-expanding welfare state and the increasing entitlement mentality. At the very least, policymakers should require greater monitoring of the program to prevent misuse. Furthermore, if the purpose of the cell phones is truly to give lower-income people more access to potential employers, participants should be required to account for their job search activities. A welfare program that does not require personal responsibility will only encourage dependency and diminish human dignity.

AUTHOR:Rachel Sheffield

The Boston Globe Is Already Declaring Martha Coakley Winner... Bit Early???

Exit polls indicate that the Democrats will lose their filibuster-proof majority in the Senate after Scott Brown wins the Massachusetts Senate seat that was held by Ted Kennedy.

Earlier today George Stephanopoulos told the ABC audience that his sources said it looked like Brown would win. Supporters of the Democratic candidate, Martha Coakley, are still holding out hope for a miracle.

Analysts expect the turnout to be larger than the December primary. Massachusetts Secretary of State Bill Galvin told CNN that he predicts 2.2 million of 4.5 million registered voters would vote. He didn’t think the weather would stop voters.

Local reports indicate that Brown is winning In the exit polls.

The Boston Globe may have jumped the gun. The Boston Herald reported the Globe posted an online map of Massachusetts voting results declaring Attorney General Martha Coakley the winner.

The problem is: The polls are open until 8 pm.

Deficit – Debt: What’s the Difference?

Deficit….Debt.  Are they the same thing, and if not, then what’s the difference?

The terms National Debt and Budget Deficit can be very confusing when it comes to discussing United States government spending.  The terms often get used interchangeably, but they are not at all the same thing.  Even among politicians and news reporters, it’s not unusual for them to refer to the National Debt when they are really talking about the Budget Deficit, and vice versa.  So in this post, I want to explain the difference between the two terms.

In a nutshell, the Budget Deficit is the shortfall between what the government spends during a single year compared with what it brings in during a single year.  The National Debt, on the other hand, is the accumulation of all the Budget Deficits for every year since the United States has been in existence.

To illustrate this in simple terms, let’s look at it in terms of your personal finances.  Assume that you make $50,000 this year, but you spend $53,000.  That extra $3,000 you spend above what you make is the equivalent of your budget deficit.  Because you would have to “borrow” $3,000 to cover the shortfall, you would also create debt of $3,000.  Now, suppose you do the exact same thing next year…that is, you spend $3,000 more than you make.  Once again, you would have a budget deficit of $3,000, but your debt would have increased to $6,000 ($3,000 shortfall for two consecutive years.)  If you continue this practice for five consecutive years, you would have a budget deficit of $3,000 each year, but your debt at the end of five years would be $15,000.  (I’m ignoring the effects of taxes and interest for the sake of simplicity.)

The same thing holds true with the federal budget.  In 2010, the federal government is expected to spend $3.6 trillion while bringing in only $2.4 trillion in taxes and other revenues.  That leaves a shortfall, or Budget Deficit, of $1.2 trillion.  The government will then have to borrow that $1.2 trillion from the public or from other governments by selling government bonds or similar debt instruments.  The $1.2 trillion that the government borrows then gets added to all of the existing debt from previous years.  The sum total of all of this government borrowing is the National Debt.

As I write this article, the National Debt is over $12 trillion.  Written out in digits, it looks like this: $12,000,000,000,000.00.  It’s a staggering amount of debt, and it continues to grow uncontrollably.  The rate of growth in the National Debt is not sustainable, and a day of reckoning awaits us.

If you are tired of the ballooning budget deficits and national debt, please let the President and Congress know by adding your name to The National Debt Petition.

Obama Turns Off Homegrown Energy!!!!!

January 14, 2010

President Obama says he wants to decrease U.S. dependence on foreign oil by increasing U.S. production of domestic U.S. resources, including America's rich deposits of fossil fuels. To that end, Obama promises efforts to "enhance U.S. energy supplies through responsible development of domestic renewable energy, fossil fuels, advanced bio-fuels and nuclear energy." At least, that's what the president says he wants to do. To see what he's actually doing, take a look at the policies of the Department of Interior. In fact, the Obama administration is cutting production of domestic fossil fuels -- oil, natural gas and coal -- by creating costly and time-consuming new layers of suffocating red tape and legal barriers.
Here are the stark facts, as compiled by the Institute for Energy Research, about the area where the federal government has the most direct and immediate effect on domestic energy production -- managing energy exploration and production leases on western and off-shore public lands: á The Interior Department has collected only one-tenth as much revenue from oil and gas lease sales in 2009 as it did in 2008.


