Commonwealth Party Assertion Proofs

Some of the assertions made in our political attack and in our planks are proven here by the links that follow. It may be that in some cases articles are included that contain some opposing arguments; however, there was other information within those articles that was utilized. Those cases of mixed inclusion illustrate that when both sides of the coin were considered, tit for tat, the overall articles on a given subject demonstrate the stronger case for our positions.

This list is subject to further additions and is not all inclusive. Note that some links may become defunct over time. If this is the case, please contact us. You can also submit your own links that you have come across which help bolster these arguments.

Excerpts are subject to relevant copyright and are included under fair use without intent of infringement.

'The Associated Press reported in February that DHS was planning to buy more than 1.6 billion rounds over the next five years, a number that sparked fears of government stockpiling - which DHS previously denied to Whispers. Officials told lawmakers DHS actually was planning to buy only up to 750 million rounds.' ~ By Elizabeth Flock April 25, 2013

'The congressional investigative agency is jumping into the fray just as legislation was introduced in both the Senate and the House to restrict the purchase of ammo by some government agencies (except the Department of Defense).' ~ By Elizabeth Flock | April 29, 2013

'Department of Homeland Security has issued an open purchase order for 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition.' {Revised half to 750 million}

Article does the math and states a procurement that large can enable an active war for over 20 years.

'According to the AP story a DHS spokesperson justifies this acquisition to “help the government get a low price for a big purchase.” … [however] that’s a stockpile that would last DHS over a century.' ~ Ralph Benko, | 3/11/2013

This piece says DHS has not given answer to members of Congress on why they have bought so many bullets -- 1.6 billion that is. {Revised half to 750 million}

'The nationwide shortage of ammunition has left many police departments scrambling to get their hands on the necessary rounds - with some even bartering among each other.'

"With the delay in ammunition, some departments are limiting the number of rounds they carry in their handgun because of the shortage of ammunition. We get to the point where it is difficult to have enough ammo to train and also equip the officers." ~ Gregory Gwyn-Williams, Jr. | March 22, 2013

How can this be? You would think that our soldiers are able to hit the broad side of a barn:

"If they don't do body counts, how can I? But using these figures it works out at around 300,000 bullets per insurgent. Let's round that down to 250,000 so that we are underestimating." ~ Andrew Buncombe - 10 January 2011

Bush's Medicare Prescription Drug Plan is confusing and costly. Price for plan had more than doubled by time of implementation. This piece illustrates inherent problems of government intervention, much resulting from politization of processes on behalf of certain constituencies. Article cites statist solutions as ineffective. Alternately, allowing for or emulating free markets yields better overall results. Either way, by violating the old market adage of K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple & Short) does not bode well for consumers (or taxpayers). Effectively describes the old '90s Clinton health care plan and more recent Bush drug plan as economic Fascism as opposed to the common accusation of Marxism. Author states, "Government is well-suited to pool risk and provide insurance, and it does so efficiently with both Social Security and Medicare as a whole." Huh??????

The Bush drug plan like some company-sponsored 401(k) options is intimidating in complexity. Freedom Funds are discussed. Author over-generalizes this scenario as an example that individuals are inherently not able to make decisions for their own good and that a stronger collective society is needed. Actually, it is government intervention that yields more complexity. A free market on the other hand, will let consumers whittle down complexity by letting them patronize or provide the incentive for a more KISS oriented provider without government having to force all into one collective. The Machiavellian suspicion of Bush-ordained complexity or of its tacit acceptance, would have been the better angle to delve into.

Crowd laughed when Bush said his talk on the prescription drug plan wasn't political. Told seniors the paperwork wouldn't be hard to fill out. 'Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., however, called the drug benefit program "inadequate and overly complex." He said the government's materials explaining the benefit do not provide details about the gaps in prescription drug coverage.'

What was a cause for worry amongst the insurers? 'Of the 14.3 million people who enrolled in the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan since January 1, 2006, only 3.6 million have signed up on their own....Many seniors are willing to risk paying a penalty for not joining the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan by the enrollment deadline of May 15, 2006 because they believe they are saving more money without the program.' This risked premiums going up or insurance companies opting out of the program.

GAO says call centers for the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan give accurate answers only about a third of the time.

'It is poorly targeted. Many of the program's subsidies will go to those who are not exactly needy - to wealthy as well as poor seniors. According to the CBO, three-fourths of senior citizens already have drug coverage. Millions of those seniors will move into the Medicare drug program, where taxpayers will pay bills that seniors and employers are already paying themselves.'

"There is no reason in the world why we ought to be paying the prescription-drug benefits for the wealthiest in society, the Bill Gates, the Barbra Streisands, the Ted Turners, the Warren Buffetts," he said.

“Some wealthy people could be driven to leave Medicare by means-testing, undermining the stability of the program,” said Ruben Burks, Secretary-Treasurer of the Alliance. “Costs for middle and lower-income seniors who depend on it would rise as a consequence of the [drug] program not being universal.”

On proposal by latter Bush administration to raise premiums and deductables on wealthy seniors enrolled in the Medicare prescription drug plan: "As long as this doesn't have an exodus of the wealthy from the program, we think having premiums established based on ability to pay makes sense," Pollack said.

'Under Bush, Congress passed budgets that spent a total of $91 billion more than the president requested for domestic programs. Bush signed every one of those bills during his first term. '

For information on Bush spendthrift-ing, Bush & Paulson TARP, Republican senator earmarks and icon Reagan controversies, the following link will take you to those sources listed on the in-house 'Republicans Should Relinquish' page.

'Those laws....subsidize Democratic and Republican candidates....The Democrats and Republicans use your tax money to subsidize their presidential campaigns.....In addition, your tax dollars were spent on their nominating conventions......Similar laws are imposed as well on state and local candidates by state and local governments. '

Both parties have the ability to fund elections : other parties are severely hampered by their lack of financial backing. Which major backer would financially support a party that had no chance whatsoever of gaining political power?

Reform effectiveness and constitutionality of taxpayer campaign funding questioned: ' Editor John Samples, director of the Center for Representative Government at the Cato Institute, concludes that government financing doesn't reduce alleged corruption in the political process, promote greater equality among citizens, or ensure greater competition in political races.'

An update. A new twist: In the intervening years the drug Gardasil has been the subject of bad reactions. Obviously, resistance to dispensing the drug on this basis is valid as opposed to any prior knee-jerk reaction that administering it (assuming it would have worked as promised) in a neutral, clinical fashion would encourage promiscuity.

'And how many will go on to develop fertility problems, cancer or damage to their genes, all of which Merck admits in its product insert that it has not studied at all? We just don't know enough to be mandating GARDASIL for anyone, much less vulnerable 11 to 12 year old girls entering puberty.' ~ Article Date: 22 Feb 2007 - 0:00 PDT

'Merck and Co.'s Gardasil was licensed in 2006 by the FDA and both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Merck say it is safe; however, as of late summer, the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) logged 10,326 reports of reactions to Gardasil, according to the CDC, including reports of Guillain-Barre syndrome, a rare disorder that causes muscle weakness, blood clots, and death.

But, in the case of Gardasil, perhaps avoiding the vaccine might not be so irresponsible given that, as The Vue pointed out, 'the research was done by those who stand to gain magnificently" and the drug has been the focus of "an extensive public relations campaign" but "has been subjected to little independent scientific review." ' ~ Wednesday, February 4th, 2009

Bush said, "Congress needs to pass legislation strengthening the independent regulator of government-sponsored enterprises like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae." However, 'Dodd called on Bush to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" reform proposals.'

Sen. Chris Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, received $165,000 from PACs and employees of Fannie and Freddie. He helped blockade reform efforts.

Systemic risks were brought about by the demand of government to give loans to minorities despite bad credit through the Community Reinvestment Act. Fannie and Freddie were backing the subprime loans via introduction of lax standards. Barney Frank comes along and says: ".... these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis."

Barney Frank: ' His record is close to perfect as a stalwart opponent of reforming the two companies [Fannie & Freddie], going back more than a decade.....He encouraged the companies to guarantee more "affordable" mortgages, thus abetting their disastrous plunge into subprime and Alt-A loans.'

Yet another government-run economic disaster: 'Fannie and Freddie are owned by shareholders, but have long enjoyed the implied support of the federal government that has allowed them access to capital in the market at advantageous terms.' They were not required to have the same level of reserves as other institutions, so when things got tough their levee of leverage broke.

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is the notion of figuring out the best type or approach to treatment for particular ailments that are cost effective and have have the least amount of consequence. This pursuit will be a rubric as to how to regulate the federal health care system and is a generalized ideal for private providers as well. Thus we start out with two works that battle it out on those grounds: one by the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) as to expanding federal funding for CER and prioritizing certain fields of study and how those findings would effect health care. The other is from the Cato Institute which decries the need for a government funded foray into CER much less an agency to direct such efforts. The Cato piece suggests alternatives in order to encourage such studies to take place while removing current governmental hindrances. Both these works and the links following should shed some light on this core topic of health care effectiveness and efficiency.

'Dr. Sox will lead a panel of nationally renowned medical experts to make recommendations to the U.S. government about which preventive, diagnostic, and treatment services should have the highest priority for research funding using money allotted to the Secretary of the DHHS in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.'

A webcast at Kaisernetwork.org considers comparative effectiveness research implications. 'This roundtable provides an overview of how a national comparative effectiveness research entity might work and the potential benefits for the U.S. health care system. '

'The “fiscal cliff” is what Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke has called the many major fiscal events that could happen simultaneously at the close of 2012 and the dawning of 2013. The events include the expiration of the Bush era tax cuts, the payroll tax cut and other important tax-relief provisions. They also include the first installment of the $1.2 trillion across-the-board cuts of domestic and defense programs required under last summer’s bipartisan deficit reduction agreement. At the same time, lawmakers may have to raise the debt ceiling once again, potentially triggering another standoff in Congress.'

'Democrats say they are prepared to weather a fiscal crisis at year’s end unless Republicans drop their opposition to higher taxes for individuals with incomes over $200,000 a year and households with incomes above $250,000 annually.' ~ By THE STAFF, The Fiscal Times July 17, 2012

'The committee succinctly describes the problem: “At the end of 2012 and the beginning of 2013, many major fiscal events are set to occur all at once. They include the expiration of the 2001/2003/2010 tax cuts, the winding down of certain jobs provisions, the activation of the $1.2 trillion across-the-board sequester, an immediate and steep reduction in Medicare physician payments, the end of the Alternative Minimum Tax patches, and the need to once again raise the debt ceiling.”

'Also starting Jan. 1, the sequester would automatically pare $43 billion off the nondefense discretionary budget: veterans benefits and services, health, education, justice, transportation, science and more. The cut could amount to about 10 percent of budget for the remainder of the year.'

'If income taxes revert to what we paid during the Clinton presidency, just about everybody would see their taxes go up. Lower income taxpayers would pay about 3 percent more of their income in taxes while the wealthiest 20 percent of taxpayers would pay an additional 6 percent in taxes.' ~ July 23, 2012 12:05 am • Billings Gazette

'U.S. municipalities are already in terrible fiscal shape due to the effects of The Great Recession. Now they're facing the effects of automatic tax increases and deep spending cuts of 9%, about $560 billion in total.'

'Rather than using the stimulus funds to stabilize precarious financial positions, the majority of the funds went to employee costs, such as salaries and benefits, particularly pension programs.'

'Pensions paid to state and local employees have destroyed the budgets...Elected officials sought the favor of unions by rubber-stamping compensation demands.'

'As an example of this largess that could not be afforded, in San Bernardino, CA, the average salary for a fireman was over $130,000. Compounding this was a pension system that allowed for retirement at age 50 with full pay and benefits.' ~ By: Money Morning Posted on August 17, 2012 at 15:37 PM EDT

'The Bush tax cuts, the eternal partisan trip-wire, are all set to expire Dec. 31. As a result:'

'Income tax rates: Rise to 15%, 28%, 31%, 36% and 39.6%, up from 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35%.'

As well, the article states that the child tax credit will be reduced $500, the marriage penalty comes back, estate or death tax activated at lower threshold with higher top rate, Alternative Minimum Tax lowers activation threshold, Payroll tax resumes while Medicare pays 27% less to physicians by removal of doc fix.

'Fiscal cliff's total impact amounts to more than $600 billion, or 4% of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP), if Congress fails to act. The result, the Congressional Budget Office projects, is that the economy will contract by 1.3% in the first half of 2013.'

"The fiscal cliff is the primary driver of uncertainty, and a person in my position is going to make a decision to postpone hiring and investments," said Powers. "We can see it in our order patterns, and customers are delaying. We don't have to get to the edge of the cliff before the damage is done."

"The fiscal cliff is not just a year end story," Michelle Meyer, along with her colleagues at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, penned in a note to clients. "We expect the uncertainty shock to be realized in the coming months, escalating before the election." ~ By: Money Morning Posted on August 06, 2012 at 15:46 PM EDT

'One tax rate: What makes a flat-tax system "flat" is that there is only one tax rate, whereas today's system has a series of rates.'

'Flat-tax proposals can differ from one another in several ways: how high they set the rate; how big they make the exemption, how many other tax breaks they allow and whether they eliminate the payroll tax and the estate tax.'

'But the more taxes a flat-tax system seeks to replace and the more tax breaks it allows, the higher the rate must be to generate enough revenue.' ~ Jeanne Sahadi | October 24, 2011

It would seem the extent of the above statement should depend on the resultant wage & economy growth arising from the increased efficiency of a particular proposal's flat tax.

'Supporters of a flat tax system propose that it would give taxpayers incentive to earn more because they would not be penalized with a higher tax bracket. In addition, supporters argue that a flat tax system is fairer because it imposed the tax on all taxpayers regardless of income.'

'In a progressive tax system, individuals who make more money are taxed at a higher rate. Many of the countries that have imposed a flat tax rate system on individuals and businesses, including Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, have experienced economic growth since adopting flat tax rate policies.'

'When deductions are allowed a 'flat tax' is a progressive tax with the special characteristic that above the maximum deduction, the rate on all further income is constant. Thus it is said to be marginally flat above that point. The conceptual difference between a true flat tax and a marginally flat tax, can be unified by recognizing that the latter simply excludes certain kinds of funds from being defined as income. Then they are both flat on "taxable" income.'

'Advocates of flat tax systems argue that a flat tax is fair because everyone pays the same tax rate. In addition, flat tax systems eliminate deductions, tax credits, and most exemptions, thereby eliminating biases towards certain behaviors and activities.'

'Eliminating deductions, tax credits, and complex tax brackets also simplifies the tax code, making compliance easier. Some proponents of the flat tax would like to see the Federal Form 1040 replaced by a simple post card on which you write your wages and multiply it by one tax rate.'

'Another part of the flat tax philosophy is to remove double taxation, by only taxing earned income. Things like dividends, interest on savings, or capital gains that result from investment or increases in asset value would not be taxed under a pure flat tax system.' ~ From Tonya Moreno, CPA

'Critics of the flat tax have suggested that it would raise taxes on lower and middle-income Americans while providing tax cuts for the wealthy. However, the evidence simply does not support this claim. As the following chart indicates, with a 17 percent rate, and personal allowances that exempt the first $33,800 of income for a family of four, the Armey-Shelby flat tax liberates millions of families from federal taxes.'

'Not only would lower and middle-income families pay little or no taxes under the flat tax, they would also benefit from higher incomes.' ~ Michael Keegan

'In addition to the income tax, the federal government imposes payroll tax, death tax, and a slew of excises. The New Flat Tax replaces them all for individuals, families, and businesses with one tax system with one tax rate of roughly 28 percent.'

'The flat tax and the FairTax share some important similarities...The flat tax, however, retains the invasive income tax administration apparatus and can easily revert to a graduated, convoluted mess, as it has many times over many years.'

'In addition, a large part of the burden of the flat tax -- the business tax -- will remain hidden from people in the retail price of goods and services.'

'Under the FairTax, the payroll tax, which is a larger and more regressive tax burden for most Americans than is the income tax, is repealed.'

You should follow the following link for the whole comparison between the two systems:

It would appear that the following critique of a flat tax refers to some version without a significant exemption since they had earlier referenced "the flat tax" as one with an exemption of $25,500 at 19% and had compared it to the then income tax pay threshold of $23,700 and starting at 15%.

Note the earlier refuted report by the Tax Policy Center which claimed Romney's tax rate reductions would have to increase the tax burden on the middle class due to insufficient growth is a case in point that disposes us towards some skepticism of their analysis of the flat tax. As well the Tax Policy Center is a collaboration of two agencies composed of government wonks, academics and lawyers which gives us general misgivings, but nonetheless in this piece they do bring up some points to be critical over in considering a proper flat tax.

'Under the flat tax, low-income households would lose because they now pay no income tax and are eligible for a refundable EITC of up to $3,370. Although the flat tax is more progressive than a VAT, it is more regressive than the current system. A flat tax would provide huge gains for high-income households, both because their marginal tax rate would fall and because they consume relatively less of their income than do low-income households. As a result, if a flat tax were to raise as much revenue as the current one, the tax burden for the middle class would have to rise. Consumption taxes are generally less regressive when viewed over longer periods of time because income changes from year to year, but they would raise tax burdens on lower- and middle-income households over any time frame.' ~ William G. Gale

"Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax," Romney said, and that his role "is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

'According to the non-partisan{?} Tax Policy Center, about 46% of households paid no income tax in 2011.'

"Well, clearly in a campaign, with hundreds if not thousands of speeches and question-and-answer sessions, now and then you're going to say something that doesn't come out right," Romney said. "In this case, I said something that's just completely wrong." ~ via Tory Hargro, | October 5, 2012

If only Romney would have countered with the notion that seniors who paid significant taxation through their working life are sapped after having had to pay the heavily graduated, inefficient income tax. They also paid the payroll Social Security tax where that money could have earned them much more in returns even through a simple savings account over all the years.

Payroll taxes are really twice as bad as they look since the matching portion given by the employer is hidden from one's pay stub. So twice one's money is going towards the Social Security Ponzi scheme which is going insolvent:

'Federal social insurance taxes are imposed on employers[15] and employees,[16] ordinarily consisting of a tax of 6.2% of wages up to an annual wage maximum ($110,100 in 2012) for Social Security and a tax of 1.45% of all wages for Medicare.[17] For the years 2011 and 2012, the employee's contribution had been temporarily reduced to 4.2%, while the employer's portion remained at 6.2%,[18] but Congress allowed the rate to return to 6.2% for the individual in 2013. [19] To the extent an employee's portion of the 6.2% tax exceeded the maximum by reason of multiple employers, the employee is entitled to a refundable tax credit upon filing an income tax return for the year.'

If Romney had championed the FairTax, he could have also touted removal of those regressive payroll taxes along with the income tax, allowing income earners throughout their working years to invest towards a much larger nest egg for retirement instead of being sapped through their working prime.

Such stance would have been the better sympathy than the media's note of seniors as pigeon-holed in their latter years under Social Security's austere retirement returns and thus more likely to be in a position to rely on government assistance and be pawns of the politicians.

Of those not paying any income tax, what percentage are able-bodied and getting redistribution through the tax code or receiving government assistance or grants or loans? Who works only part-time or is not employed and why? How long have they been doing so? Maybe USA Today can do a story on that.

Anyway, as for those earning less than $20k or the lower income demographics in general, let's consider their tax burden to what they get back from government, what's the fairness sentiment and who should they thank for support since all this was brought up. We also consider people like Mitt Romney and what their tax burden is compared to the rest of society.....

'The bottom line is that while Washington’s chattering class is in an uproar over Romney’s remarks, the vast majority of adults of all political persuasions, ages, and demographic backgrounds believe that it is unfair that so many people pay no income taxes and they believe that everyone should contribute to the basic cost of government.' ~ Scott A. Hodge | September 19, 2012

'Among those who identified themselves as Democrats, 71 percent said everyone should pay some income taxes, while 85 percent of self-identified Republicans and 83 percent of Independents responded in the same manner.'

'Romney may have spoken inelegantly - condescendingly to some - but he certainly raised an issue that has universal support and, thus, deserves an honest public debate.' ~ Scott A. Hodge | October 01, 2012

'The point is, that if we are going to talk about how much people pay in taxes, it is fair to do a full fiscal accounting and see how much they also get back in federal spending relative to the taxes they pay.'

'Mitt Romney was ridiculed for his comments on the “47 percent” and the issue of dependency, but CBO’s report illustrates that at least the bottom 60 percent of households now receive more in federal transfer income than they pay in total taxes and that it may not be long until 80 percent of Americans are net beneficiaries of transfer income.' ~ Scott A. Hodge | October 04, 2012

'Despite the charges of critics that the tax cuts enacted in 2001, 2003 and 2004 favored the “rich,” these cuts actually reduced the tax burden of low- and middle-income taxpayers and shifted the tax burden onto wealthier taxpayers.' ~ Scott A. Hodge | June 09, 2005

'As President Bush pushed through his two major tax bills in 2001 and 2003, opponents focused on the dollar amounts saved by high-income individuals. What many critics have ignored is the number of people who were removed from the tax rolls as a result of the expansion of the child tax credit, which was a key provision of the President's Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001.' ~ Scott A. Hodge | March 30, 2006

'As Bloomberg first reported, in 2009, some 20,000 high-earners had no federal income tax liability after taking their credits and deductions. The biggest contributing factors erasing their tax bills were the taxes paid deduction (such as state and local taxes), the foreign tax credit, the interest paid deduction, the charitable deduction, and the deduction for business losses.'

'Despite the fact that the number of non-paying high-earners amounted to just 1 in 189, or 0.53 percent, of the 3.9 million taxpayers over $200,000 in 2009, there has been a general lack of perspective in the reporting and commentary on this issue.'

'The fact is, as the chart below shows, 2009 had the largest percentage of Americans paying no income taxes since 1940 - 42 percent of all filers, or 58.6 million. In other words, 1 in 2.4 taxpayers in the general public paid no U.S. income tax in 2009 because of the generosity of the credits and deductions in the tax code.' ~ Scott A. Hodge | June 01, 2012

'Mitt Romney made $13.7 million last year and paid $1.94 million in federal income taxes, giving him an effective tax rate of 14.1%, his campaign said Friday.'

'But contrary to popular perception, Romney's effective federal income tax rate is still higher than that of most Americans -- 80% of whom have an effective rate below 15%. That number, however, does not include other federal taxes such as the payroll tax.' ~ Jeanne Sahadi | September 21, 2012

......Delving into the other federal taxes not included within the above link entry:

'The CBO's figures show that the average federal tax rate -- households' federal taxes, including income and payroll taxes, divided by their incomes -- was 17.4% in 2009 for all households. The rate ranged from 1% for households with the lowest incomes to 23.2% for households in the top 20%. (The figure was 28.9% for those in the top 1%.) The bottom line was that in 2009, the latest year for which these statistics are available, the CBO calculations found that the vast majority of Americans paid less than 15% of their incomes in federal taxes.'

'Paul Ryan (20% effective tax rate on $323,416 AGI), or to Obama (20.5% on $789,674), or to Vice President Joe Biden (23.2% on $379,035)' ~ Liz Weston | 9/18/2012 9:15 PM ET

What the 47% debate really leads to is an argument for the FairTax because it removes income and payroll taxes, vastly increases efficiency in economy and tax collection, everyone is subject to a transparent retail consumption sales tax and everyone is compensated for taxation on spending up to poverty level. As well it isolates the tax system arguments from social program arguments, providing immediate tax relief and letting socials to be fought out in another venue. Some may still disagree with that approach, but quite frankly they are getting outnumbered by increasing dependency and the constitutional & free market ignorance of the masses. Actually, implementing the FairTax would help change such dispositions.

Focusing on the last two links above concerning the vast majority suffering an effective federal tax rate less than Mitt Romney's bedeviled 15%, thinking this through we see that this is a technical pillar for the FairTax argument. Under the FairTax, there is no need for a special tax rate for investment income in order to escape any double taxation to whatever debateable degree because an individual's capital can only be taxed once upon realization at the end in a situation-applicable retail consumption sales tax. The retail rate is the same upon all retail consumption transactions whether the capital originated from a paycheck, interest income, dividends, capital gains, gambling, prostitution, selling drugs, robbing banks or even from those damn lawyers, politicians and political consultants. All individual effective tax rates will result consistently based upon income, number of dependents and spending habits and manifest in a relatively painless manner with a rise in standard of living compared to the current scenario. Case closed.

Note how the first two articles dispute that the Gorelick memo was a wall in blocking the military intelligence from Able Danger to the FBI or law enforcement which could have prevented Nine Eleven. However, that is not the whole picture. The first and third articles point out that the memo did create barriers between the CIA and the FBI and also between various departments within the FBI or with the Justice Department. The second article then disputes whether the Gorelick memo was to be a general policy, whereas the other two say it was. Are you following this so far? Anyway, apparently either by misinterpretation or by precedent the memo snowballed in scope. What else would one expect from a memo that refers to two terrorist cases and deals with separating the intelligence and the criminal investigations of them to such an extent beyond legal requirement? This probably created an air of confusion, concern and paralysis to varying degrees in different cases. This may have been inadvertent or as some allege it was cleverly crafted to create hesitancy in pursuing other intertwined intelligence and criminal matters in order to deflect investigation into questionable activities, like maybe inappropriate Chinese campaign contributions. We'll let you decide. Looking at all the facts, one should get a general picture of the effect and breadth the memo.

A practice that has left the mandates of the HMO-Insurance-Medicare system for a direct patient-pay model which can save 80-90% in costs.
http://www.acchealth.com/

"The new health care law creates two double standards. The congressional staff who wrote the new law exempted themselves from the new health care system, while other staff will be in it," Grassley said today in a statement.

"And, President Obama himself will not live under Obama health care. The message to grassroots America is that it's good enough for you, but not for us."

' This legislation - the Affordable Health Choices Act that's being drafted by Sen. Edward Kennedy's staff and the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee - will push Americans into stingy insurance plans with tight, HMO-style controls. It specifically exempts members of Congress (along with federal employees; the exemptions are in section 3116).

Members of Congress "enjoy the widest selection of health plans in the country," according to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. They "can choose from among consumer-driven and high deductible plans that offer catastrophic risk protection with higher deductibles, health saving/reimbursable accounts and lower premiums, or fee-for-service (FFS) plans, and their preferred provider organizations (PPO), or health maintenance organizations (HMO)." These choices would be nice for all of us, but they're not in the offing. Instead, if you don't enroll in a "qualified" health plan and submit proof of enrollment to the federal government, you'll be tracked down and fined (sections 3101 and 6055).'

'Tax exemptions for the rich union health benefits: 'The sweetheart deal, hammered out behind closed doors, will save union employees at least $60 billion over the years involved, while others won't be as lucky -- they'll have to cough up almost $90 billion.'

' Why the desire to exempt unions? Well it gets a favored constituency off their back, is a measure of payback for their support and union members can then enjoy their "gold plated" coverage while $11 an hour workers pay the freight......liable for $495 at 15% of the difference. '

' To make up for the lost [union exemptions] revenue, the bill applies an increased Medicare payroll tax to investment income as well as [to] wages for individuals making more than $200,000, or married couples above $250,000. The tax on investment income would be 3.8 percent. '

Quote of current national debt, breakdown of how Congress spends revenue department by department. Interest payments, dollar value and various links to solutions and activist sights on the national debt.
http://www.federalbudget.com/

Site for the Bureau of the Public Debt, an agency of the U.S. Treasury. They borrow money for the national government through selling Treasuries and bonds. This agency pays and redeems the interest on such securities. Site contains a link to the daily tally of the national debt down to the penny.
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

Obama sends unarmed, token National Guard troops to Arizona border for appearances only: 'A Border Patrol agent, who requested anonymity, says that the well-armed intruders were drug traffickers who are fully aware US National Guard troops are prohibited from carrying any type of weapon and [the National Guard] have been ordered not to confront lawbreakers coming across the border. The Guard troops are not allowed to apprehend illegal entrants, as well. ' They will perform background tasks only.

"And it looks as if we're going to follow the Bush dog-and-pony show at the border with an Obama dog-and-pony. 1,200 troops means perhaps one Guardsman every 7 miles if you don't give them weekends, holidays, sick days and vacation days off", Baker added. '

There is increasing violence near the Mexican border involving Mexican drug cartels. IEDs & hand grenades have been seized, plus mention of an assault on a drug rehab center in Mexico.

'Arizona is a main corridor for human- and drug smuggling, and Phoenix now ranks second in the world in kidnappings for ransom. In 2008, Phoenix reported 366 abductions, mostly tied to Mexican human smugglers and narcotics gangs.

Some of those testifying Monday have been sounding the alarm about the rising level of violence out of concern that drug-cartel violence, which has already claimed the lives of 10,000 people in Mexico since late 2006, could further spill into the U.S.'

"We're in the eye of the storm," Phoenix Police Chief Andy Anderson told ABC News of the violent crimes and ruthless tactics spurred by Mexico's drug cartels that have expanded business across the border. "If it doesn't stop here, if we're not able to fix it here and get it turned around, it will go across the nation," he said.

Obama administration's opposition to Arizona law means more crime and violence as previous experience shows:

'On May 21, officers were given the authority to question criminal suspects about their citizenship status and contact federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents if they suspect a suspect is in the United States illegally.'

Since then, Spencer said, ``Stolen vehicles have gone down 29 percent. That's a double-digit increase. Another thing that's gone down, which is quite unusual, our priority one or emergency calls for service, have decreased 10 percent."

Video showing illegals, armed drug smugglers crossing the Arizona border, leaving their trash and its environmental effects.

Sen. Jon Kyl asserts that Obama said that they do not want to secure the border because by fixing it they believe it would lessen the urgency for pushing their comprehensive immigration reform.

'Obama has called the Arizona law "misguided", even though all it does is give state and local law enforcement officers in Arizona the tools they need to enforce existing federal immigration laws. Those laws, incidentally, require legal aliens to carry papers attesting to their immigration status. So, in effect, the federal government is suing Arizona for attempting to uphold federal law.'

'Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-Ariz.) on Monday sent a sharply worded letter to President Barack Obama urging him not to sue.'

"I believe your administration's time, efforts and resources would be much better spent securing the border and fixing our broken immigration system," the two-term congressman wrote in the letter. "Arizonans are tired of the grandstanding, and tired of waiting for help from Washington. " [A] lawsuit won't solve the problem. It won't secure the border, and it won't fix our broken immigration system."

'The law calls for law enforcement officers, "when practical, to determine the immigration status" of a suspect. If the person is found to have violated immigration law, they're to be transferred to the federal authorities.'

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's response to the federal government's plan to file a legal challenge to SB 1070:

"Our federal government should be using its legal resources to fight illegal immigration, not the law-abiding citizens of Arizona. Despite the law's rigorous safeguards against racial profiling and carefully crafted language to avoid usurping federal authority, several lawsuits have already been filed."

' The suit didn't deal with concerns about racial profiling so that it could focus on the most serious problem with the law, Holder said in an interview broadcast Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation." In six months or a year, his department might look into the law's impact on racial profiling, he said.'

This is key: "If that was the case, we would have the tools and we would bring suit on that basis," - U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who defends the state immigration law as constitutional, said she believes federal officials would have included racial profiling in the suit if they thought it was an issue.

"Why would they have to hesitate, after all the comments they made, and all the outrage that they made against the bill in regards to racial profiling, that it didn't show up?" - Governess Jan Brewer, AZ

Obama's lousy choice for Homeland Security secretary: former AZ governess Janet Napolitano.

She was against a border fence, voter ID, local enforcement of immigration law, English as official language only and the coding of illegal immigration.

Obama administration via Secretary Clinton, submits a report in a UN review over human rights violations that implicates the Arizona illegal immigration law.

' The report says that it welcomes "observations and recommendations" from concerned members of the U.N. Human Rights Council, which includes countries such as North Korea, Saudi Arabia and Libya. President Obama is hoping these foreign nations "can help us on the road to a more perfect union." The administration went on to say that "Although we have made great strides, work remains to meet our goal of ensuring equality before the law for all." ' ~ Posted: 8:27 PM Aug 30, 2010

First off, desiring our leadership to be pro-business in a legitimate sense does not include a desire for bailouts, subsidies, favoritism or protectionism through government on behalf of certain companies or industries. The volume of government should merely be adequate without overregulating commerce and not heavily taxing economic activity. Government should only step in when necessary to pursue fraud, encourage safety and enforce reasonable environmental law.

' Today "pro-business" often gets equated with assuaging the desires of the business lobby. But Atlas excoriates those "businessmen" who spend their time liquoring up politicians to coax favors or crush competitors.' ~ Don Watkins and Yaron Brook, 08.17.10, 04:49 PM EDT

'Barack Obama is the most antibusiness president in a generation, perhaps in American history....Obama runs up taxpayer debt not in the billions but in the trillions....The oddities go on and on. Obama's Administration has declared that even banks that want to repay their bailout money may be refused permission to do so.....In his worldview, profits are a measure of how effectively you have ripped off the rest of society, and America's power in the world is a measure of how selfishly it consumes the globe's resources and how ruthlessly it bullies and dominates the rest of the planet.' ~ Dinesh D'Souza, 09.09.10, 05:40 PM EDT

'Marcus: Every day you see rules and regulations from a group of Washington bureaucrats who know nothing about running a business. And I mean every day. It's become stifling.' ~ By JOHN MERLINE Posted 07/20/2011 06:35 PM ET

"Small firms drive growth and create most new jobs in this country," he wrote. "We need to make sure nothing stands in their way."

'Analysts say it's an attempt to patch up the administration's shaky relationship with American businesses, which has suffered over health care and Wall Street reforms, among other policies.'

'But some small-business groups remain skeptical of the President's new regulatory focus, wondering if it is mere political posturing rather than the impetus for real change.' ~ By Venuri Siriwardane \ Jan 18, 2011

'Obama took formal action after unveiling his plan in an op-ed piece in the The Wall Street Journal in which he said some government regulations have placed "unreasonable burdens on business -- burdens that have stifled innovation and have had a chilling effect on growth and jobs." '

'The move is apparently aimed at patching up the Obama administration's relationship with corporate America, which has been reluctant to make investments and hire more people, in part because of uncertainty over government regulations and tax policies.'

'Despite Obama's promise, the administration's legislative victories are producing dozens of new regulations, on everything from credit card fees to health insurance premium increases, to the annoyance of the business community.' ~ msnbc.com news services updated 1/18/2011 10:16:59 AM ET

"And I'm saying it bluntly, that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation in my lifetime. And I can prove it and I could spend the next 3 hours giving you examples of all of us in this market place that are frightened to death about all the new regulations, our healthcare costs escalate, regulations coming from left and right." ~ Steve Wynn, CEO of Wynn Resorts Posted on July 18, 2011

'Obama has spent this year seeking to repair relations with the business community, and the administration is still working to overcome criticism from some executives that its regulatory policies are creating uncertainty for companies.'

'The administration announced last month that 30 federal agencies will seek to repeal or modify regulations in an effort to reduce reporting requirements and save businesses billions of dollars in compliance costs.' ~ By Julianna Goldman \ June 13, 2011, 10:35 PM EDT

"Keep in mind", President Obama cautioned reporters halfway through his hour-long news conference Wednesday morning, "that the business community is always complaining about regulations. When unemployment is at 3 percent and they're making record profits, they're going to still complain about regulations because, frankly, they want to be able to do whatever they think is going to maximize their profits."

'World Bank’s annual 'Doing Business' survey.....found Singapore to be the world’s friendliest regulatory environment, followed by Hong Kong, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. This fifth-place ranking represented a decline for the U.S., which in the 2009 survey ranked third' ~ By James Rosen, Published July 01, 2011

'Along with resentment about billions in government bailouts to large corporations deemed too big to fail, the issues most commonly mentioned as troubling for small business owners as they contemplate life under the new Obama Administration are the persistent credit crunch, the Administration's plans for health-care reform, and the possibility of tax increases on top-tier income brackets, experts say.'

"All this recovery money is going out and yet nobody's lending and we don't know when they ever will be," says Margo Dorfman, CEO of the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce. ~ By Karen E. Klein \ June 23, 2009, 10:06AM EST

"Instead of continuing their partnership with the business community and embracing proven ideas for job creation, they vilified industries while embarking on an ill-advised course of government expansion, major tax increases, massive deficits, and job-destroying regulations," the chamber wrote in an open letter to President Obama and lawmakers. ' ~ Walter Alarkon 07/14/10 12:23 PM ET

' According to the Financial Times, he railed against the president's economic leadership, saying U.S. businesses did not like Obama and Obama didn't like them. He held up German Chancellor Angela Merkel's policies in favor of German industries in contrast. "We are a pathetic exporter...we have to become an industrial powerhouse again but you don't do this when government and entrepreneurs are not in synch." ~ John Hudson July 02, 2010 11:00am

The author of this piece points out that the business world has put forth a vote of no confidence in Obama because of his tax policies, overregulation and they feel Obama is their adversary. This is why businesses are not furnishing capital or expanding and thus stagnating the economy.

'But one unfortunate pattern that has emerged in the last 18 months is to lay all the blame for our difficulties only on the business community and the financial world. This quite ignores the role of Congress in many areas, but most glaringly in forcing Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Housing Administration to back loans to people who could not afford them. And not to mention the role of the Securities and Exchange Commission, which in 2004 sanctioned higher levels of leverage for financial firms, from 12 times equity to over 30 times equity.'

'For example, the new financial regulation bill includes nearly 500 "rule-makings," studies, and reports, compared with just 14 in total for the controversial Sarbanes-Oxley bill, passed after the financial scandals of Enron and WorldCom. ' ~ Mortimer B. Zuckerman Posted: July 16, 2010

Sarbanes-Oxley at only 14 partitions was blamed as an unnecessary business dampener that made for more government meddling while not weeding-out that much corruption as had been touted. Obama even said it should/would be repealed. Well, when will they do it?

This piece notes how small businesses are wary of the overregulation being unleashed by Obama.

Before Obama was president and further back before the fall 2008 campaign, there were signs in Obama's rhetoric of his disdain for free enterprise. Despite the view in this piece that Obama can be a unifier on race and religion (writer may have changed mind with events since), it is honed to Obama's anti-business stance:

'Now, only a fool would say that American capitalism doesn't have a multitude of issues. But his slap against big business is overly broad at least.......

Look at the rosters of the United Ways, the YMCAs, the Boys and Girls Clubs, land trusts, redevelopment organizations, school boards, and you will usually find a majority of business people. They are trying to solve the economic and social problems that Obama is talking about.

As for questionable accounting, with a few notorious exceptions, the business world is on the mountaintop compared to the funny money used in government accounting. Point in case: the crazy-quilt patches on the Wisconsin budget working its way through the Legislature. ' ~ John Torinus | Business Commentary | March 23, 2008

' Business leaders gripe about burdensome new financial and health care regulations, what they see as unfriendly tax policies and vast government spending. They were put off by Obama's harsh depiction of "fat cat bankers" and "reckless practices," a label he applied both to Wall Street and to oil-spill giant BP.

The new financial overhaul law - while not going as far as some Democrats wanted - and other new regulations along with the prospect of higher taxes irritated many financial and corporate leaders "and they've moved away from Obama," said James Thurber, a political scientist at American University. ' ~ Tom Raum, Aug 9, 9:21 pm ET

Community leaders said the vast majority of businesses and organizations that fly planes are not wealthy chief executives, but people who use airplanes as another tool to do businesses. About 90 percent of airports in this country do not have commercial airline service so there is need of private jets to them.

'U.S. Rep. Mike Pompeo, speaking via video feed from Washington, called Obama's remark a "class warfare argument." '

"We watched as he spent hundreds of billions of dollars trying to resurrect the automotive manufacturing industry and now he is trying to destroy one that is asking for nothing more than to let us be and to let us grow," Pompeo said. ~ By ROXANA HEGEMAN \ July 20, 2011, 8:16PM

'Obama can do the math, he understands his corporate jet proposal would only trivially reduce the deficit. But the president wants to put the GOP on the defensive for its absolutist opposition to any tax increases. So, he claims, Republicans are willing to jeopardize the credit of the United States in order to protect, as he so dramatically puts it, "millionaires and billionaires." '

'According to a 2007 revenue estimate, this would shave about $3 billion off the deficit over a decade, or roughly $300 million-a-year. You’ll recall that this year’s deficit is likely to be about $1.4 trillion.' ~ By Howard Gleckman, Guest blogger / July 7, 2011

'The interesting part here, though, is how he’s singling out corporate jets. The accelerated depreciation applies to a broad range of capital goods and it’s not at all clear to me why the policy would be good when applied to most assets and bad when applied to corporate jets..... I don’t think there’s an economic argument for singling out corporate jets, so much as they provide a convenient touchstone for class-warfare rhetoric aimed at the Republicans.'

'Of course, Obama didn’t mention where the tax break for corporate jets came from: his own stimulus bill.' ~ Written by mojofinance \ June 30, 2011 at 8:19 pm

'According to an article in Bloomberg, as many as 600 private jets were expected to touch down in D.C. for the inauguration. Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority said it expected a total of 500 small jets to land from Jan. 16 through Jan 21.'[2008]

' "That would set a record, topping the 300 the airport accommodated for President George W. Bush’s 2004 inaugural", an Airports Authority says in the article.'

'The presence of so many wealthy and their jets also underscores a stark reality of Mr. Obama’s election and presidency.' ~ Robert Frank \ January 20, 2009, 9:41 AM ET

National Relations Labor Board tells Boeing they cannot opt to open a new plant in S.C.

'The dispute - which has become a cause célèbre among conservatives - stems from Boeing’s opening of a $1 billion non-union plant in South Carolina, following union strikes that disrupted production of the 787 Dreamliner aircraft in Washington state. The labor board argues that Boeing’s actions were in retaliation against the strikes and a violation of labor laws.'

'Boeing has argued that shuttering the South Carolina facility would eliminate 1,000 jobs.'