Revenue from such lease sales produced a return for the taxpayer of $942 per acre in the last year of the Bush administration, compared with only $254 per acre in the first year of the Obama administration


Presently, not quite 3 percent of the 2.46 million available public lands are leased and that percentage is headed down. Under Obama's Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, fewer acres on- and off-shore were leased in 2009 than in any previous year.


This is why IER's president, Thomas J. Pyle, says that "when it comes to paving the way for the responsible development of homegrown, job-creating energy resources, no administration in history has done more to ensure producers do less." Similarly, David Holt, president of the Consumer Energy Alliance, offers this common-sense observation: "Adding layers of additional and unnecessary bureaucratic red tape to the federal oil and gas leasing process will result in less homegrown energy. ... At the same time, erecting these needless roadblocks for safely producing American energy will not only lead to more expensive and less stable prices for struggling consumers, but it will also deepen our nation's dependence on foreign and often unfriendly regions of the world to meet our growing demands and to keep our economy moving." In other words, Obama's policies in the energy field are producing exactly the opposite result he claims to seek.

How Many Non-Muslim Terrorists Have Attacked Airplanes in the Past 10 Years

Obama’s TSA Nominee Characterized Groups That Were Domestic Security Threats as ‘Anti-Abortion’ and Having ‘Christian Identity’

Erroll Southers, who President Barack Obama has nominated to head the Transportation Security Administration, described groups that were a domestic security threat as being "anti-abortion" and “Christian-identity oriented."

The TSA, an element of the Department of Homeland Security, is responsible for the security of the nation's transportation systems, including commercial air travel. Southers made the remarks in question in a 2008 video interview with the Videojug.com Web site.

In the interview, Southers was asked whether there were “groups inside the United States that pose a danger to our security?”

“Domestically speaking, a large part, most of the groups we have here in the United States, are white supremacists groups, World Church of the Creator, National Alliance, Aryan Nations. There are some black separatist groups,” said Southers. “What’s interesting about those groups is you find that they are usually either Christian identity groups and/or groups that really have a foothold in our correctional or prison systems in the way of radicalization and recruiting.”

Southers was then asked: “Which home-grown terrorist groups pose the greatest danger to the U.S.?”

“Most of the domestic groups that we have to pay attention to here are white supremacist groups. They're anti-government and in most cases anti-abortion,” he said. “They are usually survivalist-type in nature, identity orientated. If you recall, Buford Furrow came to Los Angeles in, I believe, it was 1999. When he went to three different Jewish institutions, museums, and then wound up shooting people at a children's community center, then shooting a Filipino postal worker later on. Matthew Hale, who's the Pontifex Maximus of the World Church of the Creator out of Illinois, and Ben Smith, who went on a shooting spree in three different cities where he killed a number of African Americans and Jews and Asians that day. Those groups are groups that claim to be extremely anti-government and Christian-identity oriented.”

Southers major failure is the overwhelming nomination has been held up in the U.S. Senate over two issues. Sen. Jim DeMint (R.-S.C.) has placed a hold on the nomination because he is worried that Southers might allow TSA workers, who are responsible for airport security, to unionize.

Additionally, seven Republican senators including Demint, Sen. Tom Coburn (R.-Okla.), Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.) and Sen. Charles Grassley (R.-Iowa), have written to the White House asking for more information about contradictory accounts Southers provided to the Senate regarding incidents in the 1980s when, as an FBI officer, he improperly accessed a federal database looking for information about his then-wife’s boyfriend.

As first reported by the Washington Post, Southers initially told the Senate Homeland Security Committee in an Oct. 22 affidavit that he had asked a police officer to access the database for him. In a Nov. 22 letter, Southers told the committee that the affidavit was incorrect and the he had accessed the database himself.  Southers said he had remembered incorrectly and that the mistake in the affidavit was inadvertent.

Though no one would argue the groups mentioned by Southers should be handled with some vigilance, is it not frightening that he chooses to completely disregard other organizations more likely to commit terrorism, which are currently operating and recruiting right here in the U.S. As a Fundamentalist, Pro-Life Christian (which in its truest form would only promote selfless service to all others including enemies), I would certainly make the new 'No Fly' list if Southers gets the job.

Stimulus Watch: Now it’s fake zip codes | Washington Examiner

The Obama administration’s supposedly transparent attempt to let citizens know how every dollar of the $787 billion stimulus package was spent, is turning out to be a lot more comic fiction than fact.