'House Democrats termed the legislation the "GOP’s Job Outsourcers’ Bill of Rights" and hammered Republicans for pushing a bill that they contend would harm workers and ship more jobs overseas.' ~ By SEUNG MIN KIM 9/15/11 1:38 PM EDT

....That makes no sense. Boeing is attempting to send jobs to S.C. in order to escape Washington's union interests which have served to help drive businesses overseas in other cases.

'Gibson employee George Mathews says: "Our company has been one of the leaders in the musical industry to use wood that’s certified, that’s been approved by the rain Forest Alliance." '

'Gibson employee George Mathews says: "All the wood that we buy from overseas comes in through customs, and customs approves it for entry into the country. But they’ll wait a month, two months before coming here and seize it like that. It kind of makes you fee like a criminal." '

'In 2009, more than a dozen agents with automatic weapons invaded the Gibson factory in Nashville. The Government seized guitars and a substantial amount of ebony fingerboard blanks from Madagascar. To date, 1 year and 9 months later, criminal charges have NOT been filed, yet the Government still holds Gibson’s property. Gibson has obtained sworn statements and documents from the Madagascar government and these materials, which have been filed in federal court, show that the wood seized in 2009 was legally exported under Madagascar law and that no law has been violated.' ~ 08.25.2011

'Lew Rockwell may have been onto something when he suggested that the attacks on Gibson have precious little to do with preserving trees and much to do with the fact that the company "failed to bribe the right people in DC." '

'Thus, on top of all the unconstitutional environmental laws the federal government enforces, it is now attempting to enforce, at its own discretion and in excruciating detail, all other foreign countries’ environmental laws, even when those countries do not believe their laws have been violated.' ~ Written by Michael Tennant Monday, 29 August 2011 14:50

'Gibson hasn't been charged but these outrageous actions serve as the latest indictment of the Obama administration and its antipathy toward business. The National Labor Relations Board sued to stop Boeing from locating a plant in right-to-work South Carolina, leaving potential workers unhired. The DOJ sued big banks, chilling capital formation. The DOJ sued to stop the AT&T/T-Mobile merger, citing a reduction in competition even though Verizon will still have huge market share. No wonder no jobs were created in August - companies are frozen with fear of the federal government.' ~ By Greg Johnson Posted September 9, 2011 at 4 a.m.

' Unclear...whether the $17 billion in savings in 2010 would be used to fund other federal programs or to reduce the country's growing deficit.'

$17 billion in Obama budget cuts is less than half of 1% of the $3.5 trillion 2010 budget. 'Those savings are far exceeded by a phone-book-sized volume detailing Obama's generous increases for domestic programs that will accompany the call for cuts. And instead of devoting the savings to defray record deficits, the White House is funneling them back into other programs.'

'Barack Obama: "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." (January 2008)' ~ Uploaded by BattleBornPAC on Mar 18, 2009

' The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that a 15 percent cut of emissions would raise average household energy costs by almost $1,300....... That's how cap-and-trade would tax most Americans. As "allowances" became scarcer, their price would rise, and the extra cost would be passed along to customers. Meanwhile, government would expand enormously.'

At a Washington, D.C., lecture sponsored by Resources for the Future, an environmental think tank, Joskow said virtually any cap-and-trade system designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would work poorly under the current confused structure of the U.S. electricity industry.

'The whole point of cap and trade -- which President Obama is careful not to make explicit -- is to make fossil fuels so expensive we will use less of them.'

'The president won't call this a tax. But his most prominent supporter in the business community, billionaire investor Warren Buffett, thinks it's one which will devastate an economy already in "shambles." '

'Although solar- and wind-generated electricity can play a supporting role in supplying Michigan’s electricity needs, neither are 100 percent reliable since the sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow.' Cites increased cost to taxpayers for bureaucracy, risk of energy shortages, rising gas and electricity costs plus job losses in this piece on a midwest regional version of cap-and-trade enacted in 2007.

Cap-And-Trade increases national debt 26% by 2035, gas 58% and electricity 90%. ' As President Obama pointed out, cap and trade can work only when energy prices "skyrocket." To force consumer-energy cutbacks, the prices need to rise to painful levels '

'They know the major impact carbon liability will have on their bottom line. Make sure you turn their misfortune into your personal gain....Utilities' new burden is cleantech's new blessing. The entire process has absolutely nothing to do with you... until you get your electric bill.'

'Of course, the cap and trade is a double edged sword when it comes to tax relief-since it would make operations more expensive for the likes of oil and electric companies, those costs would probably be passed down to the consumer. And guess who gets hit the hardest by a bigger electric bill? Yup, low income families. So on that front, the billions going to tax relief might end up acting as a sort of equalizer.... Obama's cap and trade proposal has created an intense backlash from many Republicans and rust belt state Democrats; both worry that the cap would hurt industry in strained economic times.'

Even if one thought it was necessary to control carbon outputs, a direct carbon tax is here purported to be the better system as compared to a cap-and-trade regimen. This site says a carbon tax is more transparent, causes less volatility in energy prices, starts quicker, is much simpler and less prone to manipulation or to lining the pockets of middle-man outfits.

'Devastating impact on U.S. manufacturing.' Cites problems of cap-and-trade like the omission of using nuclear power to reduce carbon output while using a heavy reliance on renewables where the science and practibility are lacking. Favoritism for carbon credits would bestow a new lobby and less favored industries would suffer hardships. A rise in manufacturing costs at home would give producers overseas an advantage causing the need for tariffs which may spark trade wars. Instead of cap-and-trade, it would be better to just rely more on natural gas and nuclear power which would attain carbon quotas.

Waxman-Markey bill was passed without thorough reading or debate. $80 billion Obama counted on for revenue was removed from bill to appease industry. Tariffs will be put on foreign trade. Allegations are that emissions won't be adequately reduced but the plan's cost is still great. 'Even if Waxman-Markey were perfectly formulated, it would reduce global surface temperatures by only one-tenth of 1 degree Celsius in 100 years.'

It is one thing to use new technology like drones to help local law enforcement or within protocol for national security, but it is another to tacitly allow for their "accidental" monitoring to not count as an unreasonable search. And with a federal government way out of constitutional bounds, these devices will be used to better enforce unconstitutional edicts or the like of abusive EPA regulations upon farmers. The panoramic view including more typical citizens as opposed to a reasonable and specific targeting of lawbreakers and threats should raise an alarm with drones in general, especially with the hypocritical transparency record of Obama:

'And for the first time since the Civil War, the federal government will deploy military personnel inside the United States and publicly acknowledge that it is deploying them "to collect information about U.S. persons."

'Any "incidentally acquired information" can be retained or turned over to local law enforcement. What’s next? Prosecutions before military tribunals in the United States?'

'The quoted phrases above are extracted from a now-public 30-page memorandum issued by President Obama’s secretary of the Air Force on April 23.' ~ By Andrew P. Napolitano Thursday, June 7, 2012

'America is awash in surveillance cameras, from red-light cameras at intersections to cameras in and outside businesses. For the most part, we tolerate their intrusiveness if the pictures are triggered by actual lawbreakers or are in a public place for legitimate security purposes where the expectation of privacy does not exist.'

'Under current guidelines, information gathered deliberately or accidentally by military drones over the U.S. can be kept by the military up to three months before being purged.'

'They can also be turned over to "another Department of Defense or government agency to whose function it pertains." Presumably that includes Attorney General Eric Holder's Department of Justice.' ~ Posted 06/06/2012 06:32 PM ET

Harry Browne's 2000 platform on health care illustrated the government's role in making medical services & insurance more expensive while taking down accessibility, choice and quality. The platform is no longer available but a good sampling of its overall points inhabit his articles here. All those works provide a listing of free market solutions to health care. Through compare and contrast, it will become immediately obvious that the healthcare reform passed in 2010 will not live up to its promises to make things better, but is instead intensification of what has been making health care worse over the decades.

Even in this "neutralized" Pulitzer endeavour from the St. Petersburg Times, the basic main points outline of the health-care bill of 2010 illustrates its duplicitous construction. Saying that it is not a government-run health system because most of it would not be owned or operated by the feds ignores that it is indeed government-run, albeit indirectly, through edicts and mandates issued by proxy. A fiscal fascist health-care plan as described here is government-run at a distance using threat of fines and imprisonment. The piece itself admits it to be a plan based on speculations, half-truths and unknowns.

Taxes, penalties, regulations, subsidies, cost controls and benefit cuts litter the description. Such schizophrenic programs promise the moon to hook support while forcing others to pay for the free lunch. This is from an already bankrupt government due to its other mismanaged and costly giveaways and boondoggles. Social Security, IRS, Federal Reserve - do you really still trust the officiators?

You will further establish a skepticism over whether the plan will ever work as you read between the lines of the piece while checking it against economic reality and liberty socioeconomics.

The collection of links that follow will further prove that Obamacare can never work....

As the politicians were screaming about rising health insurance premiums during the pre-Obamacare debates, the average short-term costs were actually decreasing.

The decrease: 'Consumers` cost of health premiums is also part of the detailed consumer price index. After all the overheated rhetoric about "requested" or "expected" increases of "up to" 39 percent, who would have imagined that the average consumer cost of health insurance premiums fell by 3.5 percent in 2008 and fell by another 3.2 percent in 2009?' ~ Alan Reynolds March 15, 2010

And though much of the projected rises in cost due to Obamacare on premiums and medical costs have not yet occurred (Obamacare won't fully take effect until a few years), there are some areas that are now beginning to show rise -

The rise: 'Since no one seems willing to discuss the real reasons that health insurance premiums are increasing dramatically since the passage of the PPACA (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act). Let me break down the 3 primary reasons.' ~ C. Steven Tucker

While the president holds back release of his medical records, he pushes the Bush train to get electronic medical records (EMRs) networked amongst providers and insurers despite unanswered concerns concerning privacy and security breaches of that data. The savings in the end by achieving such a system would be beneficial, but with the government's record it is safe to say that it's even more cost-effective to let such a system evolve out of the doctors and insurers in the arena of truly free market forces. This is opposed to a government mandate that would prematurely force a particular system on everyone only to find out it costs more than originally thought (surprise!) and that it must be constantly patched, re-written or even scrapped for another.

It's another instance of Obama & Co. promising the moon while the possible costly drawbacks of the security breaches, an inadequately skilled labor pool and threat of system failures have not been adequately assessed.

And where does the federal government or the president get the authority to dictate how hospitals and insurers keep their medical records beyond the constitution's commerce and necessary/proper clauses?

A practice that has left the mandates of the HMO-Insurance-Medicare system for a direct patient-pay model which can save 80-90% in costs. Why not invoke this type of reform instead?

News stories of dysfunctional government-run health care systems like Obama wants.

You've been tricked! Obama and the Democrats misled the public on the number of uninsured:

'This Census report says that within the borders of the United States as of 2007 there were 45.65 million people without health insurance. But this number, according to the Census Bureau, included 9.73 million foreigners, leaving only 35.92 [million] Americans who were uninsured.....'

'The Census Bureau says that there are only 35.92 million uninsured Americans and that this number includes 9.1 million people who earn more than $75,000 a year and simply choose not to purchase insurance. '

'Remember all those statements from Democrats, including Barack Obama himself, that 47 million Americans are without health insurance? That's no longer the operative number. "There are now more than thirty million American citizens who cannot get coverage," the president said in tonight's speech. ' ~ Now don't you want to haggle?!

'But is it accurate to assume that even 37 million Americans cannot afford health insurance? Absolutely NOT. Even Hillary Clinton during her presidential campaign once admitted that 25% of the uninsured could afford health insurance but chose not to purchase it. '

Half of that 20 million is attributable to those changing jobs who get back on health insurance within four months.

'Finally, there are millions of adult Americans and children who have nearly free access to medical care benefits through Medicaid and other government programs who don't really need the direct cost of health insurance and who don't carry any.....

Thus, with reasonable adjustments, there are in fact less than 10 million individuals who are so-called "chronically uninsured." (The Kaiser Family Foundation says the number could be as low as 8 million). '

Even Bill Moyer's bs on PBS reflects all this. Democrats said roughly there were 45 million uninsured. From the above links we see that nearly 10 million were illegals. Another 10 million were those changing jobs who get health insurance again within four months. Another 10 million were those who simply choose not to purchase health insurance - some young and healthy and some with higher incomes. That would leave 15 million of which some qualifying proportion would have access to Medicaid and such. If roughly half of those are accessing, the remainder falls within the 8 million who are "chronically uninsured" as indicated by Kaiser.

' The majority of uninsured adults (75%) have gone without coverage for a period of at least one year. '

Well, we see that 45 million uninsured minus the 10 million who are back within four months gets roughly to 75% per year and of those only 8-10 million are "chronically uninsured" citizens. See how the lefties cleverly emotionalize the facts?

While premiums and health costs are rising, we can blame much of that on government programs, interference, mandates and the resulting corruption which is evident throughout all these links. Obama himself said Medicare was so inefficient that he could carve some of it out for a whole new health care initiative as being 'deficit neutral'. What a lovely case record for government-managed health care!

And what is this?! After we spent nearly 1 trillion dollars on the Obama - Reid - Pelosi health care boondoggle and we eventually end up with around 16 million still uninsured? But the above breakdown to Kaiser says we now have 8-10 million uninsured! More money so less people will be uninsured? What is going on here?! Is the timeline being interpreted correctly?

Obama's pick to head Medicare and Medicaid via a recess appointment (Berwick) has praised the horridly rationing British healthcare system and brought suspicion upon the administration. Despite having some appropriate background and the supporting calls that his remarks were out of context, a previous pattern of Obama appointees having said controversial and suspicious things plus some of their spooky backgrounds does not help in allaying fears over the "death panel" accusations in this case. This is not to mention Obama's own ideology.

A bill to allow interstate health insurance policies was opposed by Democrats back in 2005. It would have allowed consumers to choose different types of policies and end statewide health insurance monopolies both of which would help bring down costs.

' Mike Kreidler is insurance commissioner of Washington state and represented the National Association of Insurance Commissioners at a hearing on the bill last month. He says insurance regulators fear the bill will prompt a, quote, "race to the bottom by insurance companies." '

Well, now you have a surging race to the top in your health insurance premiums instead! Aren't you glad the politicians are here to protect you from your supposed incompetence in choosing a worthy policy?

'Mr. McCain backs legislation sponsored by Arizona Rep. John Shadegg. Known as the Health Care Choice Act, it would allow individuals living in one state to purchase health insurance being sold to people living in other states. The policy would still have to meet the regulations of the state in which it is being sold, and would be subject to additional federal oversight.......

Almost no problems have arisen from all of these interstate coverage options. So why are the two presidential candidates fighting about expanding interstate health-insurance options? '

Now they have got you in their talons because the health care legislation has passed. With their record so far, health care costs will explode further and/or taxes will massively increase while your access to treatment and its quality go down.

'Medicare, which went into effect in 1965, and the HMO-subsidizing act, which was passed in 1973, together triggered a non-stop explosion in health care costs which dwarf price increases in virtually all other products and services for consumers.'

The site also has some notable quotes and links (a sizeable portion of outdated ones) to various sources.

Communist Party USA endorses the Obama-sponsored health care plan and calls for action to get it passed. 'The daily on-line edition of the People's Weekly World, as well as the weekly print edition, covers breaking news and provides a deeper understanding of the issue and how to win support. '

A site about the advantages of free market health care which counters the government-run arguments.

Obama health plan proposal would increase costs according to CBO. Kinda sounds like they are toying with some sort of rationing in certain areas to achieve a more desirable version.

'The House measure would bar insurance companies from denying coverage to individuals who are sick, while also requiring most Americans to carry health insurance or pay a penalty equal to about 2.5% of their gross income....The proposal also seeks to raise $75 billion to $100 billion over 10 years by giving states an incentive to issue bonds that would help offset the expanded federal share of Medicaid...."This bill costs too much, it covers too few and it has way too much government involvement" said Michelle Dimarob, a lobbyist with the National Federation of Independent Business... '

'1.09 million of 21.5 million small business owners would see a one- to three-percent surtax on their profits in order to fund the House of Representatives' trillion-dollar health care reform bill.....While only about five percent of small business owners would be exposed to the extra charge, Ellis says two in every three dollars of profit made by small businesses would be subject to it....." (So) businesses will continue to try to wring out as much efficiency as they can in the labor force, and that means cutting back hours and cutting back jobs," he said.'

Obama booed at AMA conference for not supporting cap on awards from malpractice lawsuits. 'Price contended that a committee established within Obama's administration to study the effectiveness of various medical treatments would turn into a "rationing board" to overrule doctors and deny patients care....For instance, he wants to cut federal payments to hospitals by about $200 billion and cut $313 billion from Medicare and Medicaid over 10 years. He also is proposing a $635 billion in tax increases and spending cuts in the health care system as a "down payment" for his plan.

'More than anything else, the administration has moved quickly, recognizing that Obama's popularity might never be higher than in the first year of his presidency...."We are going to make huge decisions about the health care sector - one-sixth of the economy - with very little debate about the consequences," Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said last month.... Some of those fixes also will be unpopular. But true health care reform inevitably will require tradeoffs, and some of those tradeoffs will mean hard choices.'

' The overall impact of these provisions will be to increase the cost of private insurance coverage for individuals, families, and businesses above what these costs would be in the absence of reform.

On average, the cost of private health insurance coverage will increase:

-- 26 percent between 2009 and 2013 under the current system and by 40 percent during this same period if these four provisions are implemented. '

' The first thing to understand is that the result or outcome being espoused by the Whitehouse is illogical. To believe that America can add 30 million uninsured patients [was 47 million including illegals & Medicaid types to exaggerate], cut current health care costs by over $500 billion, have the level of care increase, providing Americans healthier, longer lives at the same time as the government itself estimates that the country will have 150,000 fewer doctors by 2025. Very faulty reasoning, some might even say fanciful or deceptive.'

' Other factors leading to higher costs include a new tax on high-cost health insurance plans, cuts in Medicare payments to hospitals and doctors, and a series of new taxes on insurers and other health care industries, the report said. '

Guess who will pay for a lot of that? We will in our premiums & doctor bills.

' The bill would require insurers to take all applicants, doing away with denials for pre-existing health problems. In return, all Americans would be required to carry coverage, either through an employer or a government program, or by buying it themselves. '

One of the provisions supported by health insurers is one of not lessening the penalties for not buying insurance. On their behalf, that's not so unreasonable since the politicians are going to force health insurers to accept everyone as policy holders who walk through the door. Note that the health insurance industry's haters will isolate the former part of this argument and say that the insurance companies are hell bent on forcing us into being insured so they can make a killing in profits.

Deficit-neutral desperation on trying to find a fundable reform. Public option being dredged up again. 'Reid was trying a bit of Enron accounting: Dump an additional quarter-trillion dollars into general spending and then declare the overall health legislation deficit neutral....More than half the cost of the $900 billion health plan proposed by the president would be paid for in unspecified future Medicare cuts.'

400 Percent Profit Increase for Health Insurers Cited by Health Care Bill Backers is Selective, 'Meaningless' Number, Say Analysts

' Overall, the profit margin for health insurance companies was a modest 3.4 percent over the past year, according to data provided by Morningstar. That ranks 87th out of 215 industries and slightly above the median of 2.2 percent. By this measure, the most profitable industry over the past year has been beverages, with a 25.9 percent profit margin. '

Medical News Today site has some editorials from various publications on then President-elect Barack Obama's health care plans and promises. From a Washington Times article: "It is a perfect formula for driving many private insurers out of business and replacing them with a government-run monopoly."

First here is an overview of the Affordable Health Care for America Act - H.R.3962 - which is a combined version of some previous bills and was passed in the House on November 7th '09. Note most supporters of the FairTax bill which proposes to end the burdensome I.R.S. and rid us of the income tax's 22% drag on the economy, oppose H.R.3962 because the proposals in it will effect our health care system analogous to what the I.R.S. and the income tax have done to our economy and to the citizenry within. Instead, we need constitutionally sound health care reform that will reverse what the government has already done to our health care system which made it more expensive while lowering performance and accessibility.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3962/show ~ H.R.3962 passed by the House in November '09. Signed into law on June 25, 2010.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3590/show ~ ' This is the major health care reform bill, signed into law by President Obama on March 23, 2010. '

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4872/show ~ ' This bill would amend the health care reform bill to eliminate some controversial and unpopular items, and bring some of its provisions more in line with what the more progressive health care bill that was passed by the House in Nov. '09. ' Signed into law a week later from the major health care reform bill on March 30, 2010.

On top of all this, the politicians and staffers who crafted the health care "reform" exempted themselves from such a lovely plan. See section within:

'Adopting language and tactics more typical of tyrants, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius yesterday sent a public letter to the head of a health insurance industry group demanding that carriers stop "falsely blaming premium increases for 2011 on the patient protections in the Affordable Care Act," and that "that there will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases." '

'When Sebelius threatens exclusion from the "Exchanges," she is really saying: "Shut up and eat your costs, or you'll be out of business in a few years." ' ~ By Tom Blumer September 10, 2010 22:23

"Since debate over healthcare reform began, it was clear the President’s healthcare overhaul would be expensive, but now we know that fees on insurance companies will leave families with an additional and crushing $5,000 bill over the next decade," wrote Holtz-Eakin.

'The law's potential impact on premiums has created political headaches for Democrats. President Obama promised during the 2008 presidential campaign that families would save $2,500 a year thanks to reform, but the law requires many people to upgrade their coverage, leading to higher costs.' ~ By Julian Pecquet - 03/09/11 04:33 PM ET

'The problem is that Obamacare will unleash ten tax increases designed to help raise the trillions of dollars necessary to fund the aforementioned subsidies as well as the law's massive Medicaid expansion.' ~ October 8, 2010

'ObamaCare regulations will result in some insurance companies refusing to sell new policies specifically for children whose parents otherwise might have wanted to purchase such policies. Faced with rules that would prevent the insurance industry from denying coverage to children with preexisting health problems, at least three companies will be discontinuing child-only policies' ~ by Brad Wilmouth Sep 24, 2010

'The Hewitt report blames higher [premiums] mostly on medical claim costs and an aging population but also on U.S. healthcare reform, which has become one of the most politically charged issues in the coming November congressional elections as disappointed voters learn they must wait for promised savings to come into effect.' ~ (Editing by Jackie Frank) / Mon Sep 27, 2010 3:18pm EDT

'According to PwC, the health reform law will have minimal effect on the medical cost trend in 2012. Provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that took place prior to 2012 were small changes for which employers already have fully accounted. The Medicaid expansions, health insurance exchanges, subsidies to buy private insurance, mandates for employers to offer insurance and mandates for individuals to buy insurance take place in 2014 or later, although PwC notes that health reform could contribute to more cost shifting by further discounting Medicare rates for inpatient care.'

'But benefit changes in 2011 were able to reduce the [medical cost] trend by only 0.5 percent, from the projected 8 percent to 7.5 percent, because of mandates imposed by the health reform law. ' 2011-05-19

'Nearly a million workers won't get a consumer protection in the U.S. health reform law meant to cap insurance costs because the government exempted their employers.'

"The big political issue here is the president promised no one would lose the coverage they've got," says Robert Laszewski, chief executive officer of consulting company Health Policy and Strategy Associates. "Here we are a month before the election, and these companies represent 1 million people who would lose the coverage they've got." ~ By Drew Armstrong \ updated 10/7/2010 5:50 PM

'The bottom line here is that they gave out waivers [which] is an admission of guilt. Basically they’re saying, "You’re right. We screwed up." That’s the bottom line here. They did not create a law that benefits all of us.' - Tracy Byrnes FBN

'McDonald’s takes a lot of heat for the nutritive value of its menu, usually from self-assigned food nannies, but the company did try to find ways to improve the health of its part-time staff by offering them a low-cost health insurance plan that was affordable and effective. That effort will have to end, thanks to ObamaCare, which mandates that certain percentages of revenue have to go to claims rather than administrative costs. That will leave tens of thousands with no option for coverage except expensive comprehensive plans they can neither afford nor really need:' ~ posted at 2:55 pm on September 30, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

'At this point, the better question is: Who won’t be on the [waiver] list after the Obamacare central planners fully acknowledge the destructive consequences of their schemes?... Make no mistake: Team Obama isn’t granting the waivers out of bleeding-heart compassion for the affected workers, but out of a panicked urgency to avoid a public relations disaster.' ~ By Michelle Malkin November 14, 2010 10:26 AM

'The number of temporary healthcare reform waivers granted by the Obama administration to organizations climbed to more than 1,000, according to new numbers disclosed by the Department of Health and Human Services.'

'The waivers have typically been granted to so-called "mini-med" plans that offer limited annual coverage as low as $2,000 that would fall short of meeting the new annual coverage floor of $750,000 in 2011.'

'Republican lawmakers have seized on the waivers as proof that the law they want to see repealed is flawed, and they have accused the administration of giving them waivers as gifts to union allies.' ~ By Jason Millman - 03/06/11 04:38 PM ET

'It was a trap alright, but one they could of extradited themselves out of if not for the rules of engagement laid out by Obama's General, General Stanley McChrystal:

....U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines - despite being told repeatedly that they [civilians] weren't near the village.'

'Imagine if you're a Marine in Afghanistan, charged with fighting terrorists, yet you can't shoot at Taliban terrorists unless you see them actually holding weapons in their hands! If the Taliban terrorists only temporarily put their arms down, Marines are forbidden from shooting at them!

...rules of engagement under Obama are "overly restrictive" and that they go too far; ....some troops in Afghanistan are going to lengths to make the unconventional decision of openly criticizing the rules of engagement under Obama.'

'After a year of concentrated effort, NATO forces in Afghanistan have reduced civilian casualties, caused by foreign troops, 44.4 percent. There were 7.8 percent fewer battles even involving civilians, and 52 percent fewer civilians hurt by foreign troops. The most striking reduction (82 percent) was in civilian casualties from air strikes. All this is calculated by comparing the last three months with the same period from last year. All this despite nearly twice as many foreign troops in action, and much more combat. Meanwhile, civilian losses from Taliban action are up 36 percent.

Many Afghans are not happy with this policy, with foreign troops increasingly encountering angry Afghan civilians, who demand that NATO act more decisively in pursuing and killing Taliban gunman. Even if it puts Afghan civilians at risk.'

On Petraeus: "one of the first things the general will do when he takes over in Afghanistan is to modify the controversial rules of engagement to make it easier for U.S. troops to engage in combat with the enemy".

'President Obama himself sought to dispel any notions there would be a dramatic shift in strategy in a press conference announcing the leadership switch on Wednesday.

The White House has not yet commented on the reports, but a change in the Afghanistan rules of engagement would certainly be embraced by many soldiers, who feel they have been limited by regulations on when they can return fire, who they can detain, for how long, and where they can patrol, according to independent military publication Stars and Stripes.'

Indepth descriptions of Obama interrogation plan contains red flags that they will apply legalistic court procedures to what should be instead intelligence gathering from usually foreign prisoners of war or domestic insurgents:

' The official familiar with the task force's work said that the draft report would seek to ensure that "the need for actionable information is mutually compatible with requirements for an eventual court case." .... The decision would impact whether to immediately provide a detainee with a lawyer in preparation of seeking a conviction or whether to proceed with an interrogation in order to collect intelligence about a broad picture of a terrorist organization or specific plot.'

If one opposes Gitmo processes, there are stumbling blocks to transferring prisoners to new facilities or new modes of trial. 'But it's not at all clear that convictions could be won against even top Al Qaeda suspects .... Federal and military courts are much more protective of a defendant's rights than the military commissions operating at Guantanamo...He could claim right to speedy trial was denied, no Miranda warnings or that confessions were coerced.'

'The new administration simply has not decided on rules to detain and try terror suspects -- those at Guantanamo now, or those captured in the future. Guantanamo detainees were not read Miranda rights, thus dampening efforts to truly try them in a civil court.'

'FBI agents in Afghanistan are reading Miranda warnings to suspected terrorists captured there.' Rep. John Carter - TX "I spent 20 years as a criminal district judge, and I firmly believe that they [captured terrorists] are not entitled to have Miranda rights. Their rights are defined in other ways, they are not defined by our Constitution." Previously Obama said that terrorists would not be given Miranda rights.

"It creates an absurd situation because then we're facing the prospect of people being arrested on the battlefield and read their Miranda rights. And then people who are fighting wars -- soldiers -- will have to decide whether or not they can take action against the enemy or whether they will have to let them go because they won't be able to prove their case against him in a civilian court."

Trial of the USS Cole bombing upon the alleged organizer has been put on hiatus by the Obama administration.

'Only two cases are moving forward at Guantanamo Bay, and both were sworn and referred for trial by the time Obama took office. In January 2009, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates directed the Convening Authority for Military Commissions to stop referring cases for trial, an order that 20 months later has not been rescinded. ' ~ Peter Finn August 26, 2010; 8:47 PM

This gives weight as to why leaks during the Obama administration seem to be coming from its insiders:

'The New York Times recently devoted 9,000 words to profiles of President Obama. The articles divulged what are described as America’s most successful intelligence programs. They include details of CIA drone strikes against Al Qaeda, and an apparent U.S.-Israeli cyberoperation against Iran’s nuclear program.'

'The articles cite Situation Room conversations, quote officials such as Vice President Biden and place reelection campaign chief David Axelrod in counterterrorism meetings.' ~ By Pete King / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Monday, June 11, 2012, 4:11 AM

"These documents, which took nine months and a federal lawsuit to disgorge from the Obama administration, show that politically-connected film makers were giving extraordinary and secret access to bin Laden raid information, including the identity of a Seal Team Six leader," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "It is both ironic and hypocritical that the Obama administration stonewalled Judicial Watch’s pursuit of the bin Laden death photos, citing national security concerns, yet seemed willing to share intimate details regarding the raid to help Hollywood filmmakers release a movie ‘perfectly timed to give a home-stretch boost’ to the Obama campaign." ~ May 22, 2012

'National Security: New documents obtained by a watchdog group show our commander in chief gave the name of a Navy Seal Team 6 commander to the makers of a movie about Osama bin Laden.'

'The leaks about the operation from the American side have infuriated British intelligence officials, who had hoped to continue the operation. The leaks not only scuttled the mission but put the life of the asset in jeopardy. Even CIA officials, joining their MI5 and MI6 counterparts, were describing the leaks as "despicable," attributing them to the Obama administration.' ~ Friday, May 25, 2012

'Detailed leaks of operational information about the foiled underwear bomb plot are causing growing anger in the US intelligence community, with former agents blaming the Obama administration for undermining national security and compromising the British services, MI6 and MI5.' ~ Ewen MacAskill in Washington and Ian Black, Middle East editor guardian.co.uk, Friday 11 May 2012 14.26 EDT

On the exposure of Dr. Afridi who has been arrested in Pakistan for helping the CIA locate Bin Laden (perhaps unwittingly):

'The president's use of the word "purposely" to qualify his denial sounds like an escape hatch, wrote Josh Gerstein in Politico. He needs one, because it was White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan who exposed the agent in Yemen during a teleconference May 7 with retired officials who comment frequently on television news shows.'

'Immediately after Navy SEALs killed bin Laden last year, a "senior official," presumed to be Mr. Brennan, told journalists the SEALs captured a "treasure trove" of documents at the bin Laden residence. This premature disclosure robbed them of their "actionable" intelligence value. ' ~ Friday, June 15, 2012 Jack Kelly, The Pittsburgh Press

How Obama's policies reflect his position as an anti-colonialist, an ideology he inherits from his father and world experiences. Anti-colonials empower government to spread wealth amongst the populace as compensation for prior oppressions. Such an ideology helps explain the nonpedigree Marxist-Fascist approach to economy and governance.

'Barack Obama was born of Marxists; mentored by a communist writer and activist during his formative years; spent his college days hanging around Marxist professors and activists; worked as a radical community organizer, using the radical tactics of the communist, Alinsky; attended a radical church; was introduced to Chicago politics by a communist in the home of two communists; and now lends his political skill to the international goals of radical activists.' ~ Beckwith

You'll see a deep collection of details, quotes and sources on Obama's background in this site.

It is not so unusual to classify Obama as a socialist as a recent poll demonstrates with a majority 55% saying so.

Communist Party USA general endorsement of Obama. Notice the use of terms: democratic, progressive, equality, peace and economic justice.

Points out firings of CEOs under command of the national leader as fitting the working definition of fascism or Mussolini corporatism. Article addends that Bush had instigated some corporatist Fascism but that Obama has intensified the trend.

Piece links to various articles analyzing Obama's approach and comparing that to functional definitions of Fascism and socialism. 'This sounds much like what Barack Obama is doing right now with Chrysler and what he will do with GM, too. '

Obama takeover of GM unpopular with public. ' It didn't take any parsing to realize that in Obama's vision, the government will let GM management handle the small stuff, but when something really, really matters, the new owner -- the United States government -- will do the deciding.'

GM and Chrysler subsidization must meet "an aggressive set of conditions" set forth by the government. They... ' must "fundamentally restructure" their companies in order to qualify for more federal taxpayer dollars.' Obama decrees Chrysler fusion with Fiat in order to manufacture more efficient cars and engines domestically. White House forced GM Chairman Rick Wagoner to resign.

One of the latest Obama appointees/associates indicating his collectivist beliefs and influences. ' If you thought that every radical member of the Obama administration would've been exposed by now, I'm afraid you're wrong. You see, it seems that White House Communications Director Anita Dunn is one of Mao Zedong's biggest fans... It's sick, of course. Mao killed 70 million Chinese. During peace time. He's one of the worst dictators of the 20th century, and perhaps even in the entire history of mankind. And Dunn considers him her favorite political philosopher? ' Similar type stuff with other Obama associations like William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Van Jones, Saul Lewinsky, etc.

Stimulus Bill: ' $2 billion for "neighborhood stabilization" to radical groups like ACORN '.

For more on Obama's socialist ideology, visit the following in-house page's sources:

To assess Obama's approach or the government's trend in general with regard to Marxism, Fascism or statism, consider the books:

'If anything, Obama voted FOR the AIG bailout after the fact by promoting Geithner to Treasury Secretary and reappointing Bernanke, whom Obama lauded for his "outside the box" thinking.' ~ Timothy P. Carney \ 11/06/10 11:00 PM

'The Obama administration now calls its various bailout efforts the Financial Stability Plan.'

'Geithner's latest plan, the Public-Private Investment Program (.pdf file), or PPIP, is basically a refined and expanded version on the original TARP, with some key differences.....'

'During the Bush administration, the original TARP morphed into a different plan, now known as the Capital Purchase Program, to inject money directly into banks by buying preferred shares that could be converted into common equity. President Barack Obama and Geithner have basically left that in place. ' ~ U.S. News & World Report \ 3/31/2009 12:01 AM ET

'The Fed leaders spoke as President-elect Barack Obama worked Capitol Hill, trying to persuade Democratic senators not to block a request for the last $350 billion of the bailout funds and assuring them that he is willing to use his veto power if they do so'

'Obama is making personal calls to Democrats and Republicans to urge them to release the money, and Democratic leaders were confident that he would prevail on a matter he told them he considers the "first vote" of his administration. ' ~ By Neil Irwin and David Cho / Wednesday, January 14, 2009

'General Electric was in the midst of financial woes in 2008 so severe that the company was in danger of going under. Immelt cut a deal with Obama which entailed his giving his full support to Obama's election bid in exchange for a promise that his company would be 'bailed out.' ~ Anthony Martin \ July 12, 2011

Article continues by noting that both GE and GM pay no federal taxes while oil companies are taxed at 40% of their profits where Obama complains about the oil companies' tax breaks. Difference between notions of tax deductions and subsidies is explained in this piece.

'Obama wants cap-and-trade, GE wants cap-and-trade. Obama subsidizes embryonic stem-cell research, GE launches an embryonic stem-cell business. Obama calls for rail subsidies, GE hires Linda Daschle as a rail lobbyist. Obama gives a speeech, GE employee Chris Matthews feels a thrill up his leg.' ~ Timothy P. Carney \ 07/01/10 3:00 AM

'GE invests some of its resources abroad and, despite worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, paid no taxes in 2010.'

'The angry Left has been calling for President Obama to fire Jeffrey Immelt from his position as head of the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. I think that would be a good idea, but for different reasons.' ~ Daniel Ikenson \ April 8, 2011 @ 2:30 pm

Article points out Obama critique of automaker lobby in Washington, but after winning presidency, Obama willing to bail them out perhaps as a favor to the UAW. 'The cost of the government keeping the Big Three afloat would surely be more mandates for politically correct "green" cars. Holman Jenkins of The Wall Street Journal has pointed out the damage of already-existing mandates: "The Detroit Three have been effectively required to build small cars in high-wage, UAW factories, though it means losing money on every car." '

Obama got campaign contributions from AIG after they had been bailed out by government. Obama second to Chris Dodd in contributions. McCain also on receiver list.

'During late-night, closed-door talks last month, negotiators for the House, Senate and White House stripped out a measure to the stimulus bill that could have restricted the AIG bonuses.'

'Sources in the Obama administration Tuesday said that despite previous media reports administration officials did not know until a couple weeks ago that the officials of the controversial AIG Financial Product Division were set to receive $165 million in bonuses on March 13.'

'Senior White House officials said last night that President Obama did not learn that bonuses worth $165 million were to be paid to executives of American International Group until Thursday, one day before they were issued and two days after his Treasury secretary was informed that the payments were going forward. ' Lawmakers considering to tax against bonuses at 95-100%, but this extreme tax measure would be unconstitutional according to equal-protection clause.

Sen. Christopher Dodd said that Obama administration officials asked him to add language to last month's federal stimulus bill to make sure the controversial AIG bonuses remained in place. (Y'all following all this?)

'President Obama said Wednesday he'll "take responsibility" for AIG executives receiving controversial bonuses while the company took $173 billion in government bailouts.'

'Obama's staff vowed more recently that the further infusion of taxpayer money into AIG, a firm now 80% controlled by the Federal Government, was appropriate and necessary.' You should note the $165 million in bonuses which has caused the outrage is little compared to the $173 billion bailout of the reckless entity itself. Article describes Obama as feigning outrage, talks of AIG situation as an example for more needed regulation by government. Piece describes Dodd as 'chair of the banking committee that failed to regulate AIG'. He was the highest on AIG donor list referenced in an earlier link above.

Was Obama-stimulated yet now bankrupt Solyndra an example of political favoritism, corruption or ineptitude?

'The assumption was that the search was related to the loans, he said. Those loans - part of the $862 billion economic stimulus package that Congress passed in 2009 - have for months been the subject of a probe by the House Energy and Commerce Committee.'

"Irresponsibly choosing winners and losers on projects like Solyndra is a perilous and often doomed method to create jobs," they said.'

'Republican Rep. Cliff Stearns, chairman of a House subcommittee investigating Solyndra, recently called on the White House to release all communications between the White House and Solyndra and its investors. The House Energy and Commerce Committee issued a subpoena in July seeking documents from the White House Office of Management and Budget.' ~ By Kevin Freking, Associated Press September 9, 2011

“President Obama’s Bracket submissions 0 days late, President Obama’s Budget submissions 4/5 times late. Clutch with his brackets. Late with his budgets,” the video reads.'

'The Obama administration is expected to release their FY 2014 budget on April 8, more than two months late.' ~ Caroline May | 03/20/2013

'He added: “So why he’s doing this? It’s a good soft news story. His budget is going to be met with absolutely no support from Democrats and Republicans.”

'Giuliani, a Republican, on Fox News. “He hasn’t done it in years. He hasn’t proposed a budget that’s serious since he’s been president. As Lindsey pointed out, he can’t even get a Democrat to vote for one of his budgets.” ~ KEVIN CIRILLI | 3/21/13

Obama's deficits will break world records by each going above the trillion mark for what was already getting into the hundreds of billions. There is no doubt he is the most reckless bankrupting politician in world history and he is doing so on purpose with a smile on his face so he can appear as the candy man while taking down America:

'President Obama’s own 2013 budget shows that as a result federal debt held by the public will double during Obama’s four years as President. That means in just one term President Obama will have increased the national debt as much as all prior Presidents, from George Washington to George Bush, combined.'

'Obama’s 2013 budget proposes to spend $47 trillion over the next 10 years, the most in world history by far, increasing federal spending by $1.5 trillion above the current CBO baseline.'

'Obama’s budget.....proposes to increase federal taxes by nearly $2 trillion over the next 10 years above the CBO baseline. The budget projects that under Obama’s tax policies federal income tax revenues will double by 2020, federal corporate tax revenues will double by 2017, and federal payroll taxes will double by 2022.' ~ Peter Ferrara 6/14/2012 @ 3:42PM

'According to President Obama's own budgetary estimates, for every $4 that comes in this year, $7 will go out, and mandatory spending alone will surpass all federal revenues. In other words, if we didn't spend a dime this year on national parks, interstate highways or even national defense, we would still have a deficit.'

'Moreover, we face a colossal $14 trillion in national debt that we have already accrued.' ~ By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON Posted 05/19/2011 06:17 PM ET

'In view of the fact that the marginal productivity of debt is now negative we can see that the damage-control measures of the Obama administration, which are financed through creating unprecedented amounts of new debt, are counter-productive. Nay, they are the direct cause of further economic contraction of an already prostrate economy, including unemployment.' ~ A. E. Fekete

'Obama has already helped quadruple the deficit with his stimulus package....Overall, President Obama's budget would add twice as much debt as President Bush over the same number of years.'

'Fed budget debt to quadruple in 2009..... Deficit would hit $1.75 trillion during 2009... Federal deficits would remain above $500 billion annually for the next decade under the budget proposed Thursday by President Obama, sending the federal debt soaring to $23 trillion by 2019.'

'The US federal deficit is set to quadruple this year to a breathtaking 12.3 per cent of gross domestic product under Barack Obama's first budget '

Examples of how Obama misrepresents budgets. He refers to tax increases as 'savings' and talks of ending certain Bush budget policies while actually intensifying them. Government to be expanded even more. 'The budget deficit will quadruple in 2009 to $1.75 trillion, and cutting that level in half would still leave deficits twice as high as under President Bush..... Overall, the public debt level would double over the next decade to $15.4 trillion......The annual interest on this debt would nearly equal the entire U.S. defense budget by 2019......Despite the President's calls for tackling Social Security's long-term unfunded obligation, his budget proposes no fix.'