Not only have fake jobs been reported in phantom congressional districts, Steve Allen Adams of NewMexicoWatchdog.org discovered that some of the $27 million of federal money his state received also went to nonexistent zip codes:

http://newmexico.watchdog.org/2010/01/03/federal-stimulus-funds-reportedly-spent-in-nonexistent-zip-codes/

“Closer examination of the latest recovery.gov report for New Mexico shows hundreds of thousands of dollars sent to and credited with creating jobs in zip codes that do not exist in New Mexico or anywhere else. Moreover, funds reported as being spent in New Mexico were given zip codes corresponding to areas in Washington and Oregon.”

The next quarterly report by the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board - the federal agency in charge of tracking stimulus dollars that responded to the fake congressional district scandal by labeling them “unassigned” - is due January 30.

It should be hilarious.

"Freedom of Choice Act" Facsist Eugenics In America!!!!!

Stop this EVIL law!!!!!

Dear Concerned American,

In July 2007, Barack Obama promised a group of his supporters that, if elected president, he would sign perhaps the most evil piece of legislation in the history of our republic.

It's called the "Freedom of Choice Act," or FOCA -- but don't let the Orwellian title fool you. It isn't about "freedom" or "choice" at all. It's about forcing each and every American citizen -- regardless of his or her view on abortion -- to support abortion-on-demand not just as a "fundamental right" but as a taxpayer-funded entitlement.

But the compulsion wouldn't stop there. Because FOCA would also run roughshod over the conscience rights of doctors, nurses, and hospitals that oppose abortion on religious or moral grounds -- forcing them to provide or counsel for abortion or face professional de-certification, loss of funding, lawsuits, and even prosecution.

Not only that, FOCA would immediately strike down any and all state restrictions on abortion -- even those with wide popular support, such as prohibitions on partial-birth abortion and parental notification requirements for minors seeking abortions.

Make no mistake: FOCA is the most radical piece of pro-abortion legislation ever proposed, one that would go far beyond Roe v. Wade in making abortion a government-protected and taxpayer-supported "right," through all nine months of pregnancy.

Planned Parenthood’s History of Eugenics

“The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” -- Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, Women and the New Race(Eugenics Publishing Co., 1920, 1923)

Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the world. Founder Margaret Sanger was an avowed supporter of eugenics, the pseudo-science of breeding superior humans. Her extensive writings reveal startling plans to rid the world of “undesirables” through abortion, sterilization and birth control.

In April 1932, Sanger wrote A Plan for Peace, The Birth Control Review. She urged Congress to study what she considered population problems by appointing a “Parliament of Population.” This special congressional group would be tasked “to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population.” To reach these goals, Sanger suggested a “stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.”

Along with her colleague Dr. Clarence J. Gamble, Sanger developed what Gamble first dubbed “The Negro Project” in a 1939 memorandum to Sanger. Their plan was to target poor minority areas in the South with Birth Control Federation of America clinics, the forerunner to Planned Parenthood’s abortion mills. In his memorandum, Gamble suggested they hire “a Negro physician” and a “charismatic Negro minister” to put in charge of the project to make it appear to have the support of black leaders.

Sanger reportedly responded to Gamble on December 10, 1939, approving the project concept. She wrote, “We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten that idea out if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

Sanger lured the black community into support for her plans through deception, much the same way Planned Parenthood continues to deceive today. Touting health concerns, community well-being and economic advancement, Sanger targeted poor minorities and lured many into her grasp.

The targeting of poor, minority communities continued as Sanger’s ideas brought together several birth-control organizations heavily populated by the eugenics movement to form Planned Parenthood. For instance, when Planned Parenthood opened over 100 school-based clinics in the 1980s, not one is reported to have been opened in a substantially all-white school or in a suburban middle-class school. All available data show the clinics were opened only in black, minority or other ethnic schools.

Because of the controversies surrounding the disproportionately high number of minority abortions, the pro-abortion movement makes every effort to suppress their actual numbers. In 1992, back when Planned Parenthood actually released their numbers, over 43% of abortions they performed were on minority women.

Eugenics Still Rules

The Guttmacher Institute is an organization which compiles reproductive health statistics. According to their studies, black women abort their children five times more often than white women and at twice the Hispanic rate.

In a July 12, 2009, interview with the New York Times, Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg in a candid moment confirmed that eugenics is the driving force behind the pro-abortion movement.