Obama fiscal plan compared to last year's budget means the need for three times more U.S. debt to be sold to foreigners. Usual buyers of U.S. bonds are starting to quit buying or sell instead. Now we are just printing money to cover for all the debt. The Fed doubled the money supply of the U.S. in just nine months.

Video of an initial approach to the Philadelphia polling place where the New Black Panthers are "securing" the premises.

A follow-up media report on the New Black Panthers at the Philadelphia polling station.

"It is absolutely unprecedented for the Justice Department to dismiss a lawsuit after the defendants failed to answer the suit and are thus in default," he said.

'Mr. von Spakovsky said that the NBPPSD's lack of response was the legal equivalent of an admission of all the allegations made about the defendants' organized effort to threaten and intimidate voters.'

'Adams helped compile a civil voter intimidation lawsuit against the men [Philadelphia poll station New Black Panthers], based on a rarely used section of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. But the Obama DOJ later dismissed the case against all but one defendant, citing a lack of a pattern of intimidation. '

On why the dismissal was not just a usual occurrence by two lawyers on such matters:

'It is also wrong to say that reasonable lawyers could differ in their opinions on this case after reviewing the facts for one very big reason: the lawyers who ordered the case dismissed - Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King and Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steve Rosenbaum - did not review the facts before they ordered the dismissal.'

For some illustrative tit-for-tat over the DOJ dismissal of the New Black Panther case, we visit American Prospect where liberal coverage of the event is repudiated by reader comments:

Adam Serwer posted: ' I'm simply pointing out that none of the political appointees being blamed for dismissing the case were even at the DoJ when the case was dismissed. ' Here he's referencing the date of January 7th , 2009 in order to defend the not as then yet inaugurated Obama administration.

Comments: "Isn't the hubbub about the civil case and not the criminal case? It's my understanding that officials intervened in the prosecution of the civil case in May 2009?"

'The hubbub is about the civil case, which Obama-appointed officials at the DoJ intervened. After the government one the civil case, the DoJ dropped all but one of the charges against one of the NBPP members [slap on wrist] and all of the charges against the other two. Mr. Serwer hasn't come close to following this story before putting out this ridiculous post. ' - Says a respondent: SteveAR.

...And there are more examples of such exchanges in the original and update pieces' comments sections.

'Obama is scheduled to sit down in the Rose Garden Thursday evening with Gates and Crowley, who unexpectedly found themselves at the center of a racially-charged national controversy after Gates, a highly respected African American professor, was arrested at his own home for disorderly conduct following a report of a possible break-in. Gates suggested race played a role in his arrest by Crowley, who is white.'

'At the time of the incident, Gates had demanded an apology from Crowley and called him a "rogue policeman." After Obama's "acted stupidly" comment, Crowley said that, while he supported the president, Obama was "way off base wading into a local issue without knowing all the facts."

There's been a political cost for Obama. The two-week episode has stolen attention from his agenda and has drawn negative public reviews on how he handled the matter.'

' The Obama Administration recently used red tape to force Louisiana to stop using 16 barges that were cleaning up the Gulf of Mexico by sucking thousands of gallons of oil out of Louisiana's oil-soaked waters. Earlier, it delayed the clean-up of the Gulf of Mexico by months, by blocking foreign crews from operating sophisticated clean-up vessels. '

' ...Instead, they have insisted on using untested techniques, one of which involves the use of chemical dispersants manufactured and sold by a company in which Obama cronies, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Hathaway-Berkshire, and BP, are heavily invested.......Increasingly it is beginning to appear that the Obama Administration and BP together deliberately closed their eyes, ears, and brains to fairly simple solutions that could have spared the Gulf coast from an historic catastrophe. '

' Incredibly, the president's team has cited the fear that too many berms would alter tidal movements, as though that theoretical worry trumps the very real oil headed toward shore. Bureaucrats also mumbled that too many berms might just shift the oil toward Mississippi --without explaining why berms couldn't be built there, and without making any judgment over which part of the Gulf Coast shoreline is most fragile and thus most deserving of protection.

"Here, the president doesn't seem to have a clue," Vitter told Houma Today. "His decision on the emergency dredging barrier-island plan is a thinly veiled 'no.' Approving 2 percent of the request and kicking the rest months down the road is outrageous, absolutely outrageous." '

Video of James Carville lambasting BP and the lack of response in containing the oil by the Obama administration.

'The BP oil disaster resulted in a drilling moratorium. This moratorium caused a nationwide shortage in oil supply, which immediately saw rising gas prices.' ~ Posted by Marianne Bickle Mar. 7 2011 - 9:51 am

'IHS-CERA looked at the pace of permitting in the six months since the moratorium was officially lifted. They found that relative to activity before the spill, there’s been an 86% plunge in plans approved by regulators'

'IHS-CERA revealed today its findings that returning oil and gas activity to the pace that it was on before the BP oil spill would result in the creation of 230,000 new jobs in 2012 and add $44 billion to the U.S. economy.' ~ Christopher Helman Jul. 21 2011 - 3:33 pm

'Thousands of wells have been drilled in all depths of the Gulf of Mexico without the occurrence of a Macando-like incident. Instead of arbitrarily shutting down all business in the Gulf, could the government have allowed those who were operating safely to continue to do so while it worked towards new safety rules and regulations? Would we not be exactly where we are today without the negative repercussions of the moratorium?' ~ By Don Briggs, President of Louisiana Oil & Gas Association \ July 22, 2011

'The leading states outside of the GOM to benefit from those additional jobs would be California, followed by New York, Florida, Illinois, and Georgia, the study found. Other manufacturing-dependent economies such as Pennsylvania and Ohio also would receive significant benefits.' Published: Jul 22, 2011

'Meanwhile, Sen. David Vitter has called out top Obama administration officials for issuing what he views as conflicting and misleading statements on the correct number offshore drilling permits. A U.S. Justice Department motion filed in March stated there are 270 shallow water permit applications pending and 52 deepwater permit applications pending.'

'Renee Baker, the state director for the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), said. "We can’t just look at the large businesses to understand what’s happening, there are small businesses that do a lot of services for the rigs and they have been set back. We just want to see people get back to work." ' ~ Kevin Mooney on July 20, 2011 5:48 am

'The moves come after the House passed a series of bills that would force the administration to move much further and faster to open public lands and waters to oil and gas development. '

'Representative Nancy Pelosi of California....also advocated selling some part of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which now contains 727 million barrels of crude oil. The administration has so far resisted tapping the reserve, saying that it would have only a small and temporary effect on prices and was intended for critical supply shortages, which the country is not now experiencing.' ~ By JOHN M. BRODER Published: May 14, 2011

.....So why the hell did they decide to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve within a mere two months later?.....

'The Obama Administration and its spokesmen, such as the Secretary of Energy, are hostages to their own rhetoric. It is hard to manage oil if it is a declared enemy, something that they want it to go away because it does not fit the ideological purity of their agenda. The US government will need a lot more to manage oil prices than the silly release from SPR of less than two days worth of US oil consumption.' ~ By Michael J. Economides Posted on Jul. 13, 2011

'Diamond Offshore moved one of its rigs to Egypt. Murphy Oil Company is also moving operations to the Congo. And Bloomberg News reported that "the number of offshore rigs operating in U.S. waters has plunged 71 percent to 16 from 56 before the blowout, according to surveys by Baker Hughes Inc."

' If "safety" demands a blanket halt to deepwater drilling, she said, then all oil tanker traffic in the Gulf of Mexico should be halted, too. '

"An oil tanker is a four times greater risk of spilling its cargo than an oil well blowing out," Randolph pointed out. "Tankers carrying 3 million barrels of oil traverse the Gulf daily en route to Houston." That's roughly the amount of oil BP spilled over the past three months.

After the first hearing this week, Reilly openly challenged the White House foot-dragging on 33 oil rig safety assessments, wondering "why it's going to take so long to convince people the existing rigs are safe." '

' "When you shut down [deep water] drilling in the Gulf of Mexico ... you're killing jobs," warned Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas. Eighty percent of all new oil production in United States occurs offshore, he said, and the majority of that production is in the Gulf.'

' Sen. Mary Landrieu, a Louisiana Democrat, said in testimony to the presidential oil spill panel that she was "alarmed" at the Interior Department's statement that its decision is supported "by an extensive record of existing and new information indicating that allowing new deep-water drilling to commence would pose a threat of serious, irreparable or immediate harm or damage to the marine, coastal and human environment."

Landrieu said that statement "contradicts testimony given by drilling experts and ignores the history of oil and gas operations in the Gulf." '

'Dan Pickering, a financial analyst with Tudor, Pickering Holt & Co. Securities, said the legal uncertainties surrounding the ban - and the administration's plan to issue a new, revised moratorium - ensure that no companies will resume deep-water drilling in U.S. waters anytime soon.

Brady said. "I'm afraid this is the first of many rigs and many American jobs to leave the Gulf."

Once the rigs relocate, it could be a minimum of five to 10 years before they return, predicted Rep. Pete Olson, R-Sugar Land.'

In a C-SPAN interview with Steve Scully, Obama admits we are out of money and reliant upon deep deficits.

'But a watchdog group says the abundance of limos sends the wrong message in the midst of a budget crisis. The increase in limos comes to light on the heels of an executive order from President Obama last week that charges agencies to increase the fuel efficiency of their fleets. '

'Leslie Paige, a spokeswoman for the nonprofit watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste, was outraged that the GSA’s numbers may not be accurate. "They can’t figure out a way to define a limo? How hard can it be? If the government can’t track limos, I’m not sure we should trust the numbers they put out there on anything," she said. ' ~ By Joe Eaton 2:00 am, May 31, 2011 Updated: 1:03 pm, August 29, 2011

'Standing by the Brent Spence Bridge between Ohio and Kentucky, the president singled out House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. '

'On the Senate floor Thursday morning, McConnell complained that the administration was trying to use controversial stimulus proposals to fund infrastructure projects that should already be funded. '

"The president made the same promises when he was selling his first stimulus," McConnell said.

'In a letter to Obama, Davis and Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, who represents the other side of the bridge, thanked him for his interest but urged him to instead throw his support behind a bill that would "stop the federal government from imposing excessive regulations on cement manufacturers that threaten thousands of American jobs." ' ~ Published September 22, 2011

'For the anniversary of the signing of the stimulus, it might be appropriate to look at the worst of the worst, the most reckless, irresponsible, and inane, let’s face it: the most stupid examples of how our government spent $800 billion dollars, while leaving our nation’s economy on life support.' ~ by Jeff Dunetz Posted on February 25 2011 8:06 am

Bar chart illustrates that the cost of stimulus was greater than Iraq war - if the CBO is trustworthy in its account here.

'State and local government workers' hourly pay was already 44% higher than in the private sector, yet in 2009 when the recession was at its worst, average pay for those government employees increased because of the federal stimulus while decreasing for private-sector workers, McMahon notes.' ~ Posted 06/29/2011 06:50 PM ET

'When the president campaigned for the stimulus package at the start of his presidency, he and others in his administration repeatedly insisted the investments would go to "shovel-ready" projects -- projects that would put people to work right away. As recently as August, however, local governments were still facing delays spending the money they were allocated from the stimulus' ~ By Stephanie Condon October 13, 2010

'It was explained to Obama that the permitting process can delay projects for "months to years ... and in many cases even cause projects to be abandoned ... I'm sure that when you implemented the Recovery Act your staff briefed you on many of these challenges." At this point, Obama smiled and interjected, "Shovel-ready was not as ... uh .. shovel-ready as we expected." The Council, led by GE's Jeffrey Immelt, erupted in laughter.' ~ Jul 12, 2011 at 1:37 PM

Fraud and questionable projects associated with the stimulus. Cost of package analyzed too.

It is difficult to justify the stimulus even from the perspective outlook of media sites that would be more inclined to support such policies:

'Did the stimulus do less than President Obama said it would? Absolutely. In the first months of 2009, when the president sold the bill, got it passed, and defended it, he tossed off predictions for job growth that got progressively higher and were never matched. At his most optimistic, he said the stimulus would be a success if it "created or saved" 4 million jobs. It fell far short of that'

'The end result of stories like that has been a virtual collapse in the belief that government spending can spur economic growth. This week, which ended with a jobs report that points in big, flashing arrows to more recession, will change nobody's mind about the need for spending cuts.' ~ By David Weigel Posted Friday, July 8, 2011, at 7:30 PM ET

'A year later, the economy is working again. But millions of Americans are not. The mixed track record of the stimulus has shaken confidence in the Obama administration, even as the president pushes for additional jobs measures. '

'Both the White House and the Congressional Budget Office say thanks to the stimulus, something like 2 million people are working who otherwise wouldn't be. But that's like trying to climb up a down escalator. Unemployment still topped 10 percent last year. And there are some 3 million fewer people working now than when the president raised his stimulus pen.' ~ Scott Horsley and John Poole \ February 17, 2010

Well you may find some justification for the stimulus due to economics being a dismal science. This piece showcases some examples of jobs saved or created: A half job was saved at a non-profit, one was yet to be counted at a charity and one private job was created for only $417,000.

'Over the past few days, there have been reports of major errors on the Web site {Recovery.gov}, including jobs created in congressional districts that don't exist, and companies counting pay raises as jobs saved.......Multiply that across the country, and you start to see why the grand total of jobs saved and created by the stimulus is not so much a statistic as a matter of opinion.' ~ by Martin Kaste \ November 18, 2009

It appears that any claims of success due to the stimulus are more towards arbitrary in comparison to questions tendered over its misallocations. Observations from these partisan sites helps conclude that the stimulus was a failure:

Lists some of the measurements of debt accrued, job losses since Obama took office.

Second chart shows that unemployment has been higher despite what was predicted for the stimulus.

'He said the only way to pay for stimulus is by taxing those who are productive, joking that the plan is more like a Ponzi scheme than any creation of wealth. '

"The truth is that the only way out of this mess is less government, more savings, and increased production," Schiff wrote. "Obama's plan is a recipe for economic ruin."

'Wesbury said he is pleased by various tax cut proposals being discussed as part of the plan, but he is worried that taxpayers will still have to eventually foot the bill for all the new government spending.' ~ Chris Isidore January 8, 2009: 6:34 PM ET

'Obama has already helped quadruple the deficit with his stimulus package....Overall, President Obama's budget would add twice as much debt as President Bush over the same number of years.'

'The US federal deficit is set to quadruple this year to a breathtaking 12.3 per cent of gross domestic product under Barack Obama's first budget '

Despite Obama's claims, he is practicing the same failed policies of the Bush administration by cranking out excessive spending and using threats of catastrophe if we don't spend more. He said there had been adequate debate on the stimulus bill when its final form was just determined the night before and was yet to be printed or read in totality by the final representative analytical processes. Stimulus would actually prevent a recovery by taking $2.5 trillion of capital away from the markets. 'So if the problem was created by deficit spending, why is the solution to the crisis to quadruple the annual federal deficit over next year?'

Administration cannot adequately track the dispersal of the $787 billion in stimulus funds. Their own monitoring site was citing funds to non-existent congressional districts.

' According to data retrieved from recovery.gov, nearly $6.4 billion was used to "create or save" just under 30,000 jobs in these phantom congressional districts - almost $225,000 per job. '

Sen. Christopher Dodd said that Obama administration officials asked him to add language to last month's federal stimulus bill to make sure the controversial AIG bonuses remained in place.

Stimulus Bill: ' $2 billion for "neighborhood stabilization" to radical groups like ACORN '.

AP analysis showed that Obama's Stimulus Bill signed in February 2009 has not really had much effect improving the recession. Even where they focused on road and bridge construction, the study shows little difference in employment rates.

'The 400-page stimulus law contains so many provisions _ tax cuts, unemployment benefits, food stamps, state aid, military spending _ economists agree that it's nearly impossible to determine what worked best and replicate it. It's also impossible to quantify exactly what effect the stimulus has had on job creation, although Obama points to estimates that credit the recovery program for creating or saving 1.6 million jobs.'

Comparison between the Bush tax reductions of 2003 and the Obama stimulus of 2009, 16 months after each invocation.

'Before the Democrats took control of congress the economy was soaring. It continued, almost to the moment Democrats submitted their first fiscal year budget, October 1, 2007.....

'Edmunds.com estimates that the average cost to the taxpayer will be about $20,000 per vehicle.'

'The government is shifting tomorrow's demand to today, stealing from tomorrow to pay for today, but at great cost to the taxpayer.' ~ Avery Goodman July 31, 2009

'Think of "cash for clunkers" as a sort of bizarro twin of that "bucks for banks" program from last autumn. You know, the one where Congress authorized $700 billion to keep financial clunkers on Wall Street up and running.' ~ James Pethokoukis Aug 3, 2009 13:58 EDT

'Overlooked in the enthusiasm for the government's Cash for Clunkers program are companies and organizations whose business models are built on used vehicles: dealers, who say their customers are disappearing; parts businesses, which fear that the cost of used parts could skyrocket as clunkers are destroyed; and charities, many of which depend on donated cars to raise cash at auctions. Does the economic boost for automakers and new car dealers justify the downside at the other end of the market?' ~ Thu Aug 13, 2009 10:28 AM EDT

'Aguilar had special scorn for Obama's failed Making Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). The U.S. president once touted HAMP as a way to keep people in houses with under-water mortgages by encouraging banks to rewrite loans to reflect depressed housing values. '

'Yet the president has seemingly let the program wither on the vine, as more than 600,000 people have been ejected from the program after getting the runaround. ' ~ By Matt Smith \ Thu., Feb. 17 2011 at 2:46 PM

'Conceived as a way to get borrowers back on track, HAMP now seems to merely have allowed banks to delay facing their own problems.'

"The number of trial and permanent modifications that have been cancelled substantially exceeds the number of homeowners helped," a General Accountability Office report on the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) stated in July. "One continuing source of frustration is that the Treasury has rejected calls to announce publicly any goals or performance benchmarks for HAMP." ~ By Matt Smith \ Wednesday, Sep 1 2010

Was Obama-stimulated yet now bankrupt Solyndra an example of political favoritism, corruption or ineptitude?

"Irresponsibly choosing winners and losers on projects like Solyndra is a perilous and often doomed method to create jobs," they said.'

Before we go further, we note how Obama and the Democrats always lament the Bush tax cuts as favoring the rich over the lower classes. However:

'Despite the charges of critics that the tax cuts enacted in 2001, 2003 and 2004 favored the "rich," these cuts actually reduced the tax burden of low- and middle-income taxpayers and shifted the tax burden onto wealthier taxpayers.'

'Since 2001, the average tax rate has fallen from 4.09 percent to 2.99 percent for the bottom 50 percent...'

' The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year.' Certain low and middle income families would have less desire to work overtime. Once they do, they begin to lose tax credits. Thus, it is really a disincentive trap to keep people from moving up from the lower rungs of the ladder.

Argument for tax credits to counter payroll tax for the low wage earners is less applicable now that these tax credits are in addition to the Earned Income Tax Credit which is itself sufficient to compensate for payroll taxes.

Under plan, tax share of GDP actually increases. By calling income payments 'tax credits', those expenditures are cloaked.

How allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire will effect the masses. Child tax credit reduces by half and marriage deductions for joint filers would fall short of the double for single filers, thus returning to the previous marriage penalty.

Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) takes on the old 1099 proposal. There's a link in the piece to over two dozen Obama tax hikes inserted in the health care reform bill.

'The Economic Substance Doctrine gives more power to the IRS to determine that a transaction used to lower a tax bill "lacks economic substance." This arbitrary standard, and will subject every small business decision to the discretion of an IRS auditor and could raise by estimates $4.2 billion.' ~ February 18, 2010

'The change in plan, revealed by Obama is to prevent US firms from enjoying foreign tax credits on income that is not subject to US taxes. Also the firms that are now able to shift income legally from one foreign subsidiary to another, to avoid taxes, cannot do so anymore.'

'Although they have blamed Democrats for record budget deficits, most Republican lawmakers want to extend all of the tax cuts, adding at least $2 trillion over the next decade to the national debt. President Obama and senior Democrats want to extend the cuts only for families making less than $250,000 a year.....'

Both parties ignore the basic solution: smaller government, less spending and thus less need of taxation to begin with:

'Conceived during Bush's 2000 presidential campaign as a way to return huge projected government surpluses to taxpayers, the cuts were enacted in 2001 and 2003. But because they were expected to eventually cause huge deficits, Republicans wrote them to expire in 2010.....'

'Reluctant to take the political hit either for raising taxes or for increasing the deficit, Obama and Democratic lawmakers have postponed action on extending the middle-class tax cuts.'

All this political football is totally unnecessary! The FairTax would solve all these problems by acting as an effective tax cut for virtually all classes while broadening the tax base so everyone above poverty level pays their fair share. This is achieved by simply replacing the embedded 22% drag resulting from the convoluted income tax system, jettisoning both for a national retail sales tax that occupies 23% of every retail dollar tendered while staying near current after-checkout tally levels for goods and services. We can lower the tax rate as the debt dissipates.

NOW WHEN THE HELL IS THE FAIRTAX GOING TO BE PART OF THE COMMON DISCUSSION?!!! IT IS INTEGRAL TO SAVING OUR ECONOMY AND NATION!!!!!!

For Obama administration's consideration of the Value Added Tax (VAT), see the VAT section within.

'Proponents of the budget proposal claim that less than 3% of small business owners have net household income above $250,000, the threshold over which tax rates go up under Obama's plan. Budget opponents, on the other hand, claim that 15% or more of small business owners will be negatively affected, and at a time when many small companies are struggling.'

"Most small business owners aren't in the top two marginal tax rates. In my opinion, there's some misunderstanding in these political debates that the people who'll be affected are middle-income Americans who run mom-and-pop stores," ~ By Karen E. Klein \ March 26, 2009, 1:48PM EST

We further expand on the debate here and in the links to follow in order to see if the mom-and-pop exclusion is true and who if any will actually be effected further down the line.

'While Obama's plan would increase taxes for an undetermined number of small business owners who pay their taxes through personal income tax and whose incomes exceed $200,000, it would not establish across-the-board tax increases for all small businesses.' ~ October 9th, 2008 05:37 PM ET

"We estimate that, all in all, only about 2.2 percent of small business units will see a tax increase, and that's just because so few people fall into this category," he said.

'According to Harris, "Someone who wants to put money back [into the business] and lives on a low proportion of their taxable income - that's the type of person with a legitimate complaint.' ~ By Kelly Faircloth \ Apr 28, 2009

'Obama's plan is to roll back the Bush tax cuts on the top two tax brackets. In practice, this means that people with income above $200,000 for single people and $250,000 for couples would see taxes increase.'

'Looking at all the tax filers who report any business income at all, the Tax Policy Center confirms that about 2 percent will see their taxes increase under Obama's plan.'

However, considering more than just how many fall into a particular tax bracket, whether people file as individuals or corporations and how the tax policy acts upon the magnitude and the network of capital cash-flow eventually determines the full impact of the tax policy..............

'No matter where one happens to be on the economic spectrum - for example, from Keynesian left-winger to supply-side conservative - there would be general agreement that it's not a good idea to raise taxes during a severe recession. '

* 'Under the Obama plan, the top capital gains tax and dividend tax rates paid by individuals would be increased by 33 percent, from 15% to 20%.'

* 'For good measure, the top tax rate on carried interest would rise from 15% to 39.6%. It has been common for decades in tax law to treat carried interest earned by general partners as capital gains income. That made sense.'

* 'Oil and chemical businesses would face the re-imposition of an excise tax to fund the Superfund program. Unfortunately, rather than arbitrarily raising taxes on these businesses to pay for Superfund, this wasteful and inefficient program is in desperate need of reform and reevaluation.'

'While it is widely believed that the President’s plan affects only those taxpayers who earn at least $200,000 ($250,000 if married), that belief is badly mistaken. Nearly everyone will pay something, either in lower income, higher interest rates, or more expensive products, to just name three effects.'

'A reduction in the pool of funds for investment that these upper-income taxpayers control directly affects the ever-changing size of investment in new factories, new equipment, and new jobs. '

'In other words, about half of those subject to the Obama tax increases are small businesses with employees. This tax increase would directly cut job creation.'

'The tax increases definitely are not limited to those earning above $250,000 a year: Any tax filer with capital gains or dividend income would also face a tax increase. Filers at all income levels, especially seniors, earn - and depend on - capital gains or dividend income.'

Published on September 20, 2010 by William Beach , Rea Hederman, Jr. , John Ligon , Guinevere Nell and Karen Campbell, Ph.D. - Center for Data Analysis Report #10-07

'The chart, based on 2009 IRS figures, shows that the number of taxpayers reporting annual income over $1 million fell 39 percent between 2007 and 2009; the number of super-wealthy individuals making over $10 million annually plunged 55 percent....The chart also shows how the loss of these top income earners adversely affected the federal government’s bottom line.' ~ by Barbara Hollingsworth \ August 20, 2011 12:32pm

'So the top personal tax rate would move to nearly 50 percent under the Obama plan. Now do the incentive math. At a 50 percent tax rate, successful earners, investors, and small-business owners would keep only 50 cents on the extra dollar earned. Under current law, however, at the 35 percent top income-tax rate, they would keep 65 cents. So if the plan goes through, it would mean a 23 percent reduction in marginal incentives. This in a stalled economy where job creation doesn’t keep up with a rising population and is less than half the necessary level to shrink the unemployment rate.'

'Of course, the individuals and families who would suffer the greatest tax-penalty increases are the ones who are most likely to invest and run small businesses. In fact, Treasury data show that over 80 percent of millionaire tax filers reflect small-business income.' ~ By Larry Kudlow \ October 8, 2011

'As Lamb notes, "literally hundreds of hours" of committee hearings, debate and meetings have been broadcast on C-SPAN through the health care debate, allowing journalists, bloggers, watchdog groups and citizens to follow the process. Other significant parts of the health care debate, however, have remained behind closed doors, such as Mr. Obama's negotiations with the pharmaceutical industry which resulted in a deal committing the industry to a specific contribution to reform. ' ~ Stephanie Condon January 5, 2010 2:25 PM

'President Obama wants the final negotiations on health care reform - a reconciliation of the House and Senate versions of the bill - put on a fast track, even if that means breaking an explicit campaign promise.......

During the campaign, though, candidate Obama regularly promised something different - to broadcast all such negotiations on C-SPAN, putting the entire process of pounding out health care reform out in the open. ' ~ Chip Reid Jan. 6, 2010

' Specifically, Obama said, "we'll have [healthcare reform] negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so the people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents and who is making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, backed by the White House, has said the House and Senate "each of which have passed versions of healthcare reform" were putting the final bill together "behind closed doors according to an agreement by top Democrats." ' ~ Brad Knickerbocker, Staff writer / January 9, 2010

'After weeks of denials from the White House that the health care reform effort failed to exhibit the transparency President Barack Obama promised on the campaign trail, Obama is conceding that locking the public out of key discussions was a "mistake."

As the process unfolded last year, critics complained not just about closed Congressional negotiations on health care, but about deals the White House worked out behind closed doors with pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, hospitals and unions. ' ~ Josh Gerstein| 1/25/10

On Obama's pledge for a 5-day waiting period to let bills get reviewed by the public before signing:

' Well, the president broke that promise barely a week after taking office when he signed the Lilly Ledbetter Bill dealing with equal pay for men and women.

A good bill, and certainly one that could have survived a five-day comment period.' ~ Campbell Brown March 24, 2009

'Of the nine bills Mr. Obama has signed so far in his term, he has signed six of them less than five days after Congress sent them to him. Of the other three, only on one did he wait more than five days from the time the bill was officially presented to him, according to Thomas, the Web site of the Library of Congress that tracks legislation.' ~ Stephen Dinan March 30, 2009

Press attempted to get into an Obama workshop on the new Office of Government Information Services which will facilitate information requests through the Freedom of Information Act :

'People who routinely request government records said they don't see much progress on Obama's transparency pledge.'

"We'd like to know, when they're training agencies, are they telling them the same thing they're saying in public, that they're committed to making the Freedom of Information Act work well..." said Rick Blum, coordinator of the Sunshine in Government Initiative, of which The Associated Press is a member.'

'She [Melanie Ann Pustay] offered these reasons to explain why it was closed: She wanted government employees to be able to speak candidly, and the conference would be in an auditorium at the Commerce Department, where she said a government ID was required to be admitted. The AP and others news organizations routinely enter government buildings to cover the government.' ~ Sharon Theimer December 6, 2009

This piece also lists some other notable impediments to transparency from the Obama administration.

Obama resorting to using executive orders like a despot. One issued to favor illegal immigrants, one to provide president with internet kill switch and now one considered to implement cyber security a la the Cybersecurity Act which was downed in the Senate by argument of its ineffectiveness and burdensome overregulation.

'There is no argument that cybersecurity is an important concern that must be addressed. The issue here is how our government can best function under our constitutional system of checks and balances.'

'Democrats and the Obama administration have been accused of acting as if they find the Constitution to be an inconvenient obstacle. Mr. Obama has often resorted to executive order, using the slogan, “We can’t wait,” to justify bypassing Congress.' ~ Posted: August 7, 2012

"This is pretty sweeping legislation. Seems the President could turn off the Internet completely or tell someone like Verizon to limit or block certain traffic. There is a lot to worry about in this bill." [Leslie Harris]

'While the public sector may be used to more government regulation and involvement, such control will undoubtedly bother corporations. CDT's Harris added that regulatory rules could force companies to all conform to a similar system, which could hamper security and innovation. For example, if a critical security flaw was found in a mandated system, then the entire network could be susceptible to such a flaw.' ~ Marcus Yam 7:41 PM - April 6, 2009

'The bill does not only add to the power of the president. It also grants the Secretary of Commerce "access to all relevant data concerning [critical] networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access." This means he or she can monitor or access any data on private or public networks without regard to privacy laws.'

'Jennifer Granick, civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says that granting such power to the Commerce secretary could actually cause networks to be less safe. When one person can access all information on a network, "it makes it more vulnerable to intruders," Granick says. "You've basically established a path for the bad guys to skip down." ' ~ By Steve Aquino Apr. 2, 2009 12:33 PM PDT

In the reader comments following this Mother Jones piece, the posters accuse the government of socialism, fascism, statism, corporatism and point out its disregard of the constitution.

'The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.'

'In May, President Obama acknowledged that the government is "not as prepared" as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do.' ~ Declan McCullagh August 28, 2009 12:34 AM PDT

The comments section following the story in this piece come upon an interesting dilemma as to why some of our important civic structures are on the world internet instead of an intranet which would be closed-off and better protected.

The or one of the latest versions of the bill which is now called: S.3480 - Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010. Joseph Lieberman is the instigator of this version.

When this link to the bill was posted, note that only 4% of users to that site supported the bill.

Here Obama says in the State of the Union that the Supreme Court ruling is allowing foreign corporations "to spend without limit in our elections." However, that was not the case as the ruling was not relevant to that particular section of the law:

' The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case.' ~ Tom Blumer 01/28/2010 - 16:24 ET

In the above link, Obama is criticized for making that statement since there is appreciable suspicion that his own campaign accepted foreign donations. Is that the case?....

'Seizing on Obama's reversal on a pledge to accept public financing if his Republican opponent agreed to do the same, as well as his campaign's refusal to voluntarily release the names, addresses and employers of donors who gave less than $200 each - a group that accounted for about half of the more than $600 million that the campaign had raised through the end of September - the RNC asked the FEC "to immediately conduct a full audit" of all of Obama's contributions.' ~ Kenneth P. Vogel Nov 11, 11:14 am ET

'Sen. Obama's campaign immediately scrambled and contended they had returned the $33,500 in illegal contributions from Palestinians in Hamas-controlled Gaza, despite the fact that records do not show that it was returned and the brothers said they have not received any money.'

'Thousands of Obama's foreign donations ended in cents. The "cents" did not make sense. And we compared McCain donation documents to Obama's. McCain's records are nothing like Obama's. McCain's are so clean. No cents, all even dollar amounts. But Obama's contained thousands of strange, odd amounts -- evidence of foreign contributors, since Americans living overseas would almost uniformly be able to contribute dollars. Still no media. ' ~ Pamela Geller August 14, 2008

' The Obama campaign has stated that no medical records will be released. Instead, a one-page undated letter from a doctor will have to satisfy reporters on that issue.' ~ Mondoreb October 16th, 2008

' I know that Obama would not be able to get a driver's license in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with the personal documentation he has provided to support his eligibility to serve as POTUS -- and would someone explain how anybody can get any job without presenting their scholastic and medical records? ' ~ Beckwith

You'll see a deep collection of details, quotes and sources on Obama's background in this site.

NOTE: A 'Certification Of Live Birth' issued in Hawaii is basically a modern document issued to notarize that there exists an original 'Certificate Of Live Birth' on record in the state's archives and provides summarized information.

'Contradicting CNN, Janice Okubo, public information officer for the Hawaii DOH, said "We don't destroy vital records." The Health Department's director emphasized the assertion:

....Chiyome Fukino, issued a statement confirming that the state held Obama's "original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures". '

" I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawai'i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai'i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai'i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008, over eight months ago. "

Evidence pro on the Obama campaign' s scanned image of his Certification Of Live Birth (COLB):

Evidence con on the Obama campaign' s scanned image of his Certification Of Live Birth (COLB):

LASTLY: 'And in the same interview Abercrombie suggested that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health. '

'He said efforts were still being made to track down definitive vital records that would prove Obama was born in Hawaii. '

If the original birth certificate (Certificate Of Live Birth) exists then it is upon greater transparency Obama to simply allow the state of Hawaii to release it for inspection if he wants to put all the birthers to rest.

UPDATE: In late April 2011 President 0bama released a long-form birth certificate. However the birthers claim this too is a forgery just as the short-form was alleged to be and they present their case with various technical evidence and intriguing inconsistencies. Whether any individual believes this to be the case, that conclusion should be based on the evidence. Whether such has official weight should depend on probable causes yielding pass by the grand jury level (or equivalent) for any further legal procedures. However the feasibility of this is subject here to partisan affiliations not to mention impedance by the highest levels of government.

Nonetheless, the delay in presenting the long-form illustrates that the administration is nothing special when it comes to transparency and the longstanding of this issue and its possible rise again shows some of the general distrust towards the 0bama administration and part of the noticeable desire to be rid of this president.

We let the reader take in the angles ahead in order to determine for themselves their stance on the issue.....

'After years of stonewalling, of spending a fortune on attorneys to block its release and defend against dozens of lawsuits demanding to see it, after sending a decorated Army flight surgeon to prison rather than release it, after claiming he had already released it, and after mercilessly ridiculing everybody who dared ask to see it - on April 27 Barack Obama finally, with great fanfare, released his "birth certificate." ' ~ Posted: September 22, 2011 9:37 pm Eastern

WND hasn't backed down on the legitimacy of the long-form birth certificate. One must admit they are still presenting interesting research, claims and evidence for their case.

'President Obama on Wednesday posted online a copy of his long-form birth certificate from the State of Hawaii, hoping to finally end a long-simmering conspiracy theory among some conservatives who have asserted that he was not born in the United States and was not a legitimate president.'

'White House officials had for years sought to ignore questions about Mr. Obama’s birth, pointing to the shorter form as sufficient to end the questions.'

'But the so-called birther controversy continued as polls showed that large numbers of people said they were not confident that Mr. Obama was, in fact, born in the country.' ~ By MICHAEL D. SHEAR April 27, 2011, 9:28 am

'Pat Boone has boldly declared himself to be "birther," a largely defunct fringe group that believes President Obama was not born a U.S. citizen and should not be allowed to hold the office.' ~ By Michael Sheridan / Wednesday, September 21st 2011, 8:40 AM

One of the latest developments at the site for Jerome Corsi's book: Where's the Birth Certificate? - The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President

'A private investigation reveals that the Social Security Number being used by Barack Obama does not pass a check with E-Verify, the electronic system the U.S. Citizenship and Immigrations Services of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has created'

Academic and other civil records seem to be missing from Obama's resume as well.

'According to ATF whistleblowers, in 2009 the U.S. government began instructing gun storeowners to break the law by selling firearms to suspected criminals. ATF agents then, again according to testimony by ATF agents turned whistleblowers, were ordered not to intercept the smugglers but rather to let the guns "walk" across the U.S.-Mexican border and into the hands of Mexican drug-trafficking organizations.'

'When asked how he thought sending guns into Mexico could lead to busts of drug cartels, Dodson replied, "I have never heard an explanation from anyone involved in Operation Fast and Furious that I believe would justify what we did."

'Marisela Morales, Mexico’s attorney general, is reporting that at least 200 Mexican deaths can now be traced to weapons from the Fast and Furious program.' ~ Frank Miniter 9/28/2011 @ 10:56AM

This detailed timeline of the imbecilic Fast And Furious program covers and illustrates the involvement of a few high-profile ATF officials, the shadowy role of the Department of Justice and the suspected knowledge of the Obama administration plus the allegations of intention and cover-up accorded to the various players.

'During a White House roundtable with three Spanish-language media outlets on Wednesday, President Barack Obama skated around questions about Operation Fast and Furious.'

'House oversight committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa and Sen. Chuck Grassley have pursued a congressional investigation into the ATF operation over the past several months, and that has led to at least a few high-ranking Obama administration resignations. Their investigations have also revealed that White House officials were aware of Fast and Furious and the ATF tactics the program employed.' ~ By Matthew Boyle, Updated: 6:12 AM 09/29/2011

'Morales told Mexican reporters that she is demanding a full and honest explanation from the United States government especially since evidence is being gathered that reveals the Obama administration was more involved in Operation Fast and Furious than top officials admitted in their sworn statements.'

'There is also mounting evidence that the Cartel members obtained other weapons including grenades and brought them back to Mexico with the full knowledge of the ATF and the U.S. Justice Department.'

'Groups such as the Second Amendment Foundation believe the operation was "dreamed up to show proof that U.S. guns are contributing to the crime and violence in Mexico," something that has been alleged by President Obama, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and their supporters in the gun-control lobby.' ~ Jim Kouri \ September 28, 2011

'The documents show extensive communications between then-ATF Special Agent in Charge of the Phoenix office Bill Newell - who led Fast and Furious - and then-White House National Security Staffer Kevin O'Reilly. Emails indicate the two also spoke on the phone. Such detailed, direct communications between a local ATF manager in Phoenix and a White House national security staffer has raised interest among Congressional investigators looking into Fast and Furious.'

'The White House counsel who produced the documents stated that some records were not included because of "significant confidentiality interests."

'CBS News has learned that ATF's Phoenix office led an operation out of Tucson called "Wide Receiver." Sources claim ATF allowed guns to "walk" in that operation, much like Fast and Furious.' ~ By Sharyl Attkisson \ September 30, 2011 9:35 PM

Of course, it's another golly gee moment from the 0bama administration claiming that they had no knowledge of any guns actually getting loose in Mexico to criminals and that they only heard about the legitimate and effective tracking efforts of this dingbat operation.

'Yesterday, CBS News investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson told radio show host Laura Ingraham that the White House yelled and swore at her over her reporting on the Fast and Furious gunrunning scandal tied to the deaths of two U.S. law enforcement agents. Attkisson also revealed that she'd also been yelled at by the Justice Department.' ~ By MARK HEMINGWAY 3:23 PM, Oct 5, 2011

'The threats continued for U.S. officials and diplomats from other countries -- but security staffing remained unchanged.'

'But now, there was no time to fret about woeful security.' ~ Lateef Mungin | December 19, 2012

'The Washington Times learned Friday that the State Department has failed to respond to a letter written nearly three weeks ago by two House Republicans seeking answers about the survivors, as many as seven of whom are believed to still be at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center recovering from injuries sustained in Benghazi.'

'Mr. Chaffetz, who has been among the most vocal critics of the attack narrative created during the past six months by the Obama administration, complained to Fox News that President Obama had “the gall” to go on television after the attacks and “say ‘Oh, we’re providing all the access.’”

“Baloney. Bullcrap. That is not happening,” Mr. Chaffetz said. ~ Guy Taylor | Sunday, March 17, 2013

'Where are the more than two dozen U.S. personnel who survived the attack but haven't been seen nor heard from in public since? There were also an undisclosed number of witnesses at the U.S. compounds in Tripoli but they also have not spoken publicly.'

'CBS News has filed multiple Freedom of Information requests for Benghazi-related material, but none has been provided. Judicial Watch, a watchdog group, is suing the U.S. government in an attempt to receive some of the denied information.' ~ Sharyl Attkisson / March 11, 2013

'The documents contain previously unreleased cables from Ambassador Stevens and his staff reflecting concerns about safety in the country.'

'Obama administration response that “two extra DS agents would have made no difference. This misses the point. These agents would have provided the added cover to fully evacuate all personnel from the compound - not just those who survived.”

'Issa and Chaffetz say they’ve “been told repeatedly” that the Obama administration not only “repeatedly reject(ed) requests for increased security despite escalating violence, but it also systematically decreased existing security to dangerous and ineffective levels,” and did so “to effectuate a policy of ‘normalization’ in Libya after the conclusion of its civil war.” ~ Jake Tapper | Oct 19, 2012

'The No. 2 diplomat in Libya during the Benghazi attack testified Wednesday that he and many others knew the Sept. 11 assault was terrorism from the moment it happened, and he was shocked when the Obama administration said otherwise.' ~ Oren Dorell | 1 p.m. EDT May 9, 2013

'President Barack Obama's administration fought back on Friday against Republican accusations that it covered up details of last year's deadly assault on a U.S. mission in Libya, after a news report that memos on the incident were edited to omit a CIA warning of a threat posed by al Qaeda.' ~ By Jeff Mason and Mark Hosenball | Fri May 10, 2013 10:02pm EDT

'A top State Department official pressed the CIA and the White House to delete any mention of terrorism in public statements on the Benghazi terror attack to prevent critics from blaming lax security at the consulate, according to documents obtained by ABC News.' ~ Oren Dorell

'President Obama has abolished the position in his White House dedicated to transparency and shunted those duties into the portfolio of a partisan ex-lobbyist who is openly antagonistic to the notion of disclosure by government and politicians. ' ~ Timothy P. Carney August 12, 2010

'And the White House has not even bothered to respond to EFF's formal requests for information concerning the use of cookies (PDF) at whitehouse.gov and the policies governing records created on White House BlackBerries and similar devices (PDF). For an administration that promised on Day One that it was "committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government," the early track record leaves a great deal to be desired. It's now time to start delivering on that promise. ' ~ April 19th, 2009 Legal Analysis by David L. Sobel

'Sunlight is for suckers. The New York Post reported on Tuesday that the White House will not release the $328,835 snapshots taken of the president's Boeing VC-25A that buzzed lower Manhattan.....

Obama broke the pledge again with the mad rush to pass his trillion-dollar, pork-stuffed stimulus package full of earmarks he denied existed. Jim Harper of the Cato Institute reported in April 2009: "Of the eleven bills President Obama has signed, only six have been posted on Whitehouse.gov. None have been posted for a full five days after presentment from Congress." ' ~ Michelle Malkin May 6, 2009

' But last week public-interest groups were dismayed when his own administration rejected a Freedom of Information Act request for Secret Service logs showing the identities of coal executives who had visited the White House to discuss Obama's "clean coal" policies. One reason: the disclosure of such records might impinge on privileged "presidential communications." The refusal, approved by White House counsel Greg Craig's office, is the latest in a series of cases in which Obama officials have opted against public disclosure. ' ~ Michael Isikoff June 20, 2009

It was obviously amateurish and foolish for Obama during his campaign to make vast promises of a new era of un-secrecy in a terror-war world, not to mention the absurdity of the subliminal & picturesque view of a coming government with few secrets. Any rational person would entitle government to some appreciable level of secrecy. On the other hand, there may be valid concerns by some civil libertarians over the monitoring powers of government upon its citizens and the prospect of never-ending wars. Whether the validity of those concerns plays out in the examples listed in the following piece is left for the reader to discern. Nonetheless, it exposes further the fraud or inability of Obama's promises for transparency.

Here is one example that sounds troubling if what the EPA states in this case isn't melodrama.

'The Obama administration has decided to keep secret the locations of nearly four dozen coal ash storage sites that pose a threat to people living nearby. The Environmental Protection Agency classified the 44 sites as potential hazards to communities while investigating storage of coal ash waste after a spill at a Tennessee power plant in December.' ~ Glenn Greenwald Jun 17, 2009 06:18 ET

You may find interesting the response letters to the above piece. The no-war-at-all-cost crowd obviously have misgivings about the Obama presidency versus the candidacy. There are also some centrist sounding, common sense laments and the pinings for a more constitutionally liberal approach. The struggle of the people in Iran against the mullahs for more freedom is held up as something Americans should appreciate.

'The Obama administration, which has boasted about its efforts to make government more transparent, is rolling back rules requiring labor unions and their leaders to report information about their finances and compensation.

He [Mark Mix] said the AFL-CIO would "benefit greatly" from the delay or rollback of expanded reporting rules. "It immediately allows the AFL-CIO to avoid financial disclosure that is beneficial and necessary to rank-and-file workers who are forced to pay union dues and fees to keep a job," ' ~ Jim McElhatton April 27, 2009

Obama, the president, has control of the military and hence the coast guard. So how is it BP can get away with directing them to keep the media out?

'Media outlets have been determined to blame BP for the lack of access, despite the local and federal governments' involvement.

Unlike many reporters, one green blogger did call the president out on the Mother Nature Network. Karl Burkart, an architect and blogger about green technology, pointed out that "The Coast Guard, as one of the branches of the U.S. Armed Forces, answers to the commander in chief - President Obama." Ultimately Burkart said he "believed" Obama was "aiding and abetting" BP.'

And: 'As of February, Obama had held fewer solo press conferences than most presidents -- only George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon held fewer. And he went nearly a year, from July 22, 2009 until last week, without holding a formal news conference.' ~ Julia A. Seymour 6/9/2010 3:20:17 PM

'The Democratic administration of Barack Obama, who denounced his predecessor, George W. Bush, as the most secretive in history, is now denying more Freedom of Information Act requests than the Republican did.'

'Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, released an open letter to President Obama criticizing Obama's deficit reduction plan which, while levying a new millionaire tax, would also raise Medicare costs and fees for military veterans.' ~ by Joel Gehrke \ September 20, 2011 12:37pm

Obama considered having veterans cover their combat or training injuries with their own private health insurance!

'David K. Rehbein, national commander of the American Legion, emerged from a meeting with veterans’ groups and Obama on Monday and said, "He says he is looking to generate $540 million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it." '

We begin the Pelosi record with a collection of in-house links previously compiled for the Declaration of Political War Against Nancy Pelosi page. Those earlier links lay the initial groundwork illustrating the need for an effort to rid the Congress of Nancy Pelosi, especially as the Speaker.

We continue the political war against Pelosi. She pledged there would be no pork or earmarks in the stimulus package -- NOT!

So they have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it? Well, maybe she meant that once it was put into effect its functioning would bring forth all the good promises about it and thus end the controversial arguments over it beforehand. However, they did rush it, obfuscate and make backroom deals didn't they? With her position she should know about most of that and hence her comment in the video would be seen as disingenuous and manipulative if the former moronic interpretation where not to hold.

Pelosi views food stamps and unemployment insurance as more beneficial to the economy than tax cuts. She does not rule out bank bailouts. Apparently, government-subsidized family planning (including abortions?) will save our economy from the drain of further child health and education costs. Sounds kinda like an Orwellian vision of a government-controlled population in some brave new world, doesn't it?

'Pelosi was paying $4,300 a month for her office near San Francisco's City Hall until last fall, when she moved to a new 18-story federal building a few blocks away -- where the rent is $18,736 a month, an increase of more than four times.

"There are high security buildings in this town where it is hard for the public to get in," he said, which is obviously a plus for the speaker. It's bad enough she's expected to answer the public's mail, which we know she isn't too fond of. The last thing she wants is to encourage visits from her constituents.' ~ By JohnDennis 6/2010

'Catholic leaders in Colorado and elsewhere have been swift to react to comments by U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who said in an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday that the Church itself had long debated when human life begins.'

'He continued [Bill Donohue], "It also says, 'Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.' Looks like Pelosi didn't study the subject long enough. But not to worry: We are sending her a copy of Catholicism for Dummies today." ' ~ John Jalsevac August 25, 2008

'Niederauer told The Hill, a Washington, D.C. political newspaper, saying he had received emails from "many Catholics" expressing concerns about Pelosi's remarks.

The letters reportedly said the Church should not allow Pelosi to continue receiving the sacrament because of her perverting it with her pro-abortion views and misleading comments about Catholic teaching.' ~ Steven Ertelt September 8, 2008

In recent weeks Catholic politicians have wrongly asserted the nature and history of Catholic teaching on abortion, confusing it with philosophical theories based on pre-modern biology.

'House Speaker Nancy Pelosi today accused the CIA of lying to her when it first briefed her about "enhanced'' interrogation techniques that were being deployed against detainees - "We were told explicitly that waterboarding was not being used,'' Pelosi told reporters today, as she recounted what she was told in a CIA briefing in the fall of 2002.

The CIA maintains that its notes show that Pelosi was indeed briefed abut the waterboarding that had been approved in that Sept. 4, 2002, briefing.' ~ Mark Silva May 14, 2009 12:25 PM

' That's a far cry from Pelosi's statement in May that "they mislead us all the time," but it leaves open the possibility they [CIA] could have fallen short of those "high standards" of "truthfulness in reporting" when they briefed Pelosi back in September 2002. ' ~ Jonathan Karl July 9, 2009

Unless something else definitive is out there eluding this research, we'll have to see how all this turns out.....

'However, the letter sent to Panetta said the Democratic lawmakers wanted a retraction because Panetta told the committee that "top CIA officials have concealed significant actions from all members of Congress, and misled members for a number of years from 2001 to this week. This is similar to other deceptions of which we are aware from other recent periods."

The letter to Panetta is not written on official congressional letterhead. A House source said this was not an official communication from the House Intelligence Committee and that others on the panel were concerned that the co-signers were trying to force Panetta to apologize for alleged problems created by the Bush administration's CIA. ' ~ July 09, 2009

An e-mail rumor that Nancy Pelosi constantly flies back and forth to California on a 200-seat military plane is debunked here. It points out that since the 9/11/01 attacks that presidential successors fly military aircraft for security reasons as Pelosi's predecessor did. She sought a military aircraft that did not need refueling, again as they said for security. Her predecessor's plane which only flew to Illinois could not go non-stop to California. A few types of planes have been used, somewhat bigger than the previous speaker's but chosen because of their non-stop ability -- not size. At time of article posting, only once was the large C-32 used since there was no other military plane available. Security detail, her staffers and family are allowed to travel to the same airport on her aircraft just as the initial speaker was allowed after 9/11/01.

However, in the Judicial Watch link embedded in the Snopes page, it asserts some contradictions or other issues about Pelosi's travel such as allegations of an unusually high number of travel requests and excessive cancellations or changes to requested aircraft all of which cost extra money for prep and maintenance.

A more recent Judicial Watch page noting the liquor tab for some Pelosi plane trips and the general cost for those flights. What the ideal cost or a comparison to the previous speaker's liaisons is not made. One of her plane trips was to see Katrina flood relief progress with an embedded congressional delegation. That trip was more than $5500 over the allowable budget for such trips.

This Fox News story says however that a C-32, the larger plane that holds 40 or so, was initially requested.

'Pelosi and her aides said she needs a larger plane that can fly coast to coast without refueling. The C-32 she requested is about the size of a Boeing 757-200 and has seating for 42 on it.'

"I don't even like having the security. I would rather travel on the plane with my friends to get some work done," Pelosi said. "I like my freedom but there are certain sacrifices you have to make when you are speaker of the House." ~ February 08, 2007

'Some would opine that landing to refuel would present a security risk for Ms. Pelosi, an opportunity for terrorist malcontents to lay siege to her aircraft. This is a hollow and uneducated argument. Any Air Force transport jet that would be shuttling Ms. Pelosi would undoubtedly land to refuel at military installations of which there are many between Washington DC and California. Security, with regard to landing for the purpose of refueling, is not an issue.' ~ Frank Salvato February 9, 2007

'Based on my research of the documents, the aircraft most often used by Pelosi was the eight passenger C-37 - the military version of the luxurious Gulfstream V - which costs a whopping $5,594 per hour to operate. While that sounds expensive, it is certainly much more economical than the $20,000 per hour it costs to operate the 54-passenger military version of the Boeing 757 that Pelosi requested shortly after taking office. ' ~ Chris Carter February 1, 2010

Pelosi actually wants a financial investigation into those who oppose the building of the Ground Zero mosque! On what grounds Mrs. Speaker?

'Nancy Pelosi has voted with a majority of her Democratic colleagues 100.0% of the time during the current Congress. This percentage does not include votes in which Pelosi did not vote. See a list of her votes against her party since 1991, a list of all Representatives in the 111th Congress with a similar score, or a full list of party voters.'

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Though the odds are in Pelosi's favor for re-election, we hope that the people of the 8th congressional district in California about San Francisco become open-minded and aware of the Pelosi record & decide to coalesce around one of the two candidates linked to below. The other contenders against Pelosi, Gloria LaRiva - a communist - and Cindy Sheehan are not candidates with much ideological promise. However, Berg and Dennis are libertarian-based hopefuls. We can fight the political war against Nancy Pelosi by financially supporting a constitutionally-oriented challenger's campaign in the 8th district.

Philip Z. Berg: Libertarian Party Candidate for Congress - Pro Freedom - Anti War

John Dennis: libertarian, anti Republican-Establishment candidate for the Republican ticket in San Francisco congressional district 8.

There isn't much love for Pelosi out there on YouTube but maybe this comes as close to a complimentary video as one can find.

As usual, establishment Republicans want to water down the constitutionalist and oppositional elements within and embrace a more compromising, populist-seeking approach:

'Bradshaw added that the GOP "needs to stop talking to itself" and needs to open the tent in order to win presidential elections in the future.'

'Before Priebus unveiled the report, the group, including the committeewoman from Puerto Rico, Zoraida Fonalledas, addressed the crowd of reporters in Spanish and she too stressed the need for a change in tone and for candidates to be compassionate and inclusive.'

'The report was much more pointed in its critique of Mitt Romney, specifically pointing to his "self deportation" comment as turning off Hispanic voters.'

'He [Priebus] told the audience that the finances of the committee were in such disarray when he got there that its two credit cards were "suspended," and they were having a hard time making payroll.' ~ SHUSHANNAH WALSHE March 18, 2013

“The political establishment misses the point,” Michigan Rep. Justin Amash....“The point is not to try to push away conservatives and libertarians and try to isolate them from the process of nominating a presidential candidate or selecting office holders for the RNC or all the rest,"

“I think when you look at the makeup of some of the members involved in analyzing what’s wrong with the Republican Party, it’s a pretty pro-establishment group of individuals, and we need to grow the Republican Party, and the only way to do that is to bring in liberty minded people into the party.” ~ Reported by Alexis Levinson | 03/21/2013

'Many of the report’s points are familiar: You heard them from the lips of any pundit on the air on Nov. 7. Republicans need to embrace immigration reform.' ~ By John Tozzi | March 18, 2013

This piece presents the contended good and the bad of Sarbanes-Oxley. Taking those aspects into account, does this law regulate commerce in terms of standardizing its interstate transactions for ease and soundness or rather does it overregulate and create burden greater than any advantages? Questions of the constitutionality of the law are slated for the Supreme Court. A government oversight corporation was created, which should invoke suspicion about its over-regulatory prospects and inefficiencies like the new G.M. Costs of internal reviews ordained by Sarbanes-Oxley are disproportionately higher for smaller companies. Ron Paul seeks to repeal Sarbanes-Oxley.

'When Worldcom announced the earnings restatement that would lead to its bankruptcy, the Bush administration and congressional Republicans went into crisis mode and approved Sarbanes's bill with very minor changes.... It undermines federalism, by going where the federal government has never gone before in areas of corporation law that had long been provinces of the states....Many companies are hurrying to escape Sarbanes-Oxley by leaving the stock exchanges: According to a Wharton study, 198 American companies deregistered from exchanges in 2003, the year after the law was passed - nearly triple the number that deregistered in 2002.'

Speaker Boehner and Establishment Republicans rigged the convention acceptance of new rules changes and of protectionism in the party against grassroots, non-establishment candidates. A bus of dissenters was reported to have been diverted to prevent their "nayes" on the convention floor. Boehner hastily read through the voice vote process and adopted it as scripted on the teleprompter while there seemed to be more or at least equal opposition by voice within the crowd.

'As the Convention Rules Committee met August 28, the Romney campaign lawyer, Ben Ginsberg, showed up and in the words of Engle, “pressured for significant and dramatic” changes to the party’s rules governing the binding of delegates and the way rules are to be revised in the future.'

'This unprecedented revision places the control of the GOP in the hands of the Establishment candidate without suffering the inconvenience of listening to dissenting voices.'

'So drastic were the revisions that Engle compared the convention to the Soviet Politburo, a sham with no more legitimate power than to rubber stamp their leaders’ directives.'

'Whether it was the will of Mitt Romney or the independent work of one of his key counselors, Engle fears that the new rules governing the Republican Party’s method of selecting a presidential candidate nailed closed the coffin of the GOP. This week observers may be witnessing “the last Republican National Convention as we know it,” he added.' ~ Written by Joe Wolverton, II - Thursday, 30 August 2012 11:00

'The battle is being cast by some observers as a narrow fight between Ron Paul advocates and the rest of the party. Drew says that’s not true. And many other state delegations who oppose top-down delegate choices are chiming in.'

'Finally, we would like them to help us spread the word that this is an insider power grab by a bunch of DC Beltway types who want consultants to be able to pick who the delegates are from their respective states in the future – AS WELL AS FUTURE PLATFORM COMMITTEE MEMBERS.'

“If you disenfranchise the delegates, you create a real threat of splintering the party,” he said.....But Kibbe added that there would be a higher likelihood of disaffected grassroots and perhaps even the creation of a third party.' ~ At Michelle Malkin • August 27, 2012 03:04 PM

'Some of the changes could also be seen as a way to tamp down any last minute theatrics from sour grapes primary contenders. But the idea of allowing the nominee to “vet” the delegates from each state party and essentially hand pick the most compliant is certainly disturbing. In the end, the convention is not the show for the candidate to run, but rather the time for the individual state parties to officially anoint the winner.' ~ posted at 5:01 pm on August 26, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

'If a presidential candidate could pick the delegates, Stebbins said, "typically they're going to reward donors, especially very large donors. That way the grassroots activist without a lot of money doesn't have much of a shot. It's the guy who's able to donate a bunch of cash."

"Something like this happens at most conventions," he said. "The folks in Washington want to bring more power to the RNC and leave less for the states, and the state folks fight back." ~ By Bill Salisbury Updated: 08/27/2012 11:32:41 PM CDT

"Republican Establishment" are doing all they can to alienate the vast majority of the current base of the Party'

'The overriding interest of this cabal has been and continues to be: the accumulation of power through the control of the income, borrowing and spending by the Federal Government. Thus, with the exception of the presidency of Ronald Reagan and the Republican controlled House of Representatives from 1995 to 1999, the Republican members of the Ruling Class have been content since 1952 to merely slow down the big-government policies of the Democrats while publicly decrying their tax and spend policies.' ~ January 30, 2012 By Steve McCann

So their establishment argues for being a powerful big tent that homogenizes about a common denominator absorbing regional factions. Yet their fears of becoming a regional party driving this approach explains why our states' rights are eroding and the federal government is now more a strictly national government in its breadth and powers. This is why the Republican Party is not an effective or truly unified opposition party against the rabid Abbie Hoffman Democrats!

“In the United States, we only have two major political parties,” Kyl continued. “In a lot of countries they have a lot of different parties so virtually every one in the party can agree with everybody else on everything. But when you get it down to 300 million people divided by two, you have a lot of range of attitudes and views. And I think it’s best for both the Democrat Party and the Republican Party to be big tents to accommodate a lot of different viewpoints.”

'While noting that party loyalists often are well-intentioned, Reynolds said “they can be parochial in their thinking.”

'Still, such activists often do much of the campaign grunt work every candidate and consultant depends on for victory. And they also typically reflect the mood of the party base, making some Republican leaders loathe to criticize them or their ideas for fear of turning off a critical constituency.' ~ By JONATHAN MARTIN | 12/1/09 12:22 AM EDT

'Former Rep. Tom Davis, a Virginia Republican who has regularly urged his party to be more open to moderates, said Republicans like McDonnell and Brown have smartly tapped into populist outrage by "seeing it as an opportunity."

'The first is that for all the talk about tea party insurgents and fulminating radio and cable commentators taking over, the GOP remains above all an establishment party.'

'GOP leaders easily swatted down a proposed "purity test" for candidates at last week's Republican National Committee meeting - an indication that party officials are no more willing to turn over the keys to right-wing activists now than they were during the Bush years......In fact, before the general session even began, the state party chairmen unanimously passed a resolution expressing their opposition to such an idea.'

' Enter the Republican establishment. They sold this country out when they were in power and can't ever be trusted again. But they see an opening and are setting the stage for their own return. They are handpicking candidates -- Bush-likes and Bush-lites -- to run against conservatives in primaries. Many are retreads, all are available for purchase. Then the party elite endorses their candidate early in the primary, fills their coffers with millions from corporate PACs and special interests, pressures party regulars to get in line, and sends word to the grassroots candidates: "Drop out -- you can't win". '

'Look at the pattern, led by Rob Jesmer, the Executive Director of the NRSC, who has rallied Senate Republicans to oppose conservatives nationwide:

In Connecticut, the GOP has stayed neutral as to the moderates in the race, but made clear the conservative is a loser.

Across the board, the GOP Establishment is staying neutral between moderates and endorsing moderates over conservatives. In some cases, it is endorsing liberals over conservatives.'

'George the First soon regained the elephantine heft it sported before Reagan put the brakes on federal regulation. Since then Republican poobahs and money-men have supported countless RINOs (often against solid conservative candidates), careerists with no philosophy or soul, and other me-toos who gave us a Republican president and a Republican Congress better at spending than even the Democrats and no detectable progress on any conservative social issue. This was the lot that was routed in '06 and again in '08. '

'Charlie Crist, who campaigned in his own state for our rookie president's bank-busting goodie package, aka the stimulus bill. Crist has tried to get the Florida Legislature to adopt a carbon cap and trade program. '

Some Republicans sure know how to screw up things. The RNC backed a Republican candidate in the New York 23rd that was more Democrat than the Democrat opponent was!

'New York's 23rd congressional district has historically been one of the most Republican districts in the United States. The district's seat had been in Republican hands since 1873. '

'Scozzafava was designated as the Republican nominee and Hoffman later received the nomination of the Conservative Party of New York. On October 31, 2009, Scozzafava suspended her campaign and, on November 1, 2009, endorsed the Democratic candidate for the seat.'

'On Election Day, Owens (D) appeared to defeat Hoffman with the margin initially reported as 49.0% to 45.5%. Scozzafava, whose name remained on the ballot, reportedly received 5.5% of the vote.'

'Scozzafava has been endorsed by the Republican leadership in Congress and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and has received roughly $1 million from the National Republican Congressional Committee.'

'But much of the conservative establishment in Washington is throwing its support behind Douglas Hoffman, an accountant from the Adirondacks who is running on the state's Conservative Party ticket. '

'The candidacy of the official Republican nominee, liberal Dede Scozzafava, selected by local party officials and supported by the national Republican establishment, is collapsing. The Republican who has a real chance to defeat Democrat Bill Owens is Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate-'

'Thirteen Republican senators - including Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell and the junior GOP senators from McCain’s and Graham’s home states -- joined Paul during his filibuster to show their support for his demand that President Barack Obama explicitly say whether he thinks he has the authority to order the killing of a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil who was a noncombatant and posed no imminent threat of an attack.'

'While Paul was conducting his filibuster, McCain and Graham were among a group of Republican senators having dinner with Obama at a Washington, D.C. hotel.' ~ Tom Curry | 7 Mar 2013

'Paul successfully drove the news cycle from the Senate floor, a nearly impossible accomplishment. He drew praise from both sides of the political spectrum for his courage in pursuing his convictions. Most importantly, he captured the nation's imagination and invigorated libertarians and grassroots conservatives.'

'The Jefferson Hotel dinner represents business as usual in the Republican Party.....Graham has called it "productive," saying that "when Mr. Obama reaches out, we need to reach back." This idea of reactive reciprocity is part of what has so frustrated the grassroots in the first place.' ~ Anneke E. Green March 12, 2013

'...for every Cato Institute libertarian, the GOP harbors a moralist who wants government to regulate your private life; for every anti-tax crusader, there is a neocon who believes that government should strive to instill such virtues as patriotism, educational discipline and marital fidelity'

'If voters wanted bigger and more intrusive government, more regulation, and more welfare, they should have voted for Republicans in a landslide. It was a Republican Congress that put the regulatory nightmare of Sarbanes-Oxley in place, that outlawed online wagering, and that created the catastrophically expensive Medicare prescription drug benefit.'

Farm and ethanol subsidies are costing the taxpayer billions. $7.7 billion went to ethanol in 2010. Ethanol takes more energy to create than what we get out of it. Yet Republicans are in on the game:

'Republican Study Committee released its plan for $2.5 trillion in budget cuts over the next ten years, one enormous item of wasteful government spending was conspicuously missing - farm subsidies.'

'And it is hard to see how anyone can claim to be a fiscal conservative while supporting $15 - 35 billion per year in government spending that largely goes to a group of people with incomes above the national average. Farm income for 2010 exceeded $92.5 billion. That's a 34 percent increase from 2009'

'While conservatives often mythologize small farms, most farm subsidies go to large and corporate farms. In fact, the largest 10 percent of recipients receive 73 percent of all subsidy payments.'

'And some of the most deeply "red" states are among the biggest collectors of federal largess.' by Michael D. Tanner on National Review (Online) February 9, 2011.

Republican Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts who took the seat from Democrat Ted Kennedy decides to vote for the questionable $15 billion jobs bill. Two votes were needed for passage and Scott was one.

"All of us, Republicans and Democrats, have to work together to get our economy back on track. I hope my vote today is a strong step toward restoring bipartisanship in Washington."

Republicans in the Senate were holding against the Wall Street reform bill until Scott Brown decided to vote for it.

'Brown is in many ways the third member of a troika that includes moderate Maine Republicans Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins. They occasionally break with the other 38 GOP members of the Senate. '

'Eager not to be defined by ideology, he declared himself a "Scott Brown Republican."

"I think most people come at this realizing that he's a Massachusetts Republican, so I think people give him the benefit of the doubt that he is not as conservative as lot of us in the 'tea party' movement," said Christen Varley, president of the Greater Boston Tea Party, who nonetheless criticized Brown's vote on the Wall Street bill. '

'Republican Scott Brown owes his election in part to the public furor over the so-called Cornhusker Kickback, the backroom deal that Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska struck for his vote to pass the health care bill. Now he is following Nelson's example, winning concessions in the financial overhaul bill on behalf of Massachusetts banks. '

"Scott Brown promised in the fall of 2009 to stand up for free markets and constitutional principles," the group added. "A yes vote on this bill - a bill that disregards Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, greatly expands executive authority and reach, creates a perpetual and permanent bail-out system and fosters the creation of even more bureaucracy - defies the commitment he made to thousands of activists and donors across the nation who swept him to office in January in one of the biggest political upsets of all time."

' Brown, as a state senator in Massachusetts, voted in favor of the universal-coverage law in that state. The bill he supported in Massachusetts has a number of features in common with the Democrats' legislation, including a mandate for nearly everyone to be covered. '

The first is that for all the talk about tea party insurgents and fulminating radio and cable commentators taking over, the GOP remains above all an establishment party.

GOP leaders easily swatted down a proposed "purity test" for candidates at last week's Republican National Committee meeting - an indication that party officials are no more willing to turn over the keys to right-wing activists now than they were during the Bush years......In fact, before the general session even began, the state party chairmen unanimously passed a resolution expressing their opposition to such an idea. '

'In a move reminiscent of the alcohol prohibition of early 20th Century America, a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee on Wednesday approved a bill that would ban Internet gambling, an estimated $12 billion industry.'

Outlawing gambling for moral reasons is seen as a petty excuse. The real reason may be to protect physical casinos and gain political clout about the religious right.

'When the lobbying reform package fell apart, the Republicans tried a new approach, bundling the ban with flag burning, gay marriage, and a number of policies on the GOP social agenda as part of the "American Values" agenda......U.S. Department of Justice's recent penchant for plucking foreign gaming site executives out of U.S. airports and tossing them in prison, despite the fact that their businesses were legal in the country where they were incorporated'

Critics say ban will only increase problems with fraud and with the criminal syndicates behind online gambling as opposed to when it was legal and regulated in the U.S. Intensity of accusations concerning online gambling addictions espoused by bill supporters are not founded by adequate number of scientific studies. Poker, by the way, is not just a game of chance but relies on skill as well.

While one may not necessarily agree with this piece's conclusions about various wars or certain policies or presidents, it does illustrate the Republican party's historical nature which hasn't really been based on limited government or free markets. 'The party began as a coalition of Americans who wanted to expand federal power. Its heritage was with the Hamiltonian Federalist Party, which more or less transformed into the big-government Whig Party. When the Whig Party became defunct, the Republican Party emerged to include centralist big-government Americans and other opponents of the Democrats without a party. '

'Republican Party was just a reincarnation of the Whigs who were big-government...Republicans hypocritically touted "limited government" only as a way to criticize Democrats and regain control of Congress.'

'In Congress, the party passed major legislation to promote rapid modernization, including a national banking system, high tariffs, an income tax, many excise taxes, paper money issued without backing ("greenbacks"), a huge national debt, homestead laws, and aid to education and agriculture......Rockefeller Republicans ....favored New Deal programs, including regulation and welfare. They were very strong supporters of civil rights. They were strongly supported by big business on Wall Street (New York City). In fiscal policy they favored balanced budgets and relatively high tax levels to keep the budget balanced.'

Realignment: The South becomes Republican ---- That section helps illustrate the absurdity of limiting ourselves to the two-party system. Why bother with such when one party is a contested coalition of moderates, liberals and conservatives acting as a crutch for industrialists & business factions throughout its history (the Republicans) and the other was once a more conservative party but accepting of the slave to segregationist eras and then suddenly becoming an intense liberal Marxist machine (the Democrats).

History is rife with strife, but wouldn't having more choice from multi-parties provide some finesse in our political structure?

In this article from the pro government-intervention publication Slate, even relatively hands-off Republican president Calvin Coolidge gave into critics and allowed federal involvement in the Mississippi Flood relief of 1927. ' Despite the president's reluctance, the 1928 bill was a landmark. Not only did it provide needed aid but (as Coolidge had feared) it overturned the expectations that Washington could leave regional crises to state and local governments.' Article cites Bush for lack of interest in activist government -- huh??

'The Republican Party came to be split along new lines between a conservative wing (dominant in the West) and a liberal wing (dominant in New England)..... Goldwater represented the conservative wing of the party, while Rockefeller represented the liberal wing. '

Depending on the perceived history of the party, it has either been infiltrated or is just reverting to its usual dubious role:

'Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam argue for restoring the Republican Party through a new activist government agenda focused on addressing the problems and concerns of the working class'

Criticizing that: 'They draw on the ideas and thinking of this neoliberal crowd, the future heart of the Democrat party, rather than the conservative and free market think tanks and institutions that form the intellectual base of the Republican Party.'

Is that true? Or is it just that some noticeable conservative faction of the Republican voters think they are the base of the party, rather than the actual officials, officeholders and p.r. machine it puts forth?

The Republican general election for president in 2012 lacked a more comprehensive tax reform package like the 9-9-9 plan, the flat tax or FairTax. Instead, there was an adjustment of the current system in cutting income tax rates and removing deductions and exemptions from the higher income brackets. This gave no incentive for the higher brackets and their affected commerce networks to turn out and also pandered to the Democrat's tax premise.

"I will not reduce the share paid by high-income individuals," Romney said. A few breaths later: "All right? I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans."

'Romney has said he will slash income tax rates for everyone -- including the rich -- by 20%.' ~ Rich Barbieri and Jeanne Sahadi | October 4, 2012:

"We ought to apply tax relief to people in the middle class, but I’m not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high-income people,” he said. “I’m not looking to cut massive taxes. He pledged that he would sign “no tax cut that adds to the deficit.” ~ Posted by Rachel Weiner on October 3, 2012 at 9:18 pm

“Well, I can tell you that people at the high end, high-income taxpayers, are going to have fewer deductions and exemptions,” Romney said. “Those numbers are going to come down. Otherwise, they’d get a tax break. And I want to make sure people understand, despite what the Democrats said at their convention, I am not reducing taxes on high-income taxpayers.” ~ By GINGER GIBSON | 9/9/12 12:06 PM EDT

It appears that the static modelers prevailed in the public square. Their argument was that the income tax rate reductions were unaffordable and would impose a net tax increase on some victim demographic via fewer or lower exemptions. The dynamic model says that general economic growth resulting from the lowered income taxes would have brought in extra revenue to make up for the lower rates and negate threats of the net tax increases upon the victim demographic warned of by the static modelers. Let us see here in these links how the dynamic argument was fumbled:

'Promises for a revenue-neutral plan in which the middle class and small businesses get a net tax cut suggest higher overall taxes for either the poor or the rich. The Romney campaign refuses to comment.'

'Research by Democrats shows that undecided or persuadable voters -- disproportionately white, younger and not college- educated -- are turned off by what they see as the unfairness of the Romney tax plan. A current Obama ad charges the Republican would increase taxes on the middle class by $2,000 to pay for a tax cut for millionaires. While this is conjecture, the Romney camp has no specifics to refute it.' ~ Albert R. Hunt Sep 16, 2012 11:01 AM GMT-0400

'Romney said at the time that he could make up for the lost revenue from his tax cuts by “broadening the base”-i.e., eliminating various deductions and exemptions for upper-income Americans and preserving only those related to savings and investment.'

'Some Republicans have criticized the Tax Policy Center for failing to give Romney’s plan credit for engendering higher economic growth, which would increase tax revenue. But Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center told me that even building in the growth assumptions supplied by Romney’s economic advisers didn’t close the gap.' ~ By Peter Coy | October 04, 2012

'Then, Romney went further. He said that curbs in credits and deductions would exempt middle-income households who would continue to receive the benefits of tax breaks such as the deductions for mortgage interest and charitable contributions. Any cuts in tax preferences, he said, would be “primarily limited” to those with high incomes.'

'That sounds an awful lot like President Obama, who has proposed capping the value of tax preferences to 28 percent and vowed to never raise taxes on those making $200,000 or less.' ~ Howard Gleckman, Guest blogger / March 8, 2012

'Based on its analysis, the Tax Foundation concluded that the economic growth stimulated by Mitt Romney’s tax proposal would have a tremendous offsetting effect on the static revenue lost to the tax cuts. In fact, the study determined that 60% of the lost tax revenue would be offset simply by the growth to the economy, which would yield higher wages and employment and, in turn, higher tax collection.'

'The overall conclusion, and what you should take away from this study, is that the Tax Foundation vehemently disagrees with the TPC’s conclusion that the Romney proposals represent a mathematical impossibility. ~ October 8, 2012 by WithumSmith Brown, CPAs' Back for flat tax link visitors.

'The Obama/Biden campaign has been running around the country waving a false analysis by the Tax Policy Center that claims the Romney/Ryan tax reform plan will cut taxes for the rich while increasing taxes on the middle class. A new study--one that actually looks at the details of the Romney/Ryan plan, and allows for economic growth--shows the opposite: the Romney/Ryan plan creates jobs without raising middle class taxes.'

'Do not expect the media to report this with anything like the same enthusiasm it reported the false conclusions of the Tax Policy Center. If the Romney campaign wants this message to get out, it will have to do so itself.' ~ by Joel B. Pollak | 12 Sep 2012

“In order for us not to lose revenue - have the government run out of money - I also lower deductions and credits and exemptions so that we keep taking in the same money when you also account for growth.”

'Romney emphasizes revenue neutrality because he doesn’t want to be accused of proposing to increase the budget deficit, which he repeatedly pounded Obama over. He could avoid that charge by calling for spending cuts. Our deficit is a spending problem, not a tax revenue problem. The federal government already collects $2.6 trillion! That’s more than enough.' ~ JOHN STOSSEL |Published: Monday, October 15, 2012 at 10:07 AM.

The FairTax or the flat tax could do better in achieving the various goals about these links - revenue neutrality, lower tax burden and less drag.

'In the 1980s, then-Governor Mike Dukakis passed a law that every employer must provide health care insurance to all employees or pay a penalty. In 1996 and 1997, the Commonwealth expanded and restructured the state Medicaid program, called MassHealth. Both of these predecessors to Romneycare collapsed financially.'

'Romney's successor, Governor Deval Patrick, greatly increased the mandated level of coverage while implementing the law, which has resulted in a financial calamity and debt not structured in the original law, sending the state into a financial tailspin. Yet Romney gets the blame for what Governor Patrick (a Democrat) wrought.'

'The smartest way for the Romney campaign to stay on message about Obama's failed economy is to give short messages that Romneycare is a success but to not get into the details, and so they do.' {not} ~ Joseph E. McIsaac | September 27, 2012

While we understand the need for brevity, these lack of explanations and engagements is partly why Romney lost and the Republicans are in such disarray.

'Not at all. Numerous unbiased organizations such as FactCheck.org and The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation - a think tank funded by business - determined that the cost of Romneycare is “relatively modest” and “well within initial projections.” FactCheck.org also concludes “Claims that the law is bankrupting the state are greatly exaggerated.” ~ by Ben Collins

Obviously this may contradict with the previous link as far as a current version of RomneyCare acting as a bankrupting mechanism.

Generally speaking there are some questions and arguments as to whether FactCheck.org is really that unbiased. Some of its claims of truth or lie on various issues can be argued opposite by other reliable sources. It touts a Pulitzer which could equate to an overall mainstream media narrative approval.

There needed to be a more solid case made for getting government out of health care altogether and telling the story of how government meddling has increased the cost over the years. It is understandable that we may refrain from transitioning out in one swoop so that patients are not left in any possible limbo, but the political consultants' approach of constant fear of boldness and lack of explanation makes it appear a candidate is constantly on apology for taking something away from the people, hiding something or just plain not convincing for the argument at hand.....

'Nonetheless, Romney clouded his position on the issue during an interview with David Gregory on NBC’s Meet The Press in September 2012 by stating that he is “not getting rid of all of health care reform” and intends to keep several aspects of it, namely, coverage for Americans with pre-existing conditions and extended family policies for adult children.'

'With Baier on Fox - Romney: "Look back at the 2008 campaign, on the stage, I was asked at the debate ‘is your Massachusetts plan something you would have the nation do as a federal plan? Each time said no, the answer is no.'

'We found a way to get everybody insured with private free-market health insurance. I do support an effort to get everybody some form of catastrophic coverage. It may be a public-private partnership between private insurance industries and the federal government. It may be done with the states. But I’ll bring together the governors of all 50 states, leadership in Washington, and industry representatives, to say, “What’s the right way to fashion this that makes the most sense for the people of America? ~ 2008 GOP debate in Boca Raton Florida , Jan 24, 2008

Mixed-message stuff (real or perceived) like this in 2012 may be why turnout was lower.

Romney may get credit for a better managed, more cost-effective, more business-friendly health care plan for Massachusetts, but it provided no stable ground to fight from for the 2012 presidential election.

'Massachusetts’ game plan shares several characteristics of the national legislation, but there are differences, including one major distinction: The level of vitriol directed at the federal law doesn’t exist here. Sure, there are criticisms and compromises, disagreements and disappointments - but they come with a distinct lack of the death-panel-type furor that rose up against the law Obama pushed.'

'The Massachusetts plan has been attacked by opponents of the national law, liberal advocates of Canadian-style single-payer insurance for all, and conservative Republicans hoping to derail Romney’s presidential aspirations.' ~ Posted by Lori Robertson on Friday, March 25, 2011 at 4:07 pm

'The 2013 sequester includes:

$42.7 billion in defense cuts (a 7.9 percent cut).
$28.7 billion in domestic discretionary cuts (a 5.3 percent cut).
$9.9 billion in Medicare cuts (a 2 percent cut).
$4 billion in other mandatory cuts (a 5.8 percent cut to nondefense programs, and a 7.8 percent cut to mandatory defense programs).'

Here infographics show the relative scale of the sequester to other budget events and it is really not all that great in size, especially with all the increases in spending and government growth over the last several years. Note the sequester cuts a mere $85 billion from an annual $3.6 trillion.

'Defense does take the biggest cut under sequester, nearly 13% of planned spending.....Still, it would never fall below the level of spending we had as recently as 2007...'

'The proposed spending reductions amount to less than 0.03% of our gross domestic product. If our economy can't survive spending cuts of that size, we truly are Greece.' ~ Michael D. Tanner, Special to CNN | Fri February 22, 2013

'In fact the $630 billion tax hike associated with the recent "fiscal cliff" deal is the latest example of our economy paying the price for politicians' refusal to rein in spending.'

'In fact the sequester would scale back just one of every six dollars in discretionary spending increases since 2008 - hardly a "huge blow." ~ Bill Wilson 2/22/2013

The politicians of both parties are again playing political football with the crisis du jour. With all the corruption like in the food stamp program and all the waste about the F-35 fighter plane, there is sufficient room for various domestic and military cuts in the budget. If things go wrong through these relatively small sequester cuts (by concentration as opposed to magnitude) it will be the politicians' fault through mismanagement or a malice to manipulate the people.

'Voters, with good reason, have grown skeptical of Washington's commitment to cutting government spending. The last time spending went down from one year to the next was 1954. Voters are now catching on. Only 17 percent believe the March 1 cuts will really reduce government spending. Fifty-eight percent correctly recognize that they will merely reduce the growth of spending.' ~ Scott Rasmussen - February 22, 2013

Obama got a tax increase with the previous fiscal cliff. The sequester is a follow-up. Should not he be the one expected to compromise this time more towards the realm of spending cuts? - Albeit they are of low magnitude in the sequester. Spending cuts are especially due with the consistent runaway growth of government spending.

This article gives the impression that the Democrats actually have the upper hand in the sequester debate by putting blame on Republicans and broadcasting negative effects. Compare this to the other arguments concerning the disposition of the general populace found in the previous piece reference. What conclusions should one make?

One conclusion is that Republicans as a party system get a vote of no confidence in the role of opposition. They are off or inarticulate over sound budget strategies not to mention constitutional adherence debates. We need an independent opposition movement without hindrance that can cast conviction over the dangers of all the overspending.

José Piñera is president of the Santiago based International Center for Pension Reform and cochair of the Cato Institute's Project on Social Security Privatization in Washington.....
http://pensionreform.org/articles/wired.html

CATO's Project on Social Security Choice: FAQ, Topics, Resource Links, Update. [Same link as on Political Attack page.]
http://www.socialsecurity.org/

Namely Kent Conrad (D) chairman of the Senate Budget Committee endorses a VAT (Value Added Tax). Unlike the FairTax, VAT is a national retail sales tax which would occur in tandem with the federal income tax which would fry the economy. Burman, a Democratic political consultant voices support as does Rahm Emanuel's brother who has been summoned by the White House.

'But the VAT, on top of encouraging bigger government budgets, has another problem: Middle class taxpayers would be hit harder by a VAT because they spend more of their income on goods like clothing and cars than high-earners.. ... [thus] lackluster growth and a dearth of dynamism and entrepreneurship.'

Some Democrats in Congress, White House, DC want ...... ' to include a value-added tax (VAT) to pay for a government-controlled national health insurance scheme. The White House has even brought in Rahm Emanuel's brother to consult on this. '