“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.”

Former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, senior fellow and national spokesman for the American Civil Rights Union (ACRU), says the passage of FOCA would represent the completion of Margaret Sanger’s work in eugenics.

“If you begin to look at the connection between slavery, Darwin, eugenics and abortion you begin to appreciate the fact that this is the logical step in the final chapter of this march toward genocide,” Blackwell said. “All of this has started to stem around the fundamental thought that African-Americans were less than human, objects to be manipulated, subjects to be used. This is, in my view, most noted in the works of Margaret Sanger. She introduced to youths the notion of abortion as a way of purifying what she considered to be the human race and to rid it of inferiors. In this case she regarded African-Americans as being inferior. And if you don’t study the history of slavery and Darwinian theory, eugenics and abortion, then you’re doing a disservice to the stain that all of these developments had on American culture.”

Islamic Terrorist “Allegedly” Setting Bombs? Japanese “Allegedly” Bomb Pearl Harbor?

2010 JANUARY 8

Leaders of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, including Said al-Shihri second from the left.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the 23-year-old Muslim Nigerian “charged” with the failed attempt on the Amsterdam-to-Detroit flight now has a public defender. So we will be hearing a lot about “allegedly this and that” for the next few years. He will be tried in criminal court instead of a military tribunal despite the fact that “he was trained, equipped and directed by al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula,” according to Senator Lieberman.

The Left has always been consumed more by domestic politics over military affairs, at least since the Vietnam War. Victor Davis Hanson of National Review Online notes that one-third of all terrorist plots since 2001 occurred last year, 2009. This has happened even as the Obama administration has nominally kept most of the Bush-Cheney policies in place, including those most loudly objected to by the left; the Patriot Act, renditions, military tribunals, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But there is a difference between a nominal policy and the degree to which one’s will is committed to them.

It is obvious that the president and his administration do not feel comfortable supporting an unapologetic militarily strong America. It is quite the opposite. It took 4 months to make a decision to send more troops to Afghanistan, when it was self evident this had to and would be done. Obama’s foreign policy speeches in 2009 have empathized with the criticisms of America’s stated enemies. Not only has this been irritating to Americans, but laughable to our enemies. The actions of Iran’s neo-fascist Muslim state toward Obama’s overtures demonstrate the ineffectiveness of this approach.

The reaction by the administration to the near disaster on Christmas day is a perfect demonstration of this weak sensibility. Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano’s “the system worked” claim was Dali-esque. It is impossible to tell what she really thought as her statement was so transparently stupid. It is her lazy thought process, however, that is most terrifying. Some vague bureaucratic apparatus apparently operated smoothly, so she was pleased to inform us how safe we all are. Meanwhile, the Nigerian guy’s father has been warning the world about his son for years and he is on every watch list ever made. It would have been nice if she showed a similar outrage that every American was feeling instead of this placid response. But she is not outraged. Some process worked, so all is okay. This is the same woman who coined the term “man-made disasters” for just such events as this attempted bombing.

I have never been comfortable with even the concept of the Department of Homeland Security. The name is a bit too 1930’s German for my taste. More substantively, it simply added layers of management to an already heavily bureaucratic system Department of Homeland Security Reorganization Plan November 25, 2002. National security improves when those in charge have a passion for it to improve, not by rearranging reporting lines that can be as effectively ignored as the previous reporting lines. It is almost hard to believe what we as a nation put up with at airports. 19 radical Muslims from Saudi Arabia fly planes into buildings and we now all are subject to time consuming, rote, and ineffective scrutiny. Muslim Richard Reid plants a bomb in his shoe, so now we all have to walk barefoot through security lines. The Nigerian Muslim Christmas bomber uses a blanket in the last hour of a flight, so now all international fliers need to put books away in the last hour of flight. But not the first hour, or the third hour. It is a parody of common sense. What happens when the next Muslim bomber copies the techniques of “drug mules”, by inserting his explosive device in some bodily “cavity”?

What really gets Obama and his administration passionate is not terrorism, but the opportunity to control people’s lives. Real passion is expressed at the thought of restricting energy usage, based on fake science; and controlling how Americans consume health care, based on fake economics. But the occasional missed Muslim terrorist, like Fort Hood’s Hasan or Nigeria/England’s Abdullmutalab can hardly muster a coherent response. Instead we are instructed to not jump to conclusions over these “alleged” man-made causers of disaster. After all, the system works